My junk food issues - Page 5

[verde]

Wow. Just read through this thread. Like the OP my DD has occasional junk food but it's rare. One variable that has not been brought up yet (unless I missed it, apologies if I did) is the effect of TV. My DD does not watch cartoons on TV. She does watch some Vids/DVDs but not commercial TV. When we had the blizzards in Feb I allowed her to watch cartoons on Saturday morning and was AMAZED and HORRIFIED by the number of junk food commercials. Junk food is pushed nonstop on TV to children and adults. Some of the jingles say it all -- being FULL, big is good, "mansized" meals. If you watch lots of TV then you will be flooded with thousands of ads for junk food.

My DD really does not know about lots of the junk food and or sugared cereals and, so far, she has not asked for it. She's still asking for fruit when we go out. I'll try and keep that going for as long as possible...

[CatsCradle]

There is a lot more snacking going on these days, but I still think the bigger problem is the quality of the snacks. IMO, there's a big difference between some oranges with water to drink (standard snack at my nephew's soccer games), and Fruit by the Foot with Capri Sun or pop, yk?

I agree with this. I truly believe it is not about the frequency or system by which you put food into your body, but the type of foods you consume. We're 100% grazers here. We don't have the traditional three meals in our family, even though DH and I both grew up that way. We eat when we're hungry and we usually eat raw vegetables, fruits, nuts and something with protein. I can't remember the last time we had a traditional meal in our family. We're all very thin and we always have been. Now, if our grazing included McDonald's fries and potato chips or some other food that qualifies as junk, I can guarantee that we'd have issues. I sort of shrug when people attack "snacking" but like the PP said, the bigger problem is the quality of the food. I think that the whole square three meals a day idea was based on an agricultural model - people needed a big breakfast in the morning so that they could work in the fields all day, and would come home famished. Plus, cooking from scratch required a good deal of time and people did not have access to "convenience" foods that we have now - even stuff like crackers. If you reach back in time when people foraged for their food, I imagine that they ate when they could find food and ate all day long if food was in abundance. Now, people can sit down and eat one danish and possibly consume half or more the calories they need in one day before 9 am. For me, the problem is over-consumption of useless calories, not snacking. I'm not attacking the three-square-meals-a-day philosophy, but I think its unfair to blame the frequency of eating rather than what is actually being eaten.

[lach]

Originally Posted by CatsCradle

I agree with this. I truly believe it is not about the frequency or system by which you put food into your body, but the type of foods you consume. We're 100% grazers here. We don't have the traditional three meals in our family, even though DH and I both grew up that way. We eat when we're hungry and we usually eat raw vegetables, fruits, nuts and something with protein. I can't remember the last time we had a traditional meal in our family. We're all very thin and we always have been. Now, if our grazing included McDonald's fries and potato chips or some other food that qualifies as junk, I can guarantee that we'd have issues. I sort of shrug when people attack "snacking" but like the PP said, the bigger problem is the quality of the food. I think that the whole square three meals a day idea was based on an agricultural model - people needed a big breakfast in the morning so that they could work in the fields all day, and would come home famished. Plus, cooking from scratch required a good deal of time and people did not have access to "convenience" foods that we have now - even stuff like crackers. If you reach back in time when people foraged for their food, I imagine that they ate when they could find food and ate all day long if food was in abundance. Now, people can sit down and eat one danish and possibly consume half or more the calories they need in one day before 9 am. For me, the problem is over-consumption of useless calories, not snacking. I'm not attacking the three-square-meals-a-day philosophy, but I think its unfair to blame the frequency of eating rather than what is actually being eaten.

Even though we are a 3 squares family, I agree with everything you are saying here.

[JL83]

This discussion seems so bizarre to me.

If you browse the various forums on this board and someone posts about how their 1/2/3/10yo is having meltdowns, the first suggestion is to make sure the kid has more snacks. "Is he hungry?" people ask. I've seen suggestions to have snacks waiting in the car when picking kids up from school so they can eat on the drive home.

And yet, when the "mainstream" world want to have snack available, that's suddenly a "bad" thing?

