Feeling conflicted about food
Shae
Hi everyone,
My name is Shae & I have 3 daughters. Tannah is almost 6, Willow is 3 1/2 & Harper is almost 2. We live in Melbourne, Australia & are really active in the local unschooling community.
I'm really struggling with some aspects of unschooling food & wanted to hear some thoughts.
My girls have absolute self-regulation when it comes to times they eat & amount as well as being able to choose "non traditional" choices like cereal for dinner etc but it feels very counter intuitive to purchase or not intervene when it comes to very artificial foods and lots of colours & preservatives.
I feel like I'm asking more than they are capable of self-regulating, that these "foods" are designed to be addictive & very very appealing through packaging etc. Also I can't deny the effect some of these additives have on my kids! Tantrums, tears and even nightmares-especially with Willow, she seems very sensitive to colours & preservatives.
On the other hand I really understand that by making these foods forbidden they will be more exciting & more likely to be gorged on when oppertunity arises. It doesn't feel comfortable to restrict their food choices but it doesn't feel comfortable to watch my kids eat bright yellow twisties either-nor to watch the aggression that often follows.
I'm conflicted!! Keen to discuss
Thanks
Shae
My name is Shae & I have 3 daughters. Tannah is almost 6, Willow is 3 1/2 & Harper is almost 2. We live in Melbourne, Australia & are really active in the local unschooling community.
I'm really struggling with some aspects of unschooling food & wanted to hear some thoughts.
My girls have absolute self-regulation when it comes to times they eat & amount as well as being able to choose "non traditional" choices like cereal for dinner etc but it feels very counter intuitive to purchase or not intervene when it comes to very artificial foods and lots of colours & preservatives.
I feel like I'm asking more than they are capable of self-regulating, that these "foods" are designed to be addictive & very very appealing through packaging etc. Also I can't deny the effect some of these additives have on my kids! Tantrums, tears and even nightmares-especially with Willow, she seems very sensitive to colours & preservatives.
On the other hand I really understand that by making these foods forbidden they will be more exciting & more likely to be gorged on when oppertunity arises. It doesn't feel comfortable to restrict their food choices but it doesn't feel comfortable to watch my kids eat bright yellow twisties either-nor to watch the aggression that often follows.
I'm conflicted!! Keen to discuss
Thanks
Shae
Sandra Dodd
Others will have other ideas, but of all the post what I think would help is if you would think of what your girls have, and what you have in deciding how to proceed, is choices. Not "self-regulation" (you used "self-regulation" and "self-regulating), but an infinite number of choices.
http://sandradodd.com/self-regulation
http://sandradodd.com/choice
Sandra
http://sandradodd.com/self-regulation
http://sandradodd.com/choice
Sandra
wtexans
===Also I can't deny the effect some of these additives have on my kids!===
Have you done an elimination diet, so that you are positive it's the additives that cause the "tantrums, tears, and nightmares"? You are *sure* there are no other reasons for those behaviors, such as being tired or needing food or any of the other reasons that can bring forth unhappines within a person?
===these "foods" are designed to be addictive & very very appealing through packaging etc===
I disagree with the "addictive" part, but I do agree that ALL foods are designed to be appealing.
Apple growers certainly hope that their apples appeal to us enough that we want to buy more!!
The produce department of our local grocery store is THE MOST appealing part of the store, visually. Not just to me, but to my son, as well -- a kid who loves potato chips and soda, but who, when grocery shopping with me, will choose way more produce *because of* it's visual appeal than he will potato chips or soda.
It does a disservice to your children to assume they don't, or won't, pick up on the fact that processed foods are packaged to be visually appealing so that you'll buy them. My son's chosen packaged foods because of the packaging and has had his share of "blah"- or "yuck"-flavored foods, and he doesn't ask for those again.
===Also I can't deny the effect some of these additives have on my kids!===
Do you or any of your children have intolerances or allergies to "whole" foods? To any fruits or legumes or nuts or dairy or grains?
If so, do you view those intolerances or allergies in the same negative way you view food coloring and preservatives?
===It doesn't feel comfortable to restrict their food choices but it doesn't feel comfortable to watch my kids eat bright yellow twisties either-nor to watch the aggression that often follows.===
Work towards balance.
My son and I both are aware that if we eat sweets / sugary foods on an empty stomach without having a bit of protein beforehand, we will feel shakey and cranky and will be prone to easy frustration and tears.
If we don't want to have a meal but we want something sweet and haven't eaten in several hours, we'll have some string cheese and pretzels before the sweet stuff or with the sweet stuff.
My son knows that I'll say "yes" or some form of "yes" about sweets. But that's not the same as dumping a boatload of candy in his lap. Sometimes he'll ask to have a Coca-Cola or chocolate late at night. Since we don't often have caffeine we're both sensitive to it, and a glass of caffeinated soda or a chocolate bar 6 or 8 hours before bedtime will result in bedtime not happening when it normally does. In those instances, I'll often suggest a non-caffeinated soda or a different kind of sweet and let him know that I'll remind him about the Coca-Cola or chocolate early in the day the next day. And I make a point to do so!
If you're absolutely sure it's the artificial coloring and preservatives that are causing the tears and unhappiness, find alternatives to those things.
But if you're not absolutely sure it's the coloring and preservatives, I encourage you to step back from that assumption and your negative feelings about those things. Because if what you've expressed here about them is expressed even a wee bit in your household, your kids will have picked up on your feelings.
Glenda
Have you done an elimination diet, so that you are positive it's the additives that cause the "tantrums, tears, and nightmares"? You are *sure* there are no other reasons for those behaviors, such as being tired or needing food or any of the other reasons that can bring forth unhappines within a person?
===these "foods" are designed to be addictive & very very appealing through packaging etc===
I disagree with the "addictive" part, but I do agree that ALL foods are designed to be appealing.
Apple growers certainly hope that their apples appeal to us enough that we want to buy more!!
The produce department of our local grocery store is THE MOST appealing part of the store, visually. Not just to me, but to my son, as well -- a kid who loves potato chips and soda, but who, when grocery shopping with me, will choose way more produce *because of* it's visual appeal than he will potato chips or soda.
It does a disservice to your children to assume they don't, or won't, pick up on the fact that processed foods are packaged to be visually appealing so that you'll buy them. My son's chosen packaged foods because of the packaging and has had his share of "blah"- or "yuck"-flavored foods, and he doesn't ask for those again.
===Also I can't deny the effect some of these additives have on my kids!===
Do you or any of your children have intolerances or allergies to "whole" foods? To any fruits or legumes or nuts or dairy or grains?
If so, do you view those intolerances or allergies in the same negative way you view food coloring and preservatives?
===It doesn't feel comfortable to restrict their food choices but it doesn't feel comfortable to watch my kids eat bright yellow twisties either-nor to watch the aggression that often follows.===
Work towards balance.
My son and I both are aware that if we eat sweets / sugary foods on an empty stomach without having a bit of protein beforehand, we will feel shakey and cranky and will be prone to easy frustration and tears.
If we don't want to have a meal but we want something sweet and haven't eaten in several hours, we'll have some string cheese and pretzels before the sweet stuff or with the sweet stuff.
My son knows that I'll say "yes" or some form of "yes" about sweets. But that's not the same as dumping a boatload of candy in his lap. Sometimes he'll ask to have a Coca-Cola or chocolate late at night. Since we don't often have caffeine we're both sensitive to it, and a glass of caffeinated soda or a chocolate bar 6 or 8 hours before bedtime will result in bedtime not happening when it normally does. In those instances, I'll often suggest a non-caffeinated soda or a different kind of sweet and let him know that I'll remind him about the Coca-Cola or chocolate early in the day the next day. And I make a point to do so!
If you're absolutely sure it's the artificial coloring and preservatives that are causing the tears and unhappiness, find alternatives to those things.
But if you're not absolutely sure it's the coloring and preservatives, I encourage you to step back from that assumption and your negative feelings about those things. Because if what you've expressed here about them is expressed even a wee bit in your household, your kids will have picked up on your feelings.
Glenda
wtexans
===If you're absolutely sure it's the artificial coloring and preservatives that are causing the tears and unhappiness, find alternatives to those things.===
What I meant is to find the same type of food but without whatever dye or preservative is problematic. I know there aren't always options, but there are many nowadays.
If you can't find an alternative, and the dye or preservative isn't an allergen, perhaps offer it in smaller amounts, alongside other appealing-to-your-kids foods. For example, yellow twisties (is that licorice?) could be offered on a snack plate with cheese cubes or string cheese + pretzels + mini-bagels + cute up fruit of some sort.
