Food choice backed by research (and Google)
Joyce Fetteroll
There's an article in today's New York Times about Google's unconventional work place. Besides allowing pets, writing on walls and scavenger hunts, they have free food (breakfast, lunch, dinner and snacks!):
====================================
In one of the open kitchen areas, Dr. Welle pointed to an array of free food, snacks, candy and beverages. “The healthy choices are front-loaded,” he said. “We’re not trying to be mom and dad. Coercion doesn’t work. The choices are there. But we care about our employees’ health, and our research shows that if people cognitively engage with food, they make better choices.”
So the candy (M&Ms, plain and peanut; TCHO brand luxury chocolate bars, chewing gum, Life Savers) is in opaque ceramic jars that sport prominent nutritional labels. Healthier snacks (almonds, peanuts, dried kiwi and dried banana chips) are in transparent glass jars. In coolers, sodas are concealed behind translucent glass. A variety of waters and juices are immediately visible. “Our research shows that people consume 40 percent more water if that’s the first thing they see,” Dr. Welle said.
====================================
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/16/business/at-google-a-place-to-work-and-play.html
Which is not only what has been said here for a long time, but also a good description of creating an atmosphere of healthful food AND choice.
Joyce
====================================
In one of the open kitchen areas, Dr. Welle pointed to an array of free food, snacks, candy and beverages. “The healthy choices are front-loaded,” he said. “We’re not trying to be mom and dad. Coercion doesn’t work. The choices are there. But we care about our employees’ health, and our research shows that if people cognitively engage with food, they make better choices.”
So the candy (M&Ms, plain and peanut; TCHO brand luxury chocolate bars, chewing gum, Life Savers) is in opaque ceramic jars that sport prominent nutritional labels. Healthier snacks (almonds, peanuts, dried kiwi and dried banana chips) are in transparent glass jars. In coolers, sodas are concealed behind translucent glass. A variety of waters and juices are immediately visible. “Our research shows that people consume 40 percent more water if that’s the first thing they see,” Dr. Welle said.
====================================
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/16/business/at-google-a-place-to-work-and-play.html
Which is not only what has been said here for a long time, but also a good description of creating an atmosphere of healthful food AND choice.
Joyce
chris ester
My 14 year old daughter has pretty much stopped growing. She is tall and
is in a pre-professional dance program. This year she cut back on her
dance schedule in favor of theater and more free time. She noticed that
she gained weight, not bunches, but her favorite jeans were too tight for
comfort. When she told me this, I said that it sounded like we needed to
do some clothes shopping then.... We did and she now has jeans that fit.
Well, she independently decided to eat less junk, more vegetables and to
cut out soda altogether. She told me that she didn't like the way it made
her feel. When we went to do the grocery shopping both of my teenaged
children told me to skip soda, "since no one is planning on drinking any".
I didn't make a lot out of this. We still occasionally have a soda (I had
cut it out because of my own issues nearly a year ago) and no one makes it
a big deal of it. But my kids who have never been limited as to what they
eat (yes we are vegetarian, but we had meat eating family living with us
and so that choice was available to them) have decided that they choose not
to drink soda because it just isn't a healthy choice. Unschooling--it
works if you work it!!
chris
is in a pre-professional dance program. This year she cut back on her
dance schedule in favor of theater and more free time. She noticed that
she gained weight, not bunches, but her favorite jeans were too tight for
comfort. When she told me this, I said that it sounded like we needed to
do some clothes shopping then.... We did and she now has jeans that fit.
Well, she independently decided to eat less junk, more vegetables and to
cut out soda altogether. She told me that she didn't like the way it made
her feel. When we went to do the grocery shopping both of my teenaged
children told me to skip soda, "since no one is planning on drinking any".
I didn't make a lot out of this. We still occasionally have a soda (I had
cut it out because of my own issues nearly a year ago) and no one makes it
a big deal of it. But my kids who have never been limited as to what they
eat (yes we are vegetarian, but we had meat eating family living with us
and so that choice was available to them) have decided that they choose not
to drink soda because it just isn't a healthy choice. Unschooling--it
works if you work it!!
chris
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 4:00 AM, Joyce Fetteroll <jfetteroll@...>wrote:
> There's an article in today's New York Times about Google's unconventional
> work place. Besides allowing pets, writing on walls and scavenger hunts,
> they have free food (breakfast, lunch, dinner and snacks!):
>
> ====================================
> In one of the open kitchen areas, Dr. Welle pointed to an array of free
> food, snacks, candy and beverages. �The healthy choices are front-loaded,�
> he said. �We�re not trying to be mom and dad. Coercion doesn�t work. The
> choices are there. But we care about our employees� health, and our
> research shows that if people cognitively engage with food, they make
> better choices.�
>
> So the candy (M&Ms, plain and peanut; TCHO brand luxury chocolate bars,
> chewing gum, Life Savers) is in opaque ceramic jars that sport prominent
> nutritional labels. Healthier snacks (almonds, peanuts, dried kiwi and
> dried banana chips) are in transparent glass jars. In coolers, sodas are
> concealed behind translucent glass. A variety of waters and juices are
> immediately visible. �Our research shows that people consume 40 percent
> more water if that�s the first thing they see,� Dr. Welle said.
> ====================================
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/16/business/at-google-a-place-to-work-and-play.html
>
> Which is not only what has been said here for a long time, but also a good
> description of creating an atmosphere of healthful food AND choice.
>
> Joyce
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Meredith
chris ester <chris.homeschool@...> wrote:
http://www.fatnutritionist.com/index.php/food-you-like-is-food-that-feels-good/
>> Well, she independently decided to eat less junk, more vegetables and toOne of my new favorite sites is The Fat Nutritionist. She had an article on this topic - and related articles about "addictive" properties of food additives. Essentially she says the same things radical unschoolers have been saying for years ;) but it's especially interesting to me because she's mainly writing for and about adults who've had issues with food in the past. It's good to know you don't have to start from early childhood in order to develop this kind of healthy relationship with food and bodies (although it helps!).
> cut out soda altogether. She told me that she didn't like the way it made
> her feel.
http://www.fatnutritionist.com/index.php/food-you-like-is-food-that-feels-good/
Maribel Walther
"Coercion doesn’t work. The choices are there. But we care about our
employees’ health, and our research shows that if people cognitively engage
with food, they make better choices.”
I'm new in this group and wanted to share my own funny story, which it's
really my own "research". I'm trying to follow with the best of my
abilities the rich knowledge about what works and differentiate
unschoolers' success. In that attempt, couple of nights ago I wanted
"smarties" (candies) while I was watching tv and sent my 18 year old to buy
them. I'm raising my grandaughter 5, and have two other daughters 22 & 2.
My children SMELL the candy even with our efforts in the past to hide it.
:-) This time following our philosophy I told my husband and daughter "they
can eat it too!" So it went. They ate... ate some more... ate some more...
about 15 minutes later the 5 year old lying on the floor told the 18:
"LEA, HERE TAKE THIS CANDY! I HAVE A STOMACH ACHE, TAKE IT, TAKE IT!!!!
It was very funny to my daughter (and me as well to tell you the truth) but
more importantly we talked about what could have been causing the stomach
ache because the 2 year old complaint as well. The 5 year old came to the
conclusion herself that it was too much candy and that it "probably had too
much sugar for her tummy. :-) Now she is being a little more careful in
the amounts of candy or sugary foods she eats. For me this a super success
story and it was so encouraging to continue to †ry things that sometimes
make me uncomfortable. :-)
I went to school to be a secondary education teacher and either I read it
or someone (so sad I can't remember who to give them credit) told me: the
teacher that yells and screams do so because they feel they can't control
or handle the situation in any other way. That has stayed with me ALL MY
LIFE, not only through my teaching years. Those times I have yelled to my
children it has been exactly because of that futile need for control and
order and not knowing what else to do. I'm trying to apply that thought to
those things of the unschooling philosophy that makes me uncomfortable.
It's just my lack of knowledge on how to handle the situation in any other
way. I'm learning to let go...even though I still have a long way to go.
Maribel
employees’ health, and our research shows that if people cognitively engage
with food, they make better choices.”
I'm new in this group and wanted to share my own funny story, which it's
really my own "research". I'm trying to follow with the best of my
abilities the rich knowledge about what works and differentiate
unschoolers' success. In that attempt, couple of nights ago I wanted
"smarties" (candies) while I was watching tv and sent my 18 year old to buy
them. I'm raising my grandaughter 5, and have two other daughters 22 & 2.
My children SMELL the candy even with our efforts in the past to hide it.
:-) This time following our philosophy I told my husband and daughter "they
can eat it too!" So it went. They ate... ate some more... ate some more...
about 15 minutes later the 5 year old lying on the floor told the 18:
"LEA, HERE TAKE THIS CANDY! I HAVE A STOMACH ACHE, TAKE IT, TAKE IT!!!!