I run an inhome daycare. We eat every 1.5 to 2 hours. Otherwise the kids go crazy. Breakfast at 8am, snack at 9:30/10am, lunch at 11:30/12. Then snack after naps at 3:30 and some crackers while waiting for parents at 5.

I also remember from the first year I played soccer as a 4yo that we had oranges at half time. Every soccer game I played as a kid had that sugar pick me up half way through. There were schedules sent home saying which game which family had to bring oranges to.

I also ski raced, and our team had the "hot chocolate mom" who's job it was to take the team thermos thing and bring hot chocolate to all the meets so we didn't all have to buy it. That was offered once in the morning and once in the afternoon (and we were expected to eat breakfast at home, buy/pack a lunch and then go home for supper).

If the problem is the quality of the snacks, then make that the issue. I think it's ridiculous to dump all over the idea of snacking.

[peaceful_mama]

I agree with the "It's not snacking, it's *what* the snack is"...AND somewhat with the "what's up with the *constant* snacking anyway?"

I can see the snack and lunch *both* provided at my son's preschool, even though he is only there from 9-12:15. It's integrated with HeadStart. There might be children in his class who literally do not have food to eat for breakfast before they come to school. So there's the snack when they come in. And there's lunch before they go. (also some kids ride the bus for an hour, and some come from daycare--their last meal could've been a couple hours before school at that rate and probably a quick piece of toast and fruit or something...if it wasn't processed, packaged, grabbable junk.)

I also get after-school programs serving a snack--it's been a good 3 hours since lunch by the time they get there, and 2-3 before they will go home, where someone will have to cook the dinner, if they don't go through the drive-through.

BUT. Here is the but. My son's school doesn't do this...but some of you are saying your schools do. The thing is, if you are seriously serving a snack because you think the kids do not get to eat before they come, serve FOOD. Serve a mini-meal. Do *not* serve a donut/cookie/processed sweet snack, and juice.
My son's class has cereal and milk on Mondays. (low-sugar, non-colored) One other day a week is *usually* veggies with dip and some sort of cracker. (this to me needs a protien, but PB is out, and I think cheese is out due to fat b/c of the ranch dip, according to their rules) Other snacks include a muffin or baked bar (not pre-packaged) and fruit, a cheese stick with crackers, cheese sandwich, graham cracker and fruit...mostly some decent stuff. (other than the pre-mentioned lack of protein sometimes, but they have milk with their snacks quite a bit, so there's at least some there.)

One of my kids' fav. snacks is cheese and crackers and fruit. Easy, and I don't know too many kids who would *not* eat that....that is what I think *most* after-school snacks should look like. Some sort of protein, fruit/and or veggie, treats occasionally.


I agree too with the "what's up with the CONSTANT snacks?" I can see it for a soccer game, the oranges and water. Lots of fluids. But junk juice and junk snacks? NO! just seems to send the wrong message about health with the activity.
And it shouldn't be a family financial cost thing....it's *got* to be cheaper, or equal to provide a big bag of oranges, sliced, and water. Even if you buy ind. bottles!

I don't think *everything* needs a snack...we didn't do this when I was a kid either---the vacation bible school thing I went to had a snack, but it was 3-4 hours long. A 2 hour meeting involving kids occuring after lunch should not need a snack unless it is something like Girl scouts getting a cooking badge, or somebody brings a treat because it's their b-day or whatever.

I don't think kids need to *expect* to be fed whereever they go...I think it teaches somewhat that it's OK to not eat what's served because you'll get something better in an hour or so...
AND I think it contributes to obesity...because....like a PP said, you don't hand a hungry kid a fruit-roll-up. (or some candy fruit snacks, or whatever) It will not fill them up. It will give them extra sugar, and an extra bunch of calories. (and in the end, they will probably eat more calories overall than if they'd just gone home for lunch without it)

While we are on the subject of snacks and food....most of this processed junk too requires little effort to eat it, chewing, etc. I think that too might be part of the obesity epidemic....I read somewhere that foods that require more chewing--think even a steak, not just salads or raw fruits and veggies, the chewing actually adds to our sense of how full we are....and we're satisfied sooner.
So...by this theory, people will eat more of the foods that require less chewing, and they also tend to pack more calories....which of course make us fatter.
Score another point for fruit slices and veggie sticks over Twinkies....

