or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Childhood and Beyond › Gentle Discipline › Do Your Kids Ever Go to Bed Hungry?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Do Your Kids Ever Go to Bed Hungry? - Page 15

post #281 of 303
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hakeber View Post
OFF TOPIC:

Edna-Marie, your husband and daughter would do really well living in much of south east asia. I recall going to the market for the first time in Ho Chi Minh City and asking the price of something and when I would say no and walk away they would chase me down the alley, shouting other prices, and if I would say yes they would look confused, and become extremely suspicious. I once had a guy start arguing with me as if I HAD said no..
Lucky for DH, he was raised in Asia, and DD will get to visit often when we get back on our feet financially. It must be genetic. They are Persian traders and yes, I deal with it daily.

I didn't realize how stubborn and independent-minded my kids were until I took the neighbor's baby the other day. Emergency babysitting as mom went to the hospital. I was like... she won't cry? The kid was preternaturally calm and sweet. I was shocked.

Mom just shrugged. "Easy baby." Oh, and guess what was in the diaper bag for "snacks" if necessary:

Ritz crackers
Oreos
Capri Sun
Spaghetti-Os

But I bet she's just the kind of baby to eat whatever you give her anyway... Some people really luck out!
post #282 of 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdnaMarie View Post

Ritz crackers
Oreos
Capri Sun
Spaghetti-Os
ew
post #283 of 303
Quote:
I think our biological make up is far from so simplistic that we can say ALL humans are better off not eating animal proteins.
This is a controversial thing to say but... I no longer think this. I used to, very much. In fact there may be posts on MDC of me saying exactly that because I was all about differences and uniqueness etc... because there is so much evidence of it, what makes one person feel good makes another person sick, allergies... etc.

I changed my mind and if you bear with me I'll try to stumble around to explain why.

I keep running up against the same results with people and animals. (I am starting to stretch my healing work to animals, too) It was after making the realisation with animals that had me noticing it with humans.

For example, dogs. Owners of dogs like to tell you that their dog is particularly unique or has preferences ("he won't eat that brand of dog food" and "he can't sleep without his little blue blanket on"), however when it comes to health, they are all identical. Some owners refuse to buy into this, and because it is fairly irrelevant, I leave it alone. But I can bring any dog back to health using the same treatment and if the owner is willing to follow my suggestions, the dog will not get ill again. Essentially, it is raw meaty bones as the diet and MMS and MSM if acutely or chronically ill. No exceptions.

ALL dogs have better health and longer lives with raw meaty bones as the diet. I expect someone might love to argue this right now on this thread even, because of the idea that "all the same" really seems to chap my culture's arse. However, when thought about from a natural perspective, it makes sense. They don't eat cooked foods in nature, and wild dogs (such as dingos in my country) don't get cancers and sickly and their teeth are cleaned naturally etc.

I start with animals because it is easier to digest the idea that animals of one species would thrive on the same thing than it is to jump straight to humans. Once we see it in other animals, we can get the light bulb come on ... unless we hold too tight to the idea of "uniquely human", which is bred into us as important to "self".

Yes, gorillas in captivity show differences to wild ones, and to each other... as do dogs, and all animals under "odd" circumstances. Gorillas can be easily turned to carnivores by simply being integrated into a human culture for a while as they, like us, mimic. They will seem to be healthy, too, at least for quite a while.

Now onto humans, there are "ideal" living conditions and diet for a "human being", not just for particular ones. In fact, the idea of different ideal conditions for the human being now makes me giggle. I don't claim to know it all, but there are some things that universally cure illnesses and bring vital health to all humans and that is a raw diet, irrespective of meat.

I also know that if I am going to give someone a cleanse, they must go off meat. If I am to kill off their cancer, they must go off meat. I thought to myself... if the ideal conditions to healing are to avoid meat, perhaps the ideal conditions to health are to avoid meat. No brainer really. The way I heal people, no matter what they have, is the same. MS, cancer, AIDS, allergies... it's all the same treatment and the diet that helps a healthy person become vitally charged and brilliantly alive is raw, no exceptions. A vegan can actually get quite ill if they eat cooked foods because they are destroying the only proteins they are getting by heating, and they'll need to supplement b12 and iron, but raw diets have no such problems. This is no coincidence, nature didn't design our food to be cooked, which makes sense when we think of fruits but we still can't see that logic when we think of greens and other veggies.

