A school has banned children from eating sweets

Tori M wrote:

But the goal of good nutrition should be to fit the junk in without making
it some mysterious thing.

I'm probably splitting hairs here, but the goal of good nutrition ISN'T
to make it possible to fit in something that's not good for you.
That's like saying that if you eat well, exercise, etc, that it's OK to
have a couple of cigarrette's per week.

The goal of good nutrition is to provide your body with what it needs
to thrive. Sugar and candy don't do that, and in fact are *bad* for
you. Unlike the issue with peanuts, which in the absence of allergies,
are actually nutritious, candy has never been shown to be good for
anyone, ever.

The goal of teachers and parents on the other hand, is to help them
learn to make good decisions - to eat treats occasionally, and not all
of the time. I think it's possible to have treats occasionally without
turning it into a forbidden fruit.

The real problem is that the phrase "occasional treat" is completely
subjective. For some parents, that means a lolly every day. For
others, it means once a month. For some, it means 5 or 6 oreos, and
for other, it means one. It's FAR, FAR easier to manage a classroom if
no treats are sent, than if you must rely on parents to interpret what
"occasional" means.

Cathy Weeks

wrote:
On 19 Jan 2007 09:28:08 -0800, in misc.kids "Cathy Weeks"
wrote:

candy has never been shown to be good for
anyone, ever.


Oh really??

Sigh... I suppose I should have said "added sugar" instead.

Umm... I suppose that if someone is starving to death, candy might
provide enough calories to stay alive. So in that odd case, eating
candy might be considered "good" for them. But it seems awfully wierd
that there would be candy available in that situation, and not
something that's at least slightly nutritious.

Sometimes candy is used for diabetics when they need to raise their
blood sugar quickly, but honestly there are plenty of foods that do
have nutrition that work as well.

But if all you are doing is splitting hairs over my semantics, I'm not
sure what your point is. Have you ever seen any nutrition studies that
show that it's good for you?

Oh, wait. They do say dark chocolate has some anti-oxidants that are
good, and that it's possibly healthful in limited quanitities (limited
due to the fat and sugar content). So I stand corrected.

Cathy Weeks

In article . com, Cathy Weeks
says...


wrote:
On 19 Jan 2007 09:28:08 -0800, in misc.kids "Cathy Weeks"
wrote:

candy has never been shown to be good for
anyone, ever.


Oh really??

Sigh... I suppose I should have said "added sugar" instead.

Umm... I suppose that if someone is starving to death, candy might
provide enough calories to stay alive. So in that odd case, eating
candy might be considered "good" for them. But it seems awfully wierd
that there would be candy available in that situation, and not
something that's at least slightly nutritious.

Sometimes candy is used for diabetics when they need to raise their
blood sugar quickly, but honestly there are plenty of foods that do
have nutrition that work as well.

But if all you are doing is splitting hairs over my semantics, I'm not
sure what your point is. Have you ever seen any nutrition studies that
show that it's good for you?

Oh, wait. They do say dark chocolate has some anti-oxidants that are
good, and that it's possibly healthful in limited quanitities (limited
due to the fat and sugar content). So I stand corrected.

Cathy Weeks


So there's no value at all to be attached to enjoyment of food?

Mind, I don't think a lot of stuff that gets eaten every day is good to be eaten
every day, let alone ever meal, between meals, etc. etc., which is some of the
problem with these health concerns.

But I do agree with the poster that said that a lot of setting up a good
nutrition plan is how to successfully incorporate things like sweets such that
they provide the enjoyment and social values (like, you dont' have to refuse
Uncle Miklos's baklava every holiday) and maintain good overall nutrition and
caloric intake.

Banty

Banty wrote:
In article . com, Cathy Weeks
says...

So there's no value at all to be attached to enjoyment of food?

Well..... that's a funny one. I LOVE food. I read a lot about
nutrition. And before I go further, I need to give some background:
I'm a member of a yahoo support group that helps folks leave behind the
standard american diet, and eat in a highly nutritious manner (_Eat to
Live_ is the name of the book if anyone is interested). The lifestyle
advocates eating lots of fruit, veggies, and beans, nuts, some whole
grains, and limiting meat, saturated fat, dairy, and sugar and salt.
Anyway, eating in the manner the book describes can be a difficult
transition for people, hence the support group.

