Sure, but it really is up to parents to both model behavior and dictate what can and cannot be eaten.
And I'm saying I think most parents don't know that what they're feeding their kids is devoid of actual nutritional value. Manufacturers mislead by putting health claims on all the packages, packaged food and fast food are presented as normal and wholesome. For those of us who send our kids to school with actually healthy food, the pressure on our kids to simply throw away their lunches and beg junk off their friends is huge. Our food environment does not support parents, and it does not support kids.
WarMaiden: Really? Do you think the majority of parents think Lunchables are healthy? Maybe I lack perspective because I live in the Boston area, where almost everyone is quite aware about what is or is not healthy. My kids can't buy lunch without taking the veggies and fruit. They also have four choices for milk -- 2%, low-fat chocolate, skim, and lactaid. We get notes home if the teachers think they are bringing candy or "junk" for snacks or exhibiting signs of unbalanced blood sugar. We are asked to share what the kids typically eat for breakfast.
So, yeah: as I type this, I realize maybe my school district is not exactly the norm.
Just because a school district says you have to take the fruit or vegetable with the lunch does not guarantee the child will eat it.
When I was in elementary school, my Mom sent me with lunch most days (I got a hot lunch every once in a while). If Mom sent an apple, I'd take a bite and if it didn't meet my expectations (which it rarely did) it went into the garbage. Hot lunches? I never ate the vegetable unless it was corn (which isn't technically a vegetable anyway).
I've always tried to teach my kids what is good and bad in the way of food choices. Rarely did I make an impact. You know who did? Their elementary PE teachers! Each year the teacher would do a 2 week course on nutrition. They learned it and then had to document what they ate for 2 weeks. After that? My kids asked for more fruit and vegetables (not that I didn't have it in the first place, mind you!). But chips? We might have some tortilla chips now and then to eat with salsa, but never other kinds. My kids just don't go for that so much (thankfully!).
Just because a school district says you have to take the fruit or vegetable with the lunch does not guarantee the child will eat it.
True, though my kid is in 1st grade. Currently, he does everything he's told.
We look at the menu ahead of time. If he wants to buy pizza and the veggie is not carrots, he has to bring carrots with him (as he never eats the potatoes or other veggies).
I guess it's a constant struggle, but all we can do is try to offer and reinforce healthy choices.
I do absolutely think it's the parents' responsibility to teach their children character and life skills, and nothing else can be effective as good parenting. However, there comes a point where as a nation, we can't afford to let children (and our future) pay the consequences of inadequate parenting. It becomes like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. However, it is equally important, at the same time as we step in and "parent" children at school, to work to correct the original problem - that is, inadequate parenting and ineffective parenting and strongly encourage improvements. Not that that is easy! Talk about a difficult problem
I have actually thought about this probably a million times. Sometimes, if I want a brownie or something I'll replace the word with "beer" and I instantly see that this is addiction, not hunger.
Dude, I totally need to start doing this!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drina
Another factor may be that the consequences are far removed. Taking a bite of a thick, fudgy brownie delivers instant pleasure but no immediate punishment. Years of unhealthy eating may go by before the adverse health effects become manifest.
This is a giant factor for me. If only we all had a disease-o-meter hanging over our heads and every time we ate crap it inched close to "cancer" or "stroke" I think we'd all be a lot more motivated
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glory87
I was also pretty shocked to see what my sister-in-law feeds my one year old neice. Sure, there's bananas, apples and yogurt. But, baby Maddie pretty much eats whatever the family is eating. If they're having sugary frosted sweet rolls (that packaged stuff from the grocery store - not the kind you bake from a tube), that's what Maddie gets.
One time we went on vacation to visit my husband's grandmother, and when we woke up and went out into the kitchen she was feeding our daughter SKITTLES AND PEPSI FOR BREAKFAST. I just shook my head
I think we have a lot of cultural conditioning about junk, and are told constantly that it's yummy! When it's really not that yummy. We're brainwashed. Also food really helps dull my emotions if I'm feeling something unpleasant
Last edited by thinpossible; 04-01-2009 at 09:57 PM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drina
Another factor may be that the consequences are far removed. Taking a bite of a thick, fudgy brownie delivers instant pleasure but no immediate punishment. Years of unhealthy eating may go by before the adverse health effects become manifest.
This is a giant factor for me. If only we all had a disease-o-meter hanging over our heads and every time we ate crap it inched close to "cancer" or "stroke" I think we'd all be a lot more motivated.
That rings bells. The one thing that's different for me this time is this awareness of the harm that some foods can do. I'm counting calories, so 'technically' I could 'afford' some of the things I like, especially fatty cuts of meat, sorry, my big downfall; but even as I gravitate towards them in the supermarket, I just get this vision of, Do you Really want to spoil your body by putting That into it?
It's a big corner to have turned for me, because before I've been able to understand cut down input to lose weight to help my heart but I've never had enough respect for my body to keep away from clear baddies, no matter how easily they fit into my calorie budget.
Another factor may be that the consequences are far removed. Taking a bite of a thick, fudgy brownie delivers instant pleasure but no immediate punishment. Years of unhealthy eating may go by before the adverse health effects become manifest. And we know from mountains of research that delayed consequences are ineffective.
I think that's what it is for me. Even weight loss wise, when eating something I shouldn't I think "oh well, I'll just weight the same as I do now after the brownie".
Losing weight takes months, years, it isn't instant either. It's hard to stay focused on the long term goal when eating is instant, guaranteed to taste good and feel good at that moment (eating does make us feel good). And weight loss isn't always guaranteed in x amount of months since it's trial and error what diet and exercise works. Maybe I'm scared of failing. Skipping the brownie, chips, pizza for months and months and not losing any weight in the end.
