kaclip

Hi,
I'm new here, and I am wondering about the food issue. I'm not an unschooler (yet!) but I'm trying to understand and learn because there's so much that make sense to me here. I'm reading what Sandra has on her website, but I'm still not sure if I understand how unschoolers do this.

As parents and adults, we have learned what is healthy, we know what is good for us. Then why is it not "unschoolish" to talk to your children about that and tell them why certain things are better or worse? And eliminate certain things from the diet that we as parents believe are harmful?

If I understand correctly, children should have free choice in what they eat and when they eat. Our family has always had specific mealtimes, because I know when the children need food. And it's always at the same times of the day! (about every 3 hours, it's been like that since birth, through nursing and still today)

I know my children's dislikes and don't force these particular food items on them. But I have always thought that it was my "duty" as a parent to make sure that they had enough of everything and have made them finish their plates. I'm doing it much less now;-)

What about allergies? Do children with peanut allergies automatically know to steer away from food with traces of peanuts? Parents need to watch out for them still right?

What about food additives, coloring, sweeteners and such. They are known to cause allergies, ADHD and what not. I am always reading labels making sure I don't buy the worse of these things. Shouldn't I do that?

I'm concerned about too much sugar at the wrong times of the day for my children. I'm thinking of their dental health, of getting hyper, or a sugar high with a subsequent drop...

I'm not concerned about their weight, it's really their health I'm concerned with. They can eat how much they want because I know once they are full, they will stop! But I am really into healthy choices, organic food, getting the right nutrients. Is it still a way of controlling what the children eat when it's me doing the shopping? When i bring them with me, they buy all the cereals in the shop and we can't fit them all in the cupboard! :-)

Thanks for your insights,
-Katrine

Joyce Fetteroll

On Oct 5, 2009, at 1:04 AM, kaclip wrote:

> As parents and adults, we have learned what is healthy, we know
> what is good for us. Then why is it not "unschoolish" to talk to
> your children about that and tell them why certain things are
> better or worse? And eliminate certain things from the diet that we
> as parents believe are harmful?

Unschoolers achieve something similar but without the control.

The problem most parents face is the conviction they know what is
right for their kids. Then the goal becomes to move the children from
where they are to where the parents believe it is right and good to be.

It's not that unschooling parents don't have their own ideas of good!
It's that they know kids have time to explore. It's that unschooling
parents know when kids trust their parents that the kids will take
information handed to them into consideration as they make decisions.

A child growing up in freedom who can eat what they want when they
want it, will absorb information about food when it's in their home
lives but isn't used to control their choices.

I've compared labels of two different products as I'm trying to
decide in the store because the information is of interest *to me*.
I've shared it with my daughter because it's interesting. The
information isn't intended to control her choices, but to make the
choices I make in general easier. I'm sharing my process with her. In
some ways it's like a scavenger hunt, to find the foods that are just
as good or better without all the "unpronounceables" in them.
Generally my attitude has been why eat them when you can avoid them?
Sometimes the answer is that they taste better! Sometimes the answer
is, why not try it and see? Sometimes the answer is we avoid
additives in most things so the additives in one thing can't be a big
deal.

Because I've never used labels to control Kat's choices, she finds
looking at labels interesting and part of her own process of choosing.

First, you have time on your side. A childhood spent eating Oreos
will not kill someone. *But* in a home where there are a lot of
choices and Oreos are just one of them, kids won't eat nothing but
Oreos.

Second, kids can experiment without killing themselves. Because time
is on your side :-) They can try things out and see the effects. They
can decide the bad effects are worth the good that's happening. They
can decide eventually the bad effects are no longer worth it since
the bloom has worn off.

They can't do that when someone decides for them. Likely what will
happen is their desire for the forbidden product will override the
negatives. They'll want it just because it's forbidden or rare.

Third, you could be wrong. This is a *really* *really* helpful idea
to take to heart. Unless something is an imminent health risk like
poison or a hurtling Mack truck, know that you could be wrong. And
your control in the name of your belief is likely to whittle away at
their trust in you, whittle at the relationship between you, and very
likely get them to associate your control with the idea you felt was
so important and they may turn away from it.

There are vegetarians parents who help their kids explore meat. There
are fundamentalist Christians who support their children's
exploration of beliefs.

The less you control, the more you make your beliefs about you and
use the values for yourself (and the home you create) but don't use
them to control your kids, the more likely they will explore them
freely and happily and come to them, in their own way, joyfully.

You got to choose what beliefs you had. Let them. Trust that they're
thinking beings who can try out ideas and explore their effects and
decide for themselves. The choices they make for their right now
selves may not be the same they'll make for their future selves. They
need the freedom to try things out and experiment to decide what's
right for them.

> Our family has always had specific mealtimes, because I know when
> the children need food. And it's always at the same times of the
> day! (about every 3 hours, it's been like that since birth, through
> nursing and still today)

It's possibly it's true for your family.

It's possible that as very young children then did get hungry every 3
hours -- it's a good rule of thumb -- but now their bodies expect
food every three hours.

In terms of unschooling, it will help to let go of the idea that you
know anything about anyone else. You're not living in their body. You
can observe. You can make predictions from past behavior. Your
predictions can even be right a lot. But the belief that you "know"
someone else boxes their behavior in your mind and will slow your
observation and understanding of how they are right now. Children
change. It isn't safe to say we know who they are! We can make
informed guesses to help us help them, but we can't really know.

> But I have always thought that it was my "duty" as a parent to make
> sure that they had enough of everything and have made them finish
> their plates. I'm doing it much less now;-)
>

Even better to not do that at all. Your kids are learning to ignore
the internal signals that they've had enough. Or not enough. They're
equating "full" with an empty plate.

It's satisfies a mom caretaker urge to latch onto a belief that such
and such is good for kids and then to make them do it: go to bed at
9, eat a full plate, drink their milk, say please. In a way it's like
a magical spell: if we do this, then we can mold them into great
human beings. But what it does is say to kids, "I don't trust you to
do what's best for you." Few moms would put their actions into those
words, but it's absolutely what kids feel when someone else overrides
their decisions and makes them conform to someone else's "better" idea.

Regardless of the good intentions behind it, it's control. And to the
kids it feels like control. It feels exactly to them as it would if
your husband decided fiction was bad for people and forbid you to
read novels or watch movies or shows or plays. It makes no difference
how sincere, how caring, how strongly he believes. It doesn't feel
loving or caring. It feels like "I don't care what you believe. Do as
I say because I'm right."


> What about allergies? Do children with peanut allergies
> automatically know to steer away from food with traces of peanuts?
> Parents need to watch out for them still right?
>

No to both, actually!

Even if allergic kids could naturally steer clear of peanuts, they
can be hidden in lots of things.

What unschooling parents do is be aware of products with peanuts.
When kids are very young, it's easiest just to keep such things out
of the house. As they get older, just make it a habit to share the
information with kids and help them get what they want. It can just
be part of life to say "This has peanuts in it. Let's find something
that doesn't."

When kids know for certain that mom is on their side and working to
meet their needs, they are far less likely to dig in their heels and
demand a particular something. While it can be a part of some kids'
personalities, far more commonly it's because parents have taught
kids that fighting is the way they have of getting something they've
asked for. When they know you're trying to help them, there's little
reason to fight!

> What about food additives, coloring, sweeteners and such. They are
> known to cause allergies, ADHD and what not.

Cause allergies? I doubt that. Some kids are sensitive to various
chemicals but I've never heard anyone say they cause allergies.

Best not to live in fear. Better to live in a world full of wonderful
possibilities, trying things out and deciding on a case by case basis
whether the consequences are worth the experience.

Read less fearful stuff and more from unschoolers who will tell you
what really happens when foods are freely accessible. The archives
are full of stories. In addition to Sandra's site there mine:

http://joyfullyrejoycing.com


> I am always reading labels making sure I don't buy the worse of
> these things. Shouldn't I do that?
>

If it's something important to you *for you*, sure, read labels. Read
labels to help you provide what you'd like to provide, but don't use
it as a cage to prevent them from having what they would like, if you
see the difference.

