Anne and Rob Pugliese

Hi all,
I just have to add my two cents prefacing my comments by declaring my
bias as a person who leans toward obsessive complusive ie "addictive"
behavior. I do limit my kids' sugar consumption for multiple reasons, not
the least of which is a family history of diabetes/ late onset which is
directly related to over intake of refined carbohydrates and insulin
resistence.... my kids recognize that when they do eat a ton of sugar (say
after a birthday party or what have you) they feel physically ill and
grumpy... My 7 yo naturally doesn't care for refined sugar, he will choose
an apple over birthday cake every time. Our family candy rule is 3 pieces
per day after a healthy meal... (and they are welcome to throw away and try
again if they hate something, so it's actually 3...).
They are 9 and 7 and they have no problem with limits.on TV, movies,
computer time, candy consumption, etc. I think the thing to consider about
"limits" is how they are implemented... the negative effects of limits, eg
"rebound" behavior such as the gorging on video games or candy that have
been mentioned are more likely to occur when the limits are imposed without
rational explanation and discussion, especially in families where rules of
all kinds tend to get imposed and enforced arbitrarily. In our family we
all agree that there are good reasons to limit some behaviors and to try
lots of different activities. But we do this in an atmosphere of mutual
respect and always with lots of discussion.

anne

Fetteroll

on 11/3/03 3:30 AM, Anne and Rob Pugliese at robnanne1@... wrote:

> I just have to add my two cents prefacing my comments by declaring my
> bias as a person who leans toward obsessive complusive ie "addictive"
> behavior.

I don't think decisions made in response to obsessive compulsive behavior
are a good model to offer to others to make sound decisions from.

> I do limit my kids' sugar consumption for multiple reasons, not
> the least of which is a family history of diabetes/ late onset which is
> directly related to over intake of refined carbohydrates and insulin
> resistence....

I see a number of flaws in your reasoning. I suspect that you don't want
them pointed out and just want it known that you don't agree with what's
being said because you have reasons that make sense to you.

But, this is a discussion list and the purpose of the list is to hold ideas
up to examination and to help people make rational decisions. If anyone
doesn't want their ideas examined, its best not to post them.

Here's what I see:

If your kids are overweight then you're offering general advice based on a
nongeneral situation. (There *are* other options besides control even for
special circumstances.)

If your kids are not overweight, then you are imposing a solution to a
problem that you only fear may exist in the future.

If by late onset diabetes you mean type 2, the connection isn't directly to
sugar but to being overweight. The problem is taking in too many calories
and not expending enough and becoming overweight. Being overweight doesn't
cause type 2 diabetes, e.g. all overweight people become diabetic, but being
overweight seems to be a factor.

> my kids recognize that when they do eat a ton of sugar (say
> after a birthday party or what have you) they feel physically ill and
> grumpy... My 7 yo naturally doesn't care for refined sugar, he will choose
> an apple over birthday cake every time. Our family candy rule is 3 pieces
> per day after a healthy meal... (and they are welcome to throw away and try
> again if they hate something, so it's actually 3...).

If they aren't drawn to sugar, then why limit it?

> They are 9 and 7 and they have no problem with limits.on TV, movies,
> computer time, candy consumption, etc.

If by "no problem" you mean they don't complain, depending on personality
and family atmosphere, some kids will learn that complaining isn't worth the
effort.

If by "no problem" you mean that without limits they choose the way you
would choose for them, then why have limits?

(I'd be concerned, though, if my daughter were making the same decisions I
would. It would suggest to me that she was memorizing rules rather than
learning what's right for her by experimentation. We try to help people see
that children will choose what's right for *them*, though, not choose what
we'd choose for them. They *will* choose differently. But they won't eat
nothing but sugar and fat, and won't do nothing but watch TV and play video
games.)

Some people, such as those who are naturally drawn to rules, who live under
limitations accept the rules and stick to them. They live in fear and the
rules are like talismans that will keep the boogeyman away. What happens
when they are faced with new situations that they don't have rules in place
for? People often extrapolate from the nonsense and extend the rules. But
rational thought would reveal shoddy foundations for decision making.

If the reasons behind rules make sense, then there isn't a reason to make a
rule. But people who follow rules, aren't learning how to make decisions.
They are only learning to follow someone else's rules.

If the reasons behind rules are nonsense, then people memorize nonsense and
use that as a foundation for decision making.

If your kids have memorized that too much sugar will cause diabetes so it's
good to avoid sugar, they've memorized nonsense and are basing decisions on
nonsense.

If they recognize that sugar will make them feel yucky, then, without rules,
they are free to decide each time if the future yucky feeling is worth it or
not. They'll be listening to their bodies, not a rule they've memorized.

> They are 9 and 7 and they have no problem with limits.on TV, movies,
> computer time, candy consumption, etc.