It was very funny to my daughter (and me as well to tell you the truth) but
more importantly we talked about what could have been causing the stomach
ache because the 2 year old complaint as well. The 5 year old came to the
conclusion herself that it was too much candy and that it "probably had too
much sugar for her tummy. :-) Now she is being a little more careful in
the amounts of candy or sugary foods she eats. For me this a super success
story and it was so encouraging to continue to †ry things that sometimes
make me uncomfortable. :-)
I went to school to be a secondary education teacher and either I read it
or someone (so sad I can't remember who to give them credit) told me: the
teacher that yells and screams do so because they feel they can't control
or handle the situation in any other way. That has stayed with me ALL MY
LIFE, not only through my teaching years. Those times I have yelled to my
children it has been exactly because of that futile need for control and
order and not knowing what else to do. I'm trying to apply that thought to
those things of the unschooling philosophy that makes me uncomfortable.
It's just my lack of knowledge on how to handle the situation in any other
way. I'm learning to let go...even though I still have a long way to go.
Maribel
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 4:00 AM, Joyce Fetteroll <jfetteroll@...>wrote:
> There's an article in today's New York Times about Google's unconventional
> work place. Besides allowing pets, writing on walls and scavenger hunts,
> they have free food (breakfast, lunch, dinner and snacks!):
>
> ====================================
> In one of the open kitchen areas, Dr. Welle pointed to an array of free
> food, snacks, candy and beverages. “The healthy choices are front-loaded,”
> he said. “We’re not trying to be mom and dad. Coercion doesn’t work. The
> choices are there. But we care about our employees’ health, and our
> research shows that if people cognitively engage with food, they make
> better choices.”
>
> So the candy (M&Ms, plain and peanut; TCHO brand luxury chocolate bars,
> chewing gum, Life Savers) is in opaque ceramic jars that sport prominent
> nutritional labels. Healthier snacks (almonds, peanuts, dried kiwi and
> dried banana chips) are in transparent glass jars. In coolers, sodas are
> concealed behind translucent glass. A variety of waters and juices are
> immediately visible. “Our research shows that people consume 40 percent
> more water if that’s the first thing they see,” Dr. Welle said.
> ====================================
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/16/business/at-google-a-place-to-work-and-play.html
>
> Which is not only what has been said here for a long time, but also a good
> description of creating an atmosphere of healthful food AND choice.
>
> Joyce
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Maribel
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
ehulani56
>In Google's case, it seems to me, there is still "good food" and "not-so-good food."
> Which is not only what has been said here for a long time, but also a good description of creating an atmosphere of healthful food AND choice.
>our research shows that if people cognitively engage with food, they make better choices."So the "less healthy" stuff has warning-like (information) labels on opaque jars and the "healthy" stuff is in transparent containers (with no labels?) and the "healthy" drinks are visible. That exerts subtle pressure, perhaps without the employees realizing it. And Google wants them to think about it. What can happen is people start thinking "oh, right, I *shouldn't* eat that" when they think about the choices in front of them.
>
> So the candy (M&Ms, plain and peanut; TCHO brand luxury chocolate bars, chewing gum, Life Savers) is in opaque ceramic jars that sport prominent nutritional labels. Healthier snacks (almonds, peanuts, dried kiwi and dried banana chips) are in transparent glass jars. In coolers, sodas are concealed behind translucent glass. A variety of waters and juices are immediately visible. >
We can do that same with our kids. We can set up subtle pressure in what we make easily available to our children - like putting the "healthy" stuff within their reach but having them ask for anything mom deems less healthy. There's still choice, but a quietly directed choice.
Everything my daughter likes to eat has been in the house at some point! Lots of things she doesn't like so much are here, also, in case she changes her mind. She has choices. I've found when I have a variety of foods available, my daughter will pick a variety *that works best for her* not necessarily what I might choose. She is not much of a vegetable or fruit eater, especially in the winter (she eats mostly meat and carbs), but is slim and healthy and happy. I would say that she *intuitively* (not cognitively) engages with food because she hasn't had messages about "good and bad". She listens to her body.
While I applaud Google for providing a variety of free food, they still seem to agree with some pretty mainstream ideas about what is healthy and unhealthy.
As Tony Stark says in The Avengers - "Jury's out."
Robin B.
Sandra Dodd
-=-Well, she independently decided to eat less junk, more vegetables and to
cut out soda altogether. -=-
Please, PLEASE don't use the term "junk" in this way.
Let food be food, and let children (and yourself) choose without the dismissive labels.
If only starving children had ANY food and soda, they could stay alive. If only people imprisoned, especially those who are not within their own culture, and prinsoners of war, could have whatever it might be that you're thinking of as "junk," they would be much happier and probably healthier.
It will make live cleaner to let food be food, and let people make choices by the criteria of what makes them feel better than to congratulate them for making the right choice in a test that you didn't think you were administering.
Sandra
cut out soda altogether. -=-
Please, PLEASE don't use the term "junk" in this way.
Let food be food, and let children (and yourself) choose without the dismissive labels.
If only starving children had ANY food and soda, they could stay alive. If only people imprisoned, especially those who are not within their own culture, and prinsoners of war, could have whatever it might be that you're thinking of as "junk," they would be much happier and probably healthier.
It will make live cleaner to let food be food, and let people make choices by the criteria of what makes them feel better than to congratulate them for making the right choice in a test that you didn't think you were administering.
Sandra
Sandra Dodd
-=-So the "less healthy" stuff has warning-like (information) labels on opaque jars and the "healthy" stuff is in transparent containers (with no labels?) and the "healthy" drinks are visible. That exerts subtle pressure, perhaps without the employees realizing it.-=-
It does mar their experiment a little bit.
But if sliced watermelon is left out in a container where people can see it, we're less likely to throw watermelon out than if it's in the fridge, uncut.
And I've been in a couple of homes where unschoolers had food out for kids to get to, but it was all chips and candy, and there wasn't anything else readily available. That mars the honest choices a bit, too.
On our counter we have a clear glass jar of M&M's, and two little stoneware canisters. Right now one canister has crackers in it (not English Christmas crackers, but American flat dry salty crackers with seeds in them) an the other has Oreo cookies and lemon-filled ginger biscutes from England. :-) Cookies. Different times different things, sometimes homemade cookies.
The M&Ms sit for a long long time unless we have guests. Residents might eat four or ten, but never as much as they would eat if they opened "a whole bag" (individual bag) of M&Ms. And it's refilled maybe once a month or six weeks, from a big bag in the pantry.
I have n idea for how people can think of what to put out prominently. What would they put out if guests were coming? Treat children as guests.
If we have guests, I'll show them what's in those stoneware containers, and probably cut up some watermelon and put it out, if we have one. :-)
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
It does mar their experiment a little bit.
But if sliced watermelon is left out in a container where people can see it, we're less likely to throw watermelon out than if it's in the fridge, uncut.
And I've been in a couple of homes where unschoolers had food out for kids to get to, but it was all chips and candy, and there wasn't anything else readily available. That mars the honest choices a bit, too.
On our counter we have a clear glass jar of M&M's, and two little stoneware canisters. Right now one canister has crackers in it (not English Christmas crackers, but American flat dry salty crackers with seeds in them) an the other has Oreo cookies and lemon-filled ginger biscutes from England. :-) Cookies. Different times different things, sometimes homemade cookies.
The M&Ms sit for a long long time unless we have guests. Residents might eat four or ten, but never as much as they would eat if they opened "a whole bag" (individual bag) of M&Ms. And it's refilled maybe once a month or six weeks, from a big bag in the pantry.
I have n idea for how people can think of what to put out prominently. What would they put out if guests were coming? Treat children as guests.
If we have guests, I'll show them what's in those stoneware containers, and probably cut up some watermelon and put it out, if we have one. :-)
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-"LEA, HERE TAKE THIS CANDY! I HAVE A STOMACH ACHE, TAKE IT, TAKE IT!!!!
It was very funny to my daughter (and me as well to tell you the truth) but
more importantly we talked about what could have been causing the stomach
ache because the 2 year old complaint as well. The 5 year old came to the
conclusion herself that it was too much candy and that it "probably had too
much sugar for her tummy. :-) Now she is being a little more careful in
the amounts of candy or sugary foods she eats. For me this a super success
story and it was so encouraging to continue to �ry things that sometimes
make me uncomfortable. :-)
-=-
You know that's because it was limited.
And I'm guessing they were eating it fast and with some excitement. Excitement can cause a stomach ache even without eating anything.
But if they ate as much as they could as fast as they could that says WAY more about limits than it does about sugar.
There are kids who have been strictly limited about foods, and punished if they weren't obedient, who have found pills in a bathroom or grandma's purse or a friend's house, and if the pills have the least bit of candy coating on them, or look like candy, they've eaten them all. And if they weren't supposed to, they're quite unlikely to go and tell their mom what has happened.
I can't begin to imagine a child who was never limited or shamed or punished overdosing on pills just because they looked like candy, but when it happens, people blame the manufactorer of the bottle they were in, or the mom for not watching her child or the owner for not keeping them locked up high.
I kind of went on a tangent, but the principle is the same (plus the addition of sneakiness).