So while I understand where you are coming from, I challenge the idea we are all that different, and that we each thrive on different conditions and foods. If put in ideal utopic conditions (think Garden of Eden) I doubt you'd find much difference between us, like a pack of wolves or gorillas. Most of us agree that the life we live is very unnatural and as far from ideal as a human body can get... where we disagree is over what is ideal. My experience consistently shows me that the human body is the human body, and if given the ideal conditions, at least insofar as nutrients, each body responds the same. These blood type books and the evolution theory and the many different paths out there really just complicate what is essentially as simple as the dog one, "I don't care how wonderfully unique your chihuahua is, raw meaty bones, no exceptions, shiny coat, happy dog, long life, amen".

For humans, I'd have to say it is "raw foods, mostly greens and fats, don't cook, don't eat meat, don't steal milk from animals" and in an ideal world, that would be enough... but ideal this is not. With pesticides and depleted soils and bodies glommed up with meat residue there would need to be healing first, wipe clean the pineal gland so it is firing on all cylinders again, so joy is our basic state of being.

I'm not religious but I also do not believe in evolution, it is a very weak theory and even Darwin admitted that. I don't disbelieve in evolution, to dismiss it wholesale is as premature as believing it wholesale, however there is much more that needs to be explained that simply isn't with evolution, and it frustrates me because as long as people just believe in something, they don't look elsewhere. While we're stuck in the creation vs evolution charade we won't entertain the possibility of a third, fourth or hundredth other possibility.

When you say chimps use tools, have you seen them? They used a rock to open a nut. This actually turned out to be a problem because they (like us) are not meant to access ungerminated nuts, they are full of enzyme and nutrient inhibitors. In almost all cases of tool use, there is a side effect, either to the planet or to the individual. Look where our tool use has lead us... the ocean is full of oil and the land is a waste dump.
post #284 of 303
Quote:
So what do you do if they refuse the seeds and nuts and ask for more fruit? I agree it's balance, but if your kid refuses to accept your options to help them balance, what would you suggest?
I would do what I did with candy: explain that she might get sick if she eats too much, and then let her eat too much and get sick. I actually hoped she'd get sick because those moments only make me sound like a prophet , and she then trusts me even more. I warn, then I release the chains and stand back. We don't learn lessons via words, as much as we'd love that to be the case. We learn via experience. Your children will make the synapse eventually, if you have mentioned too much of the same fruit might make them poopy (without harping on it or we can create that reality like brainwashing) you can trust they'll learn eventually.

If it was potentially a very bad thing, like too much meat or dairy (being a bad thing in my opinion, but not necessarily "truth") then I'd want to intervene simply because the consequences aren't soon enough to make the connection and no lesson will be learned. I suppose in that case I'd offer to do something else. I don't offer another food unless I have one that will be enticing enough to compete, I offer another activity. If they were still resistent, I guess in that situation I'd end up putting my foot down. But I've tried to construct the whole circumstance so that isn't necessary. None of these situations exist in a vacuum. If I have to exert some kind of power over them to protect them or to guide them, something has gone haywire in the whole day or process, in my experience.

Quote:
I will try the seeds and nuts...any ideas where I can read about alternative sources for amino accids found in meat? I certainly would like to know for myself at least.
The amino acids in meat are the same as the amino acids in all other foods.

Amino acids ARE protein. They are the building blocks of protein, for the body to access the amino acids, it must cleave proteins apart into individual amino acids. Enzymes are protein, also, they are simply amino acids in a particular order in a chain.

Superfoods are a great place to start, particularly with fussy kids. The beauty of these foods is also that they are so nutrient dense, unlike meat which is basically a source of protein and that's it. These foods contain almost magical properties that help our bodies work beyond simply "functioning".

Raw cacao is high in tryptophan, an amino acid and my favourite one because it is so important for serotonin. Anandamide is also in cacao, which is known as "the bliss chemical" because it is released while we are feeling great. Cacao contains enzyme inhibitors that decrease our bodies' ability to breakdown anandamide.

Acai berries have 8 to 13 grams of protein per 100gms. Scroll down that link to the protein comparison to eggs.

Maca, amazing food, put the powder in super smoothies with banana, cacao, almond milk and a dash of vanilla and syrup of choice. Chock full of amino acids, 10 - 15% protein.

I will have to add to the list later, after breakfast.
post #285 of 303
Came back to add after reading... I don't treat those illness I mentioned with diet. It sounds like I do the way I wrote that. I use some special things... but to stave them off, raw is how to do it. That's what I meant.
post #286 of 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calm View Post
This is a controversial thing to say but... I no longer think this. I used to, very much. In fact there may be posts on MDC of me saying exactly that because I was all about differences and uniqueness etc... because there is so much evidence of it, what makes one person feel good makes another person sick, allergies... etc.