There's nothing wrong with cooking organic, natural meals. What's
controlling is deciding the kids can't eat anything but. Provide the
canvas of healthful meals, but help them explore beyond it. If
they're curious about Oreos, buy Oreos and Newman-Os and some other
substitutes and have a taste test.

If the don't feel foods without additives are box they need to live
in but rather a great place to explore from that *maybe* they'd like
to stay in if they find the benefits are right for them, they're more
likely to stay than to flee once you open the gate when they leave
for college.
> I'm concerned about too much sugar at the wrong times of the day
> for my children. I'm thinking of their dental health, of getting
> hyper, or a sugar high with a subsequent drop...
>


Too much fear. You're creating solutions to problems that you only
fear will exist.

It's far easier to fear and prevent than to read to be informed and
take a chance. There's lots of information here. If you ask -- better
one question at a time rather than the broad topic of food! -- people
will share their real experiences.

> Is it still a way of controlling what the children eat when it's me
> doing the shopping?
>

I would bet that for most kids if we let them choose everything the
family would eat for the week they would get bored of the activity
after a week!

The bulk of what we provide will be of our choosing. Why wouldn't we
use our own values to create it? But that's just the foundation.
Accommodating their tastes and explorations is what will make it
appealing.

> When i bring them with me, they buy all the cereals in the shop and
> we can't fit them all in the cupboard! :-)


Money and physical space are realities. (Though too many parents warp
those with control and fear. Physically only having $5 for groceries
is different than mom deciding what the kids have picked out is "too
much".)

You could give them a certain amount to spend. (It should feel like a
fun challenge. If it feels like you arbitrarily limiting them, then
up the amount or find some other way.) You could ask them to each
pick one cereal so they don't get stale (and follow through on a
promise to get more next time.) Rather than thinking in terms of
responding to whims, think in terms of meeting their needs. This is
tricky! Our own needs for them can get in the way. Exploring
different cereals is fun. 10 boxes of cereal getting stale isn't a
need. It's just poor planning.

Joyce

[email protected]

Hi I am new here and am thoroughly enjoying all the topics of conversation. This statement:

"They can't do that when someone decides for them. Likely what will
happen is their desire for the forbidden product will override the
negatives. They'll want it just because it's forbidden or rare."

I can say is so very true, as a child the reigns were very tight especially in the food area and by the time I could by my own food ie; at school, etc. I bought all the garbage possible and now as an adult it takes a lot more effort to eat what I know will nourish my body best. I also then went through a control phase with my own children and now finally MANY years later we all work together to choose what we eat and sometimes we choose the not so good but they are learning on their own what effects different foods have on their bodies. So am I.

Dawn
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: Joyce Fetteroll <jfetteroll@...>
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 08:18:42
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] About food


On Oct 5, 2009, at 1:04 AM, kaclip wrote:

> As parents and adults, we have learned what is healthy, we know
> what is good for us. Then why is it not "unschoolish" to talk to
> your children about that and tell them why certain things are
> better or worse? And eliminate certain things from the diet that we
> as parents believe are harmful?

Unschoolers achieve something similar but without the control.

The problem most parents face is the conviction they know what is
right for their kids. Then the goal becomes to move the children from
where they are to where the parents believe it is right and good to be.

It's not that unschooling parents don't have their own ideas of good!
It's that they know kids have time to explore. It's that unschooling
parents know when kids trust their parents that the kids will take
information handed to them into consideration as they make decisions.

A child growing up in freedom who can eat what they want when they
want it, will absorb information about food when it's in their home
lives but isn't used to control their choices.

I've compared labels of two different products as I'm trying to
decide in the store because the information is of interest *to me*.
I've shared it with my daughter because it's interesting. The
information isn't intended to control her choices, but to make the
choices I make in general easier. I'm sharing my process with her. In
some ways it's like a scavenger hunt, to find the foods that are just
as good or better without all the "unpronounceables" in them.
Generally my attitude has been why eat them when you can avoid them?
Sometimes the answer is that they taste better! Sometimes the answer
is, why not try it and see? Sometimes the answer is we avoid
additives in most things so the additives in one thing can't be a big
deal.

Because I've never used labels to control Kat's choices, she finds
looking at labels interesting and part of her own process of choosing.

First, you have time on your side. A childhood spent eating Oreos
will not kill someone. *But* in a home where there are a lot of
choices and Oreos are just one of them, kids won't eat nothing but
Oreos.

Second, kids can experiment without killing themselves. Because time
is on your side :-) They can try things out and see the effects. They
can decide the bad effects are worth the good that's happening. They
can decide eventually the bad effects are no longer worth it since
the bloom has worn off.

They can't do that when someone decides for them. Likely what will
happen is their desire for the forbidden product will override the
negatives. They'll want it just because it's forbidden or rare.

Third, you could be wrong. This is a *really* *really* helpful idea
to take to heart. Unless something is an imminent health risk like
poison or a hurtling Mack truck, know that you could be wrong. And
your control in the name of your belief is likely to whittle away at
their trust in you, whittle at the relationship between you, and very
likely get them to associate your control with the idea you felt was
so important and they may turn away from it.

There are vegetarians parents who help their kids explore meat. There
are fundamentalist Christians who support their children's
exploration of beliefs.

The less you control, the more you make your beliefs about you and
use the values for yourself (and the home you create) but don't use
them to control your kids, the more likely they will explore them
freely and happily and come to them, in their own way, joyfully.

You got to choose what beliefs you had. Let them. Trust that they're
thinking beings who can try out ideas and explore their effects and
decide for themselves. The choices they make for their right now
selves may not be the same they'll make for their future selves. They
need the freedom to try things out and experiment to decide what's
right for them.

> Our family has always had specific mealtimes, because I know when
> the children need food. And it's always at the same times of the
> day! (about every 3 hours, it's been like that since birth, through
> nursing and still today)

It's possibly it's true for your family.

It's possible that as very young children then did get hungry every 3
hours -- it's a good rule of thumb -- but now their bodies expect
food every three hours.

In terms of unschooling, it will help to let go of the idea that you
know anything about anyone else. You're not living in their body. You
can observe. You can make predictions from past behavior. Your
predictions can even be right a lot. But the belief that you "know"
someone else boxes their behavior in your mind and will slow your
observation and understanding of how they are right now. Children
change. It isn't safe to say we know who they are! We can make
informed guesses to help us help them, but we can't really know.

> But I have always thought that it was my "duty" as a parent to make
> sure that they had enough of everything and have made them finish
> their plates. I'm doing it much less now;-)
>

Even better to not do that at all. Your kids are learning to ignore
the internal signals that they've had enough. Or not enough. They're
equating "full" with an empty plate.

It's satisfies a mom caretaker urge to latch onto a belief that such
and such is good for kids and then to make them do it: go to bed at
9, eat a full plate, drink their milk, say please. In a way it's like
a magical spell: if we do this, then we can mold them into great
human beings. But what it does is say to kids, "I don't trust you to
do what's best for you." Few moms would put their actions into those
words, but it's absolutely what kids feel when someone else overrides
their decisions and makes them conform to someone else's "better" idea.

Regardless of the good intentions behind it, it's control. And to the
kids it feels like control. It feels exactly to them as it would if
your husband decided fiction was bad for people and forbid you to
read novels or watch movies or shows or plays. It makes no difference
how sincere, how caring, how strongly he believes. It doesn't feel
loving or caring. It feels like "I don't care what you believe. Do as
I say because I'm right."


> What about allergies? Do children with peanut allergies
> automatically know to steer away from food with traces of peanuts?
> Parents need to watch out for them still right?
>

No to both, actually!

Even if allergic kids could naturally steer clear of peanuts, they
can be hidden in lots of things.

What unschooling parents do is be aware of products with peanuts.
When kids are very young, it's easiest just to keep such things out
of the house. As they get older, just make it a habit to share the
information with kids and help them get what they want. It can just
be part of life to say "This has peanuts in it. Let's find something
that doesn't."