Glenda
What I meant is to find the same type of food but without whatever dye or preservative is problematic. I know there aren't always options, but there are many nowadays.
If you can't find an alternative, and the dye or preservative isn't an allergen, perhaps offer it in smaller amounts, alongside other appealing-to-your-kids foods. For example, yellow twisties (is that licorice?) could be offered on a snack plate with cheese cubes or string cheese + pretzels + mini-bagels + cute up fruit of some sort.
Glenda
wtexans
===cute up fruit===
Cut up fruit, that is. (Of course, cut up fruit *could* be cute!).
Glenda
Cut up fruit, that is. (Of course, cut up fruit *could* be cute!).
Glenda
Schuyler
It is so easy to see what you are looking for that sometimes you don't see what
is really there. If you have a prediction that certain foods will cause certain
kinds of behaviour it is much more likely to come true than if you don't start
with that bias. That's why so much testing of pharmaceuticals is done with
double blind, randomised trials. There is some hope that the bias that the
humans bring to bear on the study will have less of an effect. And even with
that, it is still hard to tease bias from real response to treatment.
When David and I stepped away from limiting what foods Simon and Linnaea ate and
stepped into helping to get them what they wanted to eat plus the things we
thought they would enjoy eating it wasn't hands off. If I noticed Linnaea going
and getting bag after bag of Wotsits (similar to twisties or cheese puffs in the
U.S.) I would put together a platter of some other options for her, or ask if
she was hungry for something other than wotsits and needed me to get it. When
they were littler they ate smaller amounts at more frequent intervals, they got
hungry more often. So keeping easy to put together options to hand made it much
easier for me to give them more choices.
Sandra has kept something I wrote from ages ago that has a list of some of the
options available in our home: "There is free access to food in our house.
There are two bowlfuls of starburst fruit chews on the kitchen table and carrots
and celery cut up and floating in water in the fridge as per my Grandmother;
there are packets of crisps in the cupboard with weetabix cereal and muesli
cereal and whatever other kind of cereal; there is dried squid and sheets of
nori and crackers and peanut butter and chocolate chip oatmeal cookies and ice
cream and, and, and… All things get eaten."
The all things get eaten line, that wasn't true. I've thrown out a lot of
starburst fruit chews, 'cause they get melty. And I used carrots from a bowl of
water in the fridge the other day in stock because the carrots are a little too
sweet for Simon's or Linnaea's current preferences. Ice cream sits in the
freezer for an age. At the moment crisps are having a bit of a revival. But they
often wait for some friend of Simon or Linnaea to come over and eat them.
Balance doesn't happen every day, either. Whenever I'd get nervous about what I
felt was an unbalanced diet from Simon or Linnaea I'd keep notes. A day might be
too short to see the true picture. One day might have three donuts in it, but
two days might have three donuts in it, bagels, burritos, carrots, celery,
apples, and three days might have three donuts, bagels, carrots, celery, apples,
strawberries, potatoes, wotsits, burritos, weetabix, hummus, bread and butter,
ramen and on and on. A moment of dietary preference doesn't make up a diet, it's
just that moment.
But if what you are seeing is a kind of creeping yellow peril in a bowl of
yellow twisties than they will be writ large on your children's experience, for
you. If you see this extruded snack food as filled with potential for anger and
hostilities and unhappiness it will be hard for it to just be a moment of
dietary preference in your children's day. It will have a huge rippling effect.
If they'd had homemade bread and butter and an apple and had a hostile moment
afterwards I assume that the food would have had no bearing on the anger? It may
be worth examining your causal links in your head.
Actually, if you are making a list of what they eat, you could add in a list of
how their moods run. And if the pattern that you see now persists, maybe see if
on the days when they are eating more of the yellow twisties side of the options
set, if they are more tired and more in need of quick energy. Or if you are less
available to them or out more.
Food allergies and intolerances are apparently quite rare but the perception is
that they are quite common. According to wikipedia
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_intolerance): "Estimates of the prevalence of
food intolerance vary widely from 2% to over 20% of the population.So far only
three prevalence studies in Dutch and English adults have been based on
double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges. The reported prevalences of
food allergy/intolerance (by questionnaires) were 12% to 19%, whereas the
confirmed prevalences varied from 0.8% to 2.4%. For intolerance to food
additives the prevalence varied between 0.01 to 0.23%."
Schuyler
I'm really struggling with some aspects of unschooling food & wanted to hear
some thoughts.
My girls have absolute self-regulation when it comes to times they eat & amount
as well as being able to choose "non traditional" choices like cereal for dinner
etc but it feels very counter intuitive to purchase or not intervene when it
comes to very artificial foods and lots of colours & preservatives.
I feel like I'm asking more than they are capable of self-regulating, that these
"foods" are designed to be addictive & very very appealing through packaging
etc. Also I can't deny the effect some of these additives have on my kids!
Tantrums, tears and even nightmares-especially with Willow, she seems very
sensitive to colours & preservatives.
On the other hand I really understand that by making these foods forbidden they
will be more exciting & more likely to be gorged on when oppertunity arises. It
doesn't feel comfortable to restrict their food choices but it doesn't feel
comfortable to watch my kids eat bright yellow twisties either-nor to watch the
aggression that often follows.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
is really there. If you have a prediction that certain foods will cause certain
kinds of behaviour it is much more likely to come true than if you don't start
with that bias. That's why so much testing of pharmaceuticals is done with
double blind, randomised trials. There is some hope that the bias that the
humans bring to bear on the study will have less of an effect. And even with
that, it is still hard to tease bias from real response to treatment.
When David and I stepped away from limiting what foods Simon and Linnaea ate and
stepped into helping to get them what they wanted to eat plus the things we
thought they would enjoy eating it wasn't hands off. If I noticed Linnaea going
and getting bag after bag of Wotsits (similar to twisties or cheese puffs in the
U.S.) I would put together a platter of some other options for her, or ask if
she was hungry for something other than wotsits and needed me to get it. When
they were littler they ate smaller amounts at more frequent intervals, they got
hungry more often. So keeping easy to put together options to hand made it much
easier for me to give them more choices.
Sandra has kept something I wrote from ages ago that has a list of some of the
options available in our home: "There is free access to food in our house.
There are two bowlfuls of starburst fruit chews on the kitchen table and carrots
and celery cut up and floating in water in the fridge as per my Grandmother;
there are packets of crisps in the cupboard with weetabix cereal and muesli
cereal and whatever other kind of cereal; there is dried squid and sheets of
nori and crackers and peanut butter and chocolate chip oatmeal cookies and ice
cream and, and, and… All things get eaten."
The all things get eaten line, that wasn't true. I've thrown out a lot of
starburst fruit chews, 'cause they get melty. And I used carrots from a bowl of
water in the fridge the other day in stock because the carrots are a little too
sweet for Simon's or Linnaea's current preferences. Ice cream sits in the
freezer for an age. At the moment crisps are having a bit of a revival. But they
often wait for some friend of Simon or Linnaea to come over and eat them.
Balance doesn't happen every day, either. Whenever I'd get nervous about what I
felt was an unbalanced diet from Simon or Linnaea I'd keep notes. A day might be
too short to see the true picture. One day might have three donuts in it, but
two days might have three donuts in it, bagels, burritos, carrots, celery,
apples, and three days might have three donuts, bagels, carrots, celery, apples,
strawberries, potatoes, wotsits, burritos, weetabix, hummus, bread and butter,
ramen and on and on. A moment of dietary preference doesn't make up a diet, it's
just that moment.
But if what you are seeing is a kind of creeping yellow peril in a bowl of
yellow twisties than they will be writ large on your children's experience, for
you. If you see this extruded snack food as filled with potential for anger and
hostilities and unhappiness it will be hard for it to just be a moment of
dietary preference in your children's day. It will have a huge rippling effect.
If they'd had homemade bread and butter and an apple and had a hostile moment
afterwards I assume that the food would have had no bearing on the anger? It may
be worth examining your causal links in your head.
Actually, if you are making a list of what they eat, you could add in a list of
how their moods run. And if the pattern that you see now persists, maybe see if
on the days when they are eating more of the yellow twisties side of the options
set, if they are more tired and more in need of quick energy. Or if you are less
available to them or out more.
Food allergies and intolerances are apparently quite rare but the perception is
that they are quite common. According to wikipedia
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_intolerance): "Estimates of the prevalence of
food intolerance vary widely from 2% to over 20% of the population.So far only
three prevalence studies in Dutch and English adults have been based on
double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges. The reported prevalences of
food allergy/intolerance (by questionnaires) were 12% to 19%, whereas the
confirmed prevalences varied from 0.8% to 2.4%. For intolerance to food
additives the prevalence varied between 0.01 to 0.23%."