I changed my mind and if you bear with me I'll try to stumble around to explain why.

I keep running up against the same results with people and animals. (I am starting to stretch my healing work to animals, too) It was after making the realisation with animals that had me noticing it with humans.

For example, dogs. Owners of dogs like to tell you that their dog is particularly unique or has preferences ("he won't eat that brand of dog food" and "he can't sleep without his little blue blanket on"), however when it comes to health, they are all identical. Some owners refuse to buy into this, and because it is fairly irrelevant, I leave it alone. But I can bring any dog back to health using the same treatment and if the owner is willing to follow my suggestions, the dog will not get ill again. Essentially, it is raw meaty bones as the diet and MMS and MSM if acutely or chronically ill. No exceptions.

ALL dogs have better health and longer lives with raw meaty bones as the diet. I expect someone might love to argue this right now on this thread even, because of the idea that "all the same" really seems to chap my culture's arse. However, when thought about from a natural perspective, it makes sense. They don't eat cooked foods in nature, and wild dogs (such as dingos in my country) don't get cancers and sickly and their teeth are cleaned naturally etc.

I start with animals because it is easier to digest the idea that animals of one species would thrive on the same thing than it is to jump straight to humans. Once we see it in other animals, we can get the light bulb come on ... unless we hold too tight to the idea of "uniquely human", which is bred into us as important to "self".

Yes, gorillas in captivity show differences to wild ones, and to each other... as do dogs, and all animals under "odd" circumstances. Gorillas can be easily turned to carnivores by simply being integrated into a human culture for a while as they, like us, mimic. They will seem to be healthy, too, at least for quite a while.

Now onto humans, there are "ideal" living conditions and diet for a "human being", not just for particular ones. In fact, the idea of different ideal conditions for the human being now makes me giggle. I don't claim to know it all, but there are some things that universally cure illnesses and bring vital health to all humans and that is a raw diet, irrespective of meat.

I also know that if I am going to give someone a cleanse, they must go off meat. If I am to kill off their cancer, they must go off meat. I thought to myself... if the ideal conditions to healing are to avoid meat, perhaps the ideal conditions to health are to avoid meat. No brainer really. The way I heal people, no matter what they have, is the same. MS, cancer, AIDS, allergies... it's all the same treatment and the diet that helps a healthy person become vitally charged and brilliantly alive is raw, no exceptions. A vegan can actually get quite ill if they eat cooked foods because they are destroying the only proteins they are getting by heating, and they'll need to supplement b12 and iron, but raw diets have no such problems. This is no coincidence, nature didn't design our food to be cooked, which makes sense when we think of fruits but we still can't see that logic when we think of greens and other veggies.

So while I understand where you are coming from, I challenge the idea we are all that different, and that we each thrive on different conditions and foods. If put in ideal utopic conditions (think Garden of Eden) I doubt you'd find much difference between us, like a pack of wolves or gorillas. Most of us agree that the life we live is very unnatural and as far from ideal as a human body can get... where we disagree is over what is ideal. My experience consistently shows me that the human body is the human body, and if given the ideal conditions, at least insofar as nutrients, each body responds the same. These blood type books and the evolution theory and the many different paths out there really just complicate what is essentially as simple as the dog one, "I don't care how wonderfully unique your chihuahua is, raw meaty bones, no exceptions, shiny coat, happy dog, long life, amen".

For humans, I'd have to say it is "raw foods, mostly greens and fats, don't cook, don't eat meat, don't steal milk from animals" and in an ideal world, that would be enough... but ideal this is not. With pesticides and depleted soils and bodies glommed up with meat residue there would need to be healing first, wipe clean the pineal gland so it is firing on all cylinders again, so joy is our basic state of being.

I'm not religious but I also do not believe in evolution, it is a very weak theory and even Darwin admitted that. I don't disbelieve in evolution, to dismiss it wholesale is as premature as believing it wholesale, however there is much more that needs to be explained that simply isn't with evolution, and it frustrates me because as long as people just believe in something, they don't look elsewhere. While we're stuck in the creation vs evolution charade we won't entertain the possibility of a third, fourth or hundredth other possibility.