When kids know for certain that mom is on their side and working to
meet their needs, they are far less likely to dig in their heels and
demand a particular something. While it can be a part of some kids'
personalities, far more commonly it's because parents have taught
kids that fighting is the way they have of getting something they've
asked for. When they know you're trying to help them, there's little
reason to fight!

> What about food additives, coloring, sweeteners and such. They are
> known to cause allergies, ADHD and what not.

Cause allergies? I doubt that. Some kids are sensitive to various
chemicals but I've never heard anyone say they cause allergies.

Best not to live in fear. Better to live in a world full of wonderful
possibilities, trying things out and deciding on a case by case basis
whether the consequences are worth the experience.

Read less fearful stuff and more from unschoolers who will tell you
what really happens when foods are freely accessible. The archives
are full of stories. In addition to Sandra's site there mine:

http://joyfullyrejoycing.com


> I am always reading labels making sure I don't buy the worse of
> these things. Shouldn't I do that?
>

If it's something important to you *for you*, sure, read labels. Read
labels to help you provide what you'd like to provide, but don't use
it as a cage to prevent them from having what they would like, if you
see the difference.

There's nothing wrong with cooking organic, natural meals. What's
controlling is deciding the kids can't eat anything but. Provide the
canvas of healthful meals, but help them explore beyond it. If
they're curious about Oreos, buy Oreos and Newman-Os and some other
substitutes and have a taste test.

If the don't feel foods without additives are box they need to live
in but rather a great place to explore from that *maybe* they'd like
to stay in if they find the benefits are right for them, they're more
likely to stay than to flee once you open the gate when they leave
for college.
> I'm concerned about too much sugar at the wrong times of the day
> for my children. I'm thinking of their dental health, of getting
> hyper, or a sugar high with a subsequent drop...
>


Too much fear. You're creating solutions to problems that you only
fear will exist.

It's far easier to fear and prevent than to read to be informed and
take a chance. There's lots of information here. If you ask -- better
one question at a time rather than the broad topic of food! -- people
will share their real experiences.

> Is it still a way of controlling what the children eat when it's me
> doing the shopping?
>

I would bet that for most kids if we let them choose everything the
family would eat for the week they would get bored of the activity
after a week!

The bulk of what we provide will be of our choosing. Why wouldn't we
use our own values to create it? But that's just the foundation.
Accommodating their tastes and explorations is what will make it
appealing.

> When i bring them with me, they buy all the cereals in the shop and
> we can't fit them all in the cupboard! :-)


Money and physical space are realities. (Though too many parents warp
those with control and fear. Physically only having $5 for groceries
is different than mom deciding what the kids have picked out is "too
much".)

You could give them a certain amount to spend. (It should feel like a
fun challenge. If it feels like you arbitrarily limiting them, then
up the amount or find some other way.) You could ask them to each
pick one cereal so they don't get stale (and follow through on a
promise to get more next time.) Rather than thinking in terms of
responding to whims, think in terms of meeting their needs. This is
tricky! Our own needs for them can get in the way. Exploring
different cereals is fun. 10 boxes of cereal getting stale isn't a
need. It's just poor planning.

Joyce








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

carnationsgalore

> As parents and adults, we have learned what is healthy, we know
> what is good for us.

Who is we? When and how did you learn this? In my home, food is food. I keep a wide range of foods because I like to have choices and believe my children should be treated no differently. They are as likely to choose cheese & crackers, fruit, eggs, and meat as they are to choose cookies and candy. There are people who just won't believe this and think my kids are very different from others. I think my kids are reacting to a respectful attitude in our home.

> Then why is it not "unschoolish" to talk to your children about
> that and tell them why certain things are better or worse? And
> eliminate certain things from the diet that we as parents believe
> are harmful?

I think sharing factual information in a calm unaccusing manner is good. I don't believe in passing on my fears and prejudices about anything. I can't think of a single harmful food item in my home. I have a feeling you are defining this differently.

> Our family has always had specific mealtimes, because I know when
> the children need food. And it's always at the same times of the
> day!

Consider the possibility that you have them trained to eat at those times of day. If they truly had the choice to eat what they want and when they want, they may fall off your schedule. Do you really fear that possibility?

> I know my children's dislikes and don't force these particular food
> items on them. But I have always thought that it was my "duty" as a
> parent to make sure that they had enough of everything and have
> made them finish their plates. I'm doing it much less now;-)

Good for not forcing disliked foods, bad for insisting on a clean plate. That is a great way to create overweight children, forcing them to eat beyond a feeling of satisfaction and into a place where they feel stuffed. The opposite of that is controlling the amount they are given and calling it quits when you think they have had enough. They may stay hungry which is not good for their bodies either.

> What about allergies?

I've known a couple of families with allergies. Their kids knew from an early age what foods would make them feel sick. They grow up in a home with parents who share that information. I never saw them desire the foods that made them feel sick. I can't imagine a parent deliberately keeping that information from the children. Parents can give allergy information with other adults that may share food with the child, but I would teach my children to speak for themselves as well.

> What about food additives, coloring, sweeteners and such. They are
> known to cause allergies, ADHD and what not. I am always reading
> labels making sure I don't buy the worse of these things. Shouldn't
> I do that?

I believe certain foods may react differently in different people, but I do not believe foods should be avoided for fear they will cause any specific reaction, unless that food has already been proven to be bad for that person. There could be a very long list of foods to avoid. Surely that would cause great anxiety, which can also be unhealthy.

> I'm concerned about too much sugar at the wrong times of the day
> for my children. I'm thinking of their dental health, of getting
> hyper, or a sugar high with a subsequent drop...

It's never been a problem for my children. Their dental checkups are always great. Our dentist lets them know some sugar is okay and that even he eat candy and cookies. Are you making an informed decision based on reading lots of studies or are you only reading the articles that confirm your fear of sugar?

> They can eat how much they want because I know once they are full,
> they will stop!

Didn't you say in a paragraph above that you made them finish their plate? How will they learn when they feel full if you have given them a preset amount of food?

> But I am really into healthy choices, organic food, getting the
> right nutrients.

I don't see a problem with buying things you like. I do see a problem with not buying things they like. See below.

> Is it still a way of controlling what the children eat when it's me
> doing the shopping? When i bring them with me, they buy all the
> cereals in the shop and we can't fit them all in the cupboard! :-)

Yes, I do see it as controlling. You are saying that you are the only one choosing which foods come into the house, how much and when the children eat. Were you brought up that way? And is your excuse not to bring them shopping truly because you can't fit the food into your cupboard, or because you are afraid they will choose foods that you feel are harmful?

Beth M.

Sandra Dodd

> Our family has always had specific mealtimes, because I know when
> the children need food. And it's always at the same times of the
> day!

Consider the possibility that you have them trained to eat at those
times of day. If they truly had the choice to eat what they want and
when they want, they may fall off your schedule. Do you really fear
that possibility?

-----------------------------
Good questions.

True that children need food.
Not true that it's always going to be the same times of the day that
they "need food."

How old are the kids with the three hour meal schedule? Do they wake
up hungry at night? How many meals a day is that?



Sandra

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Nancy Wooton

On Oct 5, 2009, at 5:18 AM, Joyce Fetteroll wrote:

> Exploring
> different cereals is fun. 10 boxes of cereal getting stale isn't a
> need. It's just poor planning.

That's when those single-serving boxes come in handy -- lots of
choices, including ones you wouldn't normally buy, but not enough to
get stale.

Nancy

Pam Sorooshian

> And eliminate certain things from the diet that we
> > as parents believe are harmful?
>

First - our "beliefs" might be wrong. Nutrition "knowledge" can be very
faddish and even scientific understanding of nutrition has changed many
many times over the years. I have a friend who imposed a macrobiotic
diet on her family for years - very very strictly adhered to - and the
kids ended up with health problems that were directly due to their diet.
She was sure that was THE most healthy diet. They never shared food at
potlucks - brought their own. On the surface, the diet looked fantastic
- I saw them eating lots of green leafy stuff and brown rice. But it
turned out to be missing some very essential nutrients.

Lots of people think sugar makes kids hyper -- but scientific studies
have shown that's an old wives' tale.