Now back to my point. A very common complaint in the group is "I miss
crunchy foods." Or I miss ____" (insert food type here). And a common
suggestion is "you shouldn't get your enjoyment from eating." Or
"replace your enjoyment of crunchy foods with a different enjoyment."
I say... hogwash.

The following is not based on any study - it's just my own philosopy
and ramblings. So what that means is that I'm plenty ready to admit
that I could be wrong, or that there are things I haven't thought of.

There is absolutely value in enjoying food. We spend a lot of our time
eating. It's best to enjoy doing it! Both for the pleasure of eating
itself and the social aspects of eating together. But, there are
problems in our culture, though - we too often only enjoy the foods
that are bad for us and associate eating veggies as something we MUST
do. So how to break that cycle? One issue to consider is the wisdom of
the body - people, when eating a healthy diet, tend to have cravings
for the things they are lacking. But when eating a bad diet, people
typically crave foods that are bad for them. Their body get used to
eating the bad foods, and want more of it, and the wisdom of the body
is broken.

An ideal world would have only healthy foods, and we would be
exchanging recipes for the yummy fruit sorbet that my kids scarfed down
last night, and not the sinful better than sex cake (pun intended).
However, we don't live in an ideal world, so we must teach our kids how
to make good choices. And *that* is the hard part, IMHO. The OP's
suggestion of forbidden fruit is absolutely an issue, and a very, very
difficult one. Because of it, I do not make a big deal out of it (at
least not to her - LOL) when she gets a pack of frosted cookies as her
snack at her school. It's why on Halloween, we went trick or treating,
and I let her eat enough candy to give her a stomach ache, and traded
the leftover (which was substantial) for a doll bed she'd been eyeing.
(And it was a hoot when she said, after she realized she felt icky
"Sugar *is* bad for you, Mommy"). However, it is, even so, still a
forbidden fruit for her.

But I do agree with the poster that said that a lot of setting up a good
nutrition plan is how to successfully incorporate things like sweets such that
they provide the enjoyment and social values (like, you dont' have to refuse
Uncle Miklos's baklava every holiday) and maintain good overall nutrition and
caloric intake.

Yes, that's partly why I admitted to nitpicking in the first part of my
note. There are two issues - good nutrition and the second issue is
teaching a kid to make good choices - ie, indulging only occasionally.
I also think that holidays or feasts (like birthday dinners) are a
separate issue - I didn't worry about what I ate, or about the nutrient
density during Thanksgiving dinner. I enjoyed the 3-cheese lasagna that
was provided as the vegetarian alternative to turkey (though from a
nutritional standpoint, the turkey was probably healthier than the
lasagna, which had a TON of cheese, and hence a very concentrated
amount of saturated fat).

I'm probably not answering all of your questions - this fairly
rambling, and for that I apologize.

Cathy weeks

wrote:
On 19 Jan 2007 11:06:59 -0800, in misc.kids "Cathy Weeks"
wrote:

Sigh... I suppose I should have said "added sugar" instead.


Without added sugar your breads would be rather flat.

First of all, I want to apolgize for the snide nature of my previous
note. It was uncalled for, and I'm sorry.

As for bread - I'm learning to make it, and it's quite possible to make
a whole-grain bread without added sugar, that isn't flat. There are
sugars in the wheat that the yeast can metabolize. It's also true,
that a small amount of added sugar is metabolized by the yeast in the
bread, and doesn't enter the body as pure sucrose, as eating that same
sugar directly would do.

Cathy Weeks

Tori M wrote:
"Bob" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 19:46:18 +1100, "Grahame"
wrote:


Dicipline is controlling a badly behaved child. Not allowing a child to
eat
a lolly at lunch time once a week that is provided by the parent is NOT
decipline its stupidity.
[snip]


But the goal of good nutrition should be to fit the junk in without making
it some mysterious thing. A Lollypop a week isnt a big deal.. though maybe
having them in the car after visiting the bank would be better. They should
know how a piece of chocolate cake can fit into a balanced diet but a whole
chocolate cake can not.

Another reason that the teacher banned the lollipop might be that it
meant the child was taking too long over lunch. At many schools, the
kid would be expected to stay at the table until he/she had stopped
eating, before going out to play. It would be easy for a child to spend
20 minutes sucking the lolly, and not going out at all.

(Actually, just checking - in the UK a lolly is the same as a lollipop:
a boiled sweet on a stick. Is that what was in the lunchbox?)