When you say chimps use tools, have you seen them? They used a rock to open a nut. This actually turned out to be a problem because they (like us) are not meant to access ungerminated nuts, they are full of enzyme and nutrient inhibitors. In almost all cases of tool use, there is a side effect, either to the planet or to the individual. Look where our tool use has lead us... the ocean is full of oil and the land is a waste dump.
If you are interested in an opposing point of view, you may want to read "Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human". I'm not finished reading it myself, but the author's point is that humans are the only animals to cook their foods...and in fact, according to his research there is no culture (apart from modern day raw foodists) that do not cook their food and eat all their food raw. What he says about modern raw foodists is that the variety of foods they have today is much more processed (like nut butters) than was available at any other point of time in human history, so part of the food is still processed rather than right off the tree/bush/etc. Anyhow, it's a pretty interesting book; it definitely has changed some of the ways I view food. Also, he does not have a "this is how you should eat" theme, but merely points out how humans (up to today) have evolved to eat. Of course, we're also at an unusual point in our history, where the overabundance of food and various processing technique are causing a problem for us.
post #287 of 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calm View Post
Raw cacao is high in tryptophan, an amino acid and my favourite one because it is so important for serotonin. Anandamide is also in cacao, which is known as "the bliss chemical" because it is released while we are feeling great. Cacao contains enzyme inhibitors that decrease our bodies' ability to breakdown anandamide.
Thanks for the information you have shared, Calm. Have you seen this article WRT cacao? What are your thoughts?

http://www.living-foods.com/articles/toxiccacao.html
post #288 of 303
I used to be more uptight about meals having 4 kids, a picky DH and all. I did the 3 main meals and 2 snacks and asked them (not incl. DH! haha) to eat whatever serving I chose based on what I believe each child needed (depended on so many variables and it could change from day to day).

Then, I realized I had so many issues with food! Most of my life, I ate well past the "full signal" my body was giving me! I kind of saw the light in that aspect and no longer expect my kids to eat servings that I choose but rather let them excuse themselves when they felt their own body signal fullness. I do ask they eat 3 "thank-you bites" of everything on their plate. My kids eat VERY healthily and we definitely have treats a few times a week too.

As far as how many meals a day....we eat 3 main meals and they can eat anything in moderation in between---yogurt, fruit, leftovers, veggie sticks, applesauce, cheese, hard-boiled eggs, cottage cheese etc. When the next big meal is within the hour, I typically encourage them to wait. I do have one child who eats ALL day ALL the time but I feel as long as she is within a healthy range, eating healthy foods and moving her body, it's all good!
post #289 of 303
Forgot to mention, if they are hungry after dinner/before bed, I usually give them a piece of fruit or cheese, that's it! It doesn't require dishes or anything!
post #290 of 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by lmk1 View Post
If you are interested in an opposing point of view, you may want to read "Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human".
I just ordered it from my library. I like to keep a balanced point of view on all my favourite topics. It will be weeks before I can finish it though because I'm currently reading a very large book and don't get much time to read. Actually, it's appropriate for this topic (and all topics really), and I'm really enjoying it: The Book of Not-Knowing.

Quote:
I'm not finished reading it myself, but the author's point is that humans are the only animals to cook their foods...and in fact, according to his research there is no culture (apart from modern day raw foodists) that do not cook their food and eat all their food raw.
This may or may not be true, there are many un-contacted tribes on earth, although we are infiltrating them frequently, unfortunately. However we are the only animals to cook our food, of course.

Quote:
What he says about modern raw foodists is that the variety of foods they have today is much more processed (like nut butters) than was available at any other point of time in human history, so part of the food is still processed rather than right off the tree/bush/etc.
Like vegans, meat eaters and vegetarians, we can't say all of a group is doing any one thing, each one is different. People who choose to eat their food raw are more likely to not eat processed food. Personally, I think the perfect diet for a human is to eat food off the tree, but if some want to grind their almonds into a paste (nut butter), I can't see how that can be classified as processed. If that's the definition, then most tribes are eating processed foods.

Quote:
Anyhow, it's a pretty interesting book; it definitely has changed some of the ways I view food. Also, he does not have a "this is how you should eat" theme, but merely points out how humans (up to today) have evolved to eat. Of course, we're also at an unusual point in our history, where the overabundance of food and various processing technique are causing a problem for us.
I think it is possible to say "this is how a human being best thrives", as opposed to "this is how you should eat". If someone struggles with a particular food, for instance, I'd want to know why. For instance, food reactions are based in a problem, not a personal quirk. Only those unaware of their options would say something like, "When I eat tomatoes I break out in a rash and throw up, but hey, that's just me! Everyone's different!"

From what I can garner the problem with the book for me is that it relies almost entirely on the theory of evolution. As I mentioned, I don't disbelieve in the theory but neither do I believe it. Same goes for religion and other topics that require a belief. Parts of them are very compelling but the more I study these topics the more holes I find. Therefore, if I read a diet book that is based on creation for instance, the conclusions that come out of that are only as meaningful as the foundation... and for an unconditional believer in creation, there will be no problem, but for someone like me, there will be an immediate and irremediable problem. This is the problem with that book for me, he takes for granted that evolution is fact, completely ignoring that it is the theory of evolution.