No doubt lots of kids have eaten enough fast enough of something that only gave them a stomach ache, and lied to their parents about why they were sick, rather than get in trouble.
None of that is healthier than candy. None of that is good for healthy or relationships, logical thought or peace. :-)
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
It was very funny to my daughter (and me as well to tell you the truth) but
more importantly we talked about what could have been causing the stomach
ache because the 2 year old complaint as well. The 5 year old came to the
conclusion herself that it was too much candy and that it "probably had too
much sugar for her tummy. :-) Now she is being a little more careful in
the amounts of candy or sugary foods she eats. For me this a super success
story and it was so encouraging to continue to �ry things that sometimes
make me uncomfortable. :-)
-=-
You know that's because it was limited.
And I'm guessing they were eating it fast and with some excitement. Excitement can cause a stomach ache even without eating anything.
But if they ate as much as they could as fast as they could that says WAY more about limits than it does about sugar.
There are kids who have been strictly limited about foods, and punished if they weren't obedient, who have found pills in a bathroom or grandma's purse or a friend's house, and if the pills have the least bit of candy coating on them, or look like candy, they've eaten them all. And if they weren't supposed to, they're quite unlikely to go and tell their mom what has happened.
I can't begin to imagine a child who was never limited or shamed or punished overdosing on pills just because they looked like candy, but when it happens, people blame the manufactorer of the bottle they were in, or the mom for not watching her child or the owner for not keeping them locked up high.
I kind of went on a tangent, but the principle is the same (plus the addition of sneakiness).
No doubt lots of kids have eaten enough fast enough of something that only gave them a stomach ache, and lied to their parents about why they were sick, rather than get in trouble.
None of that is healthier than candy. None of that is good for healthy or relationships, logical thought or peace. :-)
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Paz
i kindly disagree with this, since I have set standards on what my family and I eat and drink 95% of the time, after years of learning about food:nutrients,health,raw,paleo,gluten,grains,genetic modification,poisons of all sorts in chemicals they obsess to pour on them....etc. and observing the absurd amount of overweight, physically and psych. illed population of this country. (i have been raised in central-mountain mexico) so maybe to me is more evident to identify the junk in the american diet? it is junk. cant be called other way, if sick dying children were fed junk food they will survive at that time just to die years later of cancer,loose a limb or life to diabetes,hypertension,etc etc etc. its really easy to prove what is junk out of what is not: buy a mouse or a hamster and feed it a junk diet, just for fun maybe get a second one to feed an all natural all organic non genetically modified high nutrient diet,let the experiment allow you to get your own conclussions. I refuse to call "food" to junk. But maybe thats just me.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless smartphone
Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
Sent from my Verizon Wireless smartphone
Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
>-=-Well, she independently decided to eat less junk, more vegetables and to
>cut out soda altogether. -=-
>
>Please, PLEASE don't use the term "junk" in this way.
>Let food be food, and let children (and yourself) choose without the dismissive labels.
>
>If only starving children had ANY food and soda, they could stay alive. If only people imprisoned, especially those who are not within their own culture, and prinsoners of war, could have whatever it might be that you're thinking of as "junk," they would be much happier and probably healthier.
>
>It will make live cleaner to let food be food, and let people make choices by the criteria of what makes them feel better than to congratulate them for making the right choice in a test that you didn't think you were administering.
>
>Sandra
Sandra Dodd
-=-i kindly disagree with this, since I have set standards on what my family and I eat and drink 95% of the time-=-
You can't disagree with the fact that I own this discussion and that I'm asking people not to use the term "junk food."
http://sandradodd.com/eating/research
If you don't want to read there, it's fine with me, but I would rather you leave the discussion that to refuse to read another opinion that has to do with unschooling.
http://sandradodd.com/eating/control
If you control 95% of what you and your family eat (or you believe that you do), there might be more reason to believe that it will backfire than that you will guarantee a lifelong positive outcome.
-=-. (i have been raised in central-mountain mexico) so maybe to me is more evident to identify the junk in the american diet? it is junk. cant be called other way,-=-
You can choose to call it what you want to at your house or on any yahoo discussion you create and moderate.
If you don't understand why I made the request, it's because you haven't read enough or thought enough about the damage to rational thought that can be done by labelling and sorting in advance rather than looking objectively and open-mindedly at a situation.
-=-if sick dying children were fed junk food they will survive at that time just to die years later of cancer,loose a limb or life to diabetes,hypertension,etc etc etc. -=-
Do you really think it would be better to let them starve if the diet couldn't be to your ideal specifications?
Do you really think your children are better off being dictated to than learning naturally?
-=- its really easy to prove what is junk out of what is not: buy a mouse or a hamster and feed it a junk diet, just for fun maybe get a second one to feed an all natural all organic non genetically modified high nutrient diet,let the experiment allow you to get your own conclussions. I-=-
Scientific experiments require much more than two test subjects, and yours is set up with one single mouse or hamster (the other would be just for fun.
-=-I refuse to call "food" to junk. But maybe thats just me.-=-
Whether it's just you or you and a million more, it's not acceptable to me (the owner of the discussion) for people to use terms that will keep them and others who really do want to understand unschooling from seeing that pre-judging anything (games, literature, toys, music, food) will prevent a child from learning things that can be learned simply and deeply with the principles of unschooling.
In the world, very few people really want to understand radical unschooling.
In the world, there are very few places where people can discuss it seriously and in detail.
In this, which is one of the few and one of the best places, I'm asking people not to use the term "junk food."
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
You can't disagree with the fact that I own this discussion and that I'm asking people not to use the term "junk food."
http://sandradodd.com/eating/research
If you don't want to read there, it's fine with me, but I would rather you leave the discussion that to refuse to read another opinion that has to do with unschooling.
http://sandradodd.com/eating/control
If you control 95% of what you and your family eat (or you believe that you do), there might be more reason to believe that it will backfire than that you will guarantee a lifelong positive outcome.
-=-. (i have been raised in central-mountain mexico) so maybe to me is more evident to identify the junk in the american diet? it is junk. cant be called other way,-=-
You can choose to call it what you want to at your house or on any yahoo discussion you create and moderate.
If you don't understand why I made the request, it's because you haven't read enough or thought enough about the damage to rational thought that can be done by labelling and sorting in advance rather than looking objectively and open-mindedly at a situation.
-=-if sick dying children were fed junk food they will survive at that time just to die years later of cancer,loose a limb or life to diabetes,hypertension,etc etc etc. -=-
Do you really think it would be better to let them starve if the diet couldn't be to your ideal specifications?
Do you really think your children are better off being dictated to than learning naturally?
-=- its really easy to prove what is junk out of what is not: buy a mouse or a hamster and feed it a junk diet, just for fun maybe get a second one to feed an all natural all organic non genetically modified high nutrient diet,let the experiment allow you to get your own conclussions. I-=-
Scientific experiments require much more than two test subjects, and yours is set up with one single mouse or hamster (the other would be just for fun.
-=-I refuse to call "food" to junk. But maybe thats just me.-=-
Whether it's just you or you and a million more, it's not acceptable to me (the owner of the discussion) for people to use terms that will keep them and others who really do want to understand unschooling from seeing that pre-judging anything (games, literature, toys, music, food) will prevent a child from learning things that can be learned simply and deeply with the principles of unschooling.
In the world, very few people really want to understand radical unschooling.
In the world, there are very few places where people can discuss it seriously and in detail.
In this, which is one of the few and one of the best places, I'm asking people not to use the term "junk food."
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Tawha
I Couldn’t agree more with you..
We can’t consume and eat something and call it FOOD , just because you are eating it! If You eat rock, plastic,sand, pollutants,, ADDED with herbs , potatoes, colors, preservatives, hydrogenated fats , GMO corn syrup and this and that, refined, processed, not digestible to our system,,These cause you addiction, obesity,sick and diseases, on top that pollute the enviroment for its production. Junk is cheap for a reason.
Natural Food is REAL food and gives you vitality and health .
From: Paz
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 7:42 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] Food choice backed by research (and Google)
i kindly disagree with this, since I have set standards on what my family and I eat and drink 95% of the time, after years of learning about food:nutrients,health,raw,paleo,gluten,grains,genetic modification,poisons of all sorts in chemicals they obsess to pour on them....etc. and observing the absurd amount of overweight, physically and psych. illed population of this country. (i have been raised in central-mountain mexico) so maybe to me is more evident to identify the junk in the american diet? it is junk. cant be called other way, if sick dying children were fed junk food they will survive at that time just to die years later of cancer,loose a limb or life to diabetes,hypertension,etc etc etc. its really easy to prove what is junk out of what is not: buy a mouse or a hamster and feed it a junk diet, just for fun maybe get a second one to feed an all natural all organic non genetically modified high nutrient diet,let the experiment allow you to get your own conclussions. I refuse to call "food" to junk. But maybe thats just me.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless smartphone
Sandra Dodd <mailto:Sandra%40SandraDodd.com> wrote:
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 2641/6182 - Release Date: 03/16/13
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
We can’t consume and eat something and call it FOOD , just because you are eating it! If You eat rock, plastic,sand, pollutants,, ADDED with herbs , potatoes, colors, preservatives, hydrogenated fats , GMO corn syrup and this and that, refined, processed, not digestible to our system,,These cause you addiction, obesity,sick and diseases, on top that pollute the enviroment for its production. Junk is cheap for a reason.
