"Snack Shaming"?! Is this a thing now?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Those monsters!

A strongly worded email, ALL CAPS was sent.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I've been told I'm condescending. (That means I talk down to people.)

Ha yes well. She was definitely pissed, and with good reason. But yeah, I more than any other is aware she goes over the top from time to time.

[chemgear]

For what it is worth, having just spent several weeks in Japan, it is startling to come home to Calgary and see so many overweight people everywhere. Obviously nothing has actually changed in the span of time but the immediate contrast is eye opening.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Given the ever-changing trends in nutrition and food fads, that would be a farce. Should schools go full paleo and ditch the carbs and dairy? Maybe the principal just read Wheat Belly so bread is out. Heck, some diets discourage fruit because it's just another sugar-delivery mechanism.

Teaching fads also change, sometimes with poor results, that's where you hope the syllabus and technique taught is being created by qualified individuals. I don't see why we can't extend that to a nutritional program. A qualified province wide nutritional program developed by experts, dietitian and doctors. We allow school and teachers incredibly control to shape their minds, but body is a no go?

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Sensible nutrition isn't about banning food. It's about moderation.

Yes, especially for healthy adults who understand and practice that. Those healthy adults also only make up maybe 40% of our population, the rest are overweight or worse.

Creating an environment in school that teaches and even "forces" the children these moderations would have what downside exactly? Except the occasional insult of being called a "nanny state" what harm would it actually do?

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The fact is, obesity is highly correlated with class. Families with poor eating habits tend to struggle in other areas, including academics. If they aren't getting their kids to bed on time, encouraging reading, or making sure homework gets done, it's hard to see how a school nutrition program will change their lifestyle around food. And the parents who do obey the rules and take an active role in their children's school life probably aren't feeding their kids cheetos and KFC day and night.

While true, shouldn't that be the absolute best reason to set this up at school? Creating a program, lunches, policies, for children independent of class at school? I'd much rather be subsidizing fruits and vegetables than insulin and chemo with my tax money. They might not eat 'healthy' 100% of the time, but 50% of the time is still far better.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

This would just be another program that inconveniences engaged parents, and does nothing to address the social ills that are at the root of unhealthy home life and bad choices.

First part, while true, what's the worst inconvenience from going to the extreme and havign lunches provided by school to these engaged parents?

Also, again, these engaged parents are making up 30% of the population. Current trends suggest that 70% of primary school students will be overweight by the time they are forty.
http://www.pressreader.com/canada/ed...83042640315336

In a cluster of schools in the Annapolis Valley, kids were eating much healthier, were more active and had “amazingly” lower overweight and obesity rates compared to the other schools in the province — 60 per cent lower than the provincial average for overweight kids, and 72 per cent lower than the average of obese kids.
Intrigued, Veugelers found that the schools had their own comprehensive school health program.

The Annapolis Valley schools served healthy lunches only, did not allow junk food, held daily physical activities, allowed after-school access to the gym, and got parents and the community involved.

A couple schools ban junk food, start serving healthy foods only. They pushed the nutritional agenda to it's limit, and the diabolical principals plan worked. 72 per cent lower obesity rates for the students at those schools. Is our pride, the "I know best for my children," that important that we're going to fight against a program that has had such success? Meh, doesn't sound much different than the anti-vaccinations parents now, despite looking at studies and actual incredible positive results, "what gets put in my children is my choice, despite the incredible downside!"

Look, if there's outrage that a school has a simple snack time where students are allowed to eat fruit and vegetables, and only eat fruits and vegetables, while having zero impact on the lunches they can bring and eat, it also shouldn't be that surprising that 60% of that province is fat.


Also what happens when this kid gets to sex-ed class and they do the putting a condom on a banana thing? This kid will be there with his banana bread because his mother refuses to let him touch fruits. Practically asking for him to get an STI, I bet no one thought of that!

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by chemgear

For what it is worth, having just spent several weeks in Japan, it is startling to come home to Calgary and see so many overweight people everywhere. Obviously nothing has actually changed in the span of time but the immediate contrast is eye opening.

You don't need to leave the country for that. Just lining up at Tim Hortons for my morning coffee watching overweight people starting off their days with everything from artery clogging breakfast sandwiches, donuts, muffins and even morning ice caps is all I need to know that this country has an issue. That said I still don't support the cations of this teacher.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Teaching fads also change, sometimes with poor results, that's where you hope the syllabus and technique taught is being created by qualified individuals. I don't see why we can't extend that to a nutritional program. A qualified province wide nutritional program developed by experts, dietitian and doctors. We allow school and teachers incredibly control to shape their minds, but body is a no go?

Yes, especially for healthy adults who understand and practice that. Those healthy adults also only make up maybe 40% of our population, the rest are overweight or worse.

Creating an environment in school that teaches and even "forces" the children these moderations would have what downside exactly? Except the occasional insult of being called a "nanny state" what harm would it actually do?