If they are memorizing rules that say any time beyond x spent on TV, movies,
computer is damaging, then they're memorizing your responses to your fears
not listening to their bodies or coming to rational decisions through trial
and error about what's right for their unique selves.

Joyce

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/3/03 2:24:59 AM, robnanne1@... writes:

<< I do limit my kids' sugar consumption for multiple reasons.... my kids
recognize that when they do eat a ton of sugar >>


We're trying to convey a simple piece of important information:

If you stop limiting, they will eventually (perhaps right away, depending in
party on how limiting you were being) NOT eat a ton of sugar.

<<They are 9 and 7 and they have no problem with limits.on TV, movies,

computer time, candy consumption, etc. >>

There are kids who have no problem with lots of spankings and being shamed
and grounded. Or at least they have no problems at first. As they get older
and the parents can no longer control them physically or verbally, that's whey
the results surface.

<<I think the thing to consider about

"limits" is how they are implemented... the negative effects of limits, eg

"rebound" behavior such as the gorging on video games or candy that have

been mentioned are more likely to occur when the limits are imposed without

rational explanation and discussion>>

If by "rational explanation" you mean justification for parental control,
then the negative effects can come about with an added layer of loss of respect
for the parents' veracity and judgment.

<<In our family we all agree that there are good reasons to limit some
behaviors>>

With younger children, agreement is easy to come by. Kids will agree to just
about anything. Most of the people in this culture would agree with your
good reasons, too.

There were good reasons and rational explanations for estrogen replacement in
menopausal women. It made their bones stronger. It made them look younger.
It aided and abetted (if not caused) breast cancer. But the breast cancer
was coming years later, and those pushing the estrogen were looking at the
window right at menopause. Still, by many, the cancer is looked at as a separate
set of data.

And same with people who look at teens with certain obsessive behaviors or
bad judgment and they like to blame lots of things (bad choice of friends is a
fave), but behavior comes from thought and attitude sometimes (cognitive stuff,
which is why adults can change their attitudes, rationals and actions and
improve their lives) and from reactionary stuff to internalized messages and the
way we're treated (subconscious stuff).

One of the message children who are controlled get even if the parents don't
understand they're doing it is that the children are wrong. Their desires and
wants are wrong.

If candy is limited to three, and children eat three, parents assume they
would have eaten four without the limit. When candy is unlimited, children
rarely eat three. They often won't even eat one. That probably sounds
wrongheaded and bogus to someone who's convinced her limits are saving her children,
but those who have given it an honest trial run come back here and say "you were
right."

Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/3/03 4:05:36 AM, fetteroll@... writes:

<< Being overweight doesn't
cause type 2 diabetes, e.g. all overweight people become diabetic, but being
overweight seems to be a factor. >>

Joyce, rephrase please.
All overweight people don't become diabetic, and there are thin diabetics.

Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/3/2003 3:24:44 AM Central Standard Time,
robnanne1@... writes:
not
the least of which is a family history of diabetes/ late onset which is
directly related to over intake of refined carbohydrates and insulin
resistence.... my kids recognize that when they do eat a ton of sugar (say
after a birthday party or what have you) they feel physically ill and
grumpy...

If they're already familiar with this and your family's history, why isn't
that just another factor in their long list of factors that helps them decide
what they should eat and when? Setting that limit for them doesn't help them
any. You won't be there when they're 50 if they *do* develop Type II diabetes
to make them stop eating the sugary snacks that diabetics seem to crave. How
is limiting them going to teach them to make that decision for themselves?

My son also has a family history of diabetes to contend with. This morning
he asked for waffles--we didn't have any frozen and I don't like making
homemade--so he settled on French toast. Then he said, "Can I get some scrambled
eggs with that?"

He *knows* he needs protein to keep going, because he *knows* his grandmother
and most of her 9 brothers are (or were) Type II diabetics. He also knows
how he feels an hour or two after a stack of waffles. He'll be 10 in 2 days.
He listens to his body, and considers other factors as well.

Tuck


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

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/3/03 8:38:49 AM, tuckervill2@... writes:

<< diabetes/ late onset which is
directly related to over intake of refined carbohydrates and insulin
resistence.... >>

<<He *knows* he needs protein to keep going, because he *knows* his
grandmother
and most of her 9 brothers are (or were) Type II diabetics. >>

Maybe he knows he needs protein because he's been given a chance to listen to
his body.

Maybe diabetes is more a lack of protein than "over intake of carbohydrates."

When a pregnant mom is declared to have "gestational diabetes," if she eats a
bunch of protein it will change the next reading. Huh. The "treatment" for
gestational diabetes is either insulin and giving your pregnancy over to
experts because you're beyond the safe zone of natural birth (etc.) OR choice
number two: eat a lot of protein.