Schuyler
I'm really struggling with some aspects of unschooling food & wanted to hear
some thoughts.
My girls have absolute self-regulation when it comes to times they eat & amount
as well as being able to choose "non traditional" choices like cereal for dinner
etc but it feels very counter intuitive to purchase or not intervene when it
comes to very artificial foods and lots of colours & preservatives.
I feel like I'm asking more than they are capable of self-regulating, that these
"foods" are designed to be addictive & very very appealing through packaging
etc. Also I can't deny the effect some of these additives have on my kids!
Tantrums, tears and even nightmares-especially with Willow, she seems very
sensitive to colours & preservatives.
On the other hand I really understand that by making these foods forbidden they
will be more exciting & more likely to be gorged on when oppertunity arises. It
doesn't feel comfortable to restrict their food choices but it doesn't feel
comfortable to watch my kids eat bright yellow twisties either-nor to watch the
aggression that often follows.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-Food allergies and intolerances are apparently quite rare but the perception is
that they are quite common. According to wikipedia
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_intolerance): "Estimates of the prevalence of
food intolerance vary widely from 2% to over 20% of the population.So far only
three prevalence studies in Dutch and English adults have been based on
double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges. The reported prevalences of
food allergy/intolerance (by questionnaires) were 12% to 19%, whereas the
confirmed prevalences varied from 0.8% to 2.4%. For intolerance to food
additives the prevalence varied between 0.01 to 0.23%."-=-
In a chat a while back someone said something about diet being the new religion, and I think it's a valid consideration. Virtue and morality are "proven" by someone being thin and strong. Not thin or not strong are seen as sin, sloth, ignorance and immorality.
In general terms, for someone to have enough fear/concern to want to concentrate on the worshipful end of a religion (god or the goal of perfection/salvation), there must be demons, devils and other dangers.
In the more extreme sects of this foodie religion, there are all sorts of self-flagellations and commandments and sacrifices.
From the point of view of unschooling, it can hamper and hinder a child's learning. If the mom is telling him what is and isn't, and what she's saying turns out not to be true, it erodes the relationship, too. If the mom is looking at the child through an overlay of fear and expectation and "told you so," that can be a problem.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
that they are quite common. According to wikipedia
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_intolerance): "Estimates of the prevalence of
food intolerance vary widely from 2% to over 20% of the population.So far only
three prevalence studies in Dutch and English adults have been based on
double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges. The reported prevalences of
food allergy/intolerance (by questionnaires) were 12% to 19%, whereas the
confirmed prevalences varied from 0.8% to 2.4%. For intolerance to food
additives the prevalence varied between 0.01 to 0.23%."-=-
In a chat a while back someone said something about diet being the new religion, and I think it's a valid consideration. Virtue and morality are "proven" by someone being thin and strong. Not thin or not strong are seen as sin, sloth, ignorance and immorality.
In general terms, for someone to have enough fear/concern to want to concentrate on the worshipful end of a religion (god or the goal of perfection/salvation), there must be demons, devils and other dangers.
In the more extreme sects of this foodie religion, there are all sorts of self-flagellations and commandments and sacrifices.
From the point of view of unschooling, it can hamper and hinder a child's learning. If the mom is telling him what is and isn't, and what she's saying turns out not to be true, it erodes the relationship, too. If the mom is looking at the child through an overlay of fear and expectation and "told you so," that can be a problem.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Tara Wagner
Maybe your child would like to do research on organic, non-gmo, vs non-organic, gmo food and its impacts on health and the planet. Then they can decide what is best for them. Choice goes hand in hand with information. There is not real choice with out information.
To: [email protected]
From: Sandra@...
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 05:24:59 -0700
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] Feeling conflicted about food
-=-Food allergies and intolerances are apparently quite rare but the perception is
that they are quite common. According to wikipedia
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_intolerance): "Estimates of the prevalence of
food intolerance vary widely from 2% to over 20% of the population.So far only
three prevalence studies in Dutch and English adults have been based on
double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges. The reported prevalences of
food allergy/intolerance (by questionnaires) were 12% to 19%, whereas the
confirmed prevalences varied from 0.8% to 2.4%. For intolerance to food
additives the prevalence varied between 0.01 to 0.23%."-=-
In a chat a while back someone said something about diet being the new religion, and I think it's a valid consideration. Virtue and morality are "proven" by someone being thin and strong. Not thin or not strong are seen as sin, sloth, ignorance and immorality.
In general terms, for someone to have enough fear/concern to want to concentrate on the worshipful end of a religion (god or the goal of perfection/salvation), there must be demons, devils and other dangers.
In the more extreme sects of this foodie religion, there are all sorts of self-flagellations and commandments and sacrifices.
From the point of view of unschooling, it can hamper and hinder a child's learning. If the mom is telling him what is and isn't, and what she's saying turns out not to be true, it erodes the relationship, too. If the mom is looking at the child through an overlay of fear and expectation and "told you so," that can be a problem.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
To: [email protected]
From: Sandra@...
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 05:24:59 -0700
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] Feeling conflicted about food
-=-Food allergies and intolerances are apparently quite rare but the perception is
that they are quite common. According to wikipedia
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_intolerance): "Estimates of the prevalence of
food intolerance vary widely from 2% to over 20% of the population.So far only
three prevalence studies in Dutch and English adults have been based on
double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges. The reported prevalences of
food allergy/intolerance (by questionnaires) were 12% to 19%, whereas the
confirmed prevalences varied from 0.8% to 2.4%. For intolerance to food
additives the prevalence varied between 0.01 to 0.23%."-=-
In a chat a while back someone said something about diet being the new religion, and I think it's a valid consideration. Virtue and morality are "proven" by someone being thin and strong. Not thin or not strong are seen as sin, sloth, ignorance and immorality.
In general terms, for someone to have enough fear/concern to want to concentrate on the worshipful end of a religion (god or the goal of perfection/salvation), there must be demons, devils and other dangers.
In the more extreme sects of this foodie religion, there are all sorts of self-flagellations and commandments and sacrifices.
From the point of view of unschooling, it can hamper and hinder a child's learning. If the mom is telling him what is and isn't, and what she's saying turns out not to be true, it erodes the relationship, too. If the mom is looking at the child through an overlay of fear and expectation and "told you so," that can be a problem.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Robin Bentley
> Maybe your child would like to do research on organic, non-gmo, vsWhat if they choose gmo, non-organic food?
> non-organic, gmo food and its impacts on health and the planet. Then
> they can decide what is best for them.
> Choice goes hand in hand with information. There is not real choiceBut information also has to come without an agenda. If a mom expects a
> with out information.
>
child to chose the *right* answer after such information is provided
or discovered, that's not real choice, either.
There's an agenda implied in "organic, non-gmo vs **non-organic, gmo
food and its impacts on health and the planet**". Perhaps that wasn't
your intention?
Robin B.
Sandra Dodd
-=-Maybe your child would like to do research on organic, non-gmo, vs non-organic, gmo food and its impacts on health and the planet. Then they can decide what is best for them. Choice goes hand in hand with information. There is not real choice with out information.-=-
There's no real unschooling if the mother makes the child do research before making a simple choice about what to have for lunch, though.
The research that's out there is done by people who have money to make, on both sides. It's a separate topic from unschooling. If someone is unable to relax their prejudices and fears about food, unschooling will be hung up at that point.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
There's no real unschooling if the mother makes the child do research before making a simple choice about what to have for lunch, though.
The research that's out there is done by people who have money to make, on both sides. It's a separate topic from unschooling. If someone is unable to relax their prejudices and fears about food, unschooling will be hung up at that point.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Tara Wagner
I take it you do not live in the bay area CA? I did not say make the child do research. You can present two sides, or the in between and the child can decide. Information is essential to a free mind! How much have you researched the issue of food supply and sustainability in the world? Lead by example and by educating yourself and let you child go from there.
To: [email protected]
From: Sandra@...
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 12:35:38 -0700
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] Feeling conflicted about food
-=-Maybe your child would like to do research on organic, non-gmo, vs non-organic, gmo food and its impacts on health and the planet. Then they can decide what is best for them. Choice goes hand in hand with information. There is not real choice with out information.-=-
There's no real unschooling if the mother makes the child do research before making a simple choice about what to have for lunch, though.
The research that's out there is done by people who have money to make, on both sides. It's a separate topic from unschooling. If someone is unable to relax their prejudices and fears about food, unschooling will be hung up at that point.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
To: [email protected]
From: Sandra@...
