Jump to content

Menu

s/o Death by diet....How do we stop it?


Soror
 Share

Recommended Posts

even if you don' t use a road for a vehicle, you will still pay your fair share in order for goods to be delivered, as well as mail, ambulance, police, and fire..or are you arguing for abolishment of those services?

Of course, people should pay their fair share and I do use a vehicle. Not just any vehicle but a big ol SUV that can haul a harp. Incentives matter though and it makes sense that if people actually pay for use they will find a way that makes sense for them to use as little as possible. I need a large vehicle and thus would pay more gas taxes because I have a large family and need to haul harps and groceries and children and children's friends but it would still make sense to me to encourage wiser use in the least controlling manner possible. That would help people decide when and where it was worth it to them to live closer or just combine trips or pick the orthodontist in your vicinity.

 

But regardless of sprawl, just getting from a parking spot to the area you were trying to get to in your vehicle is dangerous because roads are made in an unsafe way. Because they are unsafe then less people attempt to walk or bike or take a bus even when they are already in the general area of what they want. It is a vicious cycle.

 

Even residential districts where a kid lives 5 blocks from the playground is dangerous so families will go and park in the school parking lot whereas if they felt safe they probably would have walked. So walkability isn't just about sprawl, it's about safely navigating where you are already at.

 

So you already bought a house and you ended up getting a job in another part of the metro area. But while you are there do you really need to hop in a car to go out to lunch? If you can't safely walk down to the corner cafe I suppose you would. Of course, you would get stressed out when that fender bender blocked up traffic and now you are late for your big meeting. If you want people moving more, walking out for lunch or to a near by hair cutters or dry cleaners during a break would be much more healthy and less stressful. So it's not just about sprawl, sometimes it's just being able to streatch your legs without hitting a road block. The roadblock in this case, is a dangerous road blocking you in.

 

As far as sprawl is concerned I have a strange feeling that you, living near NYC, aren't really living in the sprawl I'm talking about but thanks for the extra income taxes to pay for our roads up here. ;)

 

Edited to add that I live in Alaska but many western states are similar.

Edited by frogger
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And lets not forget....time is finite. Are we, as a society, willing to give up, just as an example, the hour our high school junior spends on SAT tutoring just to walk to the grocery store and back (for those who live in areas where the grocery store is a half hour walk instead of an hour.) Are we willing to allow a walk to the school to drop off our 3rd graders take 20 minutes there, 20 minutes back, 20 minutes there, and 20 minutes back, every single day. Sure, in a 20 minute incriment, it doesn't sound like much, but as a whole, that's an hour and a half of the day. That's not an unsizable chunk of the day. A chunk that could be better spent grocery shopping, or dropping packages off at the post office, or returning library books, or whatever. I am not sure today's society is really able to handle spending 20+ minutes of walking one way for all...or even most...of their various random errands.

This walking to the grocery store thing: how am I supposed to get my $300 of groceries back home if I walk there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can’t walk to the store where I currently live, but I’ve done almost all of my grocery shopping on foot in the last 13 years. It is a lifestyle change because most people can’t get two weeks worth of groceries home without a car so you go shopping more often. I like to go out nearly every morning and a 2-4 kilometer round trip is nice. I could probably manage to go twice a week at a minimum since there isn’t a car to get the groceries home. It actually was difficult for me to get used to shopping once a week in my current country and I cannot wait to be able to be able to walk to the store again. But I also realize that choice isn’t for everyone. I’m just glad I lived in some places where that was the only option so I would discover how much I like it.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realize most of the population lives in cities and suburbs but if you live in the middle of corn and bean fields and the nearest grocery is 20 miles away walkikng or biking is not an option. My kids school would be 22 miles away if they went. Though we try to group errands and trips any library, classes, groups or just friends requires driving. Modern life and society take time. Even though our family attempts to not join the crazy a certain amount is necessary to keep the kids happy and fed.

 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where I lived before, walking was not a draw for people.  Why would it?  The town didn't believe in side walks, the public transportation system let you know that they did it begrudgingly (no posted schedules, often the bus stop was a stick instead of a bench and never a shelter), and they encouraged sprawl that put downtown out of business. The town of 100,000 had 5 Walmarts.  It was insane.  We were so sick there.

