Fear and Food (VERY VERY LONG)
Christe Bruderlin
Hi RU Food Readers/Writers,
I've been thinking and reading a lot about food issues forever, but in a new light considering my rapidly evolving RU lifestyle (it's not official...yet...:). I've got a long way to go, I know, but there are several issues that continually come up for me. This is a long one, but I've been thinking about it in depth for a while. (For the record, I'm avoiding most specific food examples purposely so that I don't inadvertently insult someone who then retorts with, "Hey! My kid eats XYZ. Are you saying I'm promoting ill health?" etc.). I'd love to hear other people's ideas on this (particularly new ones). Lots of this is background on my thoughts, but ultimately I am interested in talking about gentle parenting and the ways RU can fit around food rather than specific food choices, as I know we each have our own beliefs about what is "healthy" or "junk food" -- or perhaps a strong distaste for the categorizing of foods into "good" or "bad" terminology.
First, on FEAR:
I've noticed pretty consistently that the majority of comments directed to parents who control/limit diet have been that their thoughts are based on "fear". While this might be true in some cases, the comments of many writers might also be based on fact. There are a lot of everyday things most of us do based on "fear" that don't really interfere with my personal joy in life. For example and for the sake of discussion, I'll first pretend red light behavior is entirely based on fear. Most of us stop at them most of the time out of "fear" -- whether it be fear of getting a ticket, fear of not doing what's "right," fear of a collision or whatever. But this choice is also based on fact, since if you ignore red lights most of the time, or even far less than most of the time...say even 15% of the time...you will eventually get into an accident or get a ticket or both. And even if that "fact" was really "fear," it isn't really affecting my life in any way. It is just
something I do. I think the same argument can be made for many individual food choices or the choice to limit access. Is moderation everything? Not in every case. Since learning about RU, I've really had to consider the following: Are my personal food choices and those I make with my family based on fear or fact?
On FOOD and FEAR:
It is unfortunate that the American diet has moved in so many directions that what is best for human consumption is unclear to most people in our country. The current diet that the majority of Americans eat is unlike what many of our ancestors ate before. Many people are not really sure what is best. The headlines say one thing and then another days later. The "4 basic food groups" and the subsequent "food pyramids" are based on political agendas and social norms rather than fact (even the AHA and ADA admit that). I'm not going to go into my opinions of what to eat or not to eat (though I will say "Eat to Live" is a great scientific resource and easy read as is "Disease Proof Your Child." Great info regardless of the choices we make.). As I have seen written on this board, it is true that humans will grow if they take in calories -- any calories. They will grow despite whether these calories are high-nutrient or non-nutritive calories, and they might feel energetic
for years and years doing so. Telling them they will not grow is not true. They will.
However, it is a fact that disease development processes are insidious. Like with cigarettes, the harmful effects of dietary choices might not be apparent for years or decades. Heart disease (almost entirely lifestyle related) and cancer (many, many proved lifestyle related) are the two biggest human disease killers, and together are responsible for over 90% of disease-related deaths. Many of these can be prevented - and even reversed - by diet and lifestyle choices. For example, diet-related heart disease kills more people than smoking-related lung cancer. Many people quit smoking after learning about lung and other smoking-associated cancers (out of "fear" or "fact"?), but eating is socially acceptable, comfortable, pleasurable, so "moderation" is taught, despite the fact that it might not be best based on information about what certain foods do to our bodies. Now, is it fear or fact that might motivate someone like me to steer my family toward tough dietary choices
based on scientific evidence? -- not headline news, but combinations of hundreds of studies that have been performed over decades (the books mentioned above reference thousands, but the scientist in me did fact check several of them for accuracy)?
For me, I'd have to say it is fact. And for me, raising happy children isn't just about their mental, emotional and spiritual health (which I think the RU lifestyle is so overwhelmingly great for in so many ways), it is about their physical health as well, which I believe integrates inextricably with overall health and the aforementioned subcategories. I might not see it now, but feeding my kids non-nutritive foods is practically guaranteeing their poor health later on (unless they happen to have those rare drink-smoke-chew-the-fat genes that makes them invincible to almost everything...but not a gamble I'm willing to take any more than I'm willing to gamble and buy them unlimited cigarettes or let them play in an intersection). Telling a child the truth of what will happen after years of taking in unhealthy foods is no different than telling a child what will happen if they run into the street or smoke for decades -- there is a chance they will be fine, but there is a
much greater chance that they will not. Its a safety issue to me.
Now, on children (or adults!) LEARNING OR KNOWING WHAT IS BEST FOR THEIR BODIES. I know many, many unhealthy people (anecdotal, so of course doesn't entirely count) that had NO restrictions whatsoever on what they ate. Most individuals who have not had food restrictions still do not make ideal or close-to-ideal health choices. Even with smoking, before the facts were out, people did not "instinctively" know not to smoke. It was initially just about taste preference, predominantly socially acceptable, and something people either enjoyed or did not. Is there anything healthy about it? No, yet many individuals chose to damage the hell out of their bodies anyway though they were never limited on that choice (no one new better than to limit it at first). We can see this behavior with all addictive substances from caffeine to nicotine to stimulants to depressants to certain foods. The majority of humans, especially Americans, don't automatically do what is best for our
bodies (as the majority of Americans are now overweight and 40% of Americans are obese). Americans eat many unnatural foods (as in, food not in its natural form) that likely confuse the body's normal signaling mechanisms. Likewise, pleasure is so powerful a drive that its pursuit in the short run can overwhelm what an individual might know or believe is best for themselves at present or in the future.
On FREE WILL and where I am today: I believe that children should have choices as adults do, but within the context of the information they have available to them and their ability to process that information (and I believe sensitive parents are aware of how much their children process regarding complex topics -- trusting their children, yet knowing their experience is limited). The limitations I place on my children are household-only limits. We no longer supply the house with low- or no-nutrient foods. If we go out, they get what they want, and when we stay in, they get what they want within those options (which means me making lots of fruit-only Popsicles and so on). Now my oldest is still very young (4 in September) so when we go to the store, she picks the fruits and veggies and if she points at something unhealthy and I tell her it isn't healthy, she is good with that. On the rare occasions when she isn't and wants it anyway, I buy it. Still, when we go to a
party, she does look forward to the cake, yet eats very little and chooses lots of fruit, etc. (even though I am the total cheerleader for sweets and all party fun in this context -- e.g. "Yea! We get to go to a party and see our friends and eat cake and ice-cream and dress up!," etc.). I agree totally on not policing kids, but the fact that I limit what is in the house has NOT AT ALL made her a cake-in-the-corner hoarder of sweets, etc. (maybe some will say "not yet" and I guess only time will tell).
This means being EXTREMELY careful to give facts without guilt and to avoid looking at them with judgment when they make a choice I don't love, etc. However, all of our children will know our opinions of certain foods either way, just as they know any parent's opinion of smoking based on the facts shared with them and the parent's choice to smoke or not to smoke. My children know I love them -- and always will -- unconditionally despite what choices they make -- even if those are not the choices I might make and even if they know I don't love a given choice.
At these young ages, I have the opportunity to really shape their tastes and have done so very successfully thus far. At restaurants, parties and friend's houses, my children tend to gravitate to the foods served at home -- probably because those are familiar and comfortable (although people find it really weird that my children pick the things they do! LOL) I hope their childhood comfort foods will be vastly different than those of myself or my peers (or their peers for that matter -- as the case is thus far). As they get older, I anticipate that this might become more challenging.
Also, I haven't read "Let Them Eat Cake" yet, but it is on the (increasingly long!) list. Another I've heard is good regarding food choices is "The Pleasure Trap," but I haven't gotten to it yet, so cannot give an opinion yet.
I appreciate this board tremendously for removing the authoritarian "no" from my vocabulary (in most cases :) and for constantly challenging me (albeit indirectly) on my parenting choices. I'd love to hear feedback, as well as ideas of more ways to help my children learn to avoid dangerous situations (and I believe some food choices fit in the dangerous category) in gentle, non-coercive, loving and joyous ways. So far, my best technique is trying to keep the house stocked with high-nutrient alternatives and saying lots of "yes! yes! yes!."
Looking forward to the hole-poking
Christe
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I've been thinking and reading a lot about food issues forever, but in a new light considering my rapidly evolving RU lifestyle (it's not official...yet...:). I've got a long way to go, I know, but there are several issues that continually come up for me. This is a long one, but I've been thinking about it in depth for a while. (For the record, I'm avoiding most specific food examples purposely so that I don't inadvertently insult someone who then retorts with, "Hey! My kid eats XYZ. Are you saying I'm promoting ill health?" etc.). I'd love to hear other people's ideas on this (particularly new ones). Lots of this is background on my thoughts, but ultimately I am interested in talking about gentle parenting and the ways RU can fit around food rather than specific food choices, as I know we each have our own beliefs about what is "healthy" or "junk food" -- or perhaps a strong distaste for the categorizing of foods into "good" or "bad" terminology.
First, on FEAR:
I've noticed pretty consistently that the majority of comments directed to parents who control/limit diet have been that their thoughts are based on "fear". While this might be true in some cases, the comments of many writers might also be based on fact. There are a lot of everyday things most of us do based on "fear" that don't really interfere with my personal joy in life. For example and for the sake of discussion, I'll first pretend red light behavior is entirely based on fear. Most of us stop at them most of the time out of "fear" -- whether it be fear of getting a ticket, fear of not doing what's "right," fear of a collision or whatever. But this choice is also based on fact, since if you ignore red lights most of the time, or even far less than most of the time...say even 15% of the time...you will eventually get into an accident or get a ticket or both. And even if that "fact" was really "fear," it isn't really affecting my life in any way. It is just
something I do. I think the same argument can be made for many individual food choices or the choice to limit access. Is moderation everything? Not in every case. Since learning about RU, I've really had to consider the following: Are my personal food choices and those I make with my family based on fear or fact?