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 12:35:38 -0700
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] Feeling conflicted about food
-=-Maybe your child would like to do research on organic, non-gmo, vs non-organic, gmo food and its impacts on health and the planet. Then they can decide what is best for them. Choice goes hand in hand with information. There is not real choice with out information.-=-
There's no real unschooling if the mother makes the child do research before making a simple choice about what to have for lunch, though.
The research that's out there is done by people who have money to make, on both sides. It's a separate topic from unschooling. If someone is unable to relax their prejudices and fears about food, unschooling will be hung up at that point.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Shae Yayforhome
>>Do you or any of your children have intolerances or allergies to "whole"foods? To any fruits or legumes or nuts or dairy or grains?
If so, do you view those intolerances or allergies in the same negative way you view food coloring and preservatives?<<
This resonated for me-I hadn't thought of it like that before
>>A moment of dietary preference doesn't make up a diet, it'sjust that moment.<<
Very true.
>>If someone is unable to relax their prejudices and fears about food, unschooling will be hung up at that point.<<I'm stuck on this for sure but still can't help wondering if prejudices about some foods might not be a bad thing? Whether it's a moment of dietary preferences or not there is some pretty nasty "food" out there.
I'm enjoying hearing other opinions-thanks for the discussion.
Shae
www.yayforhome.blogspot.com
--- On Mon, 31/1/11, Schuyler <s.waynforth@...> wrote:
From: Schuyler <s.waynforth@...>
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] Feeling conflicted about food
To: [email protected]
Received: Monday, 31 January, 2011, 9:18 AM
It is so easy to see what you are looking for that sometimes you don't see what
is really there. If you have a prediction that certain foods will cause certain
kinds of behaviour it is much more likely to come true than if you don't start
with that bias. That's why so much testing of pharmaceuticals is done with
double blind, randomised trials. There is some hope that the bias that the
humans bring to bear on the study will have less of an effect. And even with
that, it is still hard to tease bias from real response to treatment.
When David and I stepped away from limiting what foods Simon and Linnaea ate and
stepped into helping to get them what they wanted to eat plus the things we
thought they would enjoy eating it wasn't hands off. If I noticed Linnaea going
and getting bag after bag of Wotsits (similar to twisties or cheese puffs in the
U.S.) I would put together a platter of some other options for her, or ask if
she was hungry for something other than wotsits and needed me to get it. When
they were littler they ate smaller amounts at more frequent intervals, they got
hungry more often. So keeping easy to put together options to hand made it much
easier for me to give them more choices.
Sandra has kept something I wrote from ages ago that has a list of some of the
options available in our home: "There is free access to food in our house.
There are two bowlfuls of starburst fruit chews on the kitchen table and carrots
and celery cut up and floating in water in the fridge as per my Grandmother;
there are packets of crisps in the cupboard with weetabix cereal and muesli
cereal and whatever other kind of cereal; there is dried squid and sheets of
nori and crackers and peanut butter and chocolate chip oatmeal cookies and ice
cream and, and, and… All things get eaten."
The all things get eaten line, that wasn't true. I've thrown out a lot of
starburst fruit chews, 'cause they get melty. And I used carrots from a bowl of
water in the fridge the other day in stock because the carrots are a little too
sweet for Simon's or Linnaea's current preferences. Ice cream sits in the
freezer for an age. At the moment crisps are having a bit of a revival. But they
often wait for some friend of Simon or Linnaea to come over and eat them.
Balance doesn't happen every day, either. Whenever I'd get nervous about what I
felt was an unbalanced diet from Simon or Linnaea I'd keep notes. A day might be
too short to see the true picture. One day might have three donuts in it, but
two days might have three donuts in it, bagels, burritos, carrots, celery,
apples, and three days might have three donuts, bagels, carrots, celery, apples,
strawberries, potatoes, wotsits, burritos, weetabix, hummus, bread and butter,
ramen and on and on. A moment of dietary preference doesn't make up a diet, it's
just that moment.
But if what you are seeing is a kind of creeping yellow peril in a bowl of
yellow twisties than they will be writ large on your children's experience, for
you. If you see this extruded snack food as filled with potential for anger and
hostilities and unhappiness it will be hard for it to just be a moment of
dietary preference in your children's day. It will have a huge rippling effect.
If they'd had homemade bread and butter and an apple and had a hostile moment
afterwards I assume that the food would have had no bearing on the anger? It may
be worth examining your causal links in your head.
Actually, if you are making a list of what they eat, you could add in a list of
how their moods run. And if the pattern that you see now persists, maybe see if
on the days when they are eating more of the yellow twisties side of the options
set, if they are more tired and more in need of quick energy. Or if you are less
available to them or out more.
Food allergies and intolerances are apparently quite rare but the perception is
that they are quite common. According to wikipedia
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_intolerance): "Estimates of the prevalence of
food intolerance vary widely from 2% to over 20% of the population.So far only
three prevalence studies in Dutch and English adults have been based on
double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges. The reported prevalences of
food allergy/intolerance (by questionnaires) were 12% to 19%, whereas the
confirmed prevalences varied from 0.8% to 2.4%. For intolerance to food
additives the prevalence varied between 0.01 to 0.23%."
Schuyler
I'm really struggling with some aspects of unschooling food & wanted to hear
some thoughts.
My girls have absolute self-regulation when it comes to times they eat & amount
as well as being able to choose "non traditional" choices like cereal for dinner
etc but it feels very counter intuitive to purchase or not intervene when it
comes to very artificial foods and lots of colours & preservatives.
I feel like I'm asking more than they are capable of self-regulating, that these
"foods" are designed to be addictive & very very appealing through packaging
etc. Also I can't deny the effect some of these additives have on my kids!
Tantrums, tears and even nightmares-especially with Willow, she seems very
sensitive to colours & preservatives.
On the other hand I really understand that by making these foods forbidden they
will be more exciting & more likely to be gorged on when oppertunity arises. It
doesn't feel comfortable to restrict their food choices but it doesn't feel
comfortable to watch my kids eat bright yellow twisties either-nor to watch the
aggression that often follows.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Robin Bentley
> I take it you do not live in the bay area CA?I'm not sure what you mean by this. Could you please explain?
> I did not say make the child do research. You can present two sides,There are many more than two sides and an in-between, though.
> or the in between and the child can decide.
> Information is essential to a free mind! How much have youIf parents make a cause or a fear or an ideal more important than
> researched the issue of food supply and sustainability in the world?
their child's learning and happiness, unschooling will be difficult.
> Lead by example and by educating yourself and let you child go fromBut...
> there.
Will you allow your child, with all the education and information
about food in the world, eat as he/she prefers, though? Even if the
food is gmo and non-organic? Or are you expecting your child to take
the information offered and come to the same conclusion about food as
you have?
Robin B.
wtexans
===Sandra: If someone is unable to relax their prejudices and fears about food, unschooling will be hung up at that point.
Shae: I'm stuck on this for sure but still can't help wondering if prejudices about some foods might not be a bad thing?===
How would prejudices about food be a good thing? Prejudice is limiting, and I don't understand how limiting can be a good thing.
===Whether it's a moment of dietary preferences or not there is some pretty nasty "food" out there.===
Why put "food" in quotes?
If you're defining what is or is not an acceptable food, you'll be setting your kids up to be judgmental of foods they might be exposed to in their friends' homes. If they try those foods and like them, will they feel you will be disappointed by them liking those foods? If they want to have those foods again, will they feel compelled to sneak them or lie about having them?
Foods like liver & onions, or tofu, or menudo are not my cup of tea. But if I define them as "food", in quotes, I'm imparting a prejudice and my son, who values my opinion, may pick up that same prejudice. But then he may try them at some point and like them and wonder what's wrong with him because he likes something I've discredited as not being worthy. He may begin to wonder what else I've told him may not be what I've said it is.
Imparting prejudice can undermine the trust your child has in you.
Glenda
Shae: I'm stuck on this for sure but still can't help wondering if prejudices about some foods might not be a bad thing?===
How would prejudices about food be a good thing? Prejudice is limiting, and I don't understand how limiting can be a good thing.
===Whether it's a moment of dietary preferences or not there is some pretty nasty "food" out there.===
Why put "food" in quotes?
If you're defining what is or is not an acceptable food, you'll be setting your kids up to be judgmental of foods they might be exposed to in their friends' homes. If they try those foods and like them, will they feel you will be disappointed by them liking those foods? If they want to have those foods again, will they feel compelled to sneak them or lie about having them?
Foods like liver & onions, or tofu, or menudo are not my cup of tea. But if I define them as "food", in quotes, I'm imparting a prejudice and my son, who values my opinion, may pick up that same prejudice. But then he may try them at some point and like them and wonder what's wrong with him because he likes something I've discredited as not being worthy. He may begin to wonder what else I've told him may not be what I've said it is.