FWIW, the bigger risk is that the child would get the subliminal message
that it's OK to do things that Mummy or Daddy wouldn't allow, as long
as Mummy and Daddy aren't there.

--
Penny Gaines
UK mum to three

In article .com, Cathy Weeks
says...


Banty wrote:
In article . com, Cathy Weeks
says...

So there's no value at all to be attached to enjoyment of food?

Well..... that's a funny one. I LOVE food. I read a lot about
nutrition. And before I go further, I need to give some background:
I'm a member of a yahoo support group that helps folks leave behind the
standard american diet, and eat in a highly nutritious manner (_Eat to
Live_ is the name of the book if anyone is interested). The lifestyle
advocates eating lots of fruit, veggies, and beans, nuts, some whole
grains, and limiting meat, saturated fat, dairy, and sugar and salt.
Anyway, eating in the manner the book describes can be a difficult
transition for people, hence the support group.

::snip stuff about how many foods other than candy are enjoyable::

So, you mean, food should *exclude* candy completely, and everyone is supposed
to all learn to enjoy other stuff? I can't agree. First of all, I don't think
any but a very few don't also enjoy other kinds of foods, so it's really IMO not
an issue. I really meant to ask specifically the enjoyment of candy (didnt'
think I'd be taken as asking if *any* food should be enjoyed). But although I
certainly agree that all manner of foods can be enjoyed, I really can't sign on
to this idea that each and every morsel past one's lips has to be nutritionally
optimal.

Candy is enjoyed in quite a different manner than fruits and honey and the like,
and to eliminate it completely most certainly does eliminate a certain kind of
enjoyment. It also is part of cuisines around the world and celebrations around
the world. There's a social value to candy as well.


But I do agree with the poster that said that a lot of setting up a good
nutrition plan is how to successfully incorporate things like sweets such that
they provide the enjoyment and social values (like, you dont' have to refuse
Uncle Miklos's baklava every holiday) and maintain good overall nutrition and
caloric intake.

Yes, that's partly why I admitted to nitpicking in the first part of my
note. There are two issues - good nutrition and the second issue is
teaching a kid to make good choices - ie, indulging only occasionally.
I also think that holidays or feasts (like birthday dinners) are a
separate issue - I didn't worry about what I ate, or about the nutrient
density during Thanksgiving dinner. I enjoyed the 3-cheese lasagna that
was provided as the vegetarian alternative to turkey (though from a
nutritional standpoint, the turkey was probably healthier than the
lasagna, which had a TON of cheese, and hence a very concentrated
amount of saturated fat).

Good choices, don't have to exclude candy. It's that they need to be good
choices *about* candy. Like when, what kind, and what amounts.

In a similar note, once here in one of these discussions I was asked "did you
know that one can get fat on *healthy* foods"?? Well, the answer of course is
"yes". But not if one is on a healthy *diet*. (Meaning diet as in overall
consumption, not as in reducing or augmenting diet.) Which would necessarily
address portion and timing as well as content.

I don't think this focus on this or that particular food being evul really helps
to put the focus on the whole, which is where it needs to be.

Banty

Banty wrote:
In article .com, Cathy Weeks
says...

So, you mean, food should *exclude* candy completely, and everyone is supposed
to all learn to enjoy other stuff?

Well... ideally, yes. Realistically, no. Not gonna happen.

I really can't sign on
to this idea that each and every morsel past one's lips has to be nutritionally
optimal.

Has to be? No. Should be? Yes. The human body has an amazing ability
to heal, and to even do pretty well, despite adverse conditions.
However, the body's ability to heal, to develop to full potential, and
to last well, is directly influenced by diet. "Won't hurt" and "Good
for you," are two different things. There's a pretty good body of
evidence that folks are healthier without eating added sugar or
saturated fat, and if they eat a whole-foods diet.

Candy is enjoyed in quite a different manner than fruits and honey and the like,
and to eliminate it completely most certainly does eliminate a certain kind of
enjoyment. It also is part of cuisines around the world and celebrations around
the world. There's a social value to candy as well.

Yes, you are right. And because we cannot eliminate it, to even try is
silly. And I'm not really advocating that we do so anyway, just that
it would be best for everyone if we limited it far, far more than we
do. Part of my problem with the situation, is that other parents
influence my child, and my efforts, by sending sweet snacks. I tell
her that it's important to limit sweets, and that the occasional treat
isn't a problem - and then she sees Little Johnnie bringing oreos every
day. Most kids bring a sweet treat in their lunches pretty much every
day. Not much I can do about it, but it *is* an issue. I can tell her
things like they don't know any better, or that they don't care that
it's not really good for them, but in the end, those statements can be
damaging too. She wants those same sweets because everyone else has
them, and in the end, she doesn't care that they are bad for you.