How MANY kids have their diets restricted by parents who hold false
beliefs about nutrition?

Second - a little of just about anything won't hurt. Even really poor
nutrition has its effect only over time, it isn't like eating potato
chips is going to cause obesity today. It is the overall pattern of
eating, over months and years, that causes health problems. So - relax
and let kids experiement with different foods - let them explore and
enjoy. Provide a wide variety of healthy and appealing foods rather than
restricting foods. If kids want potato chips, have those available, but
maybe also have those little baby carrots and some yummy dip, for that
kind of munchy eating, too.

Third - restricting ANYTHING that is desired makes it more desirable.
This is called "marginal utility" and it works like this. Imagine you
have an unlimited supply of something you like - pizza, maybe? It is cut
into very small slices. You have a slice - it is delicious - you enjoy
every bite a lot. So you decide to have a second slice. It is also super
good, but maybe not quite as absolutely wonderfully delicious as the
first slice, right? You're not quite as hungry, plus you already had
one, so it isn't a new and surprisingly delicious taste. But - still it
is super good. So - you have a third slice. This time you're not that
hungry, plus you've had two slices already so there is a sort of
been-there-done-that feeling to it. Want a fourth slice? Maybe you'd
rather have some salad.

So, if something is SO delicious - why don't you just keep eating
forever? Because there is diminishing marginal utility. The value to
you, the pleasure you get, from each additional slice of pizza, gets
smaller as you have more and more additional slices.

So - you eat pizza until the marginal utility of one more slice is lower
than the marginal utility of something else. imagine we only let you
have one - no more! Then your desire for more is based on the value the
second slice would have for you. Still quite high marginal utility. You
will seem to "crave" more. You mother <G> will claim that you'd eat it
forever and never eat anything else. You'll ACT like that's all you want
- more pizza.

Restricting foods that you think are less healthy means you
automatically make them more appealing - you make the expected marginal
utility high so that's the thing the child really really wants. It kind
of warps their own sense of what they really like because you introduce
control and power into what would otherwise be just a food choice.

-pam

DJ250

Tee Hee! This reminds me of "Bread and Jam for Frances"!

~Melissa, in MD :)

----- Original Message -----
From: Pam Sorooshian
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] About food



> And eliminate certain things from the diet that we
> > as parents believe are harmful?
>

First - our "beliefs" might be wrong. Nutrition "knowledge" can be very
faddish and even scientific understanding of nutrition has changed many
many times over the years. I have a friend who imposed a macrobiotic
diet on her family for years - very very strictly adhered to - and the
kids ended up with health problems that were directly due to their diet.
She was sure that was THE most healthy diet. They never shared food at
potlucks - brought their own. On the surface, the diet looked fantastic
- I saw them eating lots of green leafy stuff and brown rice. But it
turned out to be missing some very essential nutrients.

Lots of people think sugar makes kids hyper -- but scientific studies
have shown that's an old wives' tale.

How MANY kids have their diets restricted by parents who hold false
beliefs about nutrition?

Second - a little of just about anything won't hurt. Even really poor
nutrition has its effect only over time, it isn't like eating potato
chips is going to cause obesity today. It is the overall pattern of
eating, over months and years, that causes health problems. So - relax
and let kids experiement with different foods - let them explore and
enjoy. Provide a wide variety of healthy and appealing foods rather than
restricting foods. If kids want potato chips, have those available, but
maybe also have those little baby carrots and some yummy dip, for that
kind of munchy eating, too.

Third - restricting ANYTHING that is desired makes it more desirable.
This is called "marginal utility" and it works like this. Imagine you
have an unlimited supply of something you like - pizza, maybe? It is cut
into very small slices. You have a slice - it is delicious - you enjoy
every bite a lot. So you decide to have a second slice. It is also super
good, but maybe not quite as absolutely wonderfully delicious as the
first slice, right? You're not quite as hungry, plus you already had
one, so it isn't a new and surprisingly delicious taste. But - still it
is super good. So - you have a third slice. This time you're not that
hungry, plus you've had two slices already so there is a sort of
been-there-done-that feeling to it. Want a fourth slice? Maybe you'd
rather have some salad.

So, if something is SO delicious - why don't you just keep eating
forever? Because there is diminishing marginal utility. The value to
you, the pleasure you get, from each additional slice of pizza, gets
smaller as you have more and more additional slices.

So - you eat pizza until the marginal utility of one more slice is lower
than the marginal utility of something else. imagine we only let you
have one - no more! Then your desire for more is based on the value the
second slice would have for you. Still quite high marginal utility. You
will seem to "crave" more. You mother <G> will claim that you'd eat it
forever and never eat anything else. You'll ACT like that's all you want
- more pizza.

Restricting foods that you think are less healthy means you
automatically make them more appealing - you make the expected marginal
utility high so that's the thing the child really really wants. It kind
of warps their own sense of what they really like because you introduce
control and power into what would otherwise be just a food choice.

-pam






------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.420 / Virus Database: 270.14.3/2414 - Release Date: 10/04/09 18:42:00


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Jenny Cyphers

>>>Lots of people think sugar makes kids hyper -- but scientific studies
have shown that's an old wives' tale.>>>

When I was babysitting the neighbor girl, the first thing she'd do when she came over was get into the pantry to find candy. Ironically, my daughter had gone to the grocery store with them once and had taken her own money and gotten a huge bag of candy from the bulk bins. She didn't eat much of it, but their child did.
So, a week or so went by, with her eating all this candy. One day, mom came to pick her up and she was eating some. Her mom freaked a little and pulled me aside to tell me that she shouldn't eat any more candy because she is only allowed one or two pieces of candy at any given time and certainly not everyday because it makes her daughter hyper and unable to go to sleep.
The thing is, though, the mom hadn't known that her daughter had eaten candy every day and way more than one or two pieces. If she hadn't seen it happening, she never would've known or even guessed, because it didn't cause hyperness.
The girl told me once that she never goes to sleep right away anyway because she can't sleep before 11. Her body simply won't fall asleep before 11, no matter how hard she tries. She went on to say that part of the reason is that she feels lonely and scared all by herself in her room.
Mom could correlate candy and hyper wakefulness, but it has more to do with scared loneliness. Fear of candy and hyper wakefulness was just a way to find a reason other than the totally obvious, to me, one, for why her daughter stays awake. To the mom, it seemed a logical correlation, candy equals staying awake.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Marina DeLuca-Howard

I am not sure the idea that sugar makes kids hyper is an old wives tale--it
seems to have somehow come out of the medical community or perhaps it is an
old teacher's tale? I have never heard an elderly woman say sugar makes
anyone hyper:)

Old wives used sugar as medicine, as a treat, and for lots of things I don't
know about I am sure. My grandma always dissolved sugar in a glass of water
as a cure for tummy aches for me as a child.

We celebrate with various yummy sugar laden foods all the time--birthdays,
holidays and just because. We also eat lots of other things.

Last week my youngest remarked, casually at lunch, he likes vegetarian
food. I clarified he was referring to green beans, and as far as he was
concerned vegetables were vegetarian food. Yes, vegetarian food. Because
of course only vegetarians can eat veggies! At which point I supplied
information that people were omnivores--meaning they can eat lots of things
besides meat and vegetables. He shrugged and continued eating happily.

There was ice cream in the fridge, cookies, and other food available but he
was really enjoying sitting eating veggies with me. The meat sandwich sat
untouched, even though he had requested it and been annoyed I chose to sit
with him eating some veggies. I seemed to be enjoying my food so much he
thought he would try it and it turned out to be tasty or something he needed
at the moment. He had had waffles slathered in whipped cream, and maple
syrup for breakfast. His mind wanted meat and bread out of habit at lunch,
with apple slices or fruit--but his body went for the greens. He at the
sandwich later in the day. The opportunity to eat healthy foods is
available. As an adult thats what I eat most of the time, and the
opportunity to eat treats is always available, too.