On FOOD and FEAR:
It is unfortunate that the American diet has moved in so many directions that what is best for human consumption is unclear to most people in our country. The current diet that the majority of Americans eat is unlike what many of our ancestors ate before. Many people are not really sure what is best. The headlines say one thing and then another days later. The "4 basic food groups" and the subsequent "food pyramids" are based on political agendas and social norms rather than fact (even the AHA and ADA admit that). I'm not going to go into my opinions of what to eat or not to eat (though I will say "Eat to Live" is a great scientific resource and easy read as is "Disease Proof Your Child." Great info regardless of the choices we make.). As I have seen written on this board, it is true that humans will grow if they take in calories -- any calories. They will grow despite whether these calories are high-nutrient or non-nutritive calories, and they might feel energetic
for years and years doing so. Telling them they will not grow is not true. They will.
However, it is a fact that disease development processes are insidious. Like with cigarettes, the harmful effects of dietary choices might not be apparent for years or decades. Heart disease (almost entirely lifestyle related) and cancer (many, many proved lifestyle related) are the two biggest human disease killers, and together are responsible for over 90% of disease-related deaths. Many of these can be prevented - and even reversed - by diet and lifestyle choices. For example, diet-related heart disease kills more people than smoking-related lung cancer. Many people quit smoking after learning about lung and other smoking-associated cancers (out of "fear" or "fact"?), but eating is socially acceptable, comfortable, pleasurable, so "moderation" is taught, despite the fact that it might not be best based on information about what certain foods do to our bodies. Now, is it fear or fact that might motivate someone like me to steer my family toward tough dietary choices
based on scientific evidence? -- not headline news, but combinations of hundreds of studies that have been performed over decades (the books mentioned above reference thousands, but the scientist in me did fact check several of them for accuracy)?
For me, I'd have to say it is fact. And for me, raising happy children isn't just about their mental, emotional and spiritual health (which I think the RU lifestyle is so overwhelmingly great for in so many ways), it is about their physical health as well, which I believe integrates inextricably with overall health and the aforementioned subcategories. I might not see it now, but feeding my kids non-nutritive foods is practically guaranteeing their poor health later on (unless they happen to have those rare drink-smoke-chew-the-fat genes that makes them invincible to almost everything...but not a gamble I'm willing to take any more than I'm willing to gamble and buy them unlimited cigarettes or let them play in an intersection). Telling a child the truth of what will happen after years of taking in unhealthy foods is no different than telling a child what will happen if they run into the street or smoke for decades -- there is a chance they will be fine, but there is a
much greater chance that they will not. Its a safety issue to me.
Now, on children (or adults!) LEARNING OR KNOWING WHAT IS BEST FOR THEIR BODIES. I know many, many unhealthy people (anecdotal, so of course doesn't entirely count) that had NO restrictions whatsoever on what they ate. Most individuals who have not had food restrictions still do not make ideal or close-to-ideal health choices. Even with smoking, before the facts were out, people did not "instinctively" know not to smoke. It was initially just about taste preference, predominantly socially acceptable, and something people either enjoyed or did not. Is there anything healthy about it? No, yet many individuals chose to damage the hell out of their bodies anyway though they were never limited on that choice (no one new better than to limit it at first). We can see this behavior with all addictive substances from caffeine to nicotine to stimulants to depressants to certain foods. The majority of humans, especially Americans, don't automatically do what is best for our
bodies (as the majority of Americans are now overweight and 40% of Americans are obese). Americans eat many unnatural foods (as in, food not in its natural form) that likely confuse the body's normal signaling mechanisms. Likewise, pleasure is so powerful a drive that its pursuit in the short run can overwhelm what an individual might know or believe is best for themselves at present or in the future.
On FREE WILL and where I am today: I believe that children should have choices as adults do, but within the context of the information they have available to them and their ability to process that information (and I believe sensitive parents are aware of how much their children process regarding complex topics -- trusting their children, yet knowing their experience is limited). The limitations I place on my children are household-only limits. We no longer supply the house with low- or no-nutrient foods. If we go out, they get what they want, and when we stay in, they get what they want within those options (which means me making lots of fruit-only Popsicles and so on). Now my oldest is still very young (4 in September) so when we go to the store, she picks the fruits and veggies and if she points at something unhealthy and I tell her it isn't healthy, she is good with that. On the rare occasions when she isn't and wants it anyway, I buy it. Still, when we go to a
party, she does look forward to the cake, yet eats very little and chooses lots of fruit, etc. (even though I am the total cheerleader for sweets and all party fun in this context -- e.g. "Yea! We get to go to a party and see our friends and eat cake and ice-cream and dress up!," etc.). I agree totally on not policing kids, but the fact that I limit what is in the house has NOT AT ALL made her a cake-in-the-corner hoarder of sweets, etc. (maybe some will say "not yet" and I guess only time will tell).
This means being EXTREMELY careful to give facts without guilt and to avoid looking at them with judgment when they make a choice I don't love, etc. However, all of our children will know our opinions of certain foods either way, just as they know any parent's opinion of smoking based on the facts shared with them and the parent's choice to smoke or not to smoke. My children know I love them -- and always will -- unconditionally despite what choices they make -- even if those are not the choices I might make and even if they know I don't love a given choice.
At these young ages, I have the opportunity to really shape their tastes and have done so very successfully thus far. At restaurants, parties and friend's houses, my children tend to gravitate to the foods served at home -- probably because those are familiar and comfortable (although people find it really weird that my children pick the things they do! LOL) I hope their childhood comfort foods will be vastly different than those of myself or my peers (or their peers for that matter -- as the case is thus far). As they get older, I anticipate that this might become more challenging.
Also, I haven't read "Let Them Eat Cake" yet, but it is on the (increasingly long!) list. Another I've heard is good regarding food choices is "The Pleasure Trap," but I haven't gotten to it yet, so cannot give an opinion yet.
I appreciate this board tremendously for removing the authoritarian "no" from my vocabulary (in most cases :) and for constantly challenging me (albeit indirectly) on my parenting choices. I'd love to hear feedback, as well as ideas of more ways to help my children learn to avoid dangerous situations (and I believe some food choices fit in the dangerous category) in gentle, non-coercive, loving and joyous ways. So far, my best technique is trying to keep the house stocked with high-nutrient alternatives and saying lots of "yes! yes! yes!."
Looking forward to the hole-poking
Christe
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Michelle/Melbrigða
On 7/11/06, Christe Bruderlin <techwritercsbn@...> wrote:
food into "good and bad" or thinking in terms of "good choices and
poor choices" when it comes to food. This is a little hard for me as
I am prone to gallstones when I eat too much cholesterol rich foods,
so lately I have had to categorize some foods *for me* but also trying
not to let that slip over to the kids either. I don't want the kids
to think of food in terms of "good and bad" but let them experience
food and have control over it. To be able to listen to their bodies
and hear their bodies ask for certain foods and be able to meet that
*and* to recognize such cues as hunger and full.
obese, unhealthy, diabetic, etc. Yes; the facts are out there that
eating a well-balanced diet is better for you. But I find that my
children's choices tend to be fairly balanced. Today they have eaten
fruits, vegetables, rice, a bagel, some cheese, and for dinner we are
having a nice vegetarian stir fry (with tofu). I see this as fairly
balanced. There may be a bowl of ice cream in there somewhere if
someone gets the urge or someone may decide to make a crumb cake or
batch of brownies. But all in all balanced. What drives my mother up
the wall is that they have eaten this food in little spurts and bits
rather than sitting down for *meals.* My mom kept my younger two a
few weeks ago while the three of us went out of town and when I came
home my mom bragged that the kids had had 3 *meals* and 2 snacks and
that was it. Later they said, "Grandmother wouldn't let us eat when
we were hungry! For the next few days I think that they ate more food
than they normally would have to get back to their "safe spot" where
food is concerned.
restrictions. Unschooling food does not mean filling your house with
junk food only. It means providing a choice of foods and not making
chocolate brownies the forbidden fruit. I would hazard to guess that
most individuals that have had "no food restrictions" actually did
have food restrictions as they were restricted from making choices
that included food from the full spectrum. Fruits, veggies, lean
meats, cheese, yogurt, breads, candy, ice cream, cake, chips, etc.
Their limitations were what their parents purchased.
I think that my children are learning things such as "when I eat a lot
of this food I feel sluggish the rest of the afternoon" or "foods with
MSG don't agree with me so I think I will avoid those foods in lieu of
foods that don't have it." I think that they are eating foods that
their bodies are requesting. I've seen my oldest opening all the
cabinets, staring in the pantry, digging through the freezer and when
I've asked her what she wants she has said, "I need some protein, like
chicken." Her body is asking for protein and she is trying to find
that protein and knows that chicken will fill this need. I've also
seen my son looking for carrots or cucumbers because he wants
something cold and crunchy. I've been known to jump in the car and
drive up to Whataburger to get a chicken sandwich for my daughter or
tromp back into the garden to see if we have any carrots that can be
pulled or cucumbers ripe for picking. And I've also seen my kids
looking for something to satisfy a sweet tooth. And helped them find
that as well.