Sandra

zenmomma2kids

>>He *knows* he needs protein to keep going, because he *knows* his
grandmother and most of her 9 brothers are (or were) Type II
diabetics. He also knows how he feels an hour or two after a stack
of waffles. He'll be 10 in 2 days. He listens to his body, and
considers other factors as well.>>

Casey has been counting fiber grams for the past few days. She had
been having tummy aches and after much investigating I proposed that
lack of fiber might be the cause. So in amongst Halloween candy,
bagels and pasta, she is making sure to get her 5 fruits and veggies,
nuts, beans and whole grains. She feels like she's discovered this
amazing health trick.

Conor (14) is not paying attention to the same cues. <g> He's almost
finished with his candy and is just starting to come back to the real
world of eating. He's always been open to nourishing foods and will
basically eat whatever I put in front of him. Now that his Halloween
feast is over, I'll be sure to put more fresh and nourishing food in
his path.

Life is good.
~Mary

Tia Leschke

>
>
>If by late onset diabetes you mean type 2, the connection isn't directly to
>sugar but to being overweight. The problem is taking in too many calories
>and not expending enough and becoming overweight. Being overweight doesn't
>cause type 2 diabetes, e.g. all overweight people become diabetic, but being
>overweight seems to be a factor.

While I'm not arguing for limiting kids' access to sugar, I don't think
this is true. From the reading I've been doing on it (diabetic mother and
clear signs of insulin resistance in me) it's the carbs that get processed
too quickly into pure sugar that are the problem, the ones with a high
glycemic index. The body puts out insulin in response to them, and the
sugars get stored in the cells. Eventually the cells can't store any more
sugar, and the insulin can't do it's job properly anymore. (I understand it
enough for myself, but probably not quite well enough to explain it yet,
and there's more to it than that.) I think the reason for eating more
protein (and the good fats) is that they slow down the conversion of carbs
to pure sugar. The fat that's associated with diabetes is the fat around
the middle rather than simple overweight.
Tia

cmkerin

I think the reason for eating more
protein (and the good fats) is that they slow down the conversion of carbs
to pure sugar. <

What are good fats though? I've been reading a lot about this lately and some even think
that oils for cooking and used like margarine are not as good as we have been led to believe.
I've read a few places now how nutrition is actually considered a new science. I think
when "professionals" tell us what we 'should' be eating it would be nice to have a new science
disclaimer. ;o)

Joy

Tia Leschke

>
>
>What are good fats though? I've been reading a lot about this lately and
>some even think
>that oils for cooking and used like margarine are not as good as we have
>been led to believe.
>I've read a few places now how nutrition is actually considered a new
>science. I think
>when "professionals" tell us what we 'should' be eating it would be nice
>to have a new science
>disclaimer. ;o)

I'm still learning about all this, but yes, margarine is one of the worst
foods you can eat because of the trans fats. The latest research is showing
that trans fats are horrible for you. And the companies that manufacture it
know that. You know how everyone thinks that coconut oil is really bad for
you? Well the tests were done on refined coconut oil. Turns out that
unrefined coconut oils can be good for you.

I switched from marg to butter a while ago and use olive oil or coconut oil
for cooking. If you want to get your protein and good fats together,
avocados and nuts are a good source, as long as the nuts aren't rancid.
Rancid fats are one of the worst things you can eat.
Tia

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/3/2003 10:11:56 AM Eastern Standard Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
If candy is limited to three, and children eat three, parents assume they
would have eaten four without the limit. When candy is unlimited, children
rarely eat three. They often won't even eat one. That probably sounds
wrongheaded and bogus to someone who's convinced her limits are saving her
children,
but those who have given it an honest trial run come back here and say "you
were
right."
Or what happened with my foster sons happens....they stuff themselves with
lots of candy the first day, get queasy because of it, and they eat much less
the days AFTER Halloween. Their bodies crave healthy food. They didn't even
want sweet cereal today...had eggs and oatmeal for breakfast the past few days.

Nancy B. in WV


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

joylyn

Anne and Rob Pugliese wrote:

> Hi all,
> I just have to add my two cents prefacing my comments by declaring my
> bias as a person who leans toward obsessive complusive ie "addictive"
> behavior. I do limit my kids' sugar consumption for multiple reasons, not
> the least of which is a family history of diabetes/ late onset which is
> directly related to over intake of refined carbohydrates and insulin
> resistence....

Did you also breastfeed for two or more years. Breastfeeding actually
reduces the risk of both diabetes and obesity, which is a factor in
diabetes. There are also studies that are beginning to show that
children who are breastfeed have better eating habits, eat a wider
variety of foods, and are more open to trying new foods. There are
very real things that you can do to help reduce the risk of diabetes,
right now, even if you did not breastfeed for the two years currently
being recommended by the World Health Organization. You can model good
eating habits yourself. You can exercize yourself. You can provide an
atmosphere for your children where foods are not "forbidden or limited
fruit" but instead are simply a part of a wide variety of foods
available for consumption.