Yes, I know I'm whinging here. :-)

In a similar note, once here in one of these discussions I was asked "did you
know that one can get fat on *healthy* foods"?? Well, the answer of course is
"yes". But not if one is on a healthy *diet*. (Meaning diet as in overall
consumption, not as in reducing or augmenting diet.) Which would necessarily
address portion and timing as well as content.

I agree. It would be very hard to get fat on the diet (in your sense
of the word) I am on. I get full well before I take in enough calories
to have them be diverted to fat storage.

I don't think this focus on this or that particular food being evul really helps
to put the focus on the whole, which is where it needs to be.

I'm not REALLY suggesting that we should get rid of candy entirely
(nor would I really want to - I love my chocolate, after all ;-)

My main complaints with candy is that in our culture it's just way,
way, way over used. Your average can of pop has something like 25 tsp
of sugar in it - (and the other day, I put that amount in a bowl to see
what it looked like, and it's well, shocking). People thrust candy at
my daughter all the time. Parents send candy as snacks for her whole
pre-school class, and the amount got tossed to her during a recent
parade was not to be believed. These are only a few examples, but it's
pretty pervasive. Ditto for most processed food snacks. My father,
who is a dentist, recently told me that dentists saw a radical drop in
tooth decay in the 1970s as they managed to get municiple water
supplies flouridated, and that tooth decay has been rising again,
nearly as bad as it was prior to flouridated water. If you look at the
per capita consumption of sugar and soda and processed food snacks
(which are bad for your teeth too, because refined carbs are easily
utilizable by the tooth decay bacteria), and track the changes in that
consumption over the last 40 years, you'll see that with the rise in
consumption, came the rise in decay, hand-in-hand. Dad used to think
that hygeine was the most important aspect in preventing decay, but now
feels that diet is even more important (though hygeine is still mighty
important). There are other health issues beside tooth decay, and I
won't get into them now or here.

Focusing on the whole is of course good, but also giving focus to
problem areas helps, too. LOL, I suppose though, turning it into an
"evul food" isn't a great choice, also.

These are fairly knee-jerk sites (but the best I could do in a short
amount of time), but one of them at least provides a list of studies to
back up the claims (it's at the end), so that if anyone wants to look
them up, they can.

http://www.annieappleseedproject.org/124waysugrui.html
http://www.stress-free-weight-loss.c...il-22-2003.htm

Cathy Weeks

In article om, Cathy Weeks
says...


Banty wrote:
In article .com, Cathy Weeks
says...

So, you mean, food should *exclude* candy completely, and everyone is supposed
to all learn to enjoy other stuff?

Well... ideally, yes. Realistically, no. Not gonna happen.

I really can't sign on
to this idea that each and every morsel past one's lips has to be nutritionally
optimal.

Has to be? No. Should be? Yes. The human body has an amazing ability
to heal, and to even do pretty well, despite adverse conditions.
However, the body's ability to heal, to develop to full potential, and
to last well, is directly influenced by diet. "Won't hurt" and "Good
for you," are two different things. There's a pretty good body of
evidence that folks are healthier without eating added sugar or
saturated fat, and if they eat a whole-foods diet.

There is evidence that people are healtheir if they don't eat *excess* simple
carbohydrates and saturated fat. And what that consistitutes varies greatly by
individual. But you'll have to show us the evidence that that means "no added"
sugar or saturated fat over a "whole foods diet". Those are two different
things.


Candy is enjoyed in quite a different manner than fruits and honey and the like,
and to eliminate it completely most certainly does eliminate a certain kind of
enjoyment. It also is part of cuisines around the world and celebrations around
the world. There's a social value to candy as well.

Yes, you are right. And because we cannot eliminate it, to even try is
silly. And I'm not really advocating that we do so anyway, just that
it would be best for everyone if we limited it far, far more than we
do. Part of my problem with the situation, is that other parents
influence my child, and my efforts, by sending sweet snacks. I tell
her that it's important to limit sweets, and that the occasional treat
isn't a problem - and then she sees Little Johnnie bringing oreos every
day. Most kids bring a sweet treat in their lunches pretty much every
day. Not much I can do about it, but it *is* an issue. I can tell her
things like they don't know any better, or that they don't care that
it's not really good for them, but in the end, those statements can be
damaging too. She wants those same sweets because everyone else has
them, and in the end, she doesn't care that they are bad for you.