 

You know where some of the most expensive homes are here?  On the district-long bike trail (right now it's about 60 miles long).  It was a repurposed old trail, so it's not like it was something brand new - just used differently. The bike trail is safe, walkable, and it has encouraged businesses to build so that the trail goes through the backyards of stores and restaurants.  It's easy to ride 10 miles, pick up a few things, and ride back.  Even my 2nd grader can ride that far.  Last year I couldn't even let him walk to our mailbox down the street because it was not safe in our podunk town that prayed to the oil gods.  This year he has more freedom.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure you are addressing my comment in context.

 

I am referring to the point made by policy wonks who claim that offering fresh food and better food in schools is a bad idea because kids throw it out.

 

In my opinion, it is better to offer and model excellent dietary choices, even if they are denied, than to claim defeat so you can shove cheap crap like fries, etc. in front of children.

 

The other thing is - these things take time.

 

You can have good real food on school budgets - it has been done and from what I understand isn't actually that difficult.

 

It will likely take time to adapt, and maybe kids need to be introduced from the early school or even preschool years, or there needs to be other efforts to actually teach about eating.  Maybe they actually need to sit his don at a table to eat together and feed them ll the same thing.  

 

Whatever.

 

I don't really get this "we need something that will work immediately with no real effort" thing.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can’t walk to the store where I currently live, but I’ve done almost all of my grocery shopping on foot in the last 13 years. It is a lifestyle change because most people can’t get two weeks worth of groceries home without a car so you go shopping more often. I like to go out nearly every morning and a 2-4 kilometer round trip is nice. I could probably manage to go twice a week at a minimum since there isn’t a car to get the groceries home. It actually was difficult for me to get used to shopping once a week in my current country and I cannot wait to be able to be able to walk to the store again. But I also realize that choice isn’t for everyone. I’m just glad I lived in some places where that was the only option so I would discover how much I like it.

We stayed in an Air BNb in Italy and had to walk to the store every day. It was about two miles away, and it was fun, we were on vacation. We lived like Italians. But walking to the store daily to feed six people would get to be a major ordeal. If you had a small family, sure it would be great. Or if the store was on the way home from the metro stop or whatever. I would definitely walk if I could, but I live somewhat rural. Where we are moving it would be possible to walk to the store, three mins away by car, but it's along busy two lane rural roads with no sidewalks, so it's unsafe. Houses have grown up on what was farmland. Not developments, just single homes. And after I was bitten by a snake in my garden I'm scared to go wandering through the weeds the way I might have before. Definitely, no way to push a grocery carrying device. When we move, we will be within walking distance of the school, but again along the narrow busy roads. I'm thinking that if I put my kids in school I might drive to a nearby road, then walk a very short distance along the road to the school to avoid the dreaded carpool line. As others have said, no one is making me walk.

Where we live nothing was really planned. It was all cow pastures twenty years ago, and it's not in city limits.

 

ETA as I type I'm on e elliptical trainer so I'm getting my exercise! And I grew up in a family where slothfulness was greatly frowned upon and you had to eat your vegetables. No one was a couch potato. Dh family was quite the opposite and his family has health problems to prove it. Dh is trying to do better.

Edited by MotherGoose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This walking to the grocery store thing: how am I supposed to get my $300 of groceries back home if I walk there?

 

You aren't.

 

I live a block from the grocery store.  If I do a big shop, I take he car.  In fact I often use that shop to go to the other retailer slightly further away.

 

But I walk to the closer shop quite a lot - if I need to pick something up, if I just need milk, whatever.  It's close so it is easy to use for a daily shop.  Especially in the warmer weather my shopping habits change to reflect that it is so close.

 

I have a rolling shopping bag too which means I can carry quite a bit home even when I walk.

