Debate on insisting child eat "real" food prior to filling up on chocolate/candy

wrote:

What I do is put no limits on when/where/how they eat any candy they've
been given, and then stand back.

People think I'm nuts, but despite mountains of candy coming in here on
Halloween, essentially its all gone within a week or two (I find most
of it isn't eat - its unrapped, a bite or two taken and then its
abandoned). I actually prefer this, since I'd rather deal with a weeks
worth of ruined appetites than have the candy being rationed and
hanging around for months and months...which is what many of my friends
face.
[snip]

This is what we do, as well.

There are times when there is a lot of chocolate around the house, and they
are allowed to eat it when they want. At other times, we don't have
chocolate around, and if they want some, they have to go to the shop and
buy it with their pocket money.

I haven't really noticed much difference in their appetites for their
main meals.

Anyway, the OP implied that dh is offering the candy before meals.
We wouldn't do that at home: if the kid asks, they get it, but if it
is just before a meal, the answer is usually 'no'. If the kid
is refusing to eat the meal, because they want the candy, my reaction
would probably be "if you are not hungry enough for a sandwich,
you are not hungry enough for sweets".

If they kept refusing to eat, because of the candy being around, I'd
get rid of it.

--
Penny Gaines
UK mum to three

wrote:
I think the child should be encouraged to eat real food
(ie a bowl of cottage cheese or some meat) PRIOR to her having the
box of chocolate put in front of her. Daddy thinks she should not be
coerced into eating anything prior to filling up on candy and
believes that in doing so I will cause irreversible food
association(guilt, pleasure, rewards, etc) that he believes should in
no way be associated with food and may lead to weight control issues
in the futere. In your experience which method seemed to work better?

This scenario is so extreme it is hard to imagine. Do you mean that prior
to a meal being served she is offered an unlimited amount of candy? That I
would not do. Around the holidays, when that stuff is plentify, I do not
limit what they eat per say. If they eat only 1/2 bite for supper then they
still get desert. I never hold it out as a reward. I do not however off
them candy before I offer real food and I do not offer more candy then I am
comfortable with them eating. I try and keep it out of sight so it isn't
constnatly tempting them and if I feel their diet has just gone to hell I
will get rid of it all so it isn't even an option.

At 3yo she can't make all her own decisions because she can't get up and
make a healthy meal. By offering her candy before her meal you are
*removing* choices from her because she isn't going to think "I'm going to
get cranky if all I eat is candy so I'll hold off for some real food".
She's hungry, she likes candy, she'll eat until she is full.

--
Nikki

I too was warned that limitation might make candy into too much of
an
issue, but I don't see that this is happening at all. Since we believe
all things should be eaten in moderation - also cakes, cookies, potato
chips and other snacks - we have similar limitations on all of these,
and look at it as educating them to eat sensibly. In

Exactly.
What a wacky world it is, where we're afraid to teach our kids that
desserts ARE a treat and should be eaten only after more nutricious
foods.
Don't overthink this one.

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:25:47 +0200, LisaBell
wrote:

I am with you. We don't keep a lot of candy around the house as a rule
(though we usually have a little chocolate) and we limit eating it to
after dinner, and then only allow a small piece (two squares, or half
of a candy bar). When they go to parties and come home with a bag of
candy they have to put it in the fridge, and may eat one piece every
evening.

I too was warned that limitation might make candy into too much of an
issue, but I don't see that this is happening at all. Since we believe
all things should be eaten in moderation - also cakes, cookies, potato
chips and other snacks - we have similar limitations on all of these,
and look at it as educating them to eat sensibly. In fact last Friday
they both came home from a birthday party with plates of snacks and
candy, plonked them down on the kitchen table and *asked* for dinner!

--Lisa bell
Mom to Gabriella (6) and Michaela (almost 5)

We have little candy in the house (although my fifteen year old grabs
a bar sometimes), We DO have as part of a rounded diet a lot of home
baked goods and I do not limit them within reason. We have a baked
dessert a couple times a week. Additionally I make homemade rolls ,
hmemade cinnamon rolls and such.

We also have a certain amount of snacks on hand that we eat in
moderation. Sweet and buttery popcorn sunday watching the game for
example.

Barb

In article ,
eggs wrote:


I basically agree with your DH - don't make candy some special treat
that is very limited in nature. I think this can lead to bingeing and
other food related health issues in later life. We keep a jar of candy
on top of the fridge for the kids (DH & I don't eat it). They ask for
some ( a very small handful in a bowl) maybe once or twice a week. I
let them have it if there is more than an hour to go before a scheduled
meal. They are more likely to ask for fruit than candy, but that's
their preference, as I buy cheap generic chocolate candy but keep a lot
of very nice fruit in the house.