Did you read the study that talked about how children who come from
household where certain types of food are limited tend to binge when
those limits are not in place?

> my kids recognize that when they do eat a ton of sugar (say
> after a birthday party or what have you) they feel physically ill and
> grumpy...

So, that should help.

> My 7 yo naturally doesn't care for refined sugar, he will choose
> an apple over birthday cake every time. Our family candy rule is 3 pieces
> per day after a healthy meal...

But by labeling food "healthy" and "bad" you are again putting that
"forbidden Fruit" idea into the kid's heads. You can ONLY eat your
cookie IF you eat all your veggies. The kid thinks... hmmm, I know the
cookie is good, but man, I sure hate brussel sprouts, so veggies are
bad, cookie good, but mom doesn't want me to have cookies.... My kids
have no food limits. They are as likely to eat brussel sprouts as they
are a cookie. Neither is good, neither is bad. They are just food.

> (and they are welcome to throw away and try
> again if they hate something, so it's actually 3...).
> They are 9 and 7 and they have no problem with limits.on TV, movies,
> computer time, candy consumption, etc.

Do they not have problems or do they just know that their opinion is not
important and therefore it is not worth them discussing their problems.

> I think the thing to consider about
> "limits" is how they are implemented... the negative effects of limits, eg
> "rebound" behavior such as the gorging on video games or candy that have
> been mentioned are more likely to occur when the limits are imposed
> without
> rational explanation and discussion, especially in families where rules of
> all kinds tend to get imposed and enforced arbitrarily.

I disagree.

Personally I trust my children to set their own limits.

> In our family we
> all agree that there are good reasons to limit some behaviors and to try
> lots of different activities. But we do this in an atmosphere of mutual
> respect and always with lots of discussion.

This is good but if the final decision is made by the adult, the kids
know this and realize that their opinions and needs are not as important
as the adults.

Joylyn

>
>
> anne
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=259395.3614674.4902533.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705081972:HM/A=1524963/R=0/SIG=12o885gmo/*http://hits.411web.com/cgi-bin/autoredir?camp=556&lineid=3614674&prop=egroupweb&pos=HM>
>
>
>
> "List Posting Policies" are provided in the files area of this group.
>
> To unsubscribe from this send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Visit the Unschooling website and message boards:
> http://www.unschooling.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.



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

Heidi

I'm really confused here. No limits=an eventual saturation point,
where kids won't overeat candy. Limits=setting up a craving so when
there is no one to limit them, they'll go nuts. Is that the general
idea?

well, I've seen just exactly the opposite happen. Candy/sweets is one
thing we've never stressed about. If there's some in the house, it
isn't a big deal if the kids eat it. And they usually eat it all. For
instance, all the Halloween candy is gone, except my 15 year old's.
She's got hers hidden in her room. If she didn't, her sibs would eat
it all gone.

IOW, if there has been candy around, we haven't limited the kids
except to say "Stay out of your sister's"...same with maple bars,
cookies, etc. My husband has an amazing sweet tooth and brings the
stuff home a lot. In this house it has NEVER been limited, unless I'm
making a nice dinner. Then, no snacks within an hour before dinner
time. This isn't every day, though. Just the once in awhile family
dinner that I'd prefer they come to the table hungry enough to eat
it. :)

and they still eat sweets without stopping, until they are gone. If
there is sweet stuff in the house, they eat it. Including honey and
sugar. My youngest uses iced tea as a vehicle for sugar: about three
TBSP per glass of tea, several glasses per day. Both of the younger
ones will dip into the honey...a spoon or a finger...many different
times per day. I've had to ask them to stop that, as honey is very
expensive.

Yet, a friend who keeps a jar of candy out at her house, with three
kids, and they don't touch it. The same candy will sit on that table
for a half a year. IOW, she hasn't limited her kids, either, yet they
don't eat it all gone, as mine do. A bowl of candy sitting out would
get eaten UP, that day, at my house.

why? What DOES bring about self-limiting, really? seems to me, no
limits isn't really what causes kids to stop themselves. No limits
hasn't caused my kids to stop themselves, until the candy is gone.

Just an observation; it truly is something I haven't ever made rules
about...

blessings, HeidiC

> If candy is limited to three, and children eat three, parents
assume they
> would have eaten four without the limit. When candy is unlimited,
children
> rarely eat three. They often won't even eat one. That probably
sounds
> wrongheaded and bogus to someone who's convinced her limits are
saving her children,
> but those who have given it an honest trial run come back here and
say "you were
> right."
>
> Sandra

catherine aceto

Here is a guess, and it doesn't unfortunately come with a solution, but it seems to me that your children might feel limited by the speed of consumption by other children -- i.e., the dynamic is you'd better eat it RIGHT NOW because if you don't someone else will? I can remember feeling that way about limited-quantity foods where it wouldn't be easy to just make more (like, for example, take-out pizza) when I was 6 or 7.