While true, shouldn't that be the absolute best reason to set this up at school? Creating a program, lunches, policies, for children independent of class at school? I'd much rather be subsidizing fruits and vegetables than insulin and chemo with my tax money. They might not eat 'healthy' 100% of the time, but 50% of the time is still far better.

First part, while true, what's the worst inconvenience from going to the extreme and havign lunches provided by school to these engaged parents?

Also, again, these engaged parents are making up 30% of the population. Current trends suggest that 70% of primary school students will be overweight by the time they are forty.
http://www.pressreader.com/canada/ed...83042640315336


A couple schools ban junk food, start serving healthy foods only. They pushed the nutritional agenda to it's limit, and the diabolical principals plan worked. 72 per cent lower obesity rates for the students at those schools. Is our pride, the "I know best for my children," that important that we're going to fight against a program that has had such success? Meh, doesn't sound much different than the anti-vaccinations parents now, despite looking at studies and actual incredible positive results, "what gets put in my children is my choice, despite the incredible downside!"

Look, if there's outrage that a school has a simple snack time where students are allowed to eat fruit and vegetables, and only eat fruits and vegetables, while having zero impact on the lunches they can bring and eat, it also shouldn't be that surprising that 60% of that province is fat.


Also what happens when this kid gets to sex-ed class and they do the putting a condom on a banana thing? This kid will be there with his banana bread because his mother refuses to let him touch fruits. Practically asking for him to get an STI, I bet no one thought of that!

Does Annapolis valley allow banana bread. Lots of junk food bans are just no chips,pop,choclate or candy. I suspect that most processed food and banana bread is permitted

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

You don't need to leave the country for that. Just lining up at Tim Hortons for my morning coffee watching overweight people starting off their days with everything from artery clogging breakfast sandwiches, donuts, muffins and even morning ice caps is all I need to know that this country has an issue. That said I still don't support the cations of this teacher.

If you are putting cream and sugar and that coffee, you might as well be getting those sandwiches or donuts.

[Leeman4Gilmour]

You know when you were young and your parents or grandparents would shake their heads and say "what has this world come to?" And you would think, probably not say, "whatever, old people". Well, I'm now officially old people.

A lengthy, spirited discussion about the suitability of banana bread in a kids lunch. To quote Titan, "Wow".

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by GGG

Does Annapolis valley allow banana bread. Lots of junk food bans are just no chips,pop,choclate or candy. I suspect that most processed food and banana bread is permitted

That's really besides the point GGG, most are arguing that schools should not have the authority to decide what can and can not be eaten, period.

And really, banning chocolate bars and allowing banana bread would be really missing the point. Normal banana bread can easily have over 200 calories in a single slice. Throw in more of the unhealthier options, and a slice of banana bread would have higher calories than a snickers bar with 225 and double the calories of a bag of pop chips.

[polak]

These kids are never going to understand the meaning of moderation or self control.

Just yes and no.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by polak

These kids are never going to understand the meaning of moderation or self control.

Just yes and no.

God Damn it, I have to agree with you.


that hurt to type

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

If you are putting cream and sugar and that coffee, you might as well be getting those sandwiches or donuts.

I am but it's my one vice as the rest of the morning I only consume fruit and yogurt. Besides I work out regularly and am in shape so it's not like that sugar and cream is contributing to a weight issue.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

And really, banning chocolate bars and allowing banana bread would be really missing the point. Normal banana bread can easily have over 200 calories in a single slice. Throw in more of the unhealthier options, and a slice of banana bread would have higher calories than a snickers bar with 225 and double the calories of a bag of pop chips.

So what? These are 8 year olds kids, not neurotic 40 year olds counting every calorie. There's nothing wrong with kids eating 250 calorie snacks. Just not all the time. Have you seen some of the deserts French families eat?

The way to avoid getting obese isn't fretting over the calorie count of everything you eat. The key is to not fall into the habit of stuffing your face with huge portions, guzzling sweet drinks, and eating junk food in front of the TV every night. Getting exercise also helps.

As an aside, the commonly-cited statistics for 'child obesity' are skewed by including teens right up to age 19, and by grouping overweight and obese together. There might be a handful of students at my kids' elementary school who are fat - fewer than the 7 per cent of Canadian kids age 6-11.

Prevalence of Measured Obesity Among Children 2 to 11 Years, and Youth 12 to 17 Years

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

So what? These are 8 year olds kids, not neurotic 40 year olds counting every calorie. There's nothing wrong with kids eating 250 calorie snacks. Just not all the time. Have you seen some of the deserts French families eat?

The way to avoid getting obese isn't fretting over the calorie count of everything you eat. The key is to not fall into the habit of stuffing your face with huge portions, guzzling sweet drinks, and eating junk food in front of the TV every night. Getting exercise also helps.

As an aside, the commonly-cited statistics for 'child obesity' are skewed by including teens right up to age 19, and by grouping overweight and obese together. There might be a handful of students at my kids' elementary school who are fat - fewer than the 7 per cent of Canadian kids age 6-11.

Prevalence of Measured Obesity Among Children 2 to 11 Years, and Youth 12 to 17 Years

Source on the graph?