I agree with this concept, and try (yeah, I'm still working on it!), to
keep healthy snacks always accessible, like fruit, veggies, nuts,
crackers even, and occasionally I'll put in their baskets chocolate or
hard candy. It's very funny how differently my kids' palates are
attuned, after the same -- or similar -- attitudes from me for both of
them. My 5 y.o. will eat candy until she's sick (and used to do this
with fruit when she was a baby -- I guess it takes her awhile to figure
out 'fullness') just because she loves it so much! The 3 y.o. doesn't
like sweets, hardly at all, and most of the time, three quarters of her
candy is given to her sister.

It's not that we ration it, and they're certainly allowed treats at
least as much as any healthy household I know, but our older daughter
has her Dad's attitude toward food, I think, and our younger has mine.
I'm the kind of person who will be at the store and think "I love
chocolate donuts!", and buy a dozen of my favorite donuts, eat half of
one, put them away and then end up wasting them because I forget to eat
the rest. And I don't like to waste food, so I get out of the habit of
buying them. My husband, apparently looks at it like "She bought donuts,
and she hardly ever does, I'd better eat all of them before they go
bad." Which brings me to your next point...


It does seem, however, that *you* and *DH* have a problem with having
candy in the house and it would seem to be just easier to throw it in
the trash can than to keep fighting over it. It's not like candy is a
vital food group. If the kids really want some, they'll ask for it at
the checkout or wherever and get their fix that way.


We have ended up with less in the house lately, for kind of this reason.
We weren't fighting so much, but my husband doesn't want to eat sweets,
we don't like to *offer* them to the kids too much, and it's not worth
the worry or annoyance. If my kids are eating pasta and veggies, I sure
don't want them to 'save room' for sweets!

I remember as a kid -- with no rationing, really -- having to throw out
what was left of my Halloween candy before the Easter Bunny could come,
and then doing the same thing with leftover Easter candy before going
trick or treating. So I do think the no rationing thing can work, but
it takes the right kind of palate. My younger daughter and I could
probably have dinner every day with a chocolate sculpture centerpiece,
and not take a bite for weeks; older daughter and husband, not so much.
(Oh -- and the only weight issues in our family are not gaining fast
enough, so really if they wanted to keep eating candy, I'd probably let
them!) (And we do still have Halloween candy sitting in the pantry.
Maybe we end up not loving the candy because it's so darn old!)

Tina.

In article . com,
wrote:

I think most almost-3's are smarter than you are giving them credit
for. If she knows she can eat nothing but candy, of course she will
eat nothing but candy. If she knows that candy is a 'treat' and only
to be eaten as a supplement to other, healthier foods, she is capable
of understanding that. (And then choosing to either eat nothing, or eat
healthy foods followed by a small portion of candy.)

We have many kids at the preschool where I work who are about this age.
They usually have desserts packed in their lunches, and they know that
they can't eat the candy/cookie/whatever until they've eaten a
reasonable amount of their lunch.

Naomi

You're right, I'd forgotten about packed lunches. My 5 y.o. does wait
until she's had her main lunch items before anything sweet she might
have in there -- but she's the only kid in her school (very small
school, so I was told this by a mom who watches them all at lunch) who
waits to eat her sweets, eats slowly, and eats some part of each thing
I've packed every day. I had asked the mom why Sage was so far behind
every other kid in finishing her lunch (probably 10 minutes slower than
the others), and it turns out she's the only one who's actually
bothering to really eat!

Tina.

Tina Petrone wrote:

I remember as a kid -- with no rationing, really -- having to throw out
what was left of my Halloween candy before the Easter Bunny could come,
and then doing the same thing with leftover Easter candy before going
trick or treating. So I do think the no rationing thing can work, but
it takes the right kind of palate. My younger daughter and I could
probably have dinner every day with a chocolate sculpture centerpiece,
and not take a bite for weeks; older daughter and husband, not so much.
(Oh -- and the only weight issues in our family are not gaining fast
enough, so really if they wanted to keep eating candy, I'd probably let
them!) (And we do still have Halloween candy sitting in the pantry.