Natural Food is REAL food and gives you vitality and health .
From: Paz
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 7:42 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] Food choice backed by research (and Google)
i kindly disagree with this, since I have set standards on what my family and I eat and drink 95% of the time, after years of learning about food:nutrients,health,raw,paleo,gluten,grains,genetic modification,poisons of all sorts in chemicals they obsess to pour on them....etc. and observing the absurd amount of overweight, physically and psych. illed population of this country. (i have been raised in central-mountain mexico) so maybe to me is more evident to identify the junk in the american diet? it is junk. cant be called other way, if sick dying children were fed junk food they will survive at that time just to die years later of cancer,loose a limb or life to diabetes,hypertension,etc etc etc. its really easy to prove what is junk out of what is not: buy a mouse or a hamster and feed it a junk diet, just for fun maybe get a second one to feed an all natural all organic non genetically modified high nutrient diet,let the experiment allow you to get your own conclussions. I refuse to call "food" to junk. But maybe thats just me.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless smartphone
Sandra Dodd <mailto:Sandra%40SandraDodd.com> wrote:
>-=-Well, she independently decided to eat less junk, more vegetables and toNo virus found in this message.
>cut out soda altogether. -=-
>
>Please, PLEASE don't use the term "junk" in this way.
>Let food be food, and let children (and yourself) choose without the dismissive labels.
>
>If only starving children had ANY food and soda, they could stay alive. If only people imprisoned, especially those who are not within their own culture, and prinsoners of war, could have whatever it might be that you're thinking of as "junk," they would be much happier and probably healthier.
>
>It will make live cleaner to let food be food, and let people make choices by the criteria of what makes them feel better than to congratulate them for making the right choice in a test that you didn't think you were administering.
>
>Sandra
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 2641/6182 - Release Date: 03/16/13
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
ehulani56
> I Couldnât agree more with you..I hope you didn't read what Sandra requested in her post before you posted, because to do so would be pretty rude!
>
>
Radical unschooling will not flourish if people can't let go of their fears. And that includes fear of food. And while rock might not be food, there are plenty of things which *are* food that people want to call "junk".
One of my favorite quotes on the subject is from Schuyler Waynforth:
"Candy fed with love beats the heck out of broccoli eaten out of fear."
When fear rules your decisions, it makes you want to control everything. Avoid control if you want peace in your family.
Oh and here's a page with a wealth of information about what eating looks like in a radical unschooling home:
http://sandradodd.com/food
Examine *everything* in light of logic and rationality, not in light of the latest fear-mongering online or in books or by friends or people with political axes to grind.
Examine what we say here, in that light, as well. Read about real-life families and how they live. As Sandra has said, don't do what you don't understand. "Read a little, try a little, wait a while, watch."
If you don't have a clear understanding of what radical unschooling and how it's discussed here, please keep reading if you're interested. But please don't post if what you're saying won't help others successfully radically unschool. Don't let fear infect other people here who want to understand.
Robin B.
Jenny Cyphers
> i kindly disagree with this, since I have set standards on what my family and I eat and drink 95% of the time,That might work for a few years while your kids are young, but kids do eventually find ways to eat other things. When I was a kid, my parents controlled 95% of what I ate. I had to eat things I desperately didn't want to eat and I was denied things I desperately wanted to eat. It was a terrible and powerless feeling, no matter how much time and effort my parents put into making what they believed were wonderful and nutritious meals.
>
Sadly, some of the things I was forced to eat, I can't eat now without a very serious allergic reaction. If only I had been able to listen to my body and eat what felt good and avoid what didn't. I might be able to eat those things now. If I had been able to eat those things only in those moments that I felt like eating them, which was rare, I might not have broken my digestive system partaking of things my body violently didn't want. Gagging down food I truly hated most of the time ONLY because I HAD NO CHOICE!
How arrogant to assume you know what is best for individual people simply because you are bigger and because you can.
You want to know what my body thinks is junk and poison? Lots of things normal people think is "real" food, put on a glorious throne of righteousness.
I can eat potato chips and Jr. Mints though, so if you called those things junk to my face I might actually cry and never speak to you again!
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
Joyce Fetteroll
> buy a mouse or a hamster and feed it a junk dietThe mouse wouldn't have a choice but to eat what's put before it.
Unschooled kids (and Google employees) get to choose what they feel like eating. They get to choose fruit, nuts, candy and chips. They get to choose fruit juice, vitamin water, soda, water.
Why not make it a real experiment and allow the mouse to have a variety of choices?
If you prepare nutritious meals, prepare nutritious snacks, but also include any other foods -- including the foods you label junk -- that your family wants to have, what do you think you?
I don't want you to pour out your list of fears of obesity and poison. I want to know what you think their daily eating would look like.
(That's directed at anyone with fear of commercial snack food.)
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Joyce Fetteroll
> GMO corn syrup and this and that, refined, processed, not digestible*If* the people who object to allowing kids commercial convenience foods are certain that even a small amount of these is poisonous then nothing we say here about food choice will mean anything to you.
> to our system,,These cause you addiction, obesity,sick and diseases
*If* you're certain that occasional convenience foods will lead to diseases and obesity far in the future, what we say here won't mean anything to you. The information here is for people who question that idea AND are certain that control will damage relationships and mental health. (Jenny's is just one of many stories members have told here of the damage their parents controlling what choices of foods they had as kids did to them.)
*If* you're prioritizing your kids understanding food the way you do over them exploring to discover what foods are right for them, then what's said here won't be useful for you. The information here is for people who prioritize children exploring widely to discover what is right and meaningful to them. If someone wants that but also fears food AND is willing to work on her fears, members here can help with stories and information.
*If* you're certain these foods are addictive, then unschooled kids should show signs of addiction. By the time unschooled kids are ready to leave home, their diets should show full blown addiction with convenience foods making up the bulk of their diet. But that doesn't happen. I would say as an adult my daughter definitely eats fewer commercial foods than when she was a kid. And when she was a kid she didn't eat that much. The appeal of convenience foods for kids is they're easy to grab, easy to eat, high in calories and carbohydrates. And the taste, texture, presentation is appealing.
*If* you're certain that bodies can't learn the difference between what's digestible and what isn't, what the body needs and what it doesn't when manufactured chemicals are thrown in the mix, then the only evidence that would change your mind is unschooled children trying commercial foods once then rejecting them. You want to see evidence that kids can make the "right" choice, e.g., the choice you believe is right. It won't makes sense to you that people can choose commercial products for reasons *other* than the manufactured chemicals in them.
What unschoolers have found is kids make the choices their bodies need as they're growing. If a home has snacks that offer the same advantages as convenience foods (as listed above), unschooled kids will eat them. (The foods need to be appealing to that particular child. So if a parent pays attention to the types of convenience food the child is drawn to, they can *also* explore natural versions and make -- with the child :-) -- homemade versions to give the child even more choice. How much of the commercial food the child continues to eat will depend on the child's taste. The more effort the mom puts into responding to that child's particular tastes -- and the less she fears him making commercial choices, the less she's invested in him making the choices she feels are right -- the more likely the child will choose natural foods. (Though if the goal is to have the child never choose commercial convenience foods, that's likely to backfire and fill the home with pressure and tension. It's important that the goal be choice that appeals to the child, not getting the child to make the choices mom believes are right.)
The point isn't to find foods for the child to eat instead, but to be responsive to the child's tastes and offer variety so *they* can discover what feels right to them. By making choices, by exploring broadly they discover what they like and don't like and they grow to understand their body's language and learn how to respond to it. They do this naturally.
Whereas the natural foodists are fighting against natural learning. They're certain that manufacturers are so clever they can make bodies want their manufactured chemicals more than natural chemicals. So the natural foodists need to make sure their kids have the information to keep the body from wanting the wrong things. But if that theory were true, since unschooled kids have a broad array of choices, they would be choosing a diet heavily ladened with manufactured foods. But the evidence from unschooled kids doesn't support that. When given choice, unschooled kids don't exclusively or even mostly eat convenience foods. They make choices each time. Real food *does* taste better. But they don't fear a pack of Oreos. Sometimes Oreos are just the thing you want.
It's important to realize that all this food fear is arising *not* from how unschooled kids respond to a world full of convenience foods. It comes from the masses that are schooled and pressured and struggling with relationships with people who want them to be "better" and different than who they are. When kids are raised without that, when they're raised with parents who are supportive of who they are, who provide choices for their kids to explore what these "want voices" inside of them are asking for, they don't show the same effects as the masses.
So the answer isn't as simple as eliminating convenience foods. The answer is change how kids are related to.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Joyce Fetteroll
On Mar 16, 2013, at 2:17 PM, ehulani56 wrote:
Information for people to turn over and use as they wish is helpful in supporting choice.