 

And if for some reason I had to give up my car, I could get along quite well without it, I'd just have to plan my shopping without the very large shops or cut them down and take a taxi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We stayed in an Air BNb in Italy and had to walk to the store every day. It was about two miles away, and it was fun, we were on vacation. We lived like Italians. But walking to the store daily to feed six people would get to be a major ordeal. If you had a small family, sure it would be great. Or if the store was on the way home from the metro stop or whatever. I would definitely walk if I could, but I live somewhat rural. Where we are moving it would be possible to walk to the store, three mins away by car, but it's along busy two lane rural roads with no sidewalks, so it's unsafe. Houses have grown up on what was farmland. Not developments, just single homes. And after I was bitten by a snake in my garden I'm scared to go wandering through the weeds the way I might have before. Definitely, no way to push a grocery carrying device. When we move, we will be within walking distance of the school, but again along the narrow busy roads. I'm thinking that if I put my kids in school I might drive to a nearby road, then walk a very short distance along the road to the school to avoid the dreaded carpool line. As others have said, no one is making me walk.

Where we live nothing was really planned. It was all cow pastures twenty years ago, and it's not in city limits.

 

ETA as I type I'm on e elliptical trainer so I'm getting my exercise! And I grew up in a family where slothfulness was greatly frowned upon and you had to eat your vegetables. No one was a couch potato. Dh family was quite the opposite and his family has health problems to prove it. Dh is trying to do better.

 

There are some areas like this here.  They were rural but kind of got built up as commuter areas all of a sudden, with developers just buying parcels of land and building willy-nilly.  The county or village didn't have robust enough governance to get in front of it.  As a result a lot are really under serviced and have some terrible traffic problems too.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/30/exercise-vs-diet-for-weight-loss_n_5207271.html

 

 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/upshot/to-lose-weight-eating-less-is-far-more-important-than-exercising-more.html

 

 There are tons of others.

 

 

I know these links talk about weight....but I think we are ignoring the elephant in the room if we don't talk about how weight relates to health.

 

Sure, activity is important.  It's really really difficult to burn off a 1400 calorie red robin burger

ITA- that is why I said death by diet, the whole point of talking about diet is to talk about health. 

 

And although exercise is not highly correlated with weight loss it is beneficial for a myriad of other reasons for people of all ages. But it is good to point out that you need to watch your exercise if you are trying to lose weight. 

 

I was just reading this article about McDonald's making their Happy Meal healthier and found this quote really fit with our discussion-

On any given day, one out of three American children eats fast food and on those days, they're daily caloric intake is higher than usual, according to Jennifer Harris of the University of Connecticut's Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity. 

 

That blows my mind. I guess it shouldn't but it does. We only eat out every couple of months or so and I never buy kids meals. I had no clue they had that many calories but I guess with the soda and fries in a typical kid's meal that is not a surprise. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other thing is - these things take time.

 

You can have good real food on school budgets - it has been done and from what I understand isn't actually that difficult.

 

It will likely take time to adapt, and maybe kids need to be introduced from the early school or even preschool years, or there needs to be other efforts to actually teach about eating.  Maybe they actually need to sit his don at a table to eat together and feed them ll the same thing.  

 

Whatever.

 

I don't really get this "we need something that will work immediately with no real effort" thing.

I agree with this too. I think we want to give up too easily. It takes awhile to change taste buds and there will have to be some experimentation to find out what works. I think people want it to fail. With so many kids consuming the vast amount of their food at the school we can't really ignore school lunches. We just have to make it a priority. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with this too. I think we want to give up too easily. It takes awhile to change taste buds and there will have to be some experimentation to find out what works. I think people want it to fail. With so many kids consuming the vast amount of their food at the school we can't really ignore school lunches. We just have to make it a priority. 

 

This gets me about so many issues.  

 

"This won't work to change everything right now because of x, y, or z."

 

The article I linked a few posts back about a town that made it's suburbs some of the most walkable in the country did it over a period of something like 20 years.  They decided what their goal was, and made a variety of policy decisions to support that.  They made physical changes over time, they changed regulations that worked against the behaviours they wanted, they created fun events and educational programs to promote walking, etc.  And over 20 years they had a huge change in the way of life of the community.

 

How to feed kids in schools is like that, how to change the culture of mistrust, or the culture of hyper-awareness of risk, how to build exercise into people's lives.  Almost anything that you want to shape about community behaviours.

 

"We can't do that in the US" seems to be mostly about we don't want to change our culture of instant gratification which we are indulging ourselves in right now, give us a magic diet to make us skinny not a set of policy changes that take 20 years to come to mature ."

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure you are addressing my comment in context.