Since I have started unschooling myself I have found that I am able to
start trusting myself more with choices. Today I had a craving for
chocolate (I usually do on the first day of my menstrual cycle so I
didn't find this odd.) I found one of those "bake in a minute dessert
bowl things" in the cabinet and decided to make that. I had 2 bites
of it and realized that it was not what I was looking for. No one
else was interested in it either. I had that old momentary panic
about wasting food but then remembered that it wasn't waste if I ate
it when didn't want it. I'm trying to trust myself and learn to
listen to my own body. That is what I want for my children as well.
That they will learn to trust themselves with food and not ignore what
it is telling them.
--
Michelle
aka Melbrigða
http://eventualknitting.blogspot.com
[email protected] - Homeschooling for the Medieval Recreationist
> Hi RU Food Readers/Writers,I've been trying very hard over the past year to quit categorizing
> as I know we each have our own beliefs about what is "healthy" or "junk food" -- or perhaps a strong distaste for the categorizing of foods into "good" or "bad" terminology.
food into "good and bad" or thinking in terms of "good choices and
poor choices" when it comes to food. This is a little hard for me as
I am prone to gallstones when I eat too much cholesterol rich foods,
so lately I have had to categorize some foods *for me* but also trying
not to let that slip over to the kids either. I don't want the kids
to think of food in terms of "good and bad" but let them experience
food and have control over it. To be able to listen to their bodies
and hear their bodies ask for certain foods and be able to meet that
*and* to recognize such cues as hunger and full.
>I still think it is fear. Fearful that their children will become
> First, on FEAR:
> I've noticed pretty consistently that the majority of comments directed to parents who control/limit diet have been that their thoughts are based on "fear". While this might be true in some cases, the comments of many writers might also be based on fact.
obese, unhealthy, diabetic, etc. Yes; the facts are out there that
eating a well-balanced diet is better for you. But I find that my
children's choices tend to be fairly balanced. Today they have eaten
fruits, vegetables, rice, a bagel, some cheese, and for dinner we are
having a nice vegetarian stir fry (with tofu). I see this as fairly
balanced. There may be a bowl of ice cream in there somewhere if
someone gets the urge or someone may decide to make a crumb cake or
batch of brownies. But all in all balanced. What drives my mother up
the wall is that they have eaten this food in little spurts and bits
rather than sitting down for *meals.* My mom kept my younger two a
few weeks ago while the three of us went out of town and when I came
home my mom bragged that the kids had had 3 *meals* and 2 snacks and
that was it. Later they said, "Grandmother wouldn't let us eat when
we were hungry! For the next few days I think that they ate more food
than they normally would have to get back to their "safe spot" where
food is concerned.
> Now, on children (or adults!) LEARNING OR KNOWING WHAT IS BEST FOR THEIR BODIES. I know many, many unhealthy people (anecdotal, so of course doesn't entirely count) that had NO restrictions whatsoever on what they ate. Most individuals who have not had food restrictions still do not make ideal or close-to-ideal health choices.Ah, BUT have you known UNSCHOOLED individuals who have not had food
restrictions. Unschooling food does not mean filling your house with
junk food only. It means providing a choice of foods and not making
chocolate brownies the forbidden fruit. I would hazard to guess that
most individuals that have had "no food restrictions" actually did
have food restrictions as they were restricted from making choices
that included food from the full spectrum. Fruits, veggies, lean
meats, cheese, yogurt, breads, candy, ice cream, cake, chips, etc.
Their limitations were what their parents purchased.
I think that my children are learning things such as "when I eat a lot
of this food I feel sluggish the rest of the afternoon" or "foods with
MSG don't agree with me so I think I will avoid those foods in lieu of
foods that don't have it." I think that they are eating foods that
their bodies are requesting. I've seen my oldest opening all the
cabinets, staring in the pantry, digging through the freezer and when
I've asked her what she wants she has said, "I need some protein, like
chicken." Her body is asking for protein and she is trying to find
that protein and knows that chicken will fill this need. I've also
seen my son looking for carrots or cucumbers because he wants
something cold and crunchy. I've been known to jump in the car and
drive up to Whataburger to get a chicken sandwich for my daughter or
tromp back into the garden to see if we have any carrots that can be
pulled or cucumbers ripe for picking. And I've also seen my kids
looking for something to satisfy a sweet tooth. And helped them find
that as well.
Since I have started unschooling myself I have found that I am able to
start trusting myself more with choices. Today I had a craving for
chocolate (I usually do on the first day of my menstrual cycle so I
didn't find this odd.) I found one of those "bake in a minute dessert
bowl things" in the cabinet and decided to make that. I had 2 bites
of it and realized that it was not what I was looking for. No one
else was interested in it either. I had that old momentary panic
about wasting food but then remembered that it wasn't waste if I ate
it when didn't want it. I'm trying to trust myself and learn to
listen to my own body. That is what I want for my children as well.
That they will learn to trust themselves with food and not ignore what
it is telling them.
--
Michelle
aka Melbrigða
http://eventualknitting.blogspot.com
[email protected] - Homeschooling for the Medieval Recreationist
techwritercsbn
--- In [email protected], "Michelle/Melbrigða"
<pamperedmichelle@...> wrote:
life. I try to remove value judgments with food and even more extreme
things (philosophically, is choosing to drive sober vs. drunk "good" vs.
"bad?" for example). However, I keep coming back to the fact that some
things humans ingest are very, very good for the body, and some things
are not. Maybe someday I'll be past making value judgments on every
decision I make (though how will I ever decide then? :)
is based on fear. For example, the choice never to limit food could be
based on fear -- fear that one's children will sneak and thus become all
the things you mentioned (obese, etc.) , or fear that they will be
emotionally/mentally/spiritually damaged by certain limits or whatever.
Even if you then responded that it was actually based on your belief in
mindful RU, gentle parenting, etc., I could turn it around and say, "I
still think it is fear," but would that make it true?
Yes, my husband had a bit of trouble with this, too (mealtimes were
forced and generally miserable at his house on many occasions -- and yet
he wanted to carry the tradition on. Oh, the intricacies of the human
psyche!). We still have mealtimes, but the kids also eat whenever they
want and I figure it is my job to make time together at the table a
pleasant and fun time to reconnect -- whether they want to eat or not.
Because of RU and the comments on these boards, I no longer force the
issue and they can come to the table if they choose. I've never had
concerns about amounts (e.g. "clean your plate" or "have 3 more bites,"
etc.). I just have never seen the value of forcing someone to eat when
they aren't hungry or forbidding them to eat when they are. I have
always had them try one bite, but I've moved away from that and have
instead explained that sometimes new foods take several tries to like,
etc., and with that simple explanation, they are willing to continue
trying new things.
days, via individual discussion and lots of reading on this and other
lists about the choices RU children are making). In all but one case I
have known of, we would not stock our kitchens similarly *at all* and
that is part of what has always concerned me about fully embracing RU.
I admit I am fairly "radical" when it comes to nutrition. I'd be as
likely to take my kids to a bar for a beer and a smoke as I would to
McD's for McNuggets and a Coke (I feel a bad country song coming on
LOLOL). But in all seriousness, I see these as pretty much equal
choices from a health standpoint, which makes me quite radical, I know.
I really appreciate your input, and I get the points you and others are
making. I really do. I also enjoy you and others sharing how your
families eat, even if it makes me feel more convinced I'm way outside
the norm. I think the points you and many others have made are good
with regards to forbidden fruit, etc., which is why I've struggled with
these things so much. I'd like to be convinced. Life would be so much
easier. The problem is, I'm still very far from convinced. Perhaps I
will never be convinced and that is okay, but I'd love to hear more
ideas from people who embrace as much of RU as they can, and find ways
to make certain household limitations regarding food peaceful, joyful,
and so on.
Make sense?
Thanks again, Michelle!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
<pamperedmichelle@...> wrote:
>I have too, and it is really challenging. I'm nowhere close in my own
> I've been trying very hard over the past year to quit categorizing
> food into "good and bad" or thinking in terms of "good choices and
> poor choices" when it comes to food.
life. I try to remove value judgments with food and even more extreme
things (philosophically, is choosing to drive sober vs. drunk "good" vs.
"bad?" for example). However, I keep coming back to the fact that some
things humans ingest are very, very good for the body, and some things
are not. Maybe someday I'll be past making value judgments on every
decision I make (though how will I ever decide then? :)
> I still think it is fear.I can see where you are coming from, but I could argue that every choice
is based on fear. For example, the choice never to limit food could be
based on fear -- fear that one's children will sneak and thus become all
the things you mentioned (obese, etc.) , or fear that they will be
emotionally/mentally/spiritually damaged by certain limits or whatever.
Even if you then responded that it was actually based on your belief in
mindful RU, gentle parenting, etc., I could turn it around and say, "I
still think it is fear," but would that make it true?
> What drives my mother up the wall is that they have eaten this food inlittle spurts and bits rather than sitting down for *meals.*
Yes, my husband had a bit of trouble with this, too (mealtimes were
forced and generally miserable at his house on many occasions -- and yet
he wanted to carry the tradition on. Oh, the intricacies of the human
psyche!). We still have mealtimes, but the kids also eat whenever they
want and I figure it is my job to make time together at the table a
pleasant and fun time to reconnect -- whether they want to eat or not.
Because of RU and the comments on these boards, I no longer force the
issue and they can come to the table if they choose. I've never had
concerns about amounts (e.g. "clean your plate" or "have 3 more bites,"
etc.). I just have never seen the value of forcing someone to eat when
they aren't hungry or forbidding them to eat when they are. I have
always had them try one bite, but I've moved away from that and have
instead explained that sometimes new foods take several tries to like,
etc., and with that simple explanation, they are willing to continue
trying new things.