Information being used to encourage people make someone else's idea of right choice is controlling.
As someone who wasn't unschooled, as someone who is probably making more stress choices in food than nutritional choices, I found the new menus as McDonalds (and some restaurants) a huge help in deciding :-) While they've had the nutrition information listed on a card for a long time, now calorie content is showing up right there on the menus.
New York City's recent attempt to ban super sized drinks is wrong headed. It's just going to make people want them more *not* because people want super sized drinks. But because people like to decide for themselves. If you put the calorie content on the menu, then people can decide *each time* "Do I want 450 calories from my Coke this time?" Maybe sometimes it will be yes! Sometimes, probably way less than it is now, the decision will be no.
I think what most people first *expect* from giving kids choice is kids learning quickly to make the "right" choice for all time. But the goal should be learning and listening to their own needs and making a choice that's right for *each time*. If a choice they make has upsides and down sides -- as most choices do -- it's information for the future. By exploring and discovering for themselves, each time someone can weigh the downsides of available choices and upsides against their needs in them moment and make better choices for that instance.
When given choice, kids *won't* prioritize nutrition over other factors. That's important to realize in what we're saying! They will -- as all humans will -- *also* weigh convenience (that's a biggie for kids!), taste, texture, appearance, smell, personal preferences and other factors that aren't quantifiable. The food manufactures know this. Rather than fighting against it, moms can use it too to help their kids find what's right for them.
If the mom's goal is providing nutritious snacks, then leveling out the playing field of food choices by paying attention to those other factors will allow kids to choose Oreos *because* they want Ores, not because they're easier or chocolatier or sweeter than the other choices. (But, as I said before, twisting yourself into knots to try to get kids to always make the more nutritionally dense choice is very likely to backfire. Relax! Make it *easier* for them to make certain choices.)
When kids are young and convenience is a priority, it doesn't go against free choice to make nutritious foods more convenient than the less nutritious foods. It doesn't hurt to put the water and juice at the front of the refrigerator rather than at the back. Now if someone complains or the soda is always being moved to the front, it would be manipulative to always move it to the back. But if it doesn't matter to the child, and reaching into the back for a soda when they really want a soda rather than what's easiest, then making the less nutritionally dense foods a little less convenient doesn't go against the principle of choice.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> In Google's case, it seems to me, there is still "good food" and "not-so-good food."Yes, they should put nutritional labels on the apples too to be equal ;-)
Information for people to turn over and use as they wish is helpful in supporting choice.
Information being used to encourage people make someone else's idea of right choice is controlling.
As someone who wasn't unschooled, as someone who is probably making more stress choices in food than nutritional choices, I found the new menus as McDonalds (and some restaurants) a huge help in deciding :-) While they've had the nutrition information listed on a card for a long time, now calorie content is showing up right there on the menus.
New York City's recent attempt to ban super sized drinks is wrong headed. It's just going to make people want them more *not* because people want super sized drinks. But because people like to decide for themselves. If you put the calorie content on the menu, then people can decide *each time* "Do I want 450 calories from my Coke this time?" Maybe sometimes it will be yes! Sometimes, probably way less than it is now, the decision will be no.
I think what most people first *expect* from giving kids choice is kids learning quickly to make the "right" choice for all time. But the goal should be learning and listening to their own needs and making a choice that's right for *each time*. If a choice they make has upsides and down sides -- as most choices do -- it's information for the future. By exploring and discovering for themselves, each time someone can weigh the downsides of available choices and upsides against their needs in them moment and make better choices for that instance.
> there is still "good food" and "not-so-good food."There are nutritionally more dense foods and nutritionally less dense foods. There are also foods that are more convenient and foods that are less convenient. And other factors.
When given choice, kids *won't* prioritize nutrition over other factors. That's important to realize in what we're saying! They will -- as all humans will -- *also* weigh convenience (that's a biggie for kids!), taste, texture, appearance, smell, personal preferences and other factors that aren't quantifiable. The food manufactures know this. Rather than fighting against it, moms can use it too to help their kids find what's right for them.
If the mom's goal is providing nutritious snacks, then leveling out the playing field of food choices by paying attention to those other factors will allow kids to choose Oreos *because* they want Ores, not because they're easier or chocolatier or sweeter than the other choices. (But, as I said before, twisting yourself into knots to try to get kids to always make the more nutritionally dense choice is very likely to backfire. Relax! Make it *easier* for them to make certain choices.)
When kids are young and convenience is a priority, it doesn't go against free choice to make nutritious foods more convenient than the less nutritious foods. It doesn't hurt to put the water and juice at the front of the refrigerator rather than at the back. Now if someone complains or the soda is always being moved to the front, it would be manipulative to always move it to the back. But if it doesn't matter to the child, and reaching into the back for a soda when they really want a soda rather than what's easiest, then making the less nutritionally dense foods a little less convenient doesn't go against the principle of choice.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Meredith
Tawha <tawha@...> wrote:
Given the chance, given real options, kids eat pretty darned well. Sure, they'll eat some sweets, some pre-packed foods, but they don't gorge on those things. They eat when they're hungry and stop when they've had enough. Given a variety of things, they'll try a variety of things and make choices based not only on immediate pleasure but on what feels good over time.
If you've never seen that, if you've only ever seen the way people eat in response to teaching and resistance to teaching and all the guilt and shame and self-loathing which goes with that, it seems widely unlikely children could learn to eat what's good for them without being taught - but they do. It's not a guess, it's the common experience of radical unschooling families. Kids actually can tell what's good for their bodies over time and they care about that. You don't have to teach them.
If anything, teaching creates more problems, it Causes people to be oblivious to the real information of their bodies and feelings. Think of all the adults who struggle soooooo much with knowing what to eat and when and how - they didn't grow up with parents saying "whatever" - there has Yet to be a generation where that was the common parenting practice. All those people struggling with food and eating and eating disorders grew up being taught about food, about what they should and should not eat, and when, and how much. Eat your vegetables, or no dessert for you. How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat? That's Normal.
The thing about that sort of food control is that it Makes Sense in poverty. If you're poor enough, if food is scarce enough, you eat what there is. You absolutely bully your kids to eat what there is because there Are no better options and pure survival is more important than any kind of emotional well being. If you're poor enough, when there's plenty of Anything it makes good sense to gorge on it, because you won't be seeing that kind of abundance again soon.
Applying those kinds of standards and expectations to a life in which food is relatively abundant doesn't work. It's a set-up for years of struggling with food. Happily, it Is Not Necessary. In an environment of abundance, of variety and choices, kids have the innate ability to experiment and discover what is good for them - Because good food supports health and vitality.
---Meredith
>> Natural Food is REAL food and gives you vitality and health .Yes, and children can tell. That's the important thing, the thing that gets missed if you go into a full-on panic about toxic/addictive whatever foods and food ingredients. Children are busy people. They are busy learning and exploring - physically, mentally, spiritually. It feels good to learn and explore in all those ways. It feels good to be healthy.
Given the chance, given real options, kids eat pretty darned well. Sure, they'll eat some sweets, some pre-packed foods, but they don't gorge on those things. They eat when they're hungry and stop when they've had enough. Given a variety of things, they'll try a variety of things and make choices based not only on immediate pleasure but on what feels good over time.
If you've never seen that, if you've only ever seen the way people eat in response to teaching and resistance to teaching and all the guilt and shame and self-loathing which goes with that, it seems widely unlikely children could learn to eat what's good for them without being taught - but they do. It's not a guess, it's the common experience of radical unschooling families. Kids actually can tell what's good for their bodies over time and they care about that. You don't have to teach them.
If anything, teaching creates more problems, it Causes people to be oblivious to the real information of their bodies and feelings. Think of all the adults who struggle soooooo much with knowing what to eat and when and how - they didn't grow up with parents saying "whatever" - there has Yet to be a generation where that was the common parenting practice. All those people struggling with food and eating and eating disorders grew up being taught about food, about what they should and should not eat, and when, and how much. Eat your vegetables, or no dessert for you. How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat? That's Normal.
The thing about that sort of food control is that it Makes Sense in poverty. If you're poor enough, if food is scarce enough, you eat what there is. You absolutely bully your kids to eat what there is because there Are no better options and pure survival is more important than any kind of emotional well being. If you're poor enough, when there's plenty of Anything it makes good sense to gorge on it, because you won't be seeing that kind of abundance again soon.
Applying those kinds of standards and expectations to a life in which food is relatively abundant doesn't work. It's a set-up for years of struggling with food. Happily, it Is Not Necessary. In an environment of abundance, of variety and choices, kids have the innate ability to experiment and discover what is good for them - Because good food supports health and vitality.
---Meredith
Meredith
Jenny Cyphers <jenstarc4@...> wrote:
My mom also worked hard to make wonderful and nutritious meals - my brother and I poured over her old cookbooks at her funeral, reading the notes in the margins and telling stories about her. To my mother cooking was a tremendous act of love.