Imparting prejudice can undermine the trust your child has in you.
Glenda
Schuyler
If this were a list about food sustainability and food supply this would be a
fantastic place to have this discussion. This isn't. This is a list about
unschooling.
It can be easy to get caught up in one cause or another. It is easy for some
people to find lots of political/spiritual/ecological ideas or movements that
they feel passionate about. The goal with unschooling is to recognise that any
thing that is your passion is your passion. It isn't necessarily your child's.
For some people that means that they can't unschool, at least not radically,
because they can't let their child play with toys from China. For them the
importation of toys from China carries with it too many personal costs and
compromises to their political outlook or concerns to overcome. So they as a
parent put that limitation on their relationship with their child. For some one
else it may be that they can't unschool when it comes to their faith. They can't
take the risk to their child's soul. So that parent puts that limitation on
their relationship with their child. The more distance a parent puts between
them and their child, the more reasons to say no, not this one, the less their
relationship can flourish, the less they are working in partnership together,
the less well unschool will work.
I am often impressed with the awareness Simon and Linnaea have of the greater
world around them. They are very good at making relatively informed choices. I
don't think it is possible to be fully informed about many things. Information
gets all fractal when you get too close. That's why unschooling works,
everything is linked, or, at least, it's possible to perceive links between most
things. So knowledge that starts about one thing moves out and in and around
lots and lots of other things.
If Simon or Linnaea were interested in the politics and policies of their food I
could do a lot to help them find information. But they aren't that interested.
They like to eat what they like to eat and they feel pretty good about David and
I finding it for them and preparing it.
Schuyler
________________________________
From: Tara Wagner <howlinghoyden@...>
I take it you do not live in the bay area CA? I did not say make the child do
research. You can present two sides, or the in between and the child can decide.
Information is essential to a free mind! How much have you researched the issue
of food supply and sustainability in the world? Lead by example and by educating
yourself and let you child go from there.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
fantastic place to have this discussion. This isn't. This is a list about
unschooling.
It can be easy to get caught up in one cause or another. It is easy for some
people to find lots of political/spiritual/ecological ideas or movements that
they feel passionate about. The goal with unschooling is to recognise that any
thing that is your passion is your passion. It isn't necessarily your child's.
For some people that means that they can't unschool, at least not radically,
because they can't let their child play with toys from China. For them the
importation of toys from China carries with it too many personal costs and
compromises to their political outlook or concerns to overcome. So they as a
parent put that limitation on their relationship with their child. For some one
else it may be that they can't unschool when it comes to their faith. They can't
take the risk to their child's soul. So that parent puts that limitation on
their relationship with their child. The more distance a parent puts between
them and their child, the more reasons to say no, not this one, the less their
relationship can flourish, the less they are working in partnership together,
the less well unschool will work.
I am often impressed with the awareness Simon and Linnaea have of the greater
world around them. They are very good at making relatively informed choices. I
don't think it is possible to be fully informed about many things. Information
gets all fractal when you get too close. That's why unschooling works,
everything is linked, or, at least, it's possible to perceive links between most
things. So knowledge that starts about one thing moves out and in and around
lots and lots of other things.
If Simon or Linnaea were interested in the politics and policies of their food I
could do a lot to help them find information. But they aren't that interested.
They like to eat what they like to eat and they feel pretty good about David and
I finding it for them and preparing it.
Schuyler
________________________________
From: Tara Wagner <howlinghoyden@...>
I take it you do not live in the bay area CA? I did not say make the child do
research. You can present two sides, or the in between and the child can decide.
Information is essential to a free mind! How much have you researched the issue
of food supply and sustainability in the world? Lead by example and by educating
yourself and let you child go from there.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=- I take it you do not live in the bay area CA?-=-
I don't. Do you think I would understand the effect of food research on unschooling differently if I did?
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I don't. Do you think I would understand the effect of food research on unschooling differently if I did?
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-I'm stuck on this for sure but still can't help wondering if prejudices about some foods might not be a bad thing-=-
Prejudices are always bad.
They are, by definition, not based on evidence.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Prejudices are always bad.
They are, by definition, not based on evidence.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
sheeboo2
--- I did not say make the child do research. You can present two sides, or the in between and the child can decide.-----
There are always more than two sides and "the in between" spans so vast an area, that it is difficult to find unbiased information, on any subject.
Here's an interesting look at how basically all medical research is flawed:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical\
-science/8269/
A quote:
"Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science"
"Much of what medical researchers conclude in their studies is misleading,
exaggerated, or flat-out wrong. So why are doctorsto a striking extentstill
drawing upon misinformation in their everyday practice? Dr. John Ioannidis has
spent his career challenging his peers by exposing their bad science."
---Information is essential to a free mind! How much have you researched the issue
of food supply and sustainability in the world? Lead by example and by educating
yourself and let you child go from there-----
I find this statement and others like it obnoxious. In the years I've been a member of various unschooling discussion groups, it never ceases to amaze me when a parent comes to the list announcing, "You don't know X; I've done the research, I've read X, Y, Z,, have you?"
The answer is, "yes." Most likely, many who choose to unschool are familiar with whatever piece of information is being offered. Most of the unschoolers I know arrived here after lots, and lots of thought and reading about *all kinds* of things. We are a pretty aware and well-informed group of people, I think.
And, I'm not so sure that the kind of information you're talking about *is* essential to a "free mind," whatever that it. Are the Sanema Indians any less free, in their minds, than someone with Internet access and a library card?
Brie
There are always more than two sides and "the in between" spans so vast an area, that it is difficult to find unbiased information, on any subject.
Here's an interesting look at how basically all medical research is flawed:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical\
-science/8269/
A quote:
"Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science"
"Much of what medical researchers conclude in their studies is misleading,
exaggerated, or flat-out wrong. So why are doctorsto a striking extentstill
drawing upon misinformation in their everyday practice? Dr. John Ioannidis has
spent his career challenging his peers by exposing their bad science."
---Information is essential to a free mind! How much have you researched the issue
of food supply and sustainability in the world? Lead by example and by educating
yourself and let you child go from there-----
I find this statement and others like it obnoxious. In the years I've been a member of various unschooling discussion groups, it never ceases to amaze me when a parent comes to the list announcing, "You don't know X; I've done the research, I've read X, Y, Z,, have you?"
The answer is, "yes." Most likely, many who choose to unschool are familiar with whatever piece of information is being offered. Most of the unschoolers I know arrived here after lots, and lots of thought and reading about *all kinds* of things. We are a pretty aware and well-informed group of people, I think.
And, I'm not so sure that the kind of information you're talking about *is* essential to a "free mind," whatever that it. Are the Sanema Indians any less free, in their minds, than someone with Internet access and a library card?
Brie
sheeboo2
---Also I can't deny the effect some of these additives have on my kids!
Tantrums, tears and even nightmares-especially with Willow, she seems very
sensitive to colors & preservatives.----
When I was a child, my parents put me through an elimination diet and decided that I reacted negatively to artificial red and green food colorings. I remember that I did get a headache after I ate the red jello, but it may have come from any number of other things too. Like the fact that I also hadn't had any sugar for two weeks.
I was about five when this happened, and I was the kind of kid who believed my parents about *everything.* When they told me red and green dye was poison, I believed it. I'd turn down any such offerings, even when my parents weren't around.
As a new mom, I made the same choices about food that my parents had made. Sugar and food with additives weren't allowed in our house the first few years of our daughter's life. When she was 3 and discovered blue ring pops (gem-shaped lolly on a band you wear around your finger), I explained, as my parents had to me, that it was poison, and she couldn't have it.
A few months later, she got a taste of some fake blue food. She let me know that I'd lied. It wasn't poison. It was delicious!
Even at three years old, she felt guilty though for loving something I had said was terrible, evil, would cause her harm. How could she love something that hurt her? Although she didn't feel hurt, which just added to her confusion and my looking like an idiot. The trust she had in me to tell her the truth was damaged.
Noor tics. Sometimes a lot, sometimes not for months. There are a number of triggers, food coloring is one, chlorine is another, being exposed to Strep is by far the worst. I buy natural plant-based dyes so we can make lots of colorful foods at home. But I also buy her blue rings and let her out in public where any number of people may be walking around with Strep at any one time.
Just a word of caution though, it seems more people report reactions to annato than to artificial red/orange dye!
Brie
Tantrums, tears and even nightmares-especially with Willow, she seems very
sensitive to colors & preservatives.----
When I was a child, my parents put me through an elimination diet and decided that I reacted negatively to artificial red and green food colorings. I remember that I did get a headache after I ate the red jello, but it may have come from any number of other things too. Like the fact that I also hadn't had any sugar for two weeks.