 

I am referring to the point made by policy wonks who claim that offering fresh food and better food in schools is a bad idea because kids throw it out.

 

In my opinion, it is better to offer and model excellent dietary choices, even if they are denied, than to claim defeat so you can shove cheap crap like fries, etc. in front of children.

 

Then we agree as long as it's offering fruit (or similar) options rather than mandating them.  Mandating that a lad/lass take some sort of fruit when they don't want it is what leads to needless waste.

 

I'm also fully on board with healthier options overall - healthier recipes, salad bars, etc.  There are enough choices (at least at my school) that kids can find something they like as a main meal even if all the alternatives are healthier than what they used to serve (which IS the case at my school).  The only glitch from the change was mandating every student getting a lunch had to take some sort of fruit - veggies too I think - and canned veggies (to many of us) are NOT the way to show kids how tasty they are.  I'm more certain of the fruit because for a little bit one of the teachers had a box out to collect any the kids were going to toss to take home and repurpose but that was deemed illegal.  It had to go into the trash.  I'm glad that was a short lived part of the law.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then we agree as long as it's offering fruit (or similar) options rather than mandating them.  Mandating that a lad/lass take some sort of fruit when they don't want it is what leads to needless waste.

 

I'm also fully on board with healthier options overall - healthier recipes, salad bars, etc.  There are enough choices (at least at my school) that kids can find something they like as a main meal even if all the alternatives are healthier than what they used to serve (which IS the case at my school).  The only glitch from the change was mandating every student getting a lunch had to take some sort of fruit - veggies too I think - and canned veggies (to many of us) are NOT the way to show kids how tasty they are.  I'm more certain of the fruit because for a little bit one of the teachers had a box out to collect any the kids were going to toss to take home and repurpose but that was deemed illegal.  It had to go into the trash.  I'm glad that was a short lived part of the law.

 

I agree that forcing kids to take apples is not ideal, but I can see why they do it. Because if you don't, and then take away candy bars machines, the result is that the child has "no snack". 

 

There are a ton of programs and even just cultural behaviors already that "force" kids to take food. Behaviors around dumping Goldfish crackers into a paper cup for 30 pre-schoolers, or passing out one fig newton to each kid, etc., and nobody complains about those. The current situation has effective cost-cutting mandates that result in children getting food that they don't want as well.

 

The argument specifically in this case has never been "they can't be mandated" because the very same people appear to accept mandated sugar and white flour from pre-k on through. And yes, this happens all the time, "take some snack, you'll be hungry later". And I understand why because when you have 20 kids (or even two in your own home) you can't deal with 20 (or even two) snack times.

 

The idea that we are worried about this when we have to pay for apples is so frustrating to me. Yes, food is going to get wasted when all kids get the same thing and when you make them take it just in case. It is already happening.

 

If that doesn't happen, there will not be the alternative of parents magicking their towns to become walkable, or kids bringing healthy snacks from the farmer's market that suddenly set up shop on a intersection that hasn't been effectively policed for 20 years, or kids from rural areas not stopping at fast food because it's a 1 hour drive home in the country. The alternative is the status quo.

 

If you make them all take an apple every day, you can say "eat your apple on the bus, no we aren't stopping." You can say, "you have a healthy snack from the school. If you aren't that hungry to eat it, just wait." "I'm sorry you threw out your apple. Next time save it."

 

As for literally everyone tossing their apples in your schools, that's just sad. In our schools, they do have to take a salad, some gets thrown out but much does not.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that forcing kids to take apples is not ideal, but I can see why they do it. Because if you don't, and then take away candy bars machines, the result is that the child has "no snack". 

 

There are a ton of programs and even just cultural behaviors already that "force" kids to take food. Behaviors around dumping Goldfish crackers into a paper cup for 30 pre-schoolers, or passing out one fig newton to each kid, etc., and nobody complains about those. The current situation has effective cost-cutting mandates that result in children getting food that they don't want as well.

 

The argument specifically in this case has never been "they can't be mandated" because the very same people appear to accept mandated sugar and white flour from pre-k on through. And yes, this happens all the time, "take some snack, you'll be hungry later". And I understand why because when you have 20 kids (or even two in your own home) you can't deal with 20 (or even two) snack times.