> Ah, BUT have you known UNSCHOOLED individuals who have not had foodYes, in person and online although I admit not very well (e.g. park
> restrictions.
days, via individual discussion and lots of reading on this and other
lists about the choices RU children are making). In all but one case I
have known of, we would not stock our kitchens similarly *at all* and
that is part of what has always concerned me about fully embracing RU.
I admit I am fairly "radical" when it comes to nutrition. I'd be as
likely to take my kids to a bar for a beer and a smoke as I would to
McD's for McNuggets and a Coke (I feel a bad country song coming on
LOLOL). But in all seriousness, I see these as pretty much equal
choices from a health standpoint, which makes me quite radical, I know.
I really appreciate your input, and I get the points you and others are
making. I really do. I also enjoy you and others sharing how your
families eat, even if it makes me feel more convinced I'm way outside
the norm. I think the points you and many others have made are good
with regards to forbidden fruit, etc., which is why I've struggled with
these things so much. I'd like to be convinced. Life would be so much
easier. The problem is, I'm still very far from convinced. Perhaps I
will never be convinced and that is okay, but I'd love to hear more
ideas from people who embrace as much of RU as they can, and find ways
to make certain household limitations regarding food peaceful, joyful,
and so on.
Make sense?
Thanks again, Michelle!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: techwritercsbn@...
Perhaps I
will never be convinced and that is okay, but I'd love to hear more
ideas from people who embrace as much of RU as they can, and find ways
to make certain household limitations regarding food peaceful, joyful,
and so on.
-=-=-=-=-
I think the biggest difference to me is in how we approach it. You can
*know* that some foods are "good" and some are "bad'---but it's the way
your ideas are forced onto someone else.
If your kids know how you feel (and even think so too), but chose
another path, what will be your reaction?
And a beer and a cigarette AND McNuggets and a Coke enjoyed in *peace*
are better---emotionally. spiritually, psychologically,
physically---than tofu and a salad eaten in shame or under duress.
The damage to your relationship with your kids is more important than
whether they snarf a HoHo one afternoon.
You may present your ideas so rationally and so passionately that your
kids latch on and never let you of your ideas on food. BUT what if they
don't? Now or in the future? You can't control what they eat forever.
If they choose to be McEaters, how will that effect you?
I remember when Ben and I first started dating, there was an article
inSports Illustrated about a kid who had never eaten a big Mac (that
seemed to be the focus of the article in a strange way). Dad had
planned on raising the next Heisman trophy winner. He was given a
football in the crib. He academics were controlled by dad (although he
was in public school. His daily exercise---from the time he could walk
was controlled by dad. What he ate was controlled---every bite because
an athlete must be pure. No artificial crap for this child! No beer, no
cigarettes, no Coke, No Big Macs.
So he goes to college. That was what they story was about---how this
"pure" athlete was going to fare in college and be the next superstar.
I asked Ben about him not too long ago 'cause that story stuck with me.
Kid's in prison. Never finished college.
If the dad had spent half as much time investing in his relationship
with this child instead of worrying about all the *outside* stuff, who
knows?
I think the bigger issue is how the child perceives what you're
limiting and how those limitations you're imposing will alter your
relationship.
~Kelly
Kelly Lovejoy
Conference Coordinator
Live and Learn Unschooling Conference
http://liveandlearnconference.org
School's goal is to prepare them to be anything they want. But the
process is so dullifying and kids haven't explored the possibilities of
what they could be that many set their sites as low as possible. They
go to college to get a job to buy stuff. ~Joyce Fetteroll
________________________________________________________________________
Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email
and IM. All on demand. Always Free.
From: techwritercsbn@...
Perhaps I
will never be convinced and that is okay, but I'd love to hear more
ideas from people who embrace as much of RU as they can, and find ways
to make certain household limitations regarding food peaceful, joyful,
and so on.
-=-=-=-=-
I think the biggest difference to me is in how we approach it. You can
*know* that some foods are "good" and some are "bad'---but it's the way
your ideas are forced onto someone else.
If your kids know how you feel (and even think so too), but chose
another path, what will be your reaction?
And a beer and a cigarette AND McNuggets and a Coke enjoyed in *peace*
are better---emotionally. spiritually, psychologically,
physically---than tofu and a salad eaten in shame or under duress.
The damage to your relationship with your kids is more important than
whether they snarf a HoHo one afternoon.
You may present your ideas so rationally and so passionately that your
kids latch on and never let you of your ideas on food. BUT what if they
don't? Now or in the future? You can't control what they eat forever.
If they choose to be McEaters, how will that effect you?
I remember when Ben and I first started dating, there was an article
inSports Illustrated about a kid who had never eaten a big Mac (that
seemed to be the focus of the article in a strange way). Dad had
planned on raising the next Heisman trophy winner. He was given a
football in the crib. He academics were controlled by dad (although he
was in public school. His daily exercise---from the time he could walk
was controlled by dad. What he ate was controlled---every bite because
an athlete must be pure. No artificial crap for this child! No beer, no
cigarettes, no Coke, No Big Macs.
So he goes to college. That was what they story was about---how this
"pure" athlete was going to fare in college and be the next superstar.
I asked Ben about him not too long ago 'cause that story stuck with me.
Kid's in prison. Never finished college.
If the dad had spent half as much time investing in his relationship
with this child instead of worrying about all the *outside* stuff, who
knows?
I think the bigger issue is how the child perceives what you're
limiting and how those limitations you're imposing will alter your
relationship.
~Kelly
Kelly Lovejoy
Conference Coordinator
Live and Learn Unschooling Conference
http://liveandlearnconference.org
School's goal is to prepare them to be anything they want. But the
process is so dullifying and kids haven't explored the possibilities of
what they could be that many set their sites as low as possible. They
go to college to get a job to buy stuff. ~Joyce Fetteroll
________________________________________________________________________
Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email
and IM. All on demand. Always Free.
Mary Hickman
Hi,
I'm hearing what you have to say. You have done research and have
developed strong opinions about healthful eating. I want to ask you
how old your kids are? Things change very much when children start
frequenting others homes.
Here is a story from a few years ago. 3 kids playing at 1 girls
home. The girl who lived there was never controlled with sweets and
she and her sister had tons of candy from various things and a huge
collection of candy canes. 1 of the girls came from a home whose mom
had done tons of research about food, and every bite was considered
only healthy. Raw sugar if any, honey, whole wheat, lots of various
grains fruits, vegies, tofu. All really good stuff, but healthful
eating was the mom's main focus at this point. So the 3 girls are
playing and the girl who lives in the healthful eating house only
wants to eat candy canes. And after asks the host for cookies, and
then eats more candy canes. The entire time this little 6 year old
was over was spent focused on eating the forbidden. At least what
her mom had told her was so bad for her.
I also want to warn you that feeling good because your kids make
good to you choices sets you up to feel bad when they don't. So your
dd eating only a little cake just means she knows her body and that
is the goal. As does my dd who will eat a huge slice of cake she
baked for her dad with joy together, Neither is better or worse.
they know what they like.
One last thought. My dd (6) was given 3 starbursts the other day at
Friday Fun Day swimming. She has never had food limits. She came up
to me and said I'm going to give this one to Riley, he loves orange.
She ate 2 on the ride home and gave her 9 year old brother the 3rd.
Not sure how this would have worked if candy was only on special
party days and she got her 3, would she have eaten them all herself?
I hear you about the vast array of easy to grab unnatural food
products out there. We try them, we talk about them, we discuss what
we like, we don't forbid things at all. We eat a wide variety of
foods and we exercise regularly which I think is very important. I
was a mom who was afraid of the bad foods. I no longer am. I am
aware of what my world has to offer and I help myself and children
be safe and joyful in this world of strange chemicals.
Mary
I'm hearing what you have to say. You have done research and have
developed strong opinions about healthful eating. I want to ask you
how old your kids are? Things change very much when children start
frequenting others homes.
Here is a story from a few years ago. 3 kids playing at 1 girls
home. The girl who lived there was never controlled with sweets and
she and her sister had tons of candy from various things and a huge
collection of candy canes. 1 of the girls came from a home whose mom
had done tons of research about food, and every bite was considered
only healthy. Raw sugar if any, honey, whole wheat, lots of various
grains fruits, vegies, tofu. All really good stuff, but healthful
eating was the mom's main focus at this point. So the 3 girls are
playing and the girl who lives in the healthful eating house only
wants to eat candy canes. And after asks the host for cookies, and
then eats more candy canes. The entire time this little 6 year old
was over was spent focused on eating the forbidden. At least what
her mom had told her was so bad for her.
I also want to warn you that feeling good because your kids make
good to you choices sets you up to feel bad when they don't. So your
dd eating only a little cake just means she knows her body and that
is the goal. As does my dd who will eat a huge slice of cake she
baked for her dad with joy together, Neither is better or worse.
they know what they like.
One last thought. My dd (6) was given 3 starbursts the other day at
Friday Fun Day swimming. She has never had food limits. She came up
to me and said I'm going to give this one to Riley, he loves orange.
She ate 2 on the ride home and gave her 9 year old brother the 3rd.
Not sure how this would have worked if candy was only on special
party days and she got her 3, would she have eaten them all herself?
I hear you about the vast array of easy to grab unnatural food
products out there. We try them, we talk about them, we discuss what
we like, we don't forbid things at all. We eat a wide variety of
foods and we exercise regularly which I think is very important. I
was a mom who was afraid of the bad foods. I no longer am. I am
aware of what my world has to offer and I help myself and children
be safe and joyful in this world of strange chemicals.