If you can't teach diet principles because of what your child sees other
children do - watch out!! This is just the beginning of many, many ways you'll
need to impart your values even though your child will see other values played
out by other kids and other parents and other people in general now and through
her life. Might as well start now.

It really isn't effective (and downright antidemocratic and controlling in the
end) to seek to solve things by making Everyone Else do like you.

And you might be setting her up for Forbidden Fruit attraction and rebellion.


Yes, I know I'm whinging here. :-)

In a similar note, once here in one of these discussions I was asked "did you
know that one can get fat on *healthy* foods"?? Well, the answer of course is
"yes". But not if one is on a healthy *diet*. (Meaning diet as in overall
consumption, not as in reducing or augmenting diet.) Which would necessarily
address portion and timing as well as content.

I agree. It would be very hard to get fat on the diet (in your sense
of the word) I am on. I get full well before I take in enough calories
to have them be diverted to fat storage.

I don't think this focus on this or that particular food being evul really helps
to put the focus on the whole, which is where it needs to be.

I'm not REALLY suggesting that we should get rid of candy entirely
(nor would I really want to - I love my chocolate, after all ;-)

My main complaints with candy is that in our culture it's just way,
way, way over used. Your average can of pop has something like 25 tsp
of sugar in it - (and the other day, I put that amount in a bowl to see
what it looked like, and it's well, shocking). People thrust candy at
my daughter all the time. Parents send candy as snacks for her whole
pre-school class, and the amount got tossed to her during a recent
parade was not to be believed. These are only a few examples, but it's
pretty pervasive. Ditto for most processed food snacks. My father,
who is a dentist, recently told me that dentists saw a radical drop in
tooth decay in the 1970s as they managed to get municiple water
supplies flouridated, and that tooth decay has been rising again,
nearly as bad as it was prior to flouridated water. If you look at the
per capita consumption of sugar and soda and processed food snacks
(which are bad for your teeth too, because refined carbs are easily
utilizable by the tooth decay bacteria), and track the changes in that
consumption over the last 40 years, you'll see that with the rise in
consumption, came the rise in decay, hand-in-hand. Dad used to think
that hygeine was the most important aspect in preventing decay, but now
feels that diet is even more important (though hygeine is still mighty
important). There are other health issues beside tooth decay, and I
won't get into them now or here.

Focusing on the whole is of course good, but also giving focus to
problem areas helps, too. LOL, I suppose though, turning it into an
"evul food" isn't a great choice, also.

I've fought my own battles on that front (google on Banty Cub Scouts snacks) so
in general I agree. But there's a huge difference between what is set up to
have all kids consume that may be the wrong kind, or just plain unecessary, vs.
reaching into other kids' lunchboxes. I've had that happen at my son's
Montessori school. He had a special treat for the first day of school snatched
right out and a nasty note put right in. Damn silly.


These are fairly knee-jerk sites (but the best I could do in a short
amount of time), but one of them at least provides a list of studies to
back up the claims (it's at the end), so that if anyone wants to look
them up, they can.

Sorry, I greatly prefer archival medical journals


http://www.annieappleseedproject.org/124waysugrui.html

Good grief.

Banty

Cathy Weeks wrote:
wrote:
On 19 Jan 2007 09:28:08 -0800, in misc.kids "Cathy Weeks"
wrote:

candy has never been shown to be good for
anyone, ever.


Oh really??

Sigh... I suppose I should have said "added sugar" instead.

Umm... I suppose that if someone is starving to death, candy might
provide enough calories to stay alive. So in that odd case, eating
candy might be considered "good" for them. But it seems awfully wierd
that there would be candy available in that situation, and not
something that's at least slightly nutritious.

Sometimes candy is used for diabetics when they need to raise their
blood sugar quickly, but honestly there are plenty of foods that do
have nutrition that work as well.

But if all you are doing is splitting hairs over my semantics, I'm not
sure what your point is. Have you ever seen any nutrition studies that
show that it's good for you?

Oh, wait. They do say dark chocolate has some anti-oxidants that are
good, and that it's possibly healthful in limited quanitities (limited
due to the fat and sugar content). So I stand corrected.

Cathy Weeks