And yet my gut-level memory of my mother's cooking is a sense of powerlessness and disgust. I don't mention that around my brother, because he didn't have that experience of staring at a plate of horrors wondering how little he could get away with choking down. He liked what she cooked for the most part and is thrilled to have her old cookbooks now. Her old meals are his comfort food. He's welcome to them.
I no longer eat most of what my mom considered wonderful and nutritious food. Most of it makes me sick - it does me physical harm, and if I look back, it was doing me physical harm as a child as well as psychological harm. I spent nearly a decade after leaving my mother's house trying different dietic theories until I found one that suits me. Maybe my experiences opened up my thinking a little bit in that regard - I know there's no One True Way to eat, no holy grail of nutrition, not even for the lifespan of a single individual. I don't know anyone over 50 who eats the way he or she did under 30 - even those who eat mostly the same foods have altered the proportions and amounts.
Every member of my family, now, has a slightly different diet. There are few things we can all eat, and none of those at ever meal - even little things like brown -vs- white rice. It's a logistical puzzle. And because we don't have big family rules about what's Right To Eat, it's Just a logistical puzzle. It doesn't have to be anything bigger than that.
---Meredith
>> When I was a kid, my parents controlled 95% of what I ate. I had to eat things I desperately didn't want to eat and I was denied things I desperately wanted to eat. It was a terrible and powerless feeling, no matter how much time and effort my parents put into making what they believed were wonderful and nutritious meals.***************
My mom also worked hard to make wonderful and nutritious meals - my brother and I poured over her old cookbooks at her funeral, reading the notes in the margins and telling stories about her. To my mother cooking was a tremendous act of love.
And yet my gut-level memory of my mother's cooking is a sense of powerlessness and disgust. I don't mention that around my brother, because he didn't have that experience of staring at a plate of horrors wondering how little he could get away with choking down. He liked what she cooked for the most part and is thrilled to have her old cookbooks now. Her old meals are his comfort food. He's welcome to them.
I no longer eat most of what my mom considered wonderful and nutritious food. Most of it makes me sick - it does me physical harm, and if I look back, it was doing me physical harm as a child as well as psychological harm. I spent nearly a decade after leaving my mother's house trying different dietic theories until I found one that suits me. Maybe my experiences opened up my thinking a little bit in that regard - I know there's no One True Way to eat, no holy grail of nutrition, not even for the lifespan of a single individual. I don't know anyone over 50 who eats the way he or she did under 30 - even those who eat mostly the same foods have altered the proportions and amounts.
Every member of my family, now, has a slightly different diet. There are few things we can all eat, and none of those at ever meal - even little things like brown -vs- white rice. It's a logistical puzzle. And because we don't have big family rules about what's Right To Eat, it's Just a logistical puzzle. It doesn't have to be anything bigger than that.
---Meredith
Sandra Dodd
-=-Information being used to encourage people make someone else's idea of right choice is controlling.-=-
I disagree with this statement in general. It can be true but isn't always true.
Every couple of years someone pops up and says that strewing (leaving something interesting out) is coercive. It's not.
Saying "Hamlet's playing at Popejoy and if we don't see it now we might not ever get a chance to see it live" isn't controlling. Perhaps it's being persuasive.
If I want to see a movie and I'm hoping Marty or Holly will go with me, I will state my case and maybe one will go. But I have no obligation to show them all the movies playing in town and just hope they will pick the one I want.
It's not a perfect analogy, but I think information doesn't equal control.
I think if I was afraid one of my kids would like a movie I have something against and I said "THAT movie is trash; that movie is crap. Pick a good movie," it would be a bad move on my part, as an unschooling parent, because I really don't know what they might take from that movie, or whether they might watch the first ten minutes and decide not to invest the rest of an hour or more. They would be making that choice for their own reasons, without fear of mom saying "AHA! TOLD you so!" or going on about how even ten minutes of it was surely going to warp them, and that they've wasted precious moments of their lives.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I disagree with this statement in general. It can be true but isn't always true.
Every couple of years someone pops up and says that strewing (leaving something interesting out) is coercive. It's not.
Saying "Hamlet's playing at Popejoy and if we don't see it now we might not ever get a chance to see it live" isn't controlling. Perhaps it's being persuasive.
If I want to see a movie and I'm hoping Marty or Holly will go with me, I will state my case and maybe one will go. But I have no obligation to show them all the movies playing in town and just hope they will pick the one I want.
It's not a perfect analogy, but I think information doesn't equal control.
I think if I was afraid one of my kids would like a movie I have something against and I said "THAT movie is trash; that movie is crap. Pick a good movie," it would be a bad move on my part, as an unschooling parent, because I really don't know what they might take from that movie, or whether they might watch the first ten minutes and decide not to invest the rest of an hour or more. They would be making that choice for their own reasons, without fear of mom saying "AHA! TOLD you so!" or going on about how even ten minutes of it was surely going to warp them, and that they've wasted precious moments of their lives.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Vonnie Hart
The good old Food Pyramid pretty much says it all. For Vegetarians -
replace meat with nuts, beans and all that.
replace meat with nuts, beans and all that.
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> -=-Information being used to encourage people make someone else's idea of
> right choice is controlling.-=-
>
> I disagree with this statement in general. It can be true but isn't always
> true.
>
> Every couple of years someone pops up and says that strewing (leaving
> something interesting out) is coercive. It's not.
>
> Saying "Hamlet's playing at Popejoy and if we don't see it now we might
> not ever get a chance to see it live" isn't controlling. Perhaps it's being
> persuasive.
>
> If I want to see a movie and I'm hoping Marty or Holly will go with me, I
> will state my case and maybe one will go. But I have no obligation to show
> them all the movies playing in town and just hope they will pick the one I
> want.
>
> It's not a perfect analogy, but I think information doesn't equal control.
>
> I think if I was afraid one of my kids would like a movie I have something
> against and I said "THAT movie is trash; that movie is crap. Pick a good
> movie," it would be a bad move on my part, as an unschooling parent,
> because I really don't know what they might take from that movie, or
> whether they might watch the first ten minutes and decide not to invest the
> rest of an hour or more. They would be making that choice for their own
> reasons, without fear of mom saying "AHA! TOLD you so!" or going on about
> how even ten minutes of it was surely going to warp them, and that they've
> wasted precious moments of their lives.
>
> Sandra
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-*If* you're certain these foods are addictive, then unschooled kids should show signs of addiction. By the time unschooled kids are ready to leave home, their diets should show full blown addiction with convenience foods making up the bulk of their diet. But that doesn't happen. I would say as an adult my daughter definitely eats fewer commercial foods than when she was a kid. And when she was a kid she didn't eat that much. The appeal of convenience foods for kids is they're easy to grab, easy to eat, high in calories and carbohydrates. And the taste, texture, presentation is appealing.-=-
That's the way it happened here, too.
Each of my kids is careful and aware of food choices.
On these road trips the two younger ones are one, food photos were posted. Holly went to a sushi restaurant in Oakland and sent a photo of her food, and of her boyfriend with along sushi roll. I don't like sushi; she didn't get that from me. (Holly also sent a photo of one piece of pizza left on a pan, from another night.)
Marty posted a photo of a steak and lobster dinner he or Ashlee (his girlfriend) was about to eat at a casino in Las Vegas. Not everyone wants to eat steak or lobster. I don't eat steak, and I don't eat lobster. He didn't get that from me.
The last I knew, Kirby wasn't drinking soda. Marty went a long time without it, but is drinking Dr Pepper again now sometimes. Holly has a coke a time or two a week, but she's also big into farmers' markets and loves lots of vegetables her dad won't eat.
Because we hadn't demonized or villified any foods at all, their choices were as untainted as we could make them. Sure, sometimes people express negativity. I wish I never had. A friend of theirs brought a jar of marshmallow creme over, which I had never owned, and I said gross, and it sat in the cabinet for a year until I threw it away. I don't know, now, whether it sat because I said "gross" or whether it would've sat anyway, so I screwed up.
It is possible to be calm and generous rather than fearful and vigilant, and get the same (and maybe better) visible results and get vastly better invisible results (peace, mindfulness, self-awareness).
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
That's the way it happened here, too.
Each of my kids is careful and aware of food choices.
On these road trips the two younger ones are one, food photos were posted. Holly went to a sushi restaurant in Oakland and sent a photo of her food, and of her boyfriend with along sushi roll. I don't like sushi; she didn't get that from me. (Holly also sent a photo of one piece of pizza left on a pan, from another night.)
Marty posted a photo of a steak and lobster dinner he or Ashlee (his girlfriend) was about to eat at a casino in Las Vegas. Not everyone wants to eat steak or lobster. I don't eat steak, and I don't eat lobster. He didn't get that from me.
The last I knew, Kirby wasn't drinking soda. Marty went a long time without it, but is drinking Dr Pepper again now sometimes. Holly has a coke a time or two a week, but she's also big into farmers' markets and loves lots of vegetables her dad won't eat.
Because we hadn't demonized or villified any foods at all, their choices were as untainted as we could make them. Sure, sometimes people express negativity. I wish I never had. A friend of theirs brought a jar of marshmallow creme over, which I had never owned, and I said gross, and it sat in the cabinet for a year until I threw it away. I don't know, now, whether it sat because I said "gross" or whether it would've sat anyway, so I screwed up.