I must add, it is biological evolution I stand with one eyebrow raised against. I recognise we have "evolved" into an agricultural culture and the many other ways we have progressed/evolved. I just see no evidence of a biological evolution, eg, of an organism changing from one species to another.

He states we evolved to eat cooked foods, and this made us smarter, and now we are best suited to eating cooked foods. As a writer and debater, I know how easy it is to put forth a case by cherry picking data not to mention the fact that if there is only one person in a debate (which is the situation in any given book) then you'd have to be a complete moron to not compel your reader to your point of view - you have no opposition; you "win" by default.

I've known people to change their religions after simply watching a well put together youtube video. When it comes to dietary issues, a much less loaded topic, most people are, understandably, swept along with the current. So I've no doubt he lays out a convincing argument for cooked food. Someone had to take that angle eventually. However, regardless of the foundation issues already mentioned, science is catching up with logic ie, enzymatic and nutritional research into cooked and raw foods.

One thing the author and I agree on is we "evolved" into cooking ... we also evolved into animal imprisonment and torture, earth rape, milk theft... when it comes to dietary matters, I'm not sure our "evolution" is something to be all that proud of.... but like war, there will always be someone willing to run shouting with pride and colours flying, regardless of the consequences.

In my mind, all progression is regression, and unless we get back to our indigenous roots, we will continue to enslave and suffer.

I look forward to reading the book. I will read with an open mind.

post #291 of 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calm View Post
t

In my mind, all progression is regression, and unless we get back to our indigenous roots, we will continue to enslave and suffer.


fascinating!
post #292 of 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calm View Post
I just ordered it from my library. I like to keep a balanced point of view on all my favourite topics. It will be weeks before I can finish it though because I'm currently reading a very large book and don't get much time to read. Actually, it's appropriate for this topic (and all topics really), and I'm really enjoying it: The Book of Not-Knowing.

This may or may not be true, there are many un-contacted tribes on earth, although we are infiltrating them frequently, unfortunately. However we are the only animals to cook our food, of course.
This is true, of course...as any scientific theory, it cannot be proved, only disproved. Of the known tribes, all so far cook a large portion of their food. If a previously unknown tribe turns up that eats all its food raw, then his theory that humans cannot live off of raw food off the tree would be disproved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calm View Post
Like vegans, meat eaters and vegetarians, we can't say all of a group is doing any one thing, each one is different. People who choose to eat their food raw are more likely to not eat processed food. Personally, I think the perfect diet for a human is to eat food off the tree, but if some want to grind their almonds into a paste (nut butter), I can't see how that can be classified as processed. If that's the definition, then most tribes are eating processed foods.
Yes, according to this book, not only our all tribes eating processed foods, but a specific type of processing (cooking). By modern definition, "processed foods" seems to indicate a bad type of food, such as hot dogs and potato chips. But processing just means changing the food by cooking it, or fermenting it, and not necessarily the new types of processing whereas food is broken down into before impossible parts and manipulated by huge commercial processes that one cannot replicate at home.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calm View Post
I think it is possible to say "this is how a human being best thrives", as opposed to "this is how you should eat". If someone struggles with a particular food, for instance, I'd want to know why. For instance, food reactions are based in a problem, not a personal quirk. Only those unaware of their options would say something like, "When I eat tomatoes I break out in a rash and throw up, but hey, that's just me! Everyone's different!"

From what I can garner the problem with the book for me is that it relies almost entirely on the theory of evolution. As I mentioned, I don't disbelieve in the theory but neither do I believe it. Same goes for religion and other topics that require a belief. Parts of them are very compelling but the more I study these topics the more holes I find. Therefore, if I read a diet book that is based on creation for instance, the conclusions that come out of that are only as meaningful as the foundation... and for an unconditional believer in creation, there will be no problem, but for someone like me, there will be an immediate and irremediable problem. This is the problem with that book for me, he takes for granted that evolution is fact, completely ignoring that it is the theory of evolution.
One could use that argument for anything; how do I know that I'm actually typing this email and not having a dream about typing the email or that someone isn't imagining me typing this email (and therefore I don't exist outside of their imagination). Are there any "hard facts" that you could say are not based on any assumptions whatsoever? The theory of evolution is so far fitting in with the evidence that has been uncovered (from fossils, etc), but obviously if you don't find such evidence compelling then further theories based on evolution will not be compelling either. Out of curiosity, what do you believe? Sorry, if it's too personal...you don't have to answer of course!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calm View Post

I must add, it is biological evolution I stand with one eyebrow raised against. I recognise we have "evolved" into an agricultural culture and the many other ways we have progressed/evolved. I just see no evidence of a biological evolution, eg, of an organism changing from one species to another.