Processed meat wasn't always around--I don't eat it and my dh finds it salty
and kind of greasy. I used to feed them leftover chicken or cheese or egg
salad, or peanut butter in sandwiches. That is what we had. So, when it
was available my kids loved to eat processed meat in large quantities. They
asked for it at home and I bought it, so at first they ate lots of it. Ie I
could have fed them a steak or a chicken at that price--and in my head I
thought they were eating inferior processed foods. But now that I am aware
they want it, I buy more of it, and focus on nitrite free oven roasted
chicken/turkey or roast beef slices. It works for me who tries to limit
additives, and the kids who aren't wanting the additives just the meat in
tasty easy to use slices have cut back and are now enjoying other foods!

Marina
2009/10/5 DJ250 <dj250@...>

>
>
> Tee Hee! This reminds me of "Bread and Jam for Frances"!
>
> ~Melissa, in MD :)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Pam Sorooshian
> To: [email protected] <AlwaysLearning%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 12:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] About food
>
> > And eliminate certain things from the diet that we
> > > as parents believe are harmful?
> >
>
> First - our "beliefs" might be wrong. Nutrition "knowledge" can be very
> faddish and even scientific understanding of nutrition has changed many
> many times over the years. I have a friend who imposed a macrobiotic
> diet on her family for years - very very strictly adhered to - and the
> kids ended up with health problems that were directly due to their diet.
> She was sure that was THE most healthy diet. They never shared food at
> potlucks - brought their own. On the surface, the diet looked fantastic
> - I saw them eating lots of green leafy stuff and brown rice. But it
> turned out to be missing some very essential nutrients.
>
> Lots of people think sugar makes kids hyper -- but scientific studies
> have shown that's an old wives' tale.
>
> How MANY kids have their diets restricted by parents who hold false
> beliefs about nutrition?
>
> Second - a little of just about anything won't hurt. Even really poor
> nutrition has its effect only over time, it isn't like eating potato
> chips is going to cause obesity today. It is the overall pattern of
> eating, over months and years, that causes health problems. So - relax
> and let kids experiement with different foods - let them explore and
> enjoy. Provide a wide variety of healthy and appealing foods rather than
> restricting foods. If kids want potato chips, have those available, but
> maybe also have those little baby carrots and some yummy dip, for that
> kind of munchy eating, too.
>
> Third - restricting ANYTHING that is desired makes it more desirable.
> This is called "marginal utility" and it works like this. Imagine you
> have an unlimited supply of something you like - pizza, maybe? It is cut
> into very small slices. You have a slice - it is delicious - you enjoy
> every bite a lot. So you decide to have a second slice. It is also super
> good, but maybe not quite as absolutely wonderfully delicious as the
> first slice, right? You're not quite as hungry, plus you already had
> one, so it isn't a new and surprisingly delicious taste. But - still it
> is super good. So - you have a third slice. This time you're not that
> hungry, plus you've had two slices already so there is a sort of
> been-there-done-that feeling to it. Want a fourth slice? Maybe you'd
> rather have some salad.
>
> So, if something is SO delicious - why don't you just keep eating
> forever? Because there is diminishing marginal utility. The value to
> you, the pleasure you get, from each additional slice of pizza, gets
> smaller as you have more and more additional slices.
>
> So - you eat pizza until the marginal utility of one more slice is lower
> than the marginal utility of something else. imagine we only let you
> have one - no more! Then your desire for more is based on the value the
> second slice would have for you. Still quite high marginal utility. You
> will seem to "crave" more. You mother <G> will claim that you'd eat it
> forever and never eat anything else. You'll ACT like that's all you want
> - more pizza.
>
> Restricting foods that you think are less healthy means you
> automatically make them more appealing - you make the expected marginal
> utility high so that's the thing the child really really wants. It kind
> of warps their own sense of what they really like because you introduce
> control and power into what would otherwise be just a food choice.
>
> -pam
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.420 / Virus Database: 270.14.3/2414 - Release Date: 10/04/09
> 18:42:00
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>



--
Rent our cottage: http://davehoward.ca/cottage/


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sandra Dodd

-=-I am not sure the idea that sugar makes kids hyper is an old wives
tale--it
seems to have somehow come out of the medical community or perhaps it
is an
old teacher's tale? I have never heard an elderly woman say sugar makes
anyone hyper:)=-

I was thinking "young wives' tale" when I read that, too. <g>

Sandra

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

BRIAN POLIKOWSKY

In Brazil when someone gets bad news, is having any type of anxiety or when a child is scared OR someone for that matter had a scare we give them a glass of sugar water to calm them down.
That was when I was growing up anyways could be different now with all the "sugar scare around".
 
Alex Polikowsky
http://polykow.blogspot.com/

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unschoolingmn/
 





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Pam Sorooshian

On 10/5/2009 12:23 PM, Marina DeLuca-Howard wrote:
> I am not sure the idea that sugar makes kids hyper is an old wives tale--it
> seems to have somehow come out of the medical community or perhaps it is an
> old teacher's tale? I have never heard an elderly woman say sugar makes
> anyone hyper:)
>
I've been hearing this sugar/hyperactivity link nonsense from other
moms since my kids were little (my oldest daughter is about to turn 25
years old). I think it is still mostly moms who are passing around that
little nugget of (non)wisdom.

I'm a senior citizen at Denny's (age limit is 55 years old there and I'm
57).

We had a big hoopla at homeschool park day once when someone objected to
anybody bringing anything with sugar in it because sugar made HER kids
hyper and she didn't think it was fair for other moms to give their kids
cookies when her kids couldn't have any. That was about 12 years ago.

What struck me is that nobody argued about whether sugar would actually
make her kids hyper. All the hoopla was about whether others should
deprive their kids of sugar to make her kids feel better about being
deprived.

-pam

Sandra Dodd

-=In Brazil when someone gets bad news, is having any type of anxiety
or when a child is scared OR someone for that matter had a scare we
give them a glass of sugar water to calm them down.-=-

I drink sweet tea to wake up. That's caffeinated sugar water. <g>

Sandra

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Robyn L. Coburn

<<<<When i bring them with me, they buy all the cereals in the shop and we
can't fit them all in the cupboard! >>>>>

Clearly they'd like more, and more variety of, cereals.

<<<<< As parents and adults, we have learned what is healthy, we know what
is good for us.>>>>>

If this were true in general we wouldn't have a multibillion dollar weight
loss industry in the developed world, with untold programs and products and
pills and places to go to lose weight. We wouldn't have Ana and bulimia and
language like "I was bad. I ate two cookies".

I'm not sure that we adults (living with the legacy of conventional
parenting) even know what is bad for us, let alone what is good for us.


Robyn L. Coburn
www.Iggyjingles.etsy.com
www.iggyjingles.blogspot.com
www.allthingsdoll.blogspot.com

Robin Bentley

When I was young and couldn't sleep because of growing pains, my mum
(Canadian of British descent) got me a spoonful of Lyle's Golden
Syrup. It worked like a charm!

I remember the picture on the can, but didn't really have any idea
what its origin was. I looked it up on Wikipedia. Apparently, it's
from a biblical story about Samson in which bees formed a honeycomb in
the body of a dead lion. Oh... and here I thought it was a sleeping
lion who'd maybe eaten some honey!

Robin B.

On Oct 5, 2009, at 1:25 PM, BRIAN POLIKOWSKY wrote:

> In Brazil when someone gets bad news, is having any type of anxiety
> or when a child is scared OR someone for that matter had a scare we
> give them a glass of sugar water to calm them down.
> That was when I was growing up anyways could be different now with
> all the "sugar scare around".
>
> Alex Polikowsky
> http://polykow.blogspot.com/
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unschoolingmn/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Jenny Cyphers

>>>What about allergies? Do children with peanut allergies automatically know to steer away from food with traces of peanuts? Parents need to watch out for them still right?>>>

I grew up in a non dairy house. I'm allergic to dairy, so is my sister and so is my dad. I was never even allowed to eat birthday cake at someone else's birthday party because it all had dairy in it. I never got to experience the cause and effect of what it was like to eat dairy and get sick, until I was an adult and binged on those things.