Do they feel that they can cause candy to appear whenver they want to(write it on the shopping list, cause a special trip to be made to buy candy, etc.) or does it appear only at adult wishes? Is there candy all the time -- or just some times? What does "a lot" mean for bringing candy home?

When my daughter was 3 or 4, I remember we went through a period when she needed to have more than she could possibly eat (of whatever -- pasta, grapes, candy, anything really) on her plate before she would eat. Then she would stop when full -- not eating it all. My working guess was that she wanted to feel secure that she really would be able to eat as much as she wanted. Sometime in the last couple of years she stopped doing that - but I wonder if it is a somehow related phenomenon?

Otherwise, I dont' know. I guess all we can say is what works for us, and hope that it is advice useful for other people to at least try.

-Cat
----- Original Message -----
From: Heidi
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 10:07 AM
Subject: [UnschoolingDiscussion] Re: on candy and other limits


I'm really confused here. No limits=an eventual saturation point,
where kids won't overeat candy. Limits=setting up a craving so when
there is no one to limit them, they'll go nuts. Is that the general
idea?

well, I've seen just exactly the opposite happen. Candy/sweets is one
thing we've never stressed about. If there's some in the house, it
isn't a big deal if the kids eat it. And they usually eat it all. For
instance, all the Halloween candy is gone, except my 15 year old's.
She's got hers hidden in her room. If she didn't, her sibs would eat
it all gone.

IOW, if there has been candy around, we haven't limited the kids
except to say "Stay out of your sister's"...same with maple bars,
cookies, etc. My husband has an amazing sweet tooth and brings the
stuff home a lot. In this house it has NEVER been limited, unless I'm
making a nice dinner. Then, no snacks within an hour before dinner
time. This isn't every day, though. Just the once in awhile family
dinner that I'd prefer they come to the table hungry enough to eat
it. :)

and they still eat sweets without stopping, until they are gone. If
there is sweet stuff in the house, they eat it. Including honey and
sugar. My youngest uses iced tea as a vehicle for sugar: about three
TBSP per glass of tea, several glasses per day. Both of the younger
ones will dip into the honey...a spoon or a finger...many different
times per day. I've had to ask them to stop that, as honey is very
expensive.

Yet, a friend who keeps a jar of candy out at her house, with three
kids, and they don't touch it. The same candy will sit on that table
for a half a year. IOW, she hasn't limited her kids, either, yet they
don't eat it all gone, as mine do. A bowl of candy sitting out would
get eaten UP, that day, at my house.

why? What DOES bring about self-limiting, really? seems to me, no
limits isn't really what causes kids to stop themselves. No limits
hasn't caused my kids to stop themselves, until the candy is gone.

Just an observation; it truly is something I haven't ever made rules
about...

blessings, HeidiC

> If candy is limited to three, and children eat three, parents
assume they
> would have eaten four without the limit. When candy is unlimited,
children
> rarely eat three. They often won't even eat one. That probably
sounds
> wrongheaded and bogus to someone who's convinced her limits are
saving her children,
> but those who have given it an honest trial run come back here and
say "you were
> right."
>
> Sandra


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT




"List Posting Policies" are provided in the files area of this group.

To unsubscribe from this send an email to:
[email protected]

Visit the Unschooling website and message boards: http://www.unschooling.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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

[email protected]

I have a bag of Halloween candy and I have been eating WAY more than my kids.
I think sometimes people indulge. My thinking is that I am pregnant and its
a craving. If someone limited my consumption I would think this faze I am in
would last much longer out of spite.

Thinking in their shoes is often helpful.
If you where told that you where only allowed to eat candy once a year or so
would you be longing for it more or sneaking it? I know I would, I know did as
a child.

I also know that there are some things that we bring into the house that we
just haven't bought in a while. Whatever it may be gets consumed quick and if I
keep buying it because they liked it after a week or so they just stop eating
it or even opening it. None of our kids are fat, its not about consume like
its the last time it will be available again.

Take parents who freak at the candy isles in stores. When we go to the store
the little one may ask for something but because I dont make a stink about it
she doesn't need or want every time. Some kids wait the entire shopping trip
until they get to the isle and have their parents say no. Imagine the reaction,
we have all see it im sure.


Laura
<
<< I'm really confused here. No limits=an eventual saturation point,
where kids won't overeat candy. Limits=setting up a craving so when
there is no one to limit them, they'll go nuts. Is that the general
idea?