Mary
drusila00
Previously in our family we had the "sweets after substance" rule
because I (being a dufas lol) believed that because *I* had a problem
with sugar imballance that that is how it should be with food (gee
thanks mom)
Anyway, my husband and son hate most vegies. serruously they have
some kind of gross gag reflex when eating just about anything green.
Even as a small baby I would feed my son pured vegies and he would gag
them and spit up without swallowing. My husband and son both LOVE
meat, I am not real fond of meat- I eat chicken or fish (the guys HATE
fish) when I do eat meat- we have alot of meals with chicken in them,
or turkey. My husband and son Both LOVE starches and sugar and could
eat starch and sugar all day long. I need somthing more ballanced when
I eat I need ballance- obviously they do not.
When I dropped the limit we had about substance before sweets my son
ate more sweets but he also eats other things too. I don't know that
the previous limits caused him to eat more sweets, I just think he is
*a LOT* like his father and less like me in this way.
I suppose my point is that I am realizing that my dietary needs are
vastly difernet from the other 2 members of my family. I still look at
what they eat and think "gee how can they not feel like shit?" but I
get over it heh, if they felt like shit they wouldnt be eating that
way.
--- In [email protected], "Mary Hickman"
<mfhickman@...> wrote:
We eat a wide variety of
because I (being a dufas lol) believed that because *I* had a problem
with sugar imballance that that is how it should be with food (gee
thanks mom)
Anyway, my husband and son hate most vegies. serruously they have
some kind of gross gag reflex when eating just about anything green.
Even as a small baby I would feed my son pured vegies and he would gag
them and spit up without swallowing. My husband and son both LOVE
meat, I am not real fond of meat- I eat chicken or fish (the guys HATE
fish) when I do eat meat- we have alot of meals with chicken in them,
or turkey. My husband and son Both LOVE starches and sugar and could
eat starch and sugar all day long. I need somthing more ballanced when
I eat I need ballance- obviously they do not.
When I dropped the limit we had about substance before sweets my son
ate more sweets but he also eats other things too. I don't know that
the previous limits caused him to eat more sweets, I just think he is
*a LOT* like his father and less like me in this way.
I suppose my point is that I am realizing that my dietary needs are
vastly difernet from the other 2 members of my family. I still look at
what they eat and think "gee how can they not feel like shit?" but I
get over it heh, if they felt like shit they wouldnt be eating that
way.
--- In [email protected], "Mary Hickman"
<mfhickman@...> wrote:
We eat a wide variety of
> foods and we exercise regularly which I think is very important. I
> was a mom who was afraid of the bad foods. I no longer am. I am
> aware of what my world has to offer and I help myself and children
> be safe and joyful in this world of strange chemicals.
>
> Mary
>
Christy Mahoney
That story of the girl at the house with candy canes reminded me of
something I hadn't thought of in a long time. When I was a
teenager, I used to babysit a lot. There was this one family that
always had loads of candy & chips in the house, and the kids didn't
care about them at all because they were used to it. I used to wait
until the kids were asleep and then I would eat lots of stuff even
when I wasn't hungry because it was stuff that we didn't have at our
house. And I didn't even grow up in a house where things were
restricted for being "bad". My mom was a great cook and baked
really yummy cookies & pies, but we were a family of 8. We usually
didn't have store-bought cookies or chips because it was expensive.
A lot of my friends thought I was SO lucky to have homemade cookies
around all the time, but I used to think Oreos were cool because we
never had them.
Once I was able to, I would buy bags of chips so that I could eat
them ALL MYSELF. No brothers & sisters to share with. I really do
believe that what seems scarce is what we want more of. If we feel
like we can never have as much of something as we really want, we
will at some point go overboard with whatever it is.
-Christy
*BTW my daughter will also save lemon & orange candies for me
because she knows I like those flavors. Whenever she has a rocket
pop, she never fails to offer me a bite of the middle lemon-flavored
part. She likes it too, but she doesn't feel like she has to hoard
it in case she can't have one again for a long time. There's a
whole box in the freezer. On really hot days, she'll sometimes have
several popsicles, but other days she doesn't even think about them.
something I hadn't thought of in a long time. When I was a
teenager, I used to babysit a lot. There was this one family that
always had loads of candy & chips in the house, and the kids didn't
care about them at all because they were used to it. I used to wait
until the kids were asleep and then I would eat lots of stuff even
when I wasn't hungry because it was stuff that we didn't have at our
house. And I didn't even grow up in a house where things were
restricted for being "bad". My mom was a great cook and baked
really yummy cookies & pies, but we were a family of 8. We usually
didn't have store-bought cookies or chips because it was expensive.
A lot of my friends thought I was SO lucky to have homemade cookies
around all the time, but I used to think Oreos were cool because we
never had them.
Once I was able to, I would buy bags of chips so that I could eat
them ALL MYSELF. No brothers & sisters to share with. I really do
believe that what seems scarce is what we want more of. If we feel
like we can never have as much of something as we really want, we
will at some point go overboard with whatever it is.
-Christy
*BTW my daughter will also save lemon & orange candies for me
because she knows I like those flavors. Whenever she has a rocket
pop, she never fails to offer me a bite of the middle lemon-flavored
part. She likes it too, but she doesn't feel like she has to hoard
it in case she can't have one again for a long time. There's a
whole box in the freezer. On really hot days, she'll sometimes have
several popsicles, but other days she doesn't even think about them.
jlh44music
<unschooling1@...> wrote:
believe that what seems scarce is what we want more of. If we feel
like we can never have as much of something as we really want, we
will at some point go overboard with whatever it is>>>>
I can imagine how DELICIOUS that must have felt to be able to have
something all to yourself! I only have 2 younger brothers, both
picky eaters, so it wasn't too much of a problem, I like most
everything!
My dh grew up as the youngest of 4 boys, who were several years
older and always (as he remembers it) hogging all the food. He
remembers that he never got "enough" (they harrassed him in other
ways as well). To this day, he STILL eats as if there isn't
enough, or someone is going to eat it all, or there won't be any
leftovers (and we've talked about this lots, he's very aware of
it). I almost ALWAYS make extra, partially so it appears that
there's plenty in his eyes, but I also like leftovers (less
cooking!).
Danielle, on the other hand, eats when she's hungry, stops when
she's full (even if there's some left on her plate! GASP!) and
knows she can have whatever she wants whenever. Even before I
found unschooling a few years ago, when she was born almost 14 yrs
ago I vowed I would not have food battles with her (I grew up like
many of you being lectured etc about cleaning your plate, starving
children in "whatever country", etc etc). I like most everything,
she's a little more discriminating (we don't use the word picky,
never have, she "knows" what she likes and doesn't like). I offer
different foods, but it's her choice. If she said she didn't like
it, I asked if she'd tasted it, well, NO, I suggested that in order
to actually SAY she doesn't like something (flavor, texture etc) she
might want to consider even just putting her tongue on it to see.
Sometimes, she WOULD like the taste, and try it, other times no. Or
she didn't even want to do that, which was fine too. I always
thought about what she ate over the course of a week if I was
concerned she wasn't eating "healthy" or well balanced, not per
day. We're not big on having dessert after every meal, usually have
cookies or ice cream in the house, didn't withhold "treats" or
sweets unless the "regular" food was completely gone. Often
something desserty (sweets, or fruit) is desired later on, not
usually right after the meal. Even if she had the sweet food, a
while later she was just as likely to ask for a pickle, or a carrot.
Jann
> Once I was able to, I would buy bags of chips so that I could eatthem ALL MYSELF. No brothers & sisters to share with. I really do
believe that what seems scarce is what we want more of. If we feel
like we can never have as much of something as we really want, we
will at some point go overboard with whatever it is>>>>
I can imagine how DELICIOUS that must have felt to be able to have
something all to yourself! I only have 2 younger brothers, both
picky eaters, so it wasn't too much of a problem, I like most
everything!
My dh grew up as the youngest of 4 boys, who were several years
older and always (as he remembers it) hogging all the food. He
remembers that he never got "enough" (they harrassed him in other
ways as well). To this day, he STILL eats as if there isn't
enough, or someone is going to eat it all, or there won't be any
leftovers (and we've talked about this lots, he's very aware of
it). I almost ALWAYS make extra, partially so it appears that
there's plenty in his eyes, but I also like leftovers (less
cooking!).
Danielle, on the other hand, eats when she's hungry, stops when
she's full (even if there's some left on her plate! GASP!) and
knows she can have whatever she wants whenever. Even before I
found unschooling a few years ago, when she was born almost 14 yrs
ago I vowed I would not have food battles with her (I grew up like
many of you being lectured etc about cleaning your plate, starving
children in "whatever country", etc etc). I like most everything,
she's a little more discriminating (we don't use the word picky,
never have, she "knows" what she likes and doesn't like). I offer
different foods, but it's her choice. If she said she didn't like
it, I asked if she'd tasted it, well, NO, I suggested that in order
to actually SAY she doesn't like something (flavor, texture etc) she
might want to consider even just putting her tongue on it to see.
Sometimes, she WOULD like the taste, and try it, other times no. Or
she didn't even want to do that, which was fine too. I always
thought about what she ate over the course of a week if I was
concerned she wasn't eating "healthy" or well balanced, not per
day. We're not big on having dessert after every meal, usually have
cookies or ice cream in the house, didn't withhold "treats" or
sweets unless the "regular" food was completely gone. Often
something desserty (sweets, or fruit) is desired later on, not
usually right after the meal. Even if she had the sweet food, a
while later she was just as likely to ask for a pickle, or a carrot.