What I did know without a doubt as a kid was that I really hated beef and pork. I hated it with a passion and was forced to eat it because it was good for me and cost money and it was the food that was provided for me. I remember my dad and my grandmother fighting about it when she would visit. My grandma would always say that I shouldn't be forced to eat it if I didn't want to. So all these years later I ended up in the hospital, after my body shut down and refused to function like normal. I was still nursing at the time, so I didn't take the drs up on their steroid treatments. I went to a naturopath instead. The first thing she did was check for allergies. Guess what came up as a huge big time allergy? That's right, beef and pork. After completely eliminating it from my diet, I can't eat even a small amount without getting VERY sick, and it's immediate.

The point is that, if given the choice as a child, I wouldn't have eaten those things, and I would've tried and seen for myself that dairy was bad too. AND maybe, just maybe I wouldn't have the crazy allergic reaction to those things now, maybe I'd still be able to eat those things in moderation, but instead I must avoid these things or suffer severely. Nor would I have ended up in the hospital with a huge hospital bill.

Chamille, 15, has discovered on her own that eggs make her sick, she won't eat them. Margaux, 8, can handle small amounts of dairy, but there are times when she won't eat any at all and she WILL pass on ice cream. I don't tell my kids what to eat. I do tell them if something has eggs or dairy in it and to what extent it does. They make the choice. It's their bodies, they live with the consequences of their choices, good and bad. They make good choices more often than bad choices in the food allergy arena. Sometimes Margaux does want ice cream, and she eats it joyfully and we help her feel better if she feels badly afterward.

>>>What about food additives, coloring, sweeteners and such. They are known to cause allergies, ADHD and what not. I am always reading labels making sure I don't buy the worse of these things. Shouldn't I do that?>>>

Genetics more than anything cause food allergies. Food additives, coloring, sweeteners, none of those things cause food allergies. Sometimes people can be allergic to those things though.

ADHD isn't caused by food either, it's more of an environmental factor than anything else. There a many accounts of kids with ADHD being taken out of school and suddenly the symptoms are gone. If a kid is left to fidget and focus on what they want to, they won't be hyper and unfocused because they are being forced to pay attention to something they have no interest in. Kids should not be sitting still all day focusing on adult like activities. Their bodies and brains aren't meant for that. Some kids can get through it, but other kids can't at all, and it's not because they have a disorder, it's because the environment isn't suited to that child's needs.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

carnationsgalore

> I used to feed them leftover chicken or cheese or egg
> salad, or peanut butter in sandwiches.

While this isn't the same thing, seeing your list of foods reminded me of something I learned about on this list. Sandra once mentioned a monkey platter, a plate with lots of different finger foods. It's great for my son who is often so busy with his video games that he forgets to eat. It's great for my youngest daughter who loves to snack while watching tv or reading. And my oldest daughter makes them for herself most of the time to snack on while she's on the computer playing games and talking to her friends. I usually put meat, cheese, fruit and cookies out. All the food is usually eaten, not just the cookies. Sometimes they don't finish the food and that's okay too. I can put less on the plate and refill it as needed. :)

Beth M.

Alyson Camacho

I can't really tell you what is right in your home. I tend to believe
strongly in balancing good information with mama-instincts and with
familial discussion. The end that each of our families come to will
often times be different. I can share my story to share how I tried to
find the balance between doing what I felt was best at the time and
trying to honor my daughter as an intelligent and capable being in
charge of her own path. It was neither a perfect example or an epic
fail, it was the sometimes shakey line we found on our path together.

When my middle daughter was little I did restrict some food. Not from
the start mind you, I started out never commenting on food choices. My
oldest was fine with that process. My middle started getting really
sick about the time she chose to wean. Not playing, laying listlessly,
vomitting 10 minutes after eating. Things no mama likes to see. It got
worse and worse, specialists were visited and eventually we found her
body was over run with Aspergillis Niger, a fungus. It is used in the
processed food industry as a fermenting agent. It was odd, because on
the whole we ate primarily whole foods. Her body just didn't expel
this fungus as others seem to be able to do and her body just reacts
violently to it. The fungus had attacked her ears and caused so many
problems in them and in her gut.

So for a couple years I got tight, probably overly so. I made a lot of
desserts, but never allowed convenience foods. We talked, I explained,
information was key- but it seriously sucked for both of us. It wasn't
in my nature, and I doubt it was happy for her. I avoided being around
such foods, I tried hard to avoid actually having to say no... I
brought something to distract her at the checkout rather than have to
say no at the check out for example...But kids are smart, I think she
knew all those colorful wrappers at the store weren't something we
could choose.

Around age 4 distraction became less effective and we started talking
more and more... For awhile we would read labels together and she was
happy find compromises with me of those colorful labels. I think
around 5 she wanted something I knew would make her sick. She didn't
care that it had HFCS (something fermented with above mentioned
fungus). Me not being a "no" type by nature gave her the information,
but when she perservered I said that it was ultimately her choice. She
ate it, and I drove home as fast as safely possible. We got home, she
got sick, and stayed in bed that day and much of the next.

Repeat that scenario quite a few times over the following year and we
eventually got back to label reading together to find options that
don't have her biggest triggers. Now at age 6, what I had gathered as
a truth she now shares. Maybe because she got to experience it for
herself. It is no longer what I believe to be true, but it is what she
also believes to be true. She now is the one making that choice. While
I felt it was important that I help look out for her for a time, I
felt it also had to be balanced with giving her the control of her
diet as she came to understand. But that comes with the price of
allowing them the freedom to truly understand, not just understand our
word.

She is a candy lover, of this there is no doubt. It has been accused
that this is because I tried so hard to hide such food from her when
she was 2-4. Maybe that is it, or maybe she resents being limited by
her own body, or maybe she simply likes how it tastes. I like sugar
too, honestly.

Whatever the reason, she is who she is. She would have had to discover
this for herself- age 5, 15 or 20. The only thing I did differently
than some others is given up control so she was free to figure her
body out for herself earlier in life. And I'm no expert on this, I do
struggle with how much information to give about dietary choices. I
sometimes have to remind myself to back off. I'm honest with my kids
about that. But I think it is all a balance... you know?

This is sort of off topic, and I in no way intend to suggest that any
one religious choice is better than another. Just sharing. My Dad was
a liberal hippy type. He ended up a single father when my mom ran off,
and he converted to conservative Christianity. Probably because he
needed community, and most largely because he felt that it was his
"duty" as a father to do as his parents did and provide us morals and
ethics- to him religion seemed the dutiful thing to do for us. It was
very heavily pushed on us as our only choice in life. (It was a small
religious group that excommunicates those who don't follow to the
letter). As soon as we were teenagers and could drive ourselves, he
quit going and once we left home he slowly went back to being "him".
Both my brother and me are non-religious, we're both socially liberal
and stopped attending in our early twenties. My Dad could have saved
himself a lot of heartache by just being him, and letting us be us. He
reverted back to thinking he had to be the dutiful parent who does X,
Y, and Z to be a good parent. But the truth was, for all that pushing
us into one lifestyle- we eventually found our own truths anyway. I
think the message is to let your kids find their own truths, not that
you don't have to be positive mentors and share information. Sometimes
it is important to rethink what we interpret our "duty" to be as
parents.