Because StatsCan has about 23% of youth 12-17 as overweight or obese in 2014.

The normalization of excess weight hasn't helped in terms of being able to visually see what it looks like either.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Source on the graph?

Statscan.

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Because StatsCan has about 23% of youth 12-17 as overweight or obese in 2014.

As I said, combining the two to promote the more alarming figure.

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

The normalization of excess weight hasn't helped in terms of being able to visually see what it looks like either.

The figures in the graph are clinically measured obesity, not self-reported.

Look, I'm not trying to shut my eyes to the fact more people are overweight today than in the past. But if you believed the skewed headlines, a third of 10 year olds in Canada are obese. And that simply isn't anywhere close to being true.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

So what? These are 8 year olds kids, not neurotic 40 year olds counting every calorie. There's nothing wrong with kids eating 250 calorie snacks. Just not all the time. Have you seen some of the deserts French families eat?

You're missing my point, we agree on this. Moderation and balance is key. Banning chocolate bars and chips, while allowing everything else doesn't instill in them any sense of what is actually a balance diet. It's not teaching them moderation or helping them understand what actually is 'healthy.'

It's the policy equivalency of having a Caesar salad with chicken and extra dressing at McDonald's and thinking it's a healthy snack...despite having more calories than the Big Mac they are dieting from.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The way to avoid getting obese isn't fretting over the calorie count of everything you eat. The key is to not fall into the habit of stuffing your face with huge portions, guzzling sweet drinks, and eating junk food in front of the TV every night. Getting exercise also helps.

You don't need to fret over every calorie, but it's also the only thing that matters when it comes to weight, so it should be a heavy focus for students. Especially as they age. Of course you want to teach the students proper healthy living like you said, I don't think anyone would argue different, but the problem is it clearly isn't happening. But yes, I agree that six years old shouldn't be worrying about calories they can't add, which is why a program in place that was providing them lunches with the proper calories and nutrition would be a great idea.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

As an aside, the commonly-cited statistics for 'child obesity' are skewed by including teens right up to age 19, and by grouping overweight and obese together. There might be a handful of students at my kids' elementary school who are fat - fewer than the 7 per cent of Canadian kids age 6-11.

A handful of children are fat? That right there is a huge red flag to me that shows the disconnect from actual reality.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-003-.../11706-eng.htm

According to the WHO approach, close to one third (31.5%) of 5- to 17-year-olds, an estimated 1.6 million, were classified as overweight (19.8%) or obese (11.7%) in 2009 to 2011 (Table 1). The percentage who were overweight was similar across age groups. However, the prevalence of obesity differed between boys and girls (15.1% versus 8.0%), most notably at ages 5 to 11, among whom the percentage of boys who were obese (19.5%) was more than three times the percentage of girls who were obese (6.3%) (Table 1).

1,600,000.00 is not a handful. Fat=overweight, not obese. We've just grown to accustomed to the new norm and think people overweight aren't fat.


CliffFletcher, we are obvious on the same page when it comes to principle. Moderation is key, anything can be fit into a healthy diet, especially with exercise. I don't think you'll ever see me argue against that.

But we're taking about in practice. 60% of the adult population in Alberta are overweight. Current trends say that 70% of these kids are going to be fat. Schools that have implemented full-scale nutritional and healthy lifestyle policies, including providing only healthy lunches and banning junk food, have shown incredibly drastic improvements on those numbers. This can't be overlooked because YOU understand the proper way to be healthy. It's about the 70% of children who won't be. Like I said, at this point it's nothing but prideful "Hey schoolboard, don't tell me how to raise my kid. I know what's best for my kid! Now can you help me roll him out to the parking lot." You got programs that have been proven to be extremely successful in reducing overweight and obesity rates in children...and we want to argue against that? For what?

Look, I'm not trying to shut my eyes to the fact more people are overweight today than in the past. But if you believed the skewed headlines, a third of 10 year olds in Canada are obese. And that simply isn't anywhere close to being true.

Why hung up on obese? Just being overweight comes with it's own health effects, and children who are "only" overweight are more likely to become obese in adulthood. We should be trying to limit fat children of all shapes, not just the clinically obese.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

How'd you like the Great Gatsby? Think F. Scott Fitzgerald's writing was invalid as well?

It's been a day and a half and I still have no idea what this was supposed to mean.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It's been a day and a half and I still have no idea what this was supposed to mean.

F. Scott Fitzgerald, the author of the Great American Novel "The Great Gatsby" also had a habit of using the slang bastardization of the contraction 've.

"‘he’d of got me" shows up in The Great Gatsby for example.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I've been told I'm condescending. (That means I talk down to people.)

You are from Lake Bonavista after all.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

F. Scott Fitzgerald, the author of the Great American Novel "The Great Gatsby" also had a habit of using the slang bastardization of the contraction 've.

"‘he’d of got me" shows up in The Great Gatsby for example.

Oh.

No wonder that DiCaprio movie was a train wreck.