Jann
Maisha Khalfani
***My dh grew up as the youngest of 4 boys, who were several years
older and always (as he remembers it) hogging all the food. He
remembers that he never got "enough" (they harrassed him in other
ways as well). To this day, he STILL eats as if there isn't
enough, or someone is going to eat it all, or there won't be any
leftovers (and we've talked about this lots, he's very aware of
it). I almost ALWAYS make extra, partially so it appears that
there's plenty in his eyes, but I also like leftovers (less
cooking!).***
Jann, that's how my dh grew up too. At times there was no food in his house. And even as an adult he is always keeping tabs on the food. He gets mad when something is "all gone". I have to explain to him that it's just food and we can go to the store to get more. I want to create a home where food is not an issue and a worry. This group is helping me with that.
Maisha Khalfani
Khalfani Family Adventures
http://khalfanifamilyadventures.blogspot.com<http://khalfanifamilyadventures.blogspot.com/>
EarthSpirit Readings
http://www.geocities.com/maitai373/EarthSpirit.html<http://www.geocities.com/maitai373/EarthSpirit.html>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
older and always (as he remembers it) hogging all the food. He
remembers that he never got "enough" (they harrassed him in other
ways as well). To this day, he STILL eats as if there isn't
enough, or someone is going to eat it all, or there won't be any
leftovers (and we've talked about this lots, he's very aware of
it). I almost ALWAYS make extra, partially so it appears that
there's plenty in his eyes, but I also like leftovers (less
cooking!).***
Jann, that's how my dh grew up too. At times there was no food in his house. And even as an adult he is always keeping tabs on the food. He gets mad when something is "all gone". I have to explain to him that it's just food and we can go to the store to get more. I want to create a home where food is not an issue and a worry. This group is helping me with that.
Maisha Khalfani
Khalfani Family Adventures
http://khalfanifamilyadventures.blogspot.com<http://khalfanifamilyadventures.blogspot.com/>
EarthSpirit Readings
http://www.geocities.com/maitai373/EarthSpirit.html<http://www.geocities.com/maitai373/EarthSpirit.html>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Joyce Fetteroll
On Jul 12, 2006, at 5:16 PM, Christe Bruderlin wrote:
"Alternate option" suggests that there's equal likelihood of the
outcomes.
People fear that if they don't control how much candy their children
eat, then their children will eat nothing but candy.
How do they know that outcome is possible?
They don't. There are no studies on children with free access to
food, growing up in mindful homes that has shown that to be true. But
they fear it's true. And, so, better safe than sorry.
Some people try letting go of controls and usually their kids go wild
for what was controlled, which supports their theory that their kids
aren't like the kids of parents who don't need to control. So the
controls are returns and the kids know -- from experience now -- that
if the controls are lifted, it's only temporary and they need to cram
in as much as they can while they're gone.
What most people fear is that kids will *only* eat nonnutritious
foods unless the parent controls those foods. That isn't true.
Will kids want to try snack foods they've heard about or see? Sure!
Will kids (and adults!) like some foods that aren't nutritious? Yes,
of course. But will kids shun nutritious foods and eat only
nonnutritious foods? No.
Unrestricted access doesn't end up looking like organic vegan diets
(for most kids!) any more than unschooling looks like kids doing
school at home without mom making them ;-) But it also doesn't look
like most schooled kids' diets that are heavily weighted with
convenience foods either. It looks like nutritious food mixed with
some snacks.
cigarettes, just food.) Do you mean addictive?
What do you mean by "feasibly*? As in there are cases where that has
happened? Are there studies that show children *raised with
unrestricted food choice* whose diets skew towards one particular
food because the food itself has created a craving? If there are no
studies, then it isn't "feasible", it's a fear.
We have kids who aren't showing signs of being addicted to a
particular food. If you can look beyond the fact that they are
choosing -- in *addition to nutritious food -- foods you wouldn't
serve, they aren't scarfing down endless bags of chips and Oreos,
drinking gallons of Coke, hoarding candy. In addition to a variety*
of nutritious food, they're eating an eclectic collection of
nonnutritious food, not gravitating towards one type which is what
"make them want the given item more" implies.
(*Variety within their personal preferences for food. My daughter ate
few foods between 4 and 11 but still didn't concentrate on any one
type of snack food.)
We have children who -- while they aren't eating nothing but whole
grains and unrefined sweets -- are not skewing towards foods that you
say will "make" them want more. They are not showing signs of
addictive behavior.
We have a collection of chips that come with sandwiches piling up on
the refrigerator that no one is eating. We have Dove chocolates in a
bowl that I bought several weeks ago. (At one time I was certain if I
had chocolate in the house that *I* would eat it all. But once I gave
myself permission to eat as much as I wanted, to go out and buy more
if I ran out, though I did eat more at the beginning, I now have
only one small piece 4 or 5 times a week.)
Why does your conclusion that kids will eat an excessive amount of
some addictive food not match what is happening in our families?
connection between foods and cancer is less clear.
It's just my gut feeling from seeing the "latest studies" come and go
over the last 40+ years that the body is pretty adaptable. A bag of
chips won't hurt anyone. (Barring allergies of course.) Even several
dozen bags of chips won't. I suspect that for some people who are
prone to cancer, if their diet is heavily laden with "junk" food,
that their risk of cancer goes up. That's a far cry from a belief
that eating any amount of certain foods will greatly increase the
risk of cancer. It's a far cry from a belief that eating nothing but
food of a certain type (organic, raw, vegan, wheat free or whatever)
will greatly reduce the risk of cancer.
Moderation is key, I believe. And when given unrestricted access to
food, kids, overall, eat what they want and what they want is what
would look like moderation (without denying themselves what they want.)
That's just speculation. What *is* very likely to happen is that when
your kids are out of your sight, when they see other kids -- kids who
are not dropping dead, adults who appear perfectly healthy --
enjoying the foods that you forbid, they're going to want them.. They
may feel guilty for wanting and guilt is definitely not good for
health. They may sneak and when nothing bad happens, they'll want not
only more but the freedom to want more. And their trust in what you
say will go down.
Think about your favorite genre of movie or book. What if your
husband had read that those genres would shorten your lifespan and he
wanted you to stop. How could he get you to stop *and* maintain a
good relationship with you? That scenario seems ridiculous, but when
we're imposing our beliefs -- no matter how certain we are of our
beliefs -- on someone else, it feels exactly like that.
If the danger is imminent and our kids aren't aware of it, our kids
-- all people in fact! -- would want someone to interfere! If the
danger is not imminent kids -- and other people -- want others to
trust their explorations. That doesn't mean we shouldn't share what
we understand with them. But the more adamantly certain we're right
and most of their friends are wrong, the more pressure we put on them
to not venture beyond what we believe to be right, the greater the
wall we erect between ourselves and them.
Joyce
> I think this is probably true for most of the choices mostI think it's wanting to avoid what they *fear* will happen.
> individuals make (not necessarily OMG FEAR!, but wanting to avoid
> the alternate option).
"Alternate option" suggests that there's equal likelihood of the
outcomes.
People fear that if they don't control how much candy their children
eat, then their children will eat nothing but candy.
How do they know that outcome is possible?
They don't. There are no studies on children with free access to
food, growing up in mindful homes that has shown that to be true. But
they fear it's true. And, so, better safe than sorry.
Some people try letting go of controls and usually their kids go wild
for what was controlled, which supports their theory that their kids
aren't like the kids of parents who don't need to control. So the
controls are returns and the kids know -- from experience now -- that
if the controls are lifted, it's only temporary and they need to cram
in as much as they can while they're gone.
> Anyway, the problem I struggle with is that I fairly stronglyNot every choice is nutritious but overall, the choices balance out.
> disagree with the majority of people on these boards who say they
> don't limit foods and that their kids make great choices when I
> read the list of choices.
What most people fear is that kids will *only* eat nonnutritious
foods unless the parent controls those foods. That isn't true.
Will kids want to try snack foods they've heard about or see? Sure!
Will kids (and adults!) like some foods that aren't nutritious? Yes,
of course. But will kids shun nutritious foods and eat only
nonnutritious foods? No.
Unrestricted access doesn't end up looking like organic vegan diets
(for most kids!) any more than unschooling looks like kids doing
school at home without mom making them ;-) But it also doesn't look
like most schooled kids' diets that are heavily weighted with
convenience foods either. It looks like nutritious food mixed with
some snacks.
> that I won't supply based on safety that could feasibly make themWhat do you mean by want the item more? (Let's not talk about
> want the given item more
cigarettes, just food.) Do you mean addictive?
What do you mean by "feasibly*? As in there are cases where that has
happened? Are there studies that show children *raised with
unrestricted food choice* whose diets skew towards one particular
food because the food itself has created a craving? If there are no
studies, then it isn't "feasible", it's a fear.
We have kids who aren't showing signs of being addicted to a
particular food. If you can look beyond the fact that they are
choosing -- in *addition to nutritious food -- foods you wouldn't
serve, they aren't scarfing down endless bags of chips and Oreos,
drinking gallons of Coke, hoarding candy. In addition to a variety*
of nutritious food, they're eating an eclectic collection of
nonnutritious food, not gravitating towards one type which is what
"make them want the given item more" implies.
(*Variety within their personal preferences for food. My daughter ate
few foods between 4 and 11 but still didn't concentrate on any one
type of snack food.)
We have children who -- while they aren't eating nothing but whole
grains and unrefined sweets -- are not skewing towards foods that you
say will "make" them want more. They are not showing signs of
addictive behavior.
We have a collection of chips that come with sandwiches piling up on
the refrigerator that no one is eating. We have Dove chocolates in a
bowl that I bought several weeks ago. (At one time I was certain if I
had chocolate in the house that *I* would eat it all. But once I gave
myself permission to eat as much as I wanted, to go out and buy more
if I ran out, though I did eat more at the beginning, I now have
only one small piece 4 or 5 times a week.)