It is possible to be calm and generous rather than fearful and vigilant, and get the same (and maybe better) visible results and get vastly better invisible results (peace, mindfulness, self-awareness).
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Joyce Fetteroll
On Mar 17, 2013, at 6:50 AM, Joyce Fetteroll wrote:
If you prepare nutritious meals, prepare nutritious snacks, but also
include any other foods -- including the foods you label junk -- that
your family wants to have, what do you think will happen? What do
you think their eating will look like?
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> If you prepare nutritious meals, prepare nutritious snacks, but alsoSorry. I left that sentence with an incomplete remodel.
> include any other foods -- including the foods you label junk -- that
> your family wants to have, what do you think you?
If you prepare nutritious meals, prepare nutritious snacks, but also
include any other foods -- including the foods you label junk -- that
your family wants to have, what do you think will happen? What do
you think their eating will look like?
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-(That's directed at anyone with fear of commercial snack food.)-=-
I think some people's definition of "junk" will go far beyond commercial snack food.
This saying is going around. It hasn't gone far yet.
"If you don't recognize an ingredient, your body won't either."
I went to look. The earliest I found was a tweet or instagram or something, and was marked #inflammation (as in "file this with other info about inflammation). Someone made an image with the quote and "~Inflammation" in a smaller font to the right, as though the author of the quote was "Inflammation."
It's an interesting thought, and a propagandistic slogan probably created to sell something or to increase fear. Lots of people responded "how true" and such, as though it were literally sensible and true. But it's not. Your body doesn't care what you know or recognize. How long ago was yogurt unknown in much of western culture? If someone doesn't know that acidophilus or kefir is, will their bodies reject them? If people fifty years from now say "Cannot BELIEVE people thought acidophilus was good for them," will that mean that people who used it in 1980 were idiots?
People live where they live. They believe what they believe.
Lots of people my age and older had their tonsils removed because doctors didn't know what they were good for, but they saw them become inflamed, and so blamed the tonsils for the infection. Rather than figure out how to improve health for a person's appendix, doctors didn't know what they were for and so assumed they were vestigial and not good for anything. Out went lots of them. Gall bladders; similar. That's in the U.S. Other cultures, different parts of bodies are considered mysteriously unimportant, or dangerous, and are cut off.
Bodies operate without people's will or knowledge. Our hearts beat because they do. Someone very smart and someone who can't speak or walk, both their hearts know how to beat.
Humility is underrated in our culture. People think they KNOW just because they kind of heard, or think they read, or the friend whose car and house they admire is doing it, or there's a whole magazine about it, and so it must be important. Following groups is okay. It's probably safer and more adaptive in many ways that going out alone.
Unschooling isn't done in groups, though. It's done by parents in their homes, with their individual children. So they do need to become aware and analytical and not take other people's wild and scary opinions as gospel, eternal truth. A great deal of "fact" turns out to have been temporary theory.
And people will reject things beause they don't recognize them. That's doesn't mean their bodies will do the same.
Here's an interesting demonstration:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw
Sandra
I think some people's definition of "junk" will go far beyond commercial snack food.
This saying is going around. It hasn't gone far yet.
"If you don't recognize an ingredient, your body won't either."
I went to look. The earliest I found was a tweet or instagram or something, and was marked #inflammation (as in "file this with other info about inflammation). Someone made an image with the quote and "~Inflammation" in a smaller font to the right, as though the author of the quote was "Inflammation."
It's an interesting thought, and a propagandistic slogan probably created to sell something or to increase fear. Lots of people responded "how true" and such, as though it were literally sensible and true. But it's not. Your body doesn't care what you know or recognize. How long ago was yogurt unknown in much of western culture? If someone doesn't know that acidophilus or kefir is, will their bodies reject them? If people fifty years from now say "Cannot BELIEVE people thought acidophilus was good for them," will that mean that people who used it in 1980 were idiots?
People live where they live. They believe what they believe.
Lots of people my age and older had their tonsils removed because doctors didn't know what they were good for, but they saw them become inflamed, and so blamed the tonsils for the infection. Rather than figure out how to improve health for a person's appendix, doctors didn't know what they were for and so assumed they were vestigial and not good for anything. Out went lots of them. Gall bladders; similar. That's in the U.S. Other cultures, different parts of bodies are considered mysteriously unimportant, or dangerous, and are cut off.
Bodies operate without people's will or knowledge. Our hearts beat because they do. Someone very smart and someone who can't speak or walk, both their hearts know how to beat.
Humility is underrated in our culture. People think they KNOW just because they kind of heard, or think they read, or the friend whose car and house they admire is doing it, or there's a whole magazine about it, and so it must be important. Following groups is okay. It's probably safer and more adaptive in many ways that going out alone.
Unschooling isn't done in groups, though. It's done by parents in their homes, with their individual children. So they do need to become aware and analytical and not take other people's wild and scary opinions as gospel, eternal truth. A great deal of "fact" turns out to have been temporary theory.
And people will reject things beause they don't recognize them. That's doesn't mean their bodies will do the same.
Here's an interesting demonstration:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw
Sandra
Sandra Dodd
-=-The good old Food Pyramid pretty much says it all. For Vegetarians -
replace meat with nuts, beans and all that.-=-
The food pyramid replaced the good old four food groups. I don't think either was international, and it can't be that bodies function differently in the U.S. than in India or France.
Is there more than one food pyramid? Because I think the one that went out twenty years ago was recalled for having too much bread. There was a big "bread is the best" wave in the 1980's. But carbohydrates, y'know.... that's the evil sugar.
So do you have an image of the food pyramid you're recommending?
Here's one for St. Patrick's Day (which is an American holiday to give Irish-American Catholics a party day during lent, I think):
http://www.lilesnet.com/St_Patricks/2011/oldranch/pix_irish_food_pyramid.jpg
It it weren't March 17th, I would've left it with the vast array of other food pyramid images.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
replace meat with nuts, beans and all that.-=-
The food pyramid replaced the good old four food groups. I don't think either was international, and it can't be that bodies function differently in the U.S. than in India or France.
Is there more than one food pyramid? Because I think the one that went out twenty years ago was recalled for having too much bread. There was a big "bread is the best" wave in the 1980's. But carbohydrates, y'know.... that's the evil sugar.
So do you have an image of the food pyramid you're recommending?
Here's one for St. Patrick's Day (which is an American holiday to give Irish-American Catholics a party day during lent, I think):
http://www.lilesnet.com/St_Patricks/2011/oldranch/pix_irish_food_pyramid.jpg
It it weren't March 17th, I would've left it with the vast array of other food pyramid images.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-The good old Food Pyramid pretty much says it all. For Vegetarians -
replace meat with nuts, beans and all that.-=-
What does the food pyramid say about unschooling?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
replace meat with nuts, beans and all that.-=-
What does the food pyramid say about unschooling?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-The thing about that sort of food control is that it Makes Sense in poverty. If you're poor enough, if food is scarce enough, you eat what there is.-=-
It makes sense in wartime, with rationing.
It makes sense during The Great Depression, when a family might only have meat once a week, and might be eating biscuits and gravy, or beans and cornbread (for my own family history) night after night.
-=-In an environment of abundance, of variety and choices, kids have the innate ability to experiment and discover what is good for them - Because good food supports health and vitality.-=-
Convenience is also a factor. If all food had to be prepared, people waited until the cook or the head of the house said it was time to eat what had just then been made, and many things couldn't be stored before refrigeration (except through salting / brine water or drying it).
Because of refrigeration and plastic wrap, microwaves and toaster ovens, it's easy for the first time in history for someone to cook enough for just one person. It would never had made sense to fire up a wood stove to bake one single potato, and a batch wouldn't keep. So people boiled or fried small amounts of potatoes. Now they can microwave one.
People reading here can think through things like that on their own, about what effect wars, famine, disease and poverty might have had on their own ancestors. Or if not poverty, perhaps wealth. Think Downton Abbey. No eating between meals, when meals are very formal and prescribed.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
It makes sense in wartime, with rationing.
It makes sense during The Great Depression, when a family might only have meat once a week, and might be eating biscuits and gravy, or beans and cornbread (for my own family history) night after night.
-=-In an environment of abundance, of variety and choices, kids have the innate ability to experiment and discover what is good for them - Because good food supports health and vitality.-=-
Convenience is also a factor. If all food had to be prepared, people waited until the cook or the head of the house said it was time to eat what had just then been made, and many things couldn't be stored before refrigeration (except through salting / brine water or drying it).
Because of refrigeration and plastic wrap, microwaves and toaster ovens, it's easy for the first time in history for someone to cook enough for just one person. It would never had made sense to fire up a wood stove to bake one single potato, and a batch wouldn't keep. So people boiled or fried small amounts of potatoes. Now they can microwave one.