[Triniity]

Sorry, I didn´t have the time to read the whole discussion, just my thoughts here:
I actually made them change the food they serve at childcare. I went to the parents meeting (and - yeah was a little stared at - having a sling and kids in organic cotton and stuff) - but we discussed food, and I asked about chemicals in there and they were like: Everybody eats ready-made-meals and the stuff is in there as well - I answered: Actually no, we don´t. And my kids shouldn´t have to.
And they actually started to think about it. A couple of month later, (me being the head of the parents group by then ) the offered a different provider for the food. It´s not all organic yet, but it´s all regional, fresh food, freshly cooked, no preservatives, no food colours, no other nasty stuff. And the kids actually like it!
One of the caregivers actually congratulated us for bring the best snack box ever for our kids, I try to put fancy food in there, like fancy cut up stuff, apple "crowns" and star carrots and stuff, cut out sandwiches and no sweets. except dry food and stuff.

At the moment it works _

[Bellabaz]

This is one of our reasons why we left the US. Complete lack of common sense on teeh part of adults when it comes to food. Here is not perfect but I don't worry about what dd1 eats in preschool (because I wouldlove to eat what she gets-a 3 course meal everyday!). I feel like you, the occasional treat at a special occasion like a birthday party etc., is fine. But pastries, cakes, cookies, 4 days a weeks is not okay. I bring healthy snacks that can at least compete with the others. For instance dd loves choc flavored yogurt, nuts, granola bars for her are like cookies, etc. It works better than fruit when your up against doughnuts. Or I make a deal like you can have half that cookie and half your yoghurt or something similar. We have also started to discuss what teh different foods do to your body. She is still young for it but I feel its better to lay the ground work now.

[Bellabaz]

Originally Posted by verde

Wow. Just read through this thread. Like the OP my DD has occasional junk food but it's rare. One variable that has not been brought up yet (unless I missed it, apologies if I did) is the effect of TV. My DD does not watch cartoons on TV. She does watch some Vids/DVDs but not commercial TV. When we had the blizzards in Feb I allowed her to watch cartoons on Saturday morning and was AMAZED and HORRIFIED by the number of junk food commercials. Junk food is pushed nonstop on TV to children and adults. Some of the jingles say it all -- being FULL, big is good, "mansized" meals. If you watch lots of TV then you will be flooded with thousands of ads for junk food.

My DD really does not know about lots of the junk food and or sugared cereals and, so far, she has not asked for it. She's still asking for fruit when we go out. I'll try and keep that going for as long as possible...

This is extrememly true. Both I and my French teacher as well as some others in my class have found this to be true. So important to be aware of commercials and their effects.

[Geist]

when I was eating all the time, I didn't have time to eat. If I'd gotten up at 5 am to make breakfast, etc., then I'd have been down on even more sleep.

Please, don't think I was talking specifically about you, I don't know you and didn't mean you or anyone specifically.. There's no way I can peer into your house and know your family's habits or how well they do or do not work for you. What I can see are the habits of the people I know: my family, my friends, in the US and abroad. And what I see is that Americans all snack more than the Germans I know, the Ukrainians I know and the Finns I know, who tend to eat more square meals. To make matters worse, the vast majority of snacking involves junk food: overly processed crap.

Where have you heard that most people can't do this? I know several people who do very well on weight management through six small meals or all day "grazing" eating patterns.

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. I also know a few people who do graze all day without being overweight, but they are the exceptions rather than the rule. Read this: Why Are Americans So Obese?
The pertinent points are that 90 percent of the increase in calorie consumption in men in the United States since 1977 has come from between-meal eating. For women, it's 112 percent and that calories from meals have actually gone down. Additionally, "The average number of snacks increased by 60% over this period, thus more snacks per day -- rather than more calories per snack -- account for the majority of the increase in the calories from snacks."
In otherwords, permasnacking!
Sure, studies have been done that show that people who eat 6 small meals a day have a faster metabolism and lose more weight than people who don't, but this is under controlled laboratory conditions. None of us actually live in laboratories and those of us who are grazers and not overweight can happily pat themselves on the back because the are exceptions to the rule.