Why does your conclusion that kids will eat an excessive amount of
some addictive food not match what is happening in our families?
> Could the same line of reasoning apply to food choices (e.g. afterThe connection between smoking and cancer is pretty clear. The
> years of exposure, the food choice could lead to heart disease and
> cancer)?
connection between foods and cancer is less clear.
It's just my gut feeling from seeing the "latest studies" come and go
over the last 40+ years that the body is pretty adaptable. A bag of
chips won't hurt anyone. (Barring allergies of course.) Even several
dozen bags of chips won't. I suspect that for some people who are
prone to cancer, if their diet is heavily laden with "junk" food,
that their risk of cancer goes up. That's a far cry from a belief
that eating any amount of certain foods will greatly increase the
risk of cancer. It's a far cry from a belief that eating nothing but
food of a certain type (organic, raw, vegan, wheat free or whatever)
will greatly reduce the risk of cancer.
Moderation is key, I believe. And when given unrestricted access to
food, kids, overall, eat what they want and what they want is what
would look like moderation (without denying themselves what they want.)
That's just speculation. What *is* very likely to happen is that when
your kids are out of your sight, when they see other kids -- kids who
are not dropping dead, adults who appear perfectly healthy --
enjoying the foods that you forbid, they're going to want them.. They
may feel guilty for wanting and guilt is definitely not good for
health. They may sneak and when nothing bad happens, they'll want not
only more but the freedom to want more. And their trust in what you
say will go down.
Think about your favorite genre of movie or book. What if your
husband had read that those genres would shorten your lifespan and he
wanted you to stop. How could he get you to stop *and* maintain a
good relationship with you? That scenario seems ridiculous, but when
we're imposing our beliefs -- no matter how certain we are of our
beliefs -- on someone else, it feels exactly like that.
If the danger is imminent and our kids aren't aware of it, our kids
-- all people in fact! -- would want someone to interfere! If the
danger is not imminent kids -- and other people -- want others to
trust their explorations. That doesn't mean we shouldn't share what
we understand with them. But the more adamantly certain we're right
and most of their friends are wrong, the more pressure we put on them
to not venture beyond what we believe to be right, the greater the
wall we erect between ourselves and them.
Joyce
Melissa
exactly me...I'm still fighting that fear if I don't eat it all, I
won't get more. And that's precisely why I don't want my kids growing
up restricted...and even more so why it's important for me to provide
what they need.
I also grew up with a mom who had her special snacks, and we were
never allowed to touch, much less eat them. To this day, I have to
fight the impulse to hide and eat those things....or tell the kids
they're mine. :-(
I really appreciate you saying that you gave yourself permission to
eat what you wanted. I thought I was the only one who had very verbal
conversations with myself, soothing that mommy voice and saying, You
can go buy more, you're a grownup now, with money and transportation
of your own.
Melissa
Mom to Josh (11), Breanna (8), Emily (7), Rachel (6), Sam (4), Dan
(2), and Avari Rose
share our lives at
http://360.yahoo.com/multimomma
won't get more. And that's precisely why I don't want my kids growing
up restricted...and even more so why it's important for me to provide
what they need.
I also grew up with a mom who had her special snacks, and we were
never allowed to touch, much less eat them. To this day, I have to
fight the impulse to hide and eat those things....or tell the kids
they're mine. :-(
I really appreciate you saying that you gave yourself permission to
eat what you wanted. I thought I was the only one who had very verbal
conversations with myself, soothing that mommy voice and saying, You
can go buy more, you're a grownup now, with money and transportation
of your own.
Melissa
Mom to Josh (11), Breanna (8), Emily (7), Rachel (6), Sam (4), Dan
(2), and Avari Rose
share our lives at
http://360.yahoo.com/multimomma
On Jul 13, 2006, at 10:12 AM, Joyce Fetteroll wrote:
>
> We have a collection of chips that come with sandwiches piling up on
> the refrigerator that no one is eating. We have Dove chocolates in a
> bowl that I bought several weeks ago. (At one time I was certain if I
> had chocolate in the house that *I* would eat it all. But once I gave
> myself permission to eat as much as I wanted, to go out and buy more
> if I ran out, though I did eat more at the beginning, I now have
> only one small piece 4 or 5 times a week.)
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
techwritercsbn
--- In [email protected], Joyce Fetteroll
<fetteroll@...> wrote:
truly just alternates based on the facts (or what we perceive to be
facts).
of veggies, too. It is more about the percentage. I do think that
many people might have tastebuds that can't differentiate very well
between what the body needs and the fake alternatives out there.
healthier than their limited counterparts either. Though if you tell
me that no food-unlimited kid out there has weight problems or Type
II diabetes or other food-related health problems (with the caveat
that we know that *most* problems will not show up until later), I
might be a little more convinced...However, I know A LOT of kids
(unschooled and not) who have have whatever they want in the fridge
and house (and where money isn't an issue). I'm not seeing this
healthy balance that everyone keeps talking about. That's just my
reality.
Maybe it is just semantics. What is the definition of balance?
food -- though my nephew (always unlimited) will not eat anything
resembling a vegetable. He will eat apples, though. LOL.
sound exactly like the diets described on this and other unschooling
boards (some healthy, some not).
There are quite a few valid definitions of "addiction" out there,
which would make it hard to focus specifically on that word, however.
I mean that if candy is in front of me, I'm more likely to eat it
than if I have to go out and get it. Same with fruit, etc. During a
mindless urge to munch, I might just grab that which is most
convenient.
hopefully the above paragraph clarified that.
I appreciate everyone sharing what their kids eat, but it has made me
realize something. I'm perhaps offending some people (hence the need
to defend personal household diets?). I'm sorry. I've really been
thinking about this and trying to say everything as gently as
possible. I really HONOR everyone's right to eat what they choose,
including my children's. I know we all draw the line at different
places. I'm more talking about where I draw MY line. Everyone wants
to talk about their definition of healthy. We differ there. That is
OKAY. For me, I see the overall health of the child a bit
differently, but still want to live in harmony with my children.
because it isn't like someone would get hooked on "chips," but
perhaps something within the chips (fat, salt, crunchiness, etc.)
that they get in a variety of healthy and unhealthy foods. Having
the chips there would be an easy way to meet say the craving for
crunchiness that could be met with a carrot or a cracker or whatever
or the craving for fat that could be met with a nut or a steak or a
piece of cake or whatever. But whatever is sitting in a bowl might
be easiest for a kid to pick.
lots of other sources of food with trans or saturated fat will (or
the salt or insert whatever here).
Also, yes, the studies viewed together are key. The news picks out a
study here or there out of context. It takes several studies to make
true scientific evidence.
stronger impact than genetics (breast and prostate, for example).
That's a far cry from a belief
look at a unprocessed, plant-based diet vs. any other diet. Most
humans, it appears, can afford about 100-200 calories of non-
nutritious (meaning high nutrient) foods a day before the disease
rates start climbing. I've been doing nutrition research for years
and all of you may have been too. However, if not, I recently read a
great book (mentioned in my earlier post) called "Eat to Live" while
preparing to write a review of a book coming out in paperbook
called "Disease Proof your Child." Whether you agree with the
outcomes or not, the information sections in the beginning of each
are excellent sources of information compiling 1000s of scientific
studies (which you can verify by getting the articles on PubMed or
your local library that carries peer-reviewed journals). "The China
Study" (recently on bestseller list) is also great for a more
specific look at nutrition.
effects of diet are not immediate in many cases. Many people
*appear* healthy when they are not. There are autopsy studies of
kids who died in accidents and the majority of kids between 4-7 years
studied ALREADY had plaques in their arteries. Yet they looked and
seemed happy and healthy.
They
protect our kids (according to our own definitions of safety and
protection) and do so joyfully, creatively, etc.?
happen later. Just because we can't see the danger right now doesn't
mean it isn't there right now. Anyway, I do believe that it is
imminent and so that is the reason for stocking my house with what I
do. I still want to do this respectfully, etc. however.
I used cigarettes because they illustrate the point without picking
out a particular lifestyle, and they make a fine point about
moderation. If I smoke 1, will it do damage? Yes. Will I see the
damage? No. (and alternatively I could be that rare person who can
smoke oodles and see no ill come of it). etc.
Oh, and we're going to Disneyland tomorrow and then camping for a
week and so I might seem like I've disappeard, but I will respond as
I can.
<fetteroll@...> wrote:
>avoid
>
> On Jul 12, 2006, at 5:16 PM, Christe Bruderlin wrote:
> > I think this is probably true for most of the choices most
> > individuals make (not necessarily OMG FEAR!, but wanting to
> > the alternate option).If we have worked to release fear, though, the other options are
>
> I think it's wanting to avoid what they *fear* will happen.
> "Alternate option" suggests that there's equal likelihood of the
> outcomes.
truly just alternates based on the facts (or what we perceive to be
facts).
> People fear that if they don't control how much candy theirchildren
> eat, then their children will eat nothing but candy.I don't fear that as I know many children without limits who eat lots
of veggies, too. It is more about the percentage. I do think that
many people might have tastebuds that can't differentiate very well
between what the body needs and the fake alternatives out there.
>There are no studies on children with free access toBut
> food, growing up in mindful homes that has shown that to be true.