I was about five when this happened, and I was the kind of kid who believed my parents about *everything.* When they told me red and green dye was poison, I believed it. I'd turn down any such offerings, even when my parents weren't around.
As a new mom, I made the same choices about food that my parents had made. Sugar and food with additives weren't allowed in our house the first few years of our daughter's life. When she was 3 and discovered blue ring pops (gem-shaped lolly on a band you wear around your finger), I explained, as my parents had to me, that it was poison, and she couldn't have it.
A few months later, she got a taste of some fake blue food. She let me know that I'd lied. It wasn't poison. It was delicious!
Even at three years old, she felt guilty though for loving something I had said was terrible, evil, would cause her harm. How could she love something that hurt her? Although she didn't feel hurt, which just added to her confusion and my looking like an idiot. The trust she had in me to tell her the truth was damaged.
Noor tics. Sometimes a lot, sometimes not for months. There are a number of triggers, food coloring is one, chlorine is another, being exposed to Strep is by far the worst. I buy natural plant-based dyes so we can make lots of colorful foods at home. But I also buy her blue rings and let her out in public where any number of people may be walking around with Strep at any one time.
Just a word of caution though, it seems more people report reactions to annato than to artificial red/orange dye!
Brie
sheeboo2
-=-I'm stuck on this for sure but still can't help wondering if prejudices about some foods might not be a bad thing-=-
I know I questioned the validity of research few post back, but the following study came to mind--it seems moms who were told their kids ate sugar, saw more hyperactive behavior than moms who were told their kids hadn't had any. None of the kids were actually fed sugar, though. They gave them aspartame instead (yum!).
I do think we often see what we expect to see, whether or not it is based on real evidence.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/kx10890h33351475/
"This study tested the hypothesis that commonly reported negative effects of
sugar on children's behavior may be due to parental expectancies. A challenge
study design was employed, in which thirty-five 5- to 7-year-old boys reported
by their mothers to be behaviorally sugar sensitive, and their mothers, were
randomly assigned to experimental and control groups. In the experimental group,
mothers were told their children had received a large dose of sugar, whereas in
the control condition mothers were told their sons received a placebo; all
children actually received the placebo (aspartame). Mothers and sons were
videotaped while interacting together and each mother was then questioned about
the interaction. Mothers in the sugar expectancy condition rated their children
as significantly more hyperactive. Behavioral observations revealed these
mothers exercised more control by maintaining physical closeness, as well as
showing trends to criticize, look at, and talk to their sons more than did
control mothers. For several variables, the expectancy effect was stronger for
cognitively rigid mothers."
Brie
> >>>Prejudices are always bad.They are, by definition, not based on evidence.>>>>>>
I know I questioned the validity of research few post back, but the following study came to mind--it seems moms who were told their kids ate sugar, saw more hyperactive behavior than moms who were told their kids hadn't had any. None of the kids were actually fed sugar, though. They gave them aspartame instead (yum!).
I do think we often see what we expect to see, whether or not it is based on real evidence.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/kx10890h33351475/
"This study tested the hypothesis that commonly reported negative effects of
sugar on children's behavior may be due to parental expectancies. A challenge
study design was employed, in which thirty-five 5- to 7-year-old boys reported
by their mothers to be behaviorally sugar sensitive, and their mothers, were
randomly assigned to experimental and control groups. In the experimental group,
mothers were told their children had received a large dose of sugar, whereas in
the control condition mothers were told their sons received a placebo; all
children actually received the placebo (aspartame). Mothers and sons were
videotaped while interacting together and each mother was then questioned about
the interaction. Mothers in the sugar expectancy condition rated their children
as significantly more hyperactive. Behavioral observations revealed these
mothers exercised more control by maintaining physical closeness, as well as
showing trends to criticize, look at, and talk to their sons more than did
control mothers. For several variables, the expectancy effect was stronger for
cognitively rigid mothers."
Brie
Laureen
Heya
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Shae <yayforhome@...> wrote:
>
> I feel like I'm asking more than they are capable of self-regulating, that
> these "foods" are designed to be addictive & very very appealing through
> packaging etc.
Talk to them. Explain marketing tactics. It's good information for all kinds
of venues in life... what are the magazines selling? The TV commercials? The
food packaging? Marketing is marketing, and discussing it has spawned some
amazing conversations with my kids.
> Also I can't deny the effect some of these additives have on my kids!
> Tantrums, tears and even nightmares-especially with Willow, she seems very
> sensitive to colours & preservatives.
>
Some kids are, some aren't. Keeping in mind that all food is chemicals, and
all chemicals have affects on people. My husband gets ill if he eats apples
on an empty stomach. Doesn't mean that apples are bad, just means he needs
to not do that.
>
> On the other hand I really understand that by making these foods forbidden
> they will be more exciting & more likely to be gorged on when oppertunity
> arises. It doesn't feel comfortable to restrict their food choices but it
> doesn't feel comfortable to watch my kids eat bright yellow twisties
> either-nor to watch the aggression that often follows.
>
In order for a kid to make choices, they have to have information. Rowan, my
oldest, was corn reactive. I don't know if he was "allergic"... that's a
specific word that has a specific meaning with regards to one's immune
system and a histamine response... I just know that he would flush bright
red, start running hard, slam himself hard into things, and just generally
get crazy. He didn't like how it felt, so we talked about "this is corn,
this is how it feels." After a while, he learned how to make the choice, and
how to decide either to eat it and then take steps to protect himself
(usually by hugging me or his father), or not to eat it if he didn't feel
like dealing with the effects.
Kids are smart. Smarter than marketing, smarter than assumptions, smarter
than our fears for their health. If you give them enough information and
accommodate their learning, they'll make the choices that work best for
them. Just keep communicating (that's a two-way thing).
--
~~L!
s/v Excellent Adventure
http://www.theexcellentadventure.com/
"I can’t understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I’m frightened
of the old ones."
~~John Cage
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
plaidpanties666
Shae Yayforhome <yayforhome@...> wrote:
There's a bigger, deeper prejudice involved, though, and it has to do with the idea that children need to be taught *some* things. That's a prejudice to examine carefully. If it is true, then unschooled kids should have abyssmal diets. If unschooled kids don't then what else is going on to make kids more powerful than additives and advertising?
Some kids (and age matters) are very drawn to visually appealing foods. My dd was like that when she was young, although not my stepson. It helped her to have very nutritionally dense foods that were as lovely as commercial foods - helped in the sense that she was more likely to eat a variety of things. Instead of railing against commercial ploys to suck in little children, I took some pages from their book and prettied up my offerings.
Some kids (and adults for that matter) are more likely to choose foods that are convenient to eat. Kids are busy people! They don't necessarily want to wait for you to prepare something when there's a perfectly good pack of chips that only needs to be opened. So having foods available before kids are hungry or even bringing food to where a busy child is playing, can go a long way.
There are also some nasty memories in a loooooot of adults' minds around food and control. It doesn't help your relationship with your kids - or their relationship with food or their bodies - to start labling foods as "nasty". I'm not a fan of marshmallows, for instance, but my dd loves them. A week ago, I bought her a whole bag of them and she promptly had bowl of marshmallows. I don't think she's touched them since - the bag is in the same place with (I think) the same number of marshmallows as a week ago. It wasn't a stellar choice in the moment in terms of nutrition, but she enjoyed eating them, and we had a nice time watching a movie while she did, and snuggling. I had a moment of "oh geez, is she really going to eat All Those Marshmallows?!?" but kept that to myself and I'm glad I did. The marshmallows became a non-issue, just a snack on a snuggly afternoon with mom. That's better than the ongoing drama of rationing out a bag of marshmallows over a week. Its healthier in so very many ways.
---Meredith
>> I'm stuck on this for sure but still can't help wondering if prejudices about some foods might not be a bad thing? Whether it's a moment of dietary preferences or not there is some pretty nasty "food" out there.**************
There's a bigger, deeper prejudice involved, though, and it has to do with the idea that children need to be taught *some* things. That's a prejudice to examine carefully. If it is true, then unschooled kids should have abyssmal diets. If unschooled kids don't then what else is going on to make kids more powerful than additives and advertising?
Some kids (and age matters) are very drawn to visually appealing foods. My dd was like that when she was young, although not my stepson. It helped her to have very nutritionally dense foods that were as lovely as commercial foods - helped in the sense that she was more likely to eat a variety of things. Instead of railing against commercial ploys to suck in little children, I took some pages from their book and prettied up my offerings.