 

The idea that we are worried about this when we have to pay for apples is so frustrating to me. Yes, food is going to get wasted when all kids get the same thing and when you make them take it just in case. It is already happening.

 

If that doesn't happen, there will not be the alternative of parents magicking their towns to become walkable, or kids bringing healthy snacks from the farmer's market that suddenly set up shop on a intersection that hasn't been effectively policed for 20 years, or kids from rural areas not stopping at fast food because it's a 1 hour drive home in the country. The alternative is the status quo.

 

If you make them all take an apple every day, you can say "eat your apple on the bus, no we aren't stopping." You can say, "you have a healthy snack from the school. If you aren't that hungry to eat it, just wait." "I'm sorry you threw out your apple. Next time save it."

 

As for literally everyone tossing their apples in your schools, that's just sad. In our schools, they do have to take a salad, some gets thrown out but much does not.

 

It's an interesting point about snacking and being hungry later.  We don't seem to do that - let kids be hungry later if they don't eat a snack they don't like or finish a meal, etc.

 

I think maybe that is a part of the problem - never feeling hungry and never having the idea that you can eat things that aren't your preference, or valuing food.

 

Like a lot of things you can become too rigid but I don't think that's our main problem at this point in time.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that forcing kids to take apples is not ideal, but I can see why they do it. Because if you don't, and then take away candy bars machines, the result is that the child has "no snack". 

 

There are a ton of programs and even just cultural behaviors already that "force" kids to take food. Behaviors around dumping Goldfish crackers into a paper cup for 30 pre-schoolers, or passing out one fig newton to each kid, etc., and nobody complains about those. The current situation has effective cost-cutting mandates that result in children getting food that they don't want as well.

 

The argument specifically in this case has never been "they can't be mandated" because the very same people appear to accept mandated sugar and white flour from pre-k on through. And yes, this happens all the time, "take some snack, you'll be hungry later". And I understand why because when you have 20 kids (or even two in your own home) you can't deal with 20 (or even two) snack times.

 

The idea that we are worried about this when we have to pay for apples is so frustrating to me. Yes, food is going to get wasted when all kids get the same thing and when you make them take it just in case. It is already happening.

 

If that doesn't happen, there will not be the alternative of parents magicking their towns to become walkable, or kids bringing healthy snacks from the farmer's market that suddenly set up shop on a intersection that hasn't been effectively policed for 20 years, or kids from rural areas not stopping at fast food because it's a 1 hour drive home in the country. The alternative is the status quo.

 

If you make them all take an apple every day, you can say "eat your apple on the bus, no we aren't stopping." You can say, "you have a healthy snack from the school. If you aren't that hungry to eat it, just wait." "I'm sorry you threw out your apple. Next time save it."

 

As for literally everyone tossing their apples in your schools, that's just sad. In our schools, they do have to take a salad, some gets thrown out but much does not.

 

I can't say what happens at the pre-school or anything below high school level because I'm not there and it's been eons since my kids were.  When my kids were in elementary, there were never any snacks they had to take.  They could take them - or not - their choice.  It seemed to work fine.

 

By high school, that's definitely all that is needed.

 

It wasn't everyone throwing out apples or grapes or pears or whatever choices were there.  Some kids ate theirs or saved them.  Quite honestly, by 13 years of age kids are intelligent enough to know whether they want one or not.  There is no need nor good reason to mandate waste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone else read the book Bringing Up Bebe?

 

One of the things I found interesting in there was the detailing of the schools' meals.  Each quarter or so the cooks would get together and create a menu that had in-season vegetables and fruits prepared a variety of different ways: steamed, baked, roasted, pureed...and with different pairings.  It encouraged me to do similar in our home - just because ds8 doesn't like roasted squash doesn't mean he wouldn't like it in ravioli, kwim?  And to rotate the foods so that there was always a variety.

 

I don't know if it would be something easily done in American schools.  Most don't even have a proper kitchen anymore.  But it does remind me of when I went to elementary school and we'd be greeted by the smell of baking rolls in the morning or a lovely white cheddar mac'n'cheese would be on the menu at lunch.  Going to middle school was disappointing with their frozen entrees.

 

It would be nice if we could put the emphasis there, though.  Not just creating a basic menu of peas, corn, broccoli, but actually doing something with these veggies and presenting them in a variety of ways to the students.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This gets me about so many issues.