> they fear it's true. And, so, better safe than sorry.And there are no studies that show that kids without limits are
healthier than their limited counterparts either. Though if you tell
me that no food-unlimited kid out there has weight problems or Type
II diabetes or other food-related health problems (with the caveat
that we know that *most* problems will not show up until later), I
might be a little more convinced...However, I know A LOT of kids
(unschooled and not) who have have whatever they want in the fridge
and house (and where money isn't an issue). I'm not seeing this
healthy balance that everyone keeps talking about. That's just my
reality.
> Not every choice is nutritious but overall, the choices balanceout.
Maybe it is just semantics. What is the definition of balance?
> What most people fear is that kids will *only* eat nonnutritiousYou're right, it isn't. I've never seen a kid shun all nutritious
> foods unless the parent controls those foods. That isn't true.
food -- though my nephew (always unlimited) will not eat anything
resembling a vegetable. He will eat apples, though. LOL.
> Unrestricted access doesn't end up looking like organic vegandiets
> (for most kids!) any more than unschooling looks like kids doinglook
> school at home without mom making them ;-) But it also doesn't
> like most schooled kids' diets that are heavily weighted withI agree here, except that most schooled kids I know have diets that
> convenience foods either. It looks like nutritious food mixed with
> some snacks.
sound exactly like the diets described on this and other unschooling
boards (some healthy, some not).
> What do you mean by want the item more? (Let's not talk aboutNot necessarily "addictive," although I believe some foods are.
> cigarettes, just food.) Do you mean addictive?
There are quite a few valid definitions of "addiction" out there,
which would make it hard to focus specifically on that word, however.
I mean that if candy is in front of me, I'm more likely to eat it
than if I have to go out and get it. Same with fruit, etc. During a
mindless urge to munch, I might just grab that which is most
convenient.
> What do you mean by "feasibly*?"possibly," etc.
> happened? Are there studies that show children *raised withno
> unrestricted food choice* whose diets skew towards one particular
> food because the food itself has created a craving? If there are
> studies, then it isn't "feasible", it's a fear.Not one particular food, no. I didn't make myself clear, but
hopefully the above paragraph clarified that.
I appreciate everyone sharing what their kids eat, but it has made me
realize something. I'm perhaps offending some people (hence the need
to defend personal household diets?). I'm sorry. I've really been
thinking about this and trying to say everything as gently as
possible. I really HONOR everyone's right to eat what they choose,
including my children's. I know we all draw the line at different
places. I'm more talking about where I draw MY line. Everyone wants
to talk about their definition of healthy. We differ there. That is
OKAY. For me, I see the overall health of the child a bit
differently, but still want to live in harmony with my children.
> Why does your conclusion that kids will eat an excessive amount ofIf this was my reasoning (though not what I said), it could be
> some addictive food not match what is happening in our families?
because it isn't like someone would get hooked on "chips," but
perhaps something within the chips (fat, salt, crunchiness, etc.)
that they get in a variety of healthy and unhealthy foods. Having
the chips there would be an easy way to meet say the craving for
crunchiness that could be met with a carrot or a cracker or whatever
or the craving for fat that could be met with a nut or a steak or a
piece of cake or whatever. But whatever is sitting in a bowl might
be easiest for a kid to pick.
> > Could the same line of reasoning apply to food choices (e.g.after
> > years of exposure, the food choice could lead to heart diseaseand
> > cancer)?Absolutely, now that we've clarified the line of reasoning.
> The connection between smoking and cancer is pretty clear. TheActually, the connections are very clear.
> connection between foods and cancer is less clear.
> It's just my gut feeling from seeing the "latest studies" come andgo
> over the last 40+ years that the body is pretty adaptable. A bagof
> chips won't hurt anyone. (Barring allergies of course.)No, but the trans saturated fat from the bag of chips combined with
lots of other sources of food with trans or saturated fat will (or
the salt or insert whatever here).
Also, yes, the studies viewed together are key. The news picks out a
study here or there out of context. It takes several studies to make
true scientific evidence.
>I suspect that for some people who are prone to cancer, if theirdiet is heavily laden with "junk" food,
> that their risk of cancer goes up.Yes, and in many cancers, the science shows that diet has a much
stronger impact than genetics (breast and prostate, for example).
That's a far cry from a belief
> that eating any amount of certain foods will greatly increase thebut
> risk of cancer. It's a far cry from a belief that eating nothing
> food of a certain type (organic, raw, vegan, wheat free orwhatever)
> will greatly reduce the risk of cancer.Actually, what you've said goes against the science out there if you
look at a unprocessed, plant-based diet vs. any other diet. Most
humans, it appears, can afford about 100-200 calories of non-
nutritious (meaning high nutrient) foods a day before the disease
rates start climbing. I've been doing nutrition research for years
and all of you may have been too. However, if not, I recently read a
great book (mentioned in my earlier post) called "Eat to Live" while
preparing to write a review of a book coming out in paperbook
called "Disease Proof your Child." Whether you agree with the
outcomes or not, the information sections in the beginning of each
are excellent sources of information compiling 1000s of scientific
studies (which you can verify by getting the articles on PubMed or
your local library that carries peer-reviewed journals). "The China
Study" (recently on bestseller list) is also great for a more
specific look at nutrition.
> -- kids whoAnd that's the problem with most Americans, isn't it? That the
> are not dropping dead, adults who appear perfectly healthy --
> enjoying the foods that you forbid, they're going to want them..
effects of diet are not immediate in many cases. Many people
*appear* healthy when they are not. There are autopsy studies of
kids who died in accidents and the majority of kids between 4-7 years
studied ALREADY had plaques in their arteries. Yet they looked and
seemed happy and healthy.
They
> may feel guilty for wanting and guilt is definitely not good forAgree. Guilt is a bummer.
> health.
> Think about your favorite genre of movie or book. What if yourhe
> husband had read that those genres would shorten your lifespan and
> wanted you to stop. How could he get you to stop *and* maintain awhen
> good relationship with you? That scenario seems ridiculous, but
> we're imposing our beliefs -- no matter how certain we are of ourI do get that point. That is why I originally wrote. How do we
> beliefs -- on someone else, it feels exactly like that.
protect our kids (according to our own definitions of safety and
protection) and do so joyfully, creatively, etc.?
> If the danger is imminent and our kids aren't aware of it, ourkids
> -- all people in fact! -- would want someone to interfere!Yes. But define imminent. The damage happens now. The results
happen later. Just because we can't see the danger right now doesn't
mean it isn't there right now. Anyway, I do believe that it is
imminent and so that is the reason for stocking my house with what I
do. I still want to do this respectfully, etc. however.
I used cigarettes because they illustrate the point without picking
out a particular lifestyle, and they make a fine point about
moderation. If I smoke 1, will it do damage? Yes. Will I see the
damage? No. (and alternatively I could be that rare person who can
smoke oodles and see no ill come of it). etc.
> But the more adamantly certain we're rightthem
> and most of their friends are wrong, the more pressure we put on
> to not venture beyond what we believe to be right, the greater theI totally agree. And is there ever one "right" anyway? Nah. :)
> wall we erect between ourselves and them.
Oh, and we're going to Disneyland tomorrow and then camping for a
week and so I might seem like I've disappeard, but I will respond as
I can.
techwritercsbn
I'm seeing some themes that it seems like many respondants believe
(correct me if I'm wrong):
1) If eating unhealthfully does not cause immediate and apparent
negative effects, children won't trust parents that tell them about
the dangers of certain dietary choices because they can't see/feel
said effects
2) Humans crave, and thus eat, only what the body needs and will
achieve a healthy dietary balance if raised in a family that imposes
no dietary limits
3) Smoking leads to disease, but the link between nutrition and
disease is not as strong
Does everyone out there (besides me) believe these to be true?
Also, why does a comparison with cigarettes make people upset? Is it
not the same philosophical point i.e. limiting choice in a child that
you would not limit in an adult?
Even if you don't believe that the link between nutrition and disease
is as strong as that between smoking and disease, the philosophy is
the same (we give our kids the information and then let them choose,
fully support the choice even if it isn't one we'd make if the danger
isn't apparent right then lest they not trust us, etc.). Isn't it?
The dangers of smoking and the dangers of eating are both not like
the dangers of running into traffic. A kid isn't likely to drop dead
from smoking 10 packs of cigarettes or eating 10 gallons of ice
cream. They are both likely to look and feel equally healthy.
Is there no one who sees this as a valid parallel?
(and my apologies to those of you donating your time who might be
sick to death of the food discussions :) I did read archives and am
trying to get a different perspective, I swear.
(correct me if I'm wrong):
1) If eating unhealthfully does not cause immediate and apparent
negative effects, children won't trust parents that tell them about
the dangers of certain dietary choices because they can't see/feel
said effects
2) Humans crave, and thus eat, only what the body needs and will
achieve a healthy dietary balance if raised in a family that imposes
no dietary limits
3) Smoking leads to disease, but the link between nutrition and
disease is not as strong
Does everyone out there (besides me) believe these to be true?
Also, why does a comparison with cigarettes make people upset? Is it
not the same philosophical point i.e. limiting choice in a child that
you would not limit in an adult?
Even if you don't believe that the link between nutrition and disease
is as strong as that between smoking and disease, the philosophy is
the same (we give our kids the information and then let them choose,
fully support the choice even if it isn't one we'd make if the danger
isn't apparent right then lest they not trust us, etc.). Isn't it?
The dangers of smoking and the dangers of eating are both not like
the dangers of running into traffic. A kid isn't likely to drop dead
from smoking 10 packs of cigarettes or eating 10 gallons of ice
cream. They are both likely to look and feel equally healthy.
Is there no one who sees this as a valid parallel?
(and my apologies to those of you donating your time who might be
sick to death of the food discussions :) I did read archives and am
trying to get a different perspective, I swear.