Us too. I have to keep weeding out the candy, because
the progression from Halloween to Christmas to Valentine's Day
to Easter pretty much keeps the candy dish full. The kids are
quite good about it. They know they can't snack on candy
night and day. Our general rule is that you can have what
you want after you've eaten a respectable amount of "growing
food." Both boys are very thin, so clearly weight is not
an issue. Our rules probably restrict their eating sweets
more than they might do on their own, but they have plenty
of access to sweets as well as to healthy foods and they
eat reasonably well overall.

Best wishes,
Ericka

Tina Petrone wrote:
I remember as a kid -- with no rationing, really -- having to throw
out
what was left of my Halloween candy before the Easter Bunny could
come,
and then doing the same thing with leftover Easter candy before going

trick or treating. So I do think the no rationing thing can work,
but
it takes the right kind of palate. My younger daughter and I could
probably have dinner every day with a chocolate sculpture
centerpiece,
and not take a bite for weeks; older daughter and husband, not so
much.

I confess I have zero willpower when it comes to sweets. If it's in the
house, I'll eat and eat and eat it. That's why I have learned to throw
it away after Halloween, Easter, etc. Better not to tempt *myself*
(much less the kids)! (Yep, I'm the mom who'd raid the kids' candy
supply while they weren't at home).

Also, on the subject of associating food with feelings, I must've been
raised that way myself. When my DD's are feeling sad or had a bad day,
my knee-jerk reaction is to try and offer food to cheer them up. I have
to bite my tongue constantly and try a different approach. I don't
always succeed in that. If sweets are not in the house, it's easier to
resist offering them as a pick-me-up. Instead, I offer hugs, or suggest
a warm soothing bath.

Sometimes, I do suggest tea. Tea is nice and comforting, without all
the empty calories.

jen

In article . com, shinypenny
says...



Also, on the subject of associating food with feelings, I must've been
raised that way myself. When my DD's are feeling sad or had a bad day,
my knee-jerk reaction is to try and offer food to cheer them up. I have
to bite my tongue constantly and try a different approach. I don't
always succeed in that. If sweets are not in the house, it's easier to
resist offering them as a pick-me-up. Instead, I offer hugs, or suggest
a warm soothing bath.

THAT's the problem, I think, in a lot of families w.r.t. food. Not so much the
forbidden fruit thing. For a candy to have 'forbidden fruit' appeal, I really
think allowing it sometimes, at appropriate times, as a treat, as all that's
necessary. If the candy isn't around all the time in the household, then you
also don't set up that temptation-guilt cycle by forbidding it but also having
it available.

What IME is damaging is getting candy, sweets = love associated.


Sometimes, I do suggest tea. Tea is nice and comforting, without all
the empty calories.

Well, that's better. But I still think having food, drink, any of that, too
associated with comfort isn't a great idea. Talk, hugs, support to pursue
interests - THOSE are the things that should be associated with comfort.

Banty

Banty wrote:
In article . com, shinypenny
says...

Also, on the subject of associating food with feelings, I must've been
raised that way myself. When my DD's are feeling sad or had a bad day,
my knee-jerk reaction is to try and offer food to cheer them up. I have
to bite my tongue constantly and try a different approach. I don't
always succeed in that. If sweets are not in the house, it's easier to
resist offering them as a pick-me-up. Instead, I offer hugs, or suggest
a warm soothing bath.

THAT's the problem, I think, in a lot of families w.r.t. food. Not so much the
forbidden fruit thing. For a candy to have 'forbidden fruit' appeal, I really
think allowing it sometimes, at appropriate times, as a treat, as all that's
necessary. If the candy isn't around all the time in the household, then you
also don't set up that temptation-guilt cycle by forbidding it but also having
it available.

What IME is damaging is getting candy, sweets = love associated.

Sometimes, I do suggest tea. Tea is nice and comforting, without all
the empty calories.

Well, that's better. But I still think having food, drink, any of that, too
associated with comfort isn't a great idea. Talk, hugs, support to pursue
interests - THOSE are the things that should be associated with comfort.

Banty

I think hot tea is nice as a pick-up or soother.

But I never liked baths myself - possibly because we didn't put enough
water in the tub for it to be warm very long. And it is such a chore
to fill the tub and empty and clean out.

Nor would hugs have done, because I'm not a huggy type person.
Totally turns me off. I might kiss a boo-boo to make it better but
that's about it.

What *I* would like is to be able to read a book or maybe go swimming.

Anyway. to the original question.

There's a BIG difference between making candy a 'forbidden fruit' and
allowing a child to fill up on nothing but candy.


grandma Rosalie