 

"This won't work to change everything right now because of x, y, or z."

 

The article I linked a few posts back about a town that made it's suburbs some of the most walkable in the country did it over a period of something like 20 years. They decided what their goal was, and made a variety of policy decisions to support that. They made physical changes over time, they changed regulations that worked against the behaviours they wanted, they created fun events and educational programs to promote walking, etc. And over 20 years they had a huge change in the way of life of the community.

 

How to feed kids in schools is like that, how to change the culture of mistrust, or the culture of hyper-awareness of risk, how to build exercise into people's lives. Almost anything that you want to shape about community behaviours.

 

"We can't do that in the US" seems to be mostly about we don't want to change our culture of instant gratification which we are indulging ourselves in right now, give us a magic diet to make us skinny not a set of policy changes that take 20 years to come to mature ."

I came across this attitude numerous times here in the US.

 

At the very small Catholic school one of my kids attended, we parents met to discuss options for school lunches the school wanted to offer. I suggested we try doing what the local public school was doing, and offer vegetables and fruit as well as the entree. Judging their irate reactions, you would have thought I was suggesting we give them meth. It was shocking how irate they became merely by suggesting we offer a bowl of carrots or sliced apples.

 

Another situation: I used to walk my son 1.5 miles to and from school. I thought maybe we could create some walking groups where kids from an area walk together with an adult lagging behind to oversee the little ones if necessary. Again, the reactions! One mother said it was borderline abuse to make a child walk more than a mile.

 

I also suggested starting a forest explorers group where we could take interested kids into the nearby park-like forest preserves to hike, explore nature and just have fun. The kids would explore the small bit of nature in the schoolyard every day so many of them might have enjoyed a bigger forest. Alas, no deal. Just another of my crazy zaniness.

 

We tried suggesting and implementing so many new ideas but for whatever reasons, they were immediately shot down. Just strange.

 

So, yes, I’ve come across these sorts of fixed mindsets often.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone else read the book Bringing Up Bebe?

 

One of the things I found interesting in there was the detailing of the schools' meals.  Each quarter or so the cooks would get together and create a menu that had in-season vegetables and fruits prepared a variety of different ways: steamed, baked, roasted, pureed...and with different pairings.  It encouraged me to do similar in our home - just because ds8 doesn't like roasted squash doesn't mean he wouldn't like it in ravioli, kwim?  And to rotate the foods so that there was always a variety.

 

I don't know if it would be something easily done in American schools.  Most don't even have a proper kitchen anymore.  But it does remind me of when I went to elementary school and we'd be greeted by the smell of baking rolls in the morning or a lovely white cheddar mac'n'cheese would be on the menu at lunch.  Going to middle school was disappointing with their frozen entrees.

 

It would be nice if we could put the emphasis there, though.  Not just creating a basic menu of peas, corn, broccoli, but actually doing something with these veggies and presenting them in a variety of ways to the students.

 

Yes, I found that by far the most interesting part of the book.  I've read about it in a few places since then.

 

What I found really interesting is that they saw this as an important part of kids education, including from an experiential POV.   By eating a variety of foods in a civilized way they learned about important things like how to enjoy food or get along with others.  It's not something peripheral.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I came across this attitude numerous times here in the US.

 

At the very small Catholic school one of my kids attended, we parents met to discuss options for school lunches the school wanted to offer. I suggested we try doing what the local public school was doing, and offer vegetables and fruit as well as the entree. Judging their irate reactions, you would have thought I was suggesting we give them meth. It was shocking how irate they became merely by suggesting we offer a bowl of carrots or sliced apples.

 

Another situation: I used to walk my son 1.5 miles to and from school. I thought maybe we could create some walking groups where kids from an area walk together with an adult lagging behind to oversee the little ones if necessary. Again, the reactions! One mother said it was borderline abuse to make a child walk more than a mile.

 

I also suggested starting a forest explorers group where we could take interested kids into the nearby park-like forest preserves to hike, explore nature and just have fun. The kids would explore the small bit of nature in the schoolyard every day so many of them might have enjoyed a bigger forest. Alas, no deal. Just another of my crazy zaniness.