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

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/4/2003 10:13:14 AM Eastern Standard Time,
bunsofaluminum60@... writes:
>>>Yet, a friend who keeps a jar of candy out at her house, with three
kids, and they don't touch it. The same candy will sit on that table
for a half a year. IOW, she hasn't limited her kids, either, yet they
don't eat it all gone, as mine do. A bowl of candy sitting out would
get eaten UP, that day, at my house.

why? What DOES bring about self-limiting, really? seems to me, no
limits isn't really what causes kids to stop themselves. No limits
hasn't caused my kids to stop themselves, until the candy is gone.<<<
*******************************************
Heidi, how many kids do you have in the house? My kids are pretty much the
same way at times, but we have 7. I try to make huge helpings of whatever I
make (usually tripling recipes!) so that there's enough for seconds. It seems,
when there's tons (like restaurant size pot of spaghetti) they might take
seconds, might not, and I usually end up with leftovers. But when I am low on
something and I make a smaller pot or dinner, EVERYONE wants seconds...it's
almost like they have a fear someone will get all the rest before they do.

Maybe the reason my kids are the way they are with sweets (like yours) is
because I usually don't make as big a batch?? It seems if I make like 4 loaves
of Bananna bread, then they only want a few slices and it won't even be
finished. Or cookies. But if we only get a couple boxes of little debbie snacks
they want to eat them all right then and there. Seems when there's no "fear"
that the food will run out before they get a little bit more, they aren't as
desperate to gorge on it (this is especially true of the foster kids, 2 of who
their grandfather locked the food away in padlocked kitchen cupboards.)

I know too, for me, when I'm on a low carb diet, the sweet craving is
TERRIBLE...until I haven't had any sweets for a few days. But as soon as I have a
small candy or cookie, BOOM...the cravings come back stronger than before.

Nancy B. in WV


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

Fetteroll

on 11/3/03 10:09 AM, SandraDodd@... at SandraDodd@... wrote:

> << Being overweight doesn't
> cause type 2 diabetes, e.g. all overweight people become diabetic, but being
> overweight seems to be a factor. >>
>
> Joyce, rephrase please.
> All overweight people don't become diabetic, and there are thin diabetics.

I like Tia's answer better. Mine's just a poorly worded version of current
but conventional medical thought. Here's what I was trying to say:

Obesity seems to be a factor in developing type 2 diabetes in those that are
predisposed.

Obesity is increasing and so is the incidence of type 2 diabetes. Maybe the
link between them isn't a direct link but a common link.

Obesity doesn't cause type 2 diabetes. (My 300 pound aunt whose most
strenuous form of exercise was wandering about her tiny apartment with her
walker lived into her 90's with no diabetes.)

I know thin people can have type 1 (juvenile) diabetes, but one website
(http://www.diabetesnet.com/diabetes_types/diabetes_type_2.php) said having
an "apple figure" (carrying excess weight around your middle) is almost
universal in type 2 (adult onset) diabetes.

Type 1 is an autoimmune disease where the body attacks the cells that create
insulin so insulin needs replaced. Type 2 is caused by insulin resistance.
The body still produces insulin but something prevents the cells from
absorbing and using it.

Joyce

[email protected]

cmkerin@... writes:
> What are good fats though? I've been reading a lot about this lately and
> some even think
> that oils for cooking and used like margarine are not as good as we have
> been led to believe.
> I've read a few places now how nutrition is actually considered a new
> science. I think
> when "professionals" tell us what we 'should' be eating it would be nice to
> have a new science
> disclaimer. ;o)
>
> Joy
>

You might want to check out Andrew Weil MD, he's on the net, I'm sure. He
tends to be ahead of the game in terms of research, facts, and putting it
together for people in a everyday way. About oils and fats, olive oil and other
vegetable oils, including and especially the oils in nuts, because of heart
healthy omega-3s, also found in some fish, are beneficial, where animal fats and
hydrogenated oils like margarines and shortenings, and *sigh* yes, butter, are
not, and can significantly increase your risk for health problems down the line
like high cholesterol and heart disease.

Margarine, for example, is a hydorgenated fat, it's heated/chemically altered
to become solid, and that process creates transfatty acids, which is not
healthy. I personally use butter for flavor, and olive oil, and a straight up
canola or vegetable oil. I do use shortening sometimes for baking, but never buy
margarine.

My two cents.....
~Aimee


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

Pam Hartley

> well, I've seen just exactly the opposite happen. Candy/sweets
is one
> thing we've never stressed about. If there's some in the house,
it
> isn't a big deal if the kids eat it. And they usually eat it all.

For three months, don't let it ever run out, so they can't ever "eat it
all", and see what happens. Keep the candy jar 100% filled all
the time, with some kind of candy.

What will happen is that each family member will eat what they
actually want, after the novelty has worn off, instead of hording it
because it might run out, like your older one is doing now. If they
can't eat "it all", they can finally get their fill.