He states we evolved to eat cooked foods, and this made us smarter, and now we are best suited to eating cooked foods. As a writer and debater, I know how easy it is to put forth a case by cherry picking data not to mention the fact that if there is only one person in a debate (which is the situation in any given book) then you'd have to be a complete moron to not compel your reader to your point of view - you have no opposition; you "win" by default.

I've known people to change their religions after simply watching a well put together youtube video. When it comes to dietary issues, a much less loaded topic, most people are, understandably, swept along with the current. So I've no doubt he lays out a convincing argument for cooked food. Someone had to take that angle eventually. However, regardless of the foundation issues already mentioned, science is catching up with logic ie, enzymatic and nutritional research into cooked and raw foods.

One thing the author and I agree on is we "evolved" into cooking ... we also evolved into animal imprisonment and torture, earth rape, milk theft... when it comes to dietary matters, I'm not sure our "evolution" is something to be all that proud of.... but like war, there will always be someone willing to run shouting with pride and colours flying, regardless of the consequences.

In my mind, all progression is regression, and unless we get back to our indigenous roots, we will continue to enslave and suffer.
What do you consider our indigenous roots? I guess this question is somehow connected to religious belief, but do you belief there's a starting point at which humans began to exist (as in Garden of Eden) or...? And do you believe that indigenous tribes were living the "right way" until they became corrupted? And what are some example of indigenous tribes?
Again, sorry, if I'm getting too personal with the questions; we've definitely gotten away from the OP's question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calm View Post
I look forward to reading the book. I will read with an open mind.

post #293 of 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by heartmama View Post
That is a very clarifying point. And it helped me articulate in my head that what we allow in our house are respectful choices and responsible choices, whether we are talking about food or language or whatever. If I have a food item meant for a birthday surprise for my neighbor, and my child is dead set on eating that or nothing else at 11pm, no I am not giving it to him and I won't feel the least bit bad over it. There are other things to eat and demanding that one item isn't very respectful of my intentions. I'm not a doormat.

I also expect everyone to make financially responsible choices. If a meal for three people needs one ingredient, it is irresponsible to make a snack for one person of that ingredient by eating it all yourself. That isn't responsible and a better choice should be made.

And I honestly have to say that in 14 years my son has had little problem understanding these simple rules. I am one who said up front my son can eat when he is hungry, whatever the time of day, and for the most part he can eat what he likes, since we don't keep junk food in the house. I never ended up with a child demanding a slice of grandmothers birthday cake a day early, or else--perhaps I am just lucky, but I think we are very reasonable and grounded in common sense on this issue, while allowing ds a lot of freedom, and for the most part, he has been reasonable about food in response. The majority of the food here is always available to him, and he has always cooperated with the few limits in place due to finances or future plans for certain items. These few limits have never led to any ongoing problems at all.
I totally agree! Not once have I had a problem with my son refusing to accept that item X is for our special dinner with guests tomorrow or something similar. I absolutely agree with your post on this.
post #294 of 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by coffeegirl View Post
I don't think there's anything wrong with grazing in itself. But I kind of agree with what the previous poster you were responding to said, about how it would be a problem in their house if a child passed on every set meal and instead only wanted to snack. Especially if you're lucky enough to have family meals, at least some of the time. Family breakfast/brunch on the weekends, family dinner at night, etc. I know not everyone can do this. But I think it's a great tradition. And having a completely unstructured, individualized eating plan for each person would seem (to me) to kind of work against the family meal concept.
I think it's a great tradition, too...but not if it means my kid forcing down stuff they don't like. DD1 is a very picky eater. She's also a huge grazer, and doesn't really like sit down meals that much (doesn't like to eat a whole meal at once, as far as I can tell). She has to sit with us for dinner. She does have to try a food if it's new, but she doesn't have to eat it. She's not to leave the table. (Nobody leaves the table during dinner, except to get a missing condiment or something like that.) If she's hungry after dinner, she can get a snack, but does have to check what it is with us first, mostly for inventory control. She's part of the social aspect of dinner, but we don't have separate meals on the table.