Aly






On Monday, October 5, 2009, Pam Sorooshian <pamsoroosh@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 10/5/2009 12:23 PM, Marina DeLuca-Howard wrote:
>> I am not sure the idea that sugar makes kids hyper is an old wives tale--it
>> seems to have somehow come out of the medical community or perhaps it is an
>> old teacher's tale? I have never heard an elderly woman say sugar makes
>> anyone hyper:)
>>
> I've been hearing this sugar/hyperactivity link nonsense from other
> moms since my kids were little (my oldest daughter is about to turn 25
> years old). I think it is still mostly moms who are passing around that
> little nugget of (non)wisdom.
>
> I'm a senior citizen at Denny's (age limit is 55 years old there and I'm
> 57).
>
> We had a big hoopla at homeschool park day once when someone objected to
> anybody bringing anything with sugar in it because sugar made HER kids
> hyper and she didn't think it was fair for other moms to give their kids
> cookies when her kids couldn't have any. That was about 12 years ago.
>
> What struck me is that nobody argued about whether sugar would actually
> make her kids hyper. All the hoopla was about whether others should
> deprive their kids of sugar to make her kids feel better about being
> deprived.
>
> -pam
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

adesah

--- In [email protected], Jenny Cyphers <jenstarc4@...> wrote:
>
> >>>What about allergies? Do children with peanut allergies automatically know to steer away from food with traces of peanuts? Parents need to watch out for them still right?>>>
>

<<<SNIP>>>

>It's their bodies, they live with the consequences of their choices, good and bad. They make good choices more often than bad choices in the food allergy arena. Sometimes Margaux does want ice cream, and she eats it joyfully and we help her feel better if she feels badly afterward.
>


My son made the choice once, when he was small, to eat peanut butter. He had to be rushed to the ER and almost died fro anaphylactic shock. So, until he was old enough to understand, I made the choice for him to not eat peanuts. It might be his body, but *neither* of us could have lived with his choice if he had eaten peanuts again.

Now that he's older, of course, he understands and is much better about asking at restaurants and checking ingredient listings than I am. In fact, he can't stand the smell of peanuts and doesn't even like the substitutes I've given him to try. So yes, he knows and understands and can make his own choices. But there were several years there when I made the choices for him.

OTOH, he has other food allergies that are not life-threatening. When he was little, we kept him away from them in the hopes that he would outgrow the allergies (which often happens, though not for my ds). Now, I let him know when those ingredients are in something I've made, and he chooses whether he can handle not feeling well that day.

Personally, I don't think there are many absolutes in life; I don't think a blanket statement can be made about many things. So the question, to me, is where is the line? I agree that children do, when left to make their own decisions regarding food, generally choose what their bodies need and is good for them. But this type of situation (parental control of life-threatening allergies in a young child), IMHO, is not disrespectful to the child.

But how does that fit with unschooling?

Adesa

bradj

--- In [email protected], "adesah" <2homeboys@...> wrote:

> My son made the choice once, when he was small, to eat peanut butter. He had to be rushed to the ER and almost died fro anaphylactic shock. So, until he was old enough to understand, I made the choice for him to not eat peanuts. It might be his body, but *neither* of us could have lived with his choice if he had eaten peanuts again.

Are you certain it was a case that he *needed* to be *rushed* to the ER and *almost* died?

I ask because as a loving parent, I sometimes panic when panic really isn't always necessary. And I think the medical profession is one where they have to cover their own butts so they stress how dangerous everything is and how careful we must be when in reality it isn't really that dangerous and we don't really have to be that careful.

Brad Jones

Joyce Fetteroll

On Oct 6, 2009, at 8:30 AM, adesah wrote:

> But this type of situation (parental control of life-threatening
> allergies in a young child), IMHO, is not disrespectful to the child.

Kids want us to keep them safe. I think you'd be pretty ticked off if
your husband stood by and watched you unwittingly step off the edge
of a path into a ditch!

I think most parents control kids until they feel the kids will make
the "right" choices -- eg, the same choice the parent would. Often
that never comes because the kids are so fighting the control that
they don't want anything other than what they can't have!

Maybe it makes it clearer to think in terms of protecting them until
they can understand and make informed choices? Be their partner,
someone who will help them safely explore the world.

Most allergies don't put kids in anaphylactic shock. If a child with
a sever peanut allergy who understands but wants to explore peanuts
knowing they could die, I'd suspect they're fighting against control.

With most allergies kids can test their reactions periodically --
since they often change with age -- or can decide the bad reactions
will be worth it this time.

Joyce

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

carnationsgalore

> But this type of situation (parental control of life-threatening
> allergies in a young child), IMHO, is not disrespectful to the child.
> But how does that fit with unschooling?

I am certain that no one on this list is advocating you let a child choose a situation that is a life-threatening one. The safety of our children is important. I've seen people bash unschooling because they think we let our children do anything they want, even playing in the street. That is plain silly. We love our children. What unschoolers will do is try to satisfy the underlying need our children are asking for. Perhaps the child who wants to play in the street just wants a huge place to run around in, or a large concrete area to bike or skateboard. We can help them find a safe way to fulfill that need.

Beth M.

Sandra Dodd

-=-Personally, I don't think there are many absolutes in life; I don't
think a blanket statement can be made about many things.-=-

This list isn't all of life. It's a discussion of the principles
behind unschooling, and on the attitudes and behaviors that will help
parents heal their own childhood hurts and prevent similar hurts in
their own children. There are some things that do absolutely harm
the chances of unschooling succeeding in a family. Here's a big, fun
list of them:
http://sandradodd.com/screwitup


-=-So the question, to me, is where is the line? I agree that children
do, when left to make their own decisions regarding food, generally
choose what their bodies need and is good for them. -=-

Not "generally." If they truly and fully have choices, why would they
choose something their bodies don't need or that isn't good for
them? They might eat cake at a party, but they won't eat a whole
cake just because they can. They might taste pork rinds, but they
won't down a whole package, as many adults I know can and will do,
because they can, because it makes them feel "adult" and free and no
one will stop them.


-=-But this type of situation (parental control of life-threatening
allergies in a young child), IMHO, is not disrespectful to the child. -
=-

No one is advocating that parents provide life-threatening foods or
activities to children. Use of the word "control" will prevent
consideration of words that involve choices and communications,
though. If one person is in control, someone else is being
controlled. It's worth reconsidering.

-=-But how does that fit with unschooling?-=-

It depends on the words and thoughts and actions and attitudes of the
parent doing the "controlling" or advising or limiting or
substitutions. Is it done in an adversarial way, as a superior owner
to a helpless nothingness of a child? That doesn't fit with
unschooling. If the parent is kind, sympathetic, and advising out of
love for a real person, then it's a whole different situation.

Sandra




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

adesah

--- In [email protected], "bradj" <bhmjones@...> wrote:
>
> Are you certain it was a case that he *needed* to be *rushed* to the ER and *almost* died?
>
> I ask because as a loving parent, I sometimes panic when panic really isn't always necessary. And I think the medical profession is one where they have to cover their own butts so they stress how dangerous everything is and how careful we must be when in reality it isn't really that dangerous and we don't really have to be that careful.
>


Uh... yeah. It was a life-threatening situation. Luckily, though, his extreme reaction is not particularly sensitive (at least, as far as peanut allergies go). He can be around peanuts and people who have eaten them; he just can't ingest them himself. Though his girlfriend gave them up when they started dating -- just to be safe, lol. ;o)

Adesa

Jenny Cyphers

>>>I tend to believe strongly in balancing good information with mama-instincts and with familial discussion.>>>

This is good on the whole, and I think most parents who unschool would be able to do this fine, but there are plenty of people who don't have good mama-instincts. There are plenty of mamas who spank and ground and shame and blame their kids. There are some moms who unschool and control food because of their mama-instincts.

>>>It got worse and worse, specialists were visited and eventually we found her body was over run with Aspergillis Niger, a fungus. It is used in the processed food industry as a fermenting agent. >>>

More than the food industry, though, it's all over the environment. While avoiding high fructose corn syrup, and other things made specifically with that fungus, is probably a good idea, there is no way to avoid that fungus completely, especially if you live anywhere near an agricultural area.

If it were me, my focus would be on immune building things. People with normal, healthy immune systems are able to pass that fungus through their bodies without problems.

Scientific data changes all the time. Medical information changes all the time. Kid's bodies change all the time.

If we live in fear of the world, we'll find ways to protect ourselves and our children from it. If we live openly engaging the world, the focus becomes, not of protecting ourselves, but of finding ways to live in it peacefully. If we tell ourselves that we can't do something and have reasons for believing this, then it must be true right?

I'm not trying to make light of another person's illness here, but it seems to me that if someone is sick, there are still many choices in which to live peacefully and fully without someone feeling lack. Unschooling works really well when all ideas are open to consideration, even ones that the parents think will be harmful. I don't accept medical opinions outright, or scientific data, or anything else for that matter. I like to question everything.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

carnationsgalore

> Unschooling works really well when all ideas are open to
> consideration, even ones that the parents think will be harmful.
> I don't accept medical opinions outright, or scientific data, or
> anything else for that matter. I like to question everything.