We have a almost-never-ending candy bowl (sometimes we do
run out, just like we run out of milk or fruit, but it's kept stocked in
general, just like milk or fruit). We also have a wide variety of
other food, sweet and not, available all the time.

My daughters eat what most would consider quite a lot of candy.
They also often choose to eat not-candy things, many of them
what anyone would consider "healthy". Both of them are healthy,
active, cheerful, strong, trustworthy, brave, kind, etc.

Pam

Tia Leschke

>
>I know thin people can have type 1 (juvenile) diabetes, but one website
>(http://www.diabetesnet.com/diabetes_types/diabetes_type_2.php) said having
>an "apple figure" (carrying excess weight around your middle) is almost
>universal in type 2 (adult onset) diabetes.

Except my mother, who weighed about 90 pounds when she went from borderline
to real type 2 diabetes.
Tia

Tia Leschke

>
>You might want to check out Andrew Weil MD, he's on the net, I'm sure. He
>tends to be ahead of the game in terms of research, facts, and putting it
>together for people in a everyday way. About oils and fats, olive oil and
>other
>vegetable oils, including and especially the oils in nuts, because of heart
>healthy omega-3s, also found in some fish, are beneficial, where animal
>fats and
>hydrogenated oils like margarines and shortenings, and *sigh* yes, butter,
>are
>not, and can significantly increase your risk for health problems down the
>line
>like high cholesterol and heart disease.

Actually, from the reading I've been doing about insulin resistance, it
seems that there are two kinds of cholesterol, the kind you eat and the
kind your body makes. It's the kind your body makes that's bad for your
heart and blood vessels, and that's apparently caused by too much insulin
being produced because of too much sugar and high-glycemic index food intake.
Tia

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/4/03 12:01:09 PM, pamhartley@... writes:

<< Both of them are healthy,

active, cheerful, strong, trustworthy, brave, kind, etc. >>

friend to animals, reverent...

We have candy somewhere always. Our neighbors gave us their leftover
give-away candy. She said, "We knew since you have teenage boys it will be gone in
no time." I smiled. She was wrong. It will go to replenish our
already-existing stuff.

We only got 21 trick or treaters. Keith learned years ago only to get candy
WE like so we are glad to have leftovers. It does go very very slowly, though.

Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/4/03 12:15:26 PM, leschke@... writes:

<< Except my mother, who weighed about 90 pounds when she went from
borderline
to real type 2 diabetes. >>

Our most diabetic friend is in his 40s, has had diabetes since his 20s, and
can't possibly weigh over 125 pounds. He's had one or two organ transplants.
It got my kids out of live polio vaccines back in those days because of that,
since they were at his house a couple of times a week.

Sandra

Lillian Haas

I think some people (like me) have more sensitivity to sugar, and that makes
them crave it. My older son loves candy but doesn't binge -- his Halloween
candy will last for weeks. My younger son has eaten all his already. If I
have candy, I will eat it all at one sitting.

Genetics has a lot to do with it.

Lillian

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/3/2003 10:08:37 AM Central Standard Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:


> The "treatment" for
> gestational diabetes is either insulin and giving your pregnancy over to
> experts because you're beyond the safe zone of natural birth (etc.) OR
> choice
> number two: eat a lot of protein.
>

I agree. I'm craving protein this pregnancy and am much more active than I
was with my two previous. I've tested negative all along even though I had
gestational diabetes with the first two. I check it once a week for a fasting
number and a couple of times a week after meals. And I have had three glucose
challenges at the doctor's office. I can have a Big Mac meal with fries and a
diet coke with no problem on my one hour reading. But maybe that's because I
eat mostly protein the rest of the time. I told my midwife that I don't seem
to have a sweet tooth this time around and she said "that's because you
haven't been restricted yet." Hah!

Today I took lollipops and pretzels as an after ballet class. My daughter
chose a lollipop and my son chose pretzels. We have almost a full batch of
cookies on the counter, yet they asked for cheese. They have learned to listen to
their bodies at 4 and 5. It took me until 38 or 39. They made the better
choice.

Elizabeth, 400 messages behind but feeling strongly about this thread


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

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/4/2003 12:04:40 PM Central Standard Time,
CelticFrau@... writes:
I try to make huge helpings of whatever I
make (usually tripling recipes!) so that there's enough for seconds. It
seems,
when there's tons (like restaurant size pot of spaghetti) they might take
seconds, might not, and I usually end up with leftovers. But when I am low
on
something and I make a smaller pot or dinner, EVERYONE wants seconds...it's
almost like they have a fear someone will get all the rest before they do.


Scarcity of resources causes them to hoard. When I'm selling Camp Fire
candy, I create an artificial scarcity by only putting a few boxes out on the
table, maybe only one of a certain kind. I always "sell out" of that kind before
the others. If I truly have only a few left of a certain kind I can mention
that and sell out of that kind quicker, too. It's like that Rice Krispie Treat
commercial. "Last one!"