 

We tried suggesting and implementing so many new ideas but for whatever reasons, they were immediately shot down. Just strange.

 

So, yes, I’ve come across these sorts of fixed mindsets often.

 

 

It's kind of weird, that's for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not entirely sure where the mindset comes from, but yes I think it is common.  MAYBE it comes from throwing money at stuff that often flops.  It's usually well meaning.  People start off enthusiastic and strong.  Then stuff gets bogged down in red tape.  Then stuff gets neglected.  Then people forget about it.

 

One example that comes to my mind is growing up it was common for parks to set up various exercise stations.  I rarely see these anymore.  Probably many here have seen them.  So it's basically some sort of apparatus with instructions on how to use it.  They are spread out along a walking trail or path.  Within a year the stuff is vandalized, falling apart, and basically taking up space looking ugly.  Nobody was ever put in charge to maintain it or care for it.  It rots for another 5 years until there is some funding to get rid of it.  So....hmmm....

 

I do think it's worth trying stuff.  I do think it would be great for cities to be more pedestrian friendly.  There ARE places downtown from me where one could walk around, but it is not pedestrian friendly because trying to cross the street is a death wish (and in fact there are cases of people dying trying to cross the street in cross walks).  Our downtown was recently revitalized, but to be honest there is no real reason to go down there unless you work there or want to go to a restaurant.  That's all there really is.  There is a theatre, which is great, but it's not the sort of thing most people can afford to go to regularly.  There's no recreation space.  There is a Y, but I don't go to it because I don't want to pay $80 a month for a gym (they have no pool either).  Would be amazing if they offered a city pool or gym that wasn't quite that expensive. 

 

They did set up bike rental stations downtown.  I try to imagine where one rides these though.  I am not comfortable riding in heavy traffic, one isn't supposed to ride on sidewalks, there are no bike lanes or nearby bike paths, AND the bikes are too big for me.  They do seem to get some use though (seasonally...and the season is short). 

Edited by SparklyUnicorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just thinking about the time thing.  I COULD walk to a somewhat nearby store every day to buy some vegetables.  Do you think I have time for that?!  Um...no.  Hell no.  And I don't even freaking work. 

 

Maybe if I quit my classes and homeschooling. Then I could.  That does nothing for my DH though.  He can't quit his job. 

 

to add....from here to there it is not pedestrian friendly either....and in winter with mounds of snow and sidewalks covered in sheets of ice it is even more of a challenge...

 

 

Edited by SparklyUnicorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess we are supposed to care most about keeping our jobs so our employers can get rich.  That's the most important thing isn't it?  My husband works 8-10 hours at work and comes home and often does more work.  Why?!  I don't get it.  Like the world will implode if they don't spend that kind of time on a piece of computer software?  It won't.  But that is the expectation. 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People in places that change their habits aren't busier than people elsewhere.  You change the way your day works is all.  A short shopping trip is shorter, plus you don't need to go to, or pay for, a gym membership or go jogging, etc.  Pro you take the kids so they get their exercise too.  Etc.

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People in places that change their habits aren't busier than people elsewhere.  You change the way your day works is all.  A short shopping trip is shorter, plus you don't need to go to, or pay for, a gym membership or go jogging, etc.  Pro you take the kids so they get their exercise too.  Etc.

 

No, you really often can't. 

 

My husband did change in that he does go to a gym.  It's particularly good because this gym is opened 24 hours during the week.  But imagine trying to go to the gym after working 10 hours a day.  It's not easy.  And you think that leaves him time to go shopping?  It doesn't.  He is able to do some of these things because he has a stay at home wife who does all the stuff for him that he'd have to do that would take up more time.

 

Not everyone has a stay at home spouse of course.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another situation: I used to walk my son 1.5 miles to and from school. I thought maybe we could create some walking groups where kids from an area walk together with an adult lagging behind to oversee the little ones if necessary. Again, the reactions! One mother said it was borderline abuse to make a child walk more than a mile.

 

Well I might as well admit it.  We were child abusers.  Often.  My lads scoffed when a fellow geocacher said a cache was a LONG distance from parking once and when they asked, he said "a mile."  We were so terrible that a mile was a really short distance in our vocabulary.