This is also true of labeling in any form. I remember debating, or rather trying to argue, on this list about the Asperger' label given to my son. It really stuck fast in my mind causing me to view anything and everything related to my son with that label in mind. I was just learning about unschooling and this label was another reason I had problems really getting the unschooling concept.

In talking to other parents and reading books about Aspergers, I was positive that unschooling was not a good thing for my son. All I could focus on was what he couldn't do. It took me a while to realize that thinking was hindering not only my understanding of unschooling, but affecting my relationship with my son. All people are unique and our lives can be so much better when we focus on the things we can do and want to do.

Beth M.

Sandra Dodd

-= I was positive that unschooling was not a good thing for my son.
All I could focus on was what he couldn't do. It took me a while to
realize that thinking was hindering not only my understanding of
unschooling, but affecting my relationship with my son. All people are
unique and our lives can be so much better when we focus on the things
we can do and want to do.-=-

Beth,
I'm glad you wrote that. It's hard for parents who have been glad to
"have a diagnosis" to come upon this coldhearted group of unschoolers
(so it must seem) who seem to be saying "Your child isn't special;
stop saying so," but what we're saying is that your child was special
before, and will be special always, and should be his own individual
self and learn in his own personal way. I can't say it as well as
you did, and I put your note here:
http://sandradodd.com/words/without

Sandra

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Alyson Camacho

*<<<<there are plenty of people who don't have good mama-instincts. There are plenty of mamas who spank and ground and shame and blame their kids.*

I hear what you are saying. I think there is a huge difference between instinct and natural reactions or learned cycles from our own upbringing though. I gain immense wisdom from others when something they say resonates so deeply that a lump grows in my throat because I know it applies to me.... and that feeling is more the instinct I was referring to... not our natural, unquestioned learned reactions.

I guess even though I naturally fell in to AP when my kids were babies and naturally fell in to unschooling as they grew- I still don't really believe in a set of standards or rules that I should live by because others think they know best. Like you said, data changes all the time. I don't believe in a ton of rules and regulations for my kids to live by, I guess I model that by living free as well. I usually only listen on lists because it seems to be a trend to demand a certain standard of each other that we'd never demand of our kids. Not that I mind, it's just that we share these little tiny snippets of our life. I summed 4 years up in a few paragraphs and it is impossible for anyone to get the whole picture that way. I only shared the points that would examplify how you can indeed let a child make choices that you wouldn't have made for them- and they would come out fine and happy.

*>>>** there is no way to avoid that fungus completely, especially if you live anywhere near an agricultural area.*

Of course not, you just do the best with what you are able to work with, right? And truly she doesn't have as bad of a problem in its natural biological state. It builds in her system, but she doesn't have the strong purging reaction.

*>>>>If it were me, my focus would be on immune building things. People with normal, healthy immune systems are able to pass that fungus through their bodies without problems.*

I was pumping milk (since she had started to wean) and giving it to her in a cup for years, literally. I'm really not sure what stronger immune building substance I could have given her. A nutritionist from the UK that we worked closely with had us try a myriad of dietary approaches to strengthen her system, especially in mineral content. Western Medicine was far from the first or only approach we took. Why does her body struggle with this fungus? I have no idea. I wish I did. I certainly don't fear her getting the fungus in her system, I just feel bummed when she isn't well, as any mother does. Most days she chooses acai berry, emergenC, omegas, and then some others more at random... If you know something else she could do to help build her immune system that would be wonderful, we're always open to hearing ideas. She does have epilepsy as well, perhaps that wears on her immune system.

IMO "people with healthy immune systems" feels like a heavy, loaded statement. I'm not going to eliminate any ideas, like I said above I'm open to that idea. But maybe you should be open to the idea that YOUR body and your truth is that all people with a healthy immune system can pass that fungus without a problem. Maybe they aren't. Maybe my daughter (who is rarely sick in "typical" ways) can both have a healthy immune system and have a body that simply doesn't work best with X, Y or Z for whatever reason. I'm one of those people who can pretty much eat anything I want without any reaction, and I don't get sick often at all. I grew up poor eating crap, and I'm fine. I'm not overweight, I'm not unhealthy. That is my truth. That doesn't mean it is my daughter's truth or experience.

*<<<<<Scientific data changes all the time. Medical information changes all the time. Kid's bodies change all the time.

If we live in fear of the world, we'll find ways to protect ourselves and our children from it. If we live openly engaging the world, the focus becomes, not of protecting ourselves, but of finding ways to live in it peacefully.*

Avoiding what makes you sick isn't fighting or fearing the world at all, it can be a part of living peacefully in it. I would imagine it is rather common in the animal kingdom. Just because other people eat something with this fungus doesn't mean we have to. We should each do for our body what feels best. For me that is part of living happily and embracing our world instead of feeling somehow in need or determined to find a way to eat said food that disagrees with you just because others can.

<<<<* it seems to me that if someone is sick, there are still many choices in which to live peacefully and fully without someone feeling lack. Unschooling works really well when all ideas are open to consideration, even ones that the parents think will be harmful. I don't accept medical opinions outright, or scientific data, or anything else for that matter. I like to question everything.*

Absolutely. And as I said, all ideas are open to consideration, even eating said food. Any other idea brought to the table would be welcome as well. Another idea just hasn't been presented in awhile. Not due to lack of interest, it just hasn't been found. I don't think she feels a lack. Eat something enough times and get that sick, it no longer even sounds appealing. According to her the food she's eaten and gotten sick from sounds repulsive now. She's figured out (and is figuring out) which foods feel good in her being and which don't. I brought her a gameboy to play with at stores to prolong the noticing of the shiny wrappers- but once she was interested we talked. There was no deprivation.

Robyn L. Coburn

<<<< Most days she chooses acai berry, emergenC, omegas, and then some
others more at random... >>>>

I would doubt that it is "random" although it may appear that way to an
observer. I would suggest that it is more likely an instinctive or intuitive
reaction or unconcious understanding of her body's needs for the particular
nutrients concentrated in those foods.

It is that ability to choose from instinct that I want to protect for my dd.
She has a non-life threatening peanut allergy that affects us not-at-all.

I remember when I was pregnant, I was sent to a nutritionist - long and
irrelevant story for another forum - but the relevant part was when she told
me a story about another patient, a mom to be who was chugging/craving
cranberry juice. The (skinny, skinny) nutritionist was concerned about
calories and discouraged the other mom. I immediately thought to myself that
the other mom was probably instinctively trying to stave off a yeast/candida
infection or touch of UTI, which we know cranberry juice is good for by
changing the pH of the relevant body parts. The only reason I wish I went
back to the nutritionist was to ask her how the other lady was doing, and
maybe learn if my thesis was right.

<<<Not that I mind, it's just that we share these little tiny snippets of
our life. I summed 4 years up in a few paragraphs and it is impossible for
anyone to get the whole picture that way. >>>>

Often we seem to hear stories of folks with medical issues framed as reasons
why unschooling or food or other freedoms can't work for that family. Much
of the time we are explaining that we can't use the genuine medical
restrictions of a tiny minority as the "standard of proof" of the principle,
or the protective life-saving practices as a good example to follow in the
absence of medical conditions.

In this case I think this is a great story of how it is possible to preserve
freedoms appropriately (what is Roya's phrase again, Pam?) even in the face
of medical challenges.

The longer I unschool and participate on these lists, the more I am
convinced that people's dietary preferences and beliefs about what is
correct nutritionally are actually based on whatever diet supports their
philosophical or moral beliefs. I include myself in that - I like science
and freedom, and I can easily find the current scientific literature and
research to support my pov about diet. (EG Michael Pollan, Barry Glassner.)
;)

Robyn L. Coburn
www.Iggyjingles.etsy.com
www.iggyjingles.blogspot.com
www.allthingsdoll.blogspot.com