Supply and demand and all that.

Tuck


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

Heidi

--- In [email protected], "catherine aceto"
<aceto3@v...> wrote:
> Here is a guess, and it doesn't unfortunately come with a solution,
>but it seems to me that your children might feel limited by the
>speed of consumption by other children -- i.e., the dynamic is you'd
>better eat it RIGHT NOW because if you don't someone else will?

Hmmm, that could be what is happening. I also think they will outgrow
this, as my 15 yr old used to consume every bit of her halloween
candy in a day, and now saves some for later. So, even though we've
never had a "no candy" rule, because we don't have a "bottomless
candy bowl" in the house, when it does come along, they gobble it.
That makes a lot of sense.

> Do they feel that they can cause candy to appear whenver they want
>to(write it on the shopping list, cause a special trip to be made to
>buy candy, etc.) or does it appear only at adult wishes? Is there
>candy all the time -- or just some times? What does "a lot" mean
>for bringing candy home?
>

well, they get a weekly allowance and they usually buy candy and/or
pokemon cards with it. Hubby buys a couple of snicker bars a week,
I'd say. Or at any rate, every two weeks he brings home a "3 for a
dollar" special on them. We share and share alike, cutting a candy
bar into fifths so everyone gets an equal amount...or, sometimes, cut
the three snickers into five equal parts...I sometimes have a stash
of special dark in my undie drawer, and if the kids say "you have any
chocolate?" I get it out and we have some. (Keep in undie drawer to
save it from the kids eating it all in one day...Or myself, for that
matter!)

I like the idea of an endless candy bowl, but our budget right now is
VERY tight, and food is a big cut-back for us. Maybe I could do it,
if I grabbed a ton of post-Halloween candy. hmmm, as much and more
than they could possibly want...


> When my daughter was 3 or 4, I remember we went through a period
when she needed to have more than she could possibly eat (of
whatever -- pasta, grapes, candy, anything really) on her plate
before she would eat. Then she would stop when full -- not eating it
all. My working guess was that she wanted to feel secure that she
really would be able to eat as much as she wanted. Sometime in the
last couple of years she stopped doing that - but I wonder if it is a
somehow related phenomenon?
>



> Otherwise, I dont' know. I guess all we can say is what works for
us, and hope that it is advice useful for other people to at least
try.
>
> -Cat

thanks for your input, cat!

blessings, heidiC


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Heidi
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 10:07 AM
> Subject: [UnschoolingDiscussion] Re: on candy and other limits
>
>
> I'm really confused here. No limits=an eventual saturation point,
> where kids won't overeat candy. Limits=setting up a craving so
when
> there is no one to limit them, they'll go nuts. Is that the
general
> idea?
>
> well, I've seen just exactly the opposite happen. Candy/sweets is
one
> thing we've never stressed about. If there's some in the house,
it
> isn't a big deal if the kids eat it.

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/4/03 6:43:26 PM, bunsofaluminum60@... writes:

<< I like the idea of an endless candy bowl, but our budget right now is

VERY tight, and food is a big cut-back for us. >>

A full candy bowl isn't expensive once the kids stop eating it.
When people hear about leaving candy out all the time I think they calculate
the cost and amount on what kids eat when it's NOT out. That rate can slow to
a near stop.

Sandra

Heidi

With my kids, when there isn't candy in the house, as I mentioned
originally, they'll make tea loaded with sugar, or dip into the honey
directly. They both LOVE honey spoons. It seems to me that they crave
sweets. I'd love to try the experiment with an always full bowl on
the countertop. See what happens. MY hubby would probably eat as much
as anyone else! Does a sweet tooth come by nature, or by nurture?

LOL
> I also know that there are some things that we bring into the house
that we
> just haven't bought in a while

I've seen this with things like yogurt. I buy it once in awhile, and
when I do, it's one or two per person in the family, adn the stuff
simply disappears. It's gone within 24 hours.

HeidiC



>
> Thinking in their shoes is often helpful.
> If you where told that you where only allowed to eat candy once a
year or so
> would you be longing for it more or sneaking it? I know I would, I
know did as
> a child.
>
> Laura
> <
> << I'm really confused here. No limits=an eventual saturation
point,
> where kids won't overeat candy. Limits=setting up a craving so
when
> there is no one to limit them, they'll go nuts. Is that the
general
> idea?
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

pam sorooshian

Try it - please???? You'll be our joint experiment!!!

-pam


On Nov 4, 2003, at 5:42 PM, Heidi wrote:

> I like the idea of an endless candy bowl, but our budget right now is
> VERY tight, and food is a big cut-back for us. Maybe I could do it,
> if I grabbed a ton of post-Halloween candy. hmmm, as much and more
> than they could possibly want...