Now regarding other countries: Snacking and Obesity in China
And a very interesting article regarding the US:
OUr National Eating Disorder

[MJB]

Wow, we just haven't run into this. Maybe because we live in Ann Arbor?
My 4 yr. old has a snack at preschool, and all the parents take turns bringing it. Today he had Annie's cheddar bunnies and strawberries. Yes, cheddar bunnies are glorified goldfish crackers, but I don't object to them. I know the snack one day last week was pretzels and pears. Usually it's popcorn/crackers/pretzels and some sort of fruit. If it's a birthday, it's cupcakes and some sort of fruit. Otherwise he eats at home, and I let him have moderate amounts of cake/juice/candy when it comes up at parties and holidays.
My 7 yr. old eats school lunch every day and while it isn't the healthiest, it's not terrible. Today they are having turkey hot dogs, baked beans, and apples. They offer a selection of milk but I don't allow him to get chocolate or strawberry. He gets water instead. He mostly does sports through the Y which doesn't do the snacks. When he's played on school teams that have snack, I usually just try to set a good example by bringing healthy snacks and water. However, even the least healthy snack has been cheez-its and 100% juice, which is okay once a week IMO.

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by Geist

Please, don't think I was talking specifically about you, I don't know you and didn't mean you or anyone specifically.. There's no way I can peer into your house and know your family's habits or how well they do or do not work for you. What I can see are the habits of the people I know: my family, my friends, in the US and abroad. And what I see is that Americans all snack more than the Germans I know, the Ukrainians I know and the Finns I know, who tend to eat more square meals. To make matters worse, the vast majority of snacking involves junk food: overly processed crap.

I didn't think you meant me, in particular. I just mean that it's been documented that most Americans (Canadians, too) are sleep deprived. It's not just me. People are running on empty, and trying to keep going at a ridiculous pace. It's not about whether they/we WOH, or not - it's about the overall pace.

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. I also know a few people who do graze all day without being overweight, but they are the exceptions rather than the rule. Read this: Why Are Americans So Obese?
The pertinent points are that 90 percent of the increase in calorie consumption in men in the United States since 1977 has come from between-meal eating. For women, it's 112 percent and that calories from meals have actually gone down. Additionally, "The average number of snacks increased by 60% over this period, thus more snacks per day -- rather than more calories per snack -- account for the majority of the increase in the calories from snacks."
In otherwords, permasnacking!
Sure, studies have been done that show that people who eat 6 small meals a day have a faster metabolism and lose more weight than people who don't, but this is under controlled laboratory conditions. None of us actually live in laboratories and those of us who are grazers and not overweight can happily pat themselves on the back because the are exceptions to the rule.

Now regarding other countries: Snacking and Obesity in China
And a very interesting article regarding the US:
OUr National Eating Disorder

How many grazers who are eating real food have this problem? My guess is that it's not very many. People who are snacking on crap between meals are suffering blood sugar spikes and crashes, and messing up their hormones, so that they don't feel satisfied. (I can never remember the name of the satiety hormone, but it is affected by a crappy diet.) It's really not because they're snacking or grazing - it's because of what they're snacking on. If people are eating a snack that pretty much guarantees they'll be hungry again (because their blood sugar has crashed and they ate not fats/protein), then they'll snack again in an hour, instead of in 2 or 3...but the type of snack is the root problem.

I have serious problems with sugar addiction. My bff used to try to eat "low fat", and messed herself up badly. We're both grazers...and we both eat fewer snacks when we're not stuffing ourselves with crap. It's not because we count calories or keep track that much better. It's because snack number one doesn't leave us craving snack number two 45-60 minutes after we eat it.

There's also the "mindless snacking" problem. There's a huge difference, ime, between sitting down at the table with a handful of nuts and an apple, and standing at the pantry doors, eating potato chips/cookies out of the bag. (I do both, sadly.) I'll remember sitting down and eating the apple and nuts...the chips or cookies will pass out of memory as soon as I'm done.