Some kids (and adults for that matter) are more likely to choose foods that are convenient to eat. Kids are busy people! They don't necessarily want to wait for you to prepare something when there's a perfectly good pack of chips that only needs to be opened. So having foods available before kids are hungry or even bringing food to where a busy child is playing, can go a long way.
>Whether it's a moment of dietary preferences or not there is some pretty nasty "food" out there.**************
There are also some nasty memories in a loooooot of adults' minds around food and control. It doesn't help your relationship with your kids - or their relationship with food or their bodies - to start labling foods as "nasty". I'm not a fan of marshmallows, for instance, but my dd loves them. A week ago, I bought her a whole bag of them and she promptly had bowl of marshmallows. I don't think she's touched them since - the bag is in the same place with (I think) the same number of marshmallows as a week ago. It wasn't a stellar choice in the moment in terms of nutrition, but she enjoyed eating them, and we had a nice time watching a movie while she did, and snuggling. I had a moment of "oh geez, is she really going to eat All Those Marshmallows?!?" but kept that to myself and I'm glad I did. The marshmallows became a non-issue, just a snack on a snuggly afternoon with mom. That's better than the ongoing drama of rationing out a bag of marshmallows over a week. Its healthier in so very many ways.
---Meredith
plaidpanties666
Tara Wagner <howlinghoyden@...> wrote:
Right now my stepson, Ray (17), has some health issues and he's experimenting with his diet. His bio mom has biiiiig opinions on the matter and while he doesn't live with her and doesn't "have to" do what she tells him, he has found it easier, in terms of their relationship, to follow along with her ideas than to do any kind of research on his own. That's one of the ways relationship issues play into decision making.
I've been doing a little research on the side, looking for ways to support him and it has been a bit frustrating to keep running up against someone who has very strong opinions saying "do it this way or you'll be sick forever and die". There's not much room for research or experimentation in that kind of relationship.
This statement doesn't sound much like "the child" doing the research - it sounds like mom doing some research and framing the "sides" through her own lens. It may be a very fair and balanced lens from her perspective, but it isn't the same as a kid deciding for him or herself what aspects of information are helpful or valid.
A parent has the ability to load a whole lot of emotional baggage onto "information" though and that can shut down thoughtful decision making.
---Meredith
>> Maybe your child would like to do research...Sometimes one or the other of my kids has an interest that leads to doing reasearch - reading lots of books or magazines, hunting things out online, asking questions of people. So far I haven't seen one of them want to research something *I* have issues with, though. If I'm being weird (from my kids' perspective) about something, they'd really prefer to be left out of my angst.
Right now my stepson, Ray (17), has some health issues and he's experimenting with his diet. His bio mom has biiiiig opinions on the matter and while he doesn't live with her and doesn't "have to" do what she tells him, he has found it easier, in terms of their relationship, to follow along with her ideas than to do any kind of research on his own. That's one of the ways relationship issues play into decision making.
I've been doing a little research on the side, looking for ways to support him and it has been a bit frustrating to keep running up against someone who has very strong opinions saying "do it this way or you'll be sick forever and die". There's not much room for research or experimentation in that kind of relationship.
>> You can present two sides, or the in between and the child can decide.***********
This statement doesn't sound much like "the child" doing the research - it sounds like mom doing some research and framing the "sides" through her own lens. It may be a very fair and balanced lens from her perspective, but it isn't the same as a kid deciding for him or herself what aspects of information are helpful or valid.
>> Choice goes hand in hand with information. There is not real choice with out information.****************
A parent has the ability to load a whole lot of emotional baggage onto "information" though and that can shut down thoughtful decision making.
---Meredith
Sandra Dodd
-=-In order for a kid to make choices, they have to have information.-=-
I don't think that's true.
In order for a kid to pick up a piece of food and taste it, he doesn't need to know anything about it. For him to decide whether to finish it should be based on how he feels about taking another bite. Not the all of it or none of it, but one bite. And then he might decide whether to take a third bite.
There is "information" that some parents give children that ranges from propaganda to horror story.
In order for a parent and child to have a good relationship, the parent needs to discover that children can learn a great many things without being "given information." And the child will have a good relationship if the parent isn't managing and controlling his decisions, or marketing propaganda to him, or exaggerating anything.
-=-Explain marketing tactics. It's good information for all kinds
of venues in life... what are the magazines selling? The TV commercials? The
food packaging? Marketing is marketing, and discussing it has spawned some
amazing conversations with my kids.-=-
Some parents are selling their kids on the parents' politics and dietary prejudices and various cool-this-season fads in belief, color scheme, and political correctness.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I don't think that's true.
In order for a kid to pick up a piece of food and taste it, he doesn't need to know anything about it. For him to decide whether to finish it should be based on how he feels about taking another bite. Not the all of it or none of it, but one bite. And then he might decide whether to take a third bite.
There is "information" that some parents give children that ranges from propaganda to horror story.
In order for a parent and child to have a good relationship, the parent needs to discover that children can learn a great many things without being "given information." And the child will have a good relationship if the parent isn't managing and controlling his decisions, or marketing propaganda to him, or exaggerating anything.
-=-Explain marketing tactics. It's good information for all kinds
of venues in life... what are the magazines selling? The TV commercials? The
food packaging? Marketing is marketing, and discussing it has spawned some
amazing conversations with my kids.-=-
Some parents are selling their kids on the parents' politics and dietary prejudices and various cool-this-season fads in belief, color scheme, and political correctness.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Karen James
>I believe there are better choices to be made out there regarding food. We
> There is "information" that some parents give children that ranges from
> propaganda to horror story.
>
talk freely about those choices here at home. We steer toward local,
organic (when available) produce, and free range animals. We enjoy picking
our own produce and fruits when they are seasonally available. Generally
speaking, we steer away from a lot of food colouring, high-fructose corn
syrup, and highly processed foods. We talk about how the food choices we
make can have an influence the well-being of ourselves and our community. I
believe this to be true. Perhaps it sounds like propaganda to some.
Having said this, tonight we had hotdogs and chips with dip for dinner. It
wasn't a big deal. It was an easy meal. We all enjoyed it. We eat out
often enough. We like the restaurants that offer local fair, but we eat
other places too. Our son loves Friendly's.
I believe we can have a better food choice compass, and that we can share
that with our kids. I think we just have to be careful not to create an
environment where the strict adherence to a food lifestyle becomes more
important than the emotional well-being of those making their own food
choices.
Karen James.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-I believe we can have a better food choice compass, and that we can share
that with our kids.-=-
With music choices, art, hobbies, fashion, behavior, sleep--anything at all--there can be serious parental preferences. It's what the parents do about those things, and how they allow their children to explore and make choices that's important.
http://sandradodd.com/balance
Please don't pretend that there is a family with no preferences whatsoever.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
that with our kids.-=-
> There is "information" that some parents give children that ranges fromSomehow the first statement seemed to be in defense of the second one. It seems (though I could be wrong) that there is some assumption that there are unschoolers living without a compass. It's a misunderstanding.
> propaganda to horror story.
With music choices, art, hobbies, fashion, behavior, sleep--anything at all--there can be serious parental preferences. It's what the parents do about those things, and how they allow their children to explore and make choices that's important.
http://sandradodd.com/balance
Please don't pretend that there is a family with no preferences whatsoever.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Karen James
>Yes. I didn't mean it to sound like I believe unschoolers live without a
> It seems (though I could be wrong) that there is some assumption that there
> are unschoolers living without a compass.
>
compass, or that families don't have preferences. I do apologize to anyone
who read it that way.
What I was responding to was the comment that information can range from
propaganda to horror story. I'm still navigating living with my life
choices and supporting my son's need to make his own. I believe that
sharing information is important.
I appreciate the link on balance, Sandra. Thanks.
Karen James.
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 9:54 PM, Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
>
>
> -=-I believe we can have a better food choice compass, and that we can
> share
> that with our kids.-=-
>
>
> > There is "information" that some parents give children that ranges from
> > propaganda to horror story.
>
> Somehow the first statement seemed to be in defense of the second one. It
> seems (though I could be wrong) that there is some assumption that there are
> unschoolers living without a compass. It's a misunderstanding.
>
> With music choices, art, hobbies, fashion, behavior, sleep--anything at
> all--there can be serious parental preferences. It's what the parents do
> about those things, and how they allow their children to explore and make
> choices that's important.
>
> http://sandradodd.com/balance
>
> Please don't pretend that there is a family with no preferences whatsoever.
>
>
> Sandra
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Karen James
>I took some more time to reflect on this more, and a story came to mind:
> There is "information" that some parents give children that ranges from
> propaganda to horror story.