Admittedly, this is a compromise between me and dh, as we have slightly different priorities. We'd each handle things differently on our own, and in opposite directions. But, it works out okay.
post #295 of 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdnaMarie View Post
I totally agree with the first part. The second part, I have never heard referenced to a proper study. I've seen it in random "nutrition" websites but I don't know anyone who actually does that who does not have a weight problem.
This was re: grazing/5 or 6 small meals a day, just in case that's been lost in the pages of posts since (busy thread!).

I do this, and I have a weight problem. However, most of the people I know who do this, and who have weight problems, started doing this long after they developed weight problems. And, they all developed those weight problems growing up, on a "three square a day and clear your plate" regimen of eating...every one of them.

My own weight problems are due to disordered eating, fostered by a sexually abusive grandfather and an emotionally abusive grandmother (one aspect of that being that she bought our silence about the sexual abuse with candy). However, my brother, who grew up in our house, and without the sexual abuse, has never had even an inkling of a weight problem, and neither has my mom, who is mostly a grazer (she's carrying maybe 10 extra pounds now, at 66, due to an overly sedentary lifestyle, caused by overwork in a white collar capacity). Grazing, when not used as an excuse to free-for-all on junk food, or in the context of bored and/or emotional eating (I do that, unfortunately), doesn't cause weight problems.
post #296 of 303
Grazing doesn't cause weight problems. Eating three regular full meals and then grazing on top of that will, because you'll take in too many calories. But taking in the same number of calories in 5 or 6 small meals instead of 3 large meals can be healthier, or so I've always read.
post #297 of 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by velochic View Post
I have to say that am astounded at the number of people saying that if their kids don't want to eat a meal, they are welcome to eat pb&j or yogurt. I consider those to be EXTREMELY unhealthy foods and yogurt is considered a dessert here. Even the organic yogurts that dd eats are chock-full of sugar. If they're not organic, they are full of artificial colors, flavors and HFCS, too. Same goes for peanut butter. It's full of sugar and partially hydrogenated oils, again unless organic.
I just saw this. I give my kids yogurt with no added sugar. It's easy to find here, both organic and otherwise.

And, I've been eating non-organic, sugar-free, hydrogenated oil free peanut butter since I was about four. It's been around for a long, long time.

I'm not saying this is what I always offer or anything - just that yogurt and peanut butter don't have to equal a bunch of sugar.
post #298 of 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by lmk1 View Post
Yes, according to this book, not only our all tribes eating processed foods, but a specific type of processing (cooking). By modern definition, "processed foods" seems to indicate a bad type of food, such as hot dogs and potato chips. But processing just means changing the food by cooking it, or fermenting it, and not necessarily the new types of processing whereas food is broken down into before impossible parts and manipulated by huge commercial processes that one cannot replicate at home.
True. I think of processing as a bad thing but this is only because of what we use it to describe today, the food that barely resembles food anymore. His definition is the truer one.


Quote:
One could use that argument for anything; how do I know that I'm actually typing this email and not having a dream about typing the email or that someone isn't imagining me typing this email (and therefore I don't exist outside of their imagination).
Now we're mixing in some metaphysics with our physics. I like it!

Quote:
Are there any "hard facts" that you could say are not based on any assumptions whatsoever?
This is a difficult one to answer directly and quickly. Essentially, I guess we'd have to separate "true" from "fact"... and I'm just typing this as it comes to me so it could need some tightening... but "true" to an individual can only be based in one thing and that is authentic direct experience. A "fact" is something the majority holds as true even if they have never had direct authentic experience of the fact.

An example of a fact is that the Earth is a sphere, although I have never had direct knowledge of this fact, I would lay my bet on it being a sphere - the alternative would be some unidentified quirk of outer space to make things look like spheres when they aren't... or some coverup where the earth pictures were fakes and every picture drawn or copied since that were based on that were based on a foundational lie. Possible? Of course. Probable? Not at all.

An example of true is that fire is hot. I have direct experience of this, I know this to be true.

When we strip away our conceptions, emotions, judgments, assumptions and projections from any thing or event, what we are left with is much more simple, and the truth of that thing or event is much less than we tend to assume.

Quote:
The theory of evolution is so far fitting in with the evidence that has been uncovered (from fossils, etc), but obviously if you don't find such evidence compelling then further theories based on evolution will not be compelling either. Out of curiosity, what do you believe? Sorry, if it's too personal...you don't have to answer of course!
The evidence they have are different bones, when we add their assumptions to that, then we have the idea that the human form went through the changes that those bones represent.