People reading here can think through things like that on their own, about what effect wars, famine, disease and poverty might have had on their own ancestors. Or if not poverty, perhaps wealth. Think Downton Abbey. No eating between meals, when meals are very formal and prescribed.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
supermomblues
This has been a great topic for me.
I grew up as an obese child and went on to be an obese adult who's diet was strictly "junk food". I truly feel that this is because of the limitations my own parents put me on as a child. We weren't allowed to have snacks or sweets in the house, so when I'd go to a friend or a relative's home where these were allowed, I'd overindulge on them - every time. I saved allowance and lunch money to buy candy and sodas after school. When I was old enough to get a job, all my money went to food that I wasn't allowed at home. When I grew up and moved out of the house my diet consisted of spaghetti-o's, totino's pizza, chips, cherry coke and Dr. Pepper. I did not eat real food at all. As a result, by the time I had my second child I was over 300 lbs with high blood pressure and a myriad of other health issues. By then, it was too late for me - I could not get the weight off on my own and I had gastric surgery last year. I now can LITERALLY not eat the things I did before because they make me really sick. I'm forced into a diet of strictly meat and vegetables with some fruit here and there.
I absolutely REFUSE for my children to go through what I went through. Therefore, chips, candy, soda, cookies and other things are allowed in my house as well as apples, carrots, grapes and yogurt. This "food freedom" in my home is something I decided on long before I even knew what unschooling was. My food issues are not my children's food issues.
Generally speaking, my kids have chips and soda and candy most days, but they also eat meat, cheese, fruit and veggies. Their diets are well-rounded and they are healthy children. They choose daily what they want to eat for breakfast, lunch, dinner, and snacks. Some days I cringe at their choices (this morning for my five year old it was chips and Oreo cookies for breakfast), but I also know that later on they will probably chose an apple and milk for a snack.
My point is this, when we freak out and get hyper over our children's food choices, there is a good possibility that they will have eating disorders or other issues later in life. A TRUE medical reason for omitting something is one thing (i.e. celiac disease, food allergies, etc.), but just arbitrarily saying "you can't have that" can sometimes cause more harm than good.
As for Google - the way they have things situated doesn't sound like "non-coercion" at all, in my opinion!
I grew up as an obese child and went on to be an obese adult who's diet was strictly "junk food". I truly feel that this is because of the limitations my own parents put me on as a child. We weren't allowed to have snacks or sweets in the house, so when I'd go to a friend or a relative's home where these were allowed, I'd overindulge on them - every time. I saved allowance and lunch money to buy candy and sodas after school. When I was old enough to get a job, all my money went to food that I wasn't allowed at home. When I grew up and moved out of the house my diet consisted of spaghetti-o's, totino's pizza, chips, cherry coke and Dr. Pepper. I did not eat real food at all. As a result, by the time I had my second child I was over 300 lbs with high blood pressure and a myriad of other health issues. By then, it was too late for me - I could not get the weight off on my own and I had gastric surgery last year. I now can LITERALLY not eat the things I did before because they make me really sick. I'm forced into a diet of strictly meat and vegetables with some fruit here and there.
I absolutely REFUSE for my children to go through what I went through. Therefore, chips, candy, soda, cookies and other things are allowed in my house as well as apples, carrots, grapes and yogurt. This "food freedom" in my home is something I decided on long before I even knew what unschooling was. My food issues are not my children's food issues.
Generally speaking, my kids have chips and soda and candy most days, but they also eat meat, cheese, fruit and veggies. Their diets are well-rounded and they are healthy children. They choose daily what they want to eat for breakfast, lunch, dinner, and snacks. Some days I cringe at their choices (this morning for my five year old it was chips and Oreo cookies for breakfast), but I also know that later on they will probably chose an apple and milk for a snack.
My point is this, when we freak out and get hyper over our children's food choices, there is a good possibility that they will have eating disorders or other issues later in life. A TRUE medical reason for omitting something is one thing (i.e. celiac disease, food allergies, etc.), but just arbitrarily saying "you can't have that" can sometimes cause more harm than good.
As for Google - the way they have things situated doesn't sound like "non-coercion" at all, in my opinion!
supermomblues
>> i kindly disagree with this, since I have set standards on what my family and I eat and drink 95% of the time<<I encourage you to strongly re-think this stance. I am living proof of what putting those kinds of limitations on your children can cause. Allowing them to have the freedom to choose will allow them to make their own informed choices.
>>it is junk. cant be called other way, if sick dying children were fed junk food they will survive at that time just to die years later of cancer,loose a limb or life to diabetes,hypertension,etc etc etc. <<One man's junk is another man's nourishment. . .
--- In [email protected], Paz <pazbachand@...> wrote:
>
> i kindly disagree with this, since I have set standards on what my family and I eat and drink 95% of the time, after years of learning about food:nutrients,health,raw,paleo,gluten,grains,genetic modification,poisons of all sorts in chemicals they obsess to pour on them....etc. and observing the absurd amount of overweight, physically and psych. illed population of this country. (i have been raised in central-mountain mexico) so maybe to me is more evident to identify the junk in the american diet? it is junk. cant be called other way, if sick dying children were fed junk food they will survive at that time just to die years later of cancer,loose a limb or life to diabetes,hypertension,etc etc etc. its really easy to prove what is junk out of what is not: buy a mouse or a hamster and feed it a junk diet, just for fun maybe get a second one to feed an all natural all organic non genetically modified high nutrient diet,let the experiment allow you to get your own conclussions. I refuse to call "food" to junk. But maybe thats just me.
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless smartphone
>
> Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
>
> >-=-Well, she independently decided to eat less junk, more vegetables and to
> >cut out soda altogether. -=-
> >
> >Please, PLEASE don't use the term "junk" in this way.
> >Let food be food, and let children (and yourself) choose without the dismissive labels.
> >
> >If only starving children had ANY food and soda, they could stay alive. If only people imprisoned, especially those who are not within their own culture, and prinsoners of war, could have whatever it might be that you're thinking of as "junk," they would be much happier and probably healthier.
> >
> >It will make live cleaner to let food be food, and let people make choices by the criteria of what makes them feel better than to congratulate them for making the right choice in a test that you didn't think you were administering.
> >
> >Sandra
>
Sandra Dodd
-=-A TRUE medical reason for omitting something is one thing (i.e. celiac disease, food allergies, etc.), but just arbitrarily saying "you can't have that" can sometimes cause more harm than good.-=-
Some people (many people) are saying "true medical reason" and food allergy about things like loose stools, whimpering, farting, coming in last in sports.
-=- just arbitrarily saying "you can't have that" can sometimes cause more harm than good.-=-
If it's arbitrary, and if unschooling was a goal, it will cause more harm than good every single time.
If it's arbitrary and good health is the goal, I think it will cause more harm than good.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Some people (many people) are saying "true medical reason" and food allergy about things like loose stools, whimpering, farting, coming in last in sports.
-=- just arbitrarily saying "you can't have that" can sometimes cause more harm than good.-=-
If it's arbitrary, and if unschooling was a goal, it will cause more harm than good every single time.
If it's arbitrary and good health is the goal, I think it will cause more harm than good.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
chris ester
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
People seem to develop religious beliefs around food and food choices.
Among our homeschool play group, there are many people who believe that
certain genetically modified foods are responsible for everything
from immunological disorders to a rainy day. They then use this belief to
limit their children's choices with no incident that would justify these
limits.
Or they attribute some thing to a food without any validation or evidence
that it will happen again. Or, like you said, the "effect" of the "bad"
food is ludicrously overblown. I have often wondered if the suspect food
were one that is considered "good" by the current (and ever changing)
standards, if they would still be so willing to eliminate it from their
child's potential choices. For instance, if they thought that it was the
broccoli that made their child gassy, would they say "no more broccoli, you
are obviously allergic to it!"
chris
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> **Sandra<<<<<
>
>
> -=-A TRUE medical reason for omitting something is one thing (i.e. celiac
> disease, food allergies, etc.), but just arbitrarily saying "you can't have
> that" can sometimes cause more harm than good.-=-
>
> Some people (many people) are saying "true medical reason" and food
> allergy about things like loose stools, whimpering, farting, coming in last
> in sports.
>
> -=- just arbitrarily saying "you can't have that" can sometimes cause more
> harm than good.-=-
>
> >>If it's arbitrary, and if unschooling was a goal, it will cause more
> harm than good every single time.
>
> If it's arbitrary and good health is the goal, I think it will cause more
> harm than good.
>
People seem to develop religious beliefs around food and food choices.
Among our homeschool play group, there are many people who believe that
certain genetically modified foods are responsible for everything
from immunological disorders to a rainy day. They then use this belief to
limit their children's choices with no incident that would justify these
limits.
Or they attribute some thing to a food without any validation or evidence
that it will happen again. Or, like you said, the "effect" of the "bad"
food is ludicrously overblown. I have often wondered if the suspect food
were one that is considered "good" by the current (and ever changing)
standards, if they would still be so willing to eliminate it from their
child's potential choices. For instance, if they thought that it was the
broccoli that made their child gassy, would they say "no more broccoli, you
are obviously allergic to it!"
chris
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]