>
A few Halloweens ago we went out trick-or-treating with some friends. Both
of our families had strong aversions to candy. I cringe to think of it now,
but our fears were strong. We started out to the first few houses. My son
was so excited and happy. He ran over to me, holding up a roll of candies.
These were his favourite. He was jumping up and down, and happily
declaring, "Look, mom!! I got another one of these!!!" My friend turned to
him and got down to his level, mimicked his enthusiasm and said, "Oh yay!!
Junk!!"
My heart races a bit as I type this story. I remember my son's face. He
looked confused and hurt. I got his attention and said, "That's awesome,
buddy. I know you love those." I kept his attention until he felt
comfortable again. He seemed to recover, and ran to the next house. At
that moment, I made a mental note *never* to share information in that kind
of way. It was hurtful, and could never be helpful.
I understand your point here. It is what we do with the information we have
that makes all of the difference in our relationships with our children.
Thanks, again.
Karen James.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-What I was responding to was the comment that information can range from
propaganda to horror story.-=-
That's not the full range. That's one end. :-)
The story about a friend saying "oh yay, Junk" to a happy trick-or-treater is very sad. I hope you said something to her, if not then later. If not yet, now. :-)
But even if she had said later in her VERY sweetest most compassionate voice that perhaps your son should refrain from eating that candy because it wasn't really on the high end of the nutritional scale, it would have been the same message, just (ahem...) sugar coated.
Not all sweets are the same.
Some of what is said about sweets is false.
The worst-offending candy on earth will not do as much damage as a single put-down to a child. The candy will pass through in a day. The put-down can last at least 50 years. I remember things my mom and others said to me when I was young. And when a parent, relative or "friend" is hateful and shaming in their "advice," it can (and does, and has) cause a child to do the thing they don't like in reaction, out of spite, or to see if they really are right.
If a child discovers the mom was wrong about an Oreo, he's less likely to listen to her about sexually transmitted disease, or the danger of driving when he's sleepy or under the influence of this or that.
Though I can vouch for this idea from my own life, I'm going to quote Pam Sorooshian:
"As we get older and our kids grow up, we eventually come to realize that all the big things in our lives are really the direct result of how we've handled all the little things." �Pam Sorooshian, June 4, 2007
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
propaganda to horror story.-=-
That's not the full range. That's one end. :-)
The story about a friend saying "oh yay, Junk" to a happy trick-or-treater is very sad. I hope you said something to her, if not then later. If not yet, now. :-)
But even if she had said later in her VERY sweetest most compassionate voice that perhaps your son should refrain from eating that candy because it wasn't really on the high end of the nutritional scale, it would have been the same message, just (ahem...) sugar coated.
Not all sweets are the same.
Some of what is said about sweets is false.
The worst-offending candy on earth will not do as much damage as a single put-down to a child. The candy will pass through in a day. The put-down can last at least 50 years. I remember things my mom and others said to me when I was young. And when a parent, relative or "friend" is hateful and shaming in their "advice," it can (and does, and has) cause a child to do the thing they don't like in reaction, out of spite, or to see if they really are right.
If a child discovers the mom was wrong about an Oreo, he's less likely to listen to her about sexually transmitted disease, or the danger of driving when he's sleepy or under the influence of this or that.
Though I can vouch for this idea from my own life, I'm going to quote Pam Sorooshian:
"As we get older and our kids grow up, we eventually come to realize that all the big things in our lives are really the direct result of how we've handled all the little things." �Pam Sorooshian, June 4, 2007
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Joyce Fetteroll
On Feb 1, 2011, at 8:43 PM, Karen James wrote:
paragraph is worded.
The wording of ideas is important on the list. People reading can't
see what's going on in the home. They're building images from the
words and trying to understand unschooling from the images they build.
The first sentence paints a picture of mom deciding what the family's
values will be. And then what follows:
paints a picture of mom decides the right way to believe. And all the
discussion is about the right way of viewing the world of food. All
the exploring is about the right way of experiencing the world of
food. And everyone happily agrees because mom is right.
Whether that's what it's like or not in your home, for people to build
their understanding of unschooling, it's important to not work with
those kinds of images.
A more helpful image might be this: For every family there will be a
default set of values and preferences that the parents use to make
decisions when no one else cares. For instance, a radically
unschooling vegetarian mom's meals will include any meat her kids want
(as well as anything else) into a larger picture that will look more
vegetarian than your average American home.
Mom's values are likely to have a greater positive impact if she
shares "why this rather than that" about the parts that are left up to
her to decide rather than the parts the kids are exploring.
That doesn't mean she should never say anything. *If* the kids trust
that she's lending her experience or even preference to help them
decide, then advice will sound different than if she's using it as a
barrier between them and what they want.
For instance, if a child wants hot dogs, then "Is it okay if we get
these ones without nitrates," will be a way of mom using her values to
help narrow the choices and make the decision easier. The child will
see the values as helpful and useful and she can pass on why she
prefers the nitrateless ones as a bit of information for the child to
draw on in the future if he wants.
But if a child wants the kind of hot dogs he had at the ball park the
mom's "These ones without nitrates are better," will be a roadblock
between the child and what he wants. The child won't experience the
values as helpful but as tools for mom to control what he eats.
My default for shopping is sales and thrift stores (and eBay and used
stuff on Amazon) but I never limited Kathryn to those. (It's hard to
get the newest Pokemon game at a thrift store ;-) I didn't have an
agenda of her one day agreeing that shopping thrift stores is better
than full price stores. The goal was -- as with all choices -- for her
to experience the pros and cons of each and make thoughtful decisions
about what would be a better choice for her for whatever she wanted.
Since looking for discounts was always a way to help her get what she
wanted (and as a bonus save money) she sees them as a big positive. I
think she's even more inclined to not want something if she can't find
it cheap than I am because she never felt pressure to believe my
"right" way.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> I believe there are better choices to be made out there regardingI was trying to figure out what was bothering me about how this whole
> food.
paragraph is worded.
The wording of ideas is important on the list. People reading can't
see what's going on in the home. They're building images from the
words and trying to understand unschooling from the images they build.
The first sentence paints a picture of mom deciding what the family's
values will be. And then what follows:
> Weis lots of mysterious "we" as though everyone shared a brain. It
> talk freely about those choices here at home. We steer toward local,
> organic (when available) produce, and free range animals. We enjoy
> picking
> our own produce and fruits when they are seasonally available.
> Generally
> speaking, we steer away from a lot of food colouring, high-fructose
> corn
> syrup, and highly processed foods. We talk about how the food
> choices we
> make can have an influence the well-being of ourselves and our
> community. I
> believe this to be true. Perhaps it sounds like propaganda to some.
paints a picture of mom decides the right way to believe. And all the
discussion is about the right way of viewing the world of food. All
the exploring is about the right way of experiencing the world of
food. And everyone happily agrees because mom is right.
Whether that's what it's like or not in your home, for people to build
their understanding of unschooling, it's important to not work with
those kinds of images.
A more helpful image might be this: For every family there will be a
default set of values and preferences that the parents use to make
decisions when no one else cares. For instance, a radically
unschooling vegetarian mom's meals will include any meat her kids want
(as well as anything else) into a larger picture that will look more
vegetarian than your average American home.
Mom's values are likely to have a greater positive impact if she
shares "why this rather than that" about the parts that are left up to
her to decide rather than the parts the kids are exploring.
That doesn't mean she should never say anything. *If* the kids trust
that she's lending her experience or even preference to help them
decide, then advice will sound different than if she's using it as a
barrier between them and what they want.
For instance, if a child wants hot dogs, then "Is it okay if we get
these ones without nitrates," will be a way of mom using her values to
help narrow the choices and make the decision easier. The child will
see the values as helpful and useful and she can pass on why she
prefers the nitrateless ones as a bit of information for the child to
draw on in the future if he wants.
But if a child wants the kind of hot dogs he had at the ball park the
mom's "These ones without nitrates are better," will be a roadblock
between the child and what he wants. The child won't experience the
values as helpful but as tools for mom to control what he eats.
My default for shopping is sales and thrift stores (and eBay and used
stuff on Amazon) but I never limited Kathryn to those. (It's hard to
get the newest Pokemon game at a thrift store ;-) I didn't have an
agenda of her one day agreeing that shopping thrift stores is better
than full price stores. The goal was -- as with all choices -- for her
to experience the pros and cons of each and make thoughtful decisions
about what would be a better choice for her for whatever she wanted.
Since looking for discounts was always a way to help her get what she
wanted (and as a bonus save money) she sees them as a big positive. I
think she's even more inclined to not want something if she can't find
it cheap than I am because she never felt pressure to believe my
"right" way.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]