There are many scientists absolutely opposed to the evolutionary theory, such as Dissent From Darwin and sites that can explain much more than I can here, like Science Against Evolution. People are afraid of this stance, because the alternative is thought to be religious, but it simply isn't. If you aren't religious, it doesn't mean you automatically must believe in evolution, either. There are accounts of fossils being found that creating problems for the theory, too, such as the human fossil found in Chad. The fossil's age dictates it should look like an ape or some Neanderthal but it looks like a modern human. What were they doing there back then? These questions are serious reasons why jumping to conclusions when we find some bones is scientifically dangerous. We have never observed evolution, we have no direct experience of it.

Look deeply, question everything, even lettered folks with white lab coats... they're just people, subject to mistakes like the rest of us only they have the power to alter text books and shape small minds.

Quote:
What do you consider our indigenous roots?
I can't say where, as I don't know (there's that direct experience thing again!), although some geneological research points to all humanity coming out of Africa.

Logic dictates humanity once did not have houses... at some point, we lived completely on the land. An alternative to this is that astronauts from another planet put us here, with instructions on how to build homes and create civilisations - scientology purports something like this, I think. That's not the only alternative but it's an example to show how far stretched we'd have to think if we think life was always like this, only simpler. I can't buy that... again, I'm not closed to it, but it has got to do a better song and dance than that to get my attention as a valid option for the beginnings of humanity.

Until that point, I favour the idea that before the English took over the world - America, Australia, New Zealand, Africa, etc - they were once just like the indigenous they destroyed, only enough generations back that they no longer identified with it. The idea of a "white indigenous" seems whacky because history only shows us with guns and steel and homes and a bad attitude. At some point though, we had to been like the indigenous, living on the land, with the land, eating raw, communing with animals not eating them... and although I'm not religious, I think there are some gold nuggets hidden in religious text, like genesis, that suggest things went haywire after we "ate of the tree of good and evil/knowledge". And being opposed to evolution, I think that is where we should still be. For instance, parenting in a primal way benefits my children and I think most children ... the instinctual indigenous drives are all intact in children.

Quote:
I guess this question is somehow connected to religious belief, but do you belief there's a starting point at which humans began to exist (as in Garden of Eden) or...? And do you believe that indigenous tribes were living the "right way" until they became corrupted? And what are some example of indigenous tribes?
Again, sorry, if I'm getting too personal with the questions; we've definitely gotten away from the OP's question
Buddhists believe in "beginningless time" and I resonate with that, though I don't outright believe it. Time and space as we know it is finite, we can't imagine infinity, it is out of the realms of human conceptual ability. I don't know, and I have learned that is one of the most intelligent things to say.

We can't be sure tribes were primary... perhaps they were an evolution from a more isolated existence. I read a fascinating series of books that goes into all this, touches on all subjects in a way I've never encountered before: The Ringing Cedars. The first book, Anastasia is where you meet Vladimir and he recounts his true account where he met her... she is a Russian woman living alone in the taiga (siberian forest) and she is so pristine and indigenous and amazing that she has amazing abilities and a weird diet (raw, freshly picked, grazes all day) and lifestyle but she says we ALL have these abilities. She has no "structure" or house, just her spot in the forest, and squirrels bring her food, like dried mushrooms and when he was baffled by that she explains, "doesn't your dog bring you the paper?" They have a child together and her babysitters are a wolf and a she-bear. I know, it sounds incredible and could possibly be but it really opens one's mind to possibilities and what we could be missing out on. A gorgeous blonde living indigenously in joy naked in a forest with dolittle qualities is something most of us can't even imagine... for instance, National Geographic couldn't show her boobs on TV, because it would be considered porn.

I have to go again... I've missed a couple of Q's and another person's Q but I'll come back later.

post #299 of 303
I know this thread has evolved (ha! get it? ), but I wanted to weigh in and say that in our home, in which my children are given quite a bit of say and respect, one is allowed to eat unlimited amounts of (plain, unsweetened, uncolored, often full-fat and organic, sometimes homemade) yogurt, and fruits and raw vegetables as a substitution for a meal if one is particularly offended by said meal.

If kid seems to need protein, I've been known to suggest a(n) (organic, all-natural, sugar-free, peanut-only) PB sandwich with (sugar-free, whole wheat, seeded and often homemade) bread and a touch of local (or storebought semi-local) honey.

What do I care?
post #300 of 303
You're definitely stricter than I am, but that doesn't make you too harsh. I probably cater a bit too much to my kid. She's not the best eater, but she eats a variety of things and most of them are healthy. I have sent her to bed without eating though. If I put dinner out and she's too busy playing to eat then she goes to bed hungry.

Huntsville Single Mom
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Gentle Discipline
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Childhood and Beyond › Gentle Discipline › Do Your Kids Ever Go to Bed Hungry?