 

We abused them so much and so often that we created a cycle.  They now take their friends out for similar abuse in various parks - even posting pics on FB and similar.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two unrelated things:

 

1.  About those apples.  Apples are very tasty when they are in season and fresh.  And they are deadly miserable to eat once they are out of season and mealy, or nonfresh.  Especially the red ones or the golden ones.  They are probably the cheapest fruit around, and one of the least nutritious.  And for most of the year, no one wants them, but they ARE cheap and they ARE fruit, so they would end up in those lunches if there was a fruit mandate.  And then a lot of them would be thrown away.

 

Codicil:  It is much harder to keep good fruit and veggies fresh and tasty than, say, goldfish crackers.  Hence they are more difficult to incorporate into regular group meals, more prone to waste regardless of freshness/tastiness, and inherently more difficult to manage and handle.  Colleges have learned to do this really well, but it's not cheap.  (I'm looking at you, University of Iowa, and at you, Concordia Irvine.)

 

2.  About changing your habits and having that fit in your free time, that assumes that right now you're going to the gym and suddenly you will be able to walk around and won't need the gym anymore.  That's not consistent with my experience.  In my world you're not doing either one because your kids are in a bunch of separate activities that historically were offered in the schools but no longer are, so to get them well-rounded requires a lot of transportation.  When I was a kid we had music, drama, and PE as part of our regular classroom time, and after school sports were at and sponsored by the school and utterly inclusive so everyone could participate.  Art was poor, but it was attempted in class as well.  Nowadays it's pretty common to consider all or most of that stuff to be 'enrichment' and 'a matter of choice', and so it's shoved off into after school classes that are not on campus. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I might as well admit it. We were child abusers. Often. My lads scoffed when a fellow geocacher said a cache was a LONG distance from parking once and when they asked, he said "a mile." We were so terrible that a mile was a really short distance in our vocabulary.

 

We abused them so much and so often that we created a cycle. They now take their friends out for similar abuse in various parks - even posting pics on FB and similar.

I guess I am still a child abuser. My poor son, I even make him walk almost a mile to take his dog to the dog park rather than driving him and the dog.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't say what happens at the pre-school or anything below high school level because I'm not there and it's been eons since my kids were.  When my kids were in elementary, there were never any snacks they had to take.  They could take them - or not - their choice.  It seemed to work fine.

 

By high school, that's definitely all that is needed.

 

It wasn't everyone throwing out apples or grapes or pears or whatever choices were there.  Some kids ate theirs or saved them.  Quite honestly, by 13 years of age kids are intelligent enough to know whether they want one or not.  There is no need nor good reason to mandate waste.

 

I think that you are talking about an exceptional situation that doesn't really apply to the public policy in question, though.

 

That's a school discipline issue which is based on someone's weird control issues, not something inherent in health food policies. Like, who is actually forcing kids to take an apple? Are schools being run by fascist health food mafias, that kids can't say "no thank you"? It is just such a bizarre policy.

 

And how is it possible to force a high schooler to take an apple?  Has anyone been expelled for not taking an apple? Hit? Screamed at? What's the enforcement if you don't take the apple? They can't get their free lunch unless they take an apple? Lowered grades? Kicked out of honor society? How is it not possible to say "no thank you, and I'm going to eat lunch now"?

 

Is this something you observed or is it something you read about that happened locally?

 

To my mind, all it proves is that this particular school is not capable of implementing basic public policy at the institutional level without being ridiculous. People's inability to reasonably adapt to new policies has nothing to do with health food and everything to do with the fact that some groups of people really shouldn't be in charge of anything, whether that's an athletics program, a school lunch program, or a road rehabilitation project.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shhh, don't tell anyone about my kids having to walk 12 miles to Grandma's house with their packed bags on their back over steep hills they will be horrified.

 

 

 

As far as diet I think recognizing sugar is a drug would be a good start.

 

As far as time, I'm guessing the middle and upper classes have plenty of time to solve the world's health crisis on the internet. My husband would tell me, "Excuses, everyone's got them." It is more important to explain things on the internet than to go outside and walk or do my excercise video in the living room or whatever. This may explain my post count relative to how long I've been here. I had to walk to work when I had 3 jobs. How many of you have 3 jobs? Now the lady that recently posted having double digit kids I'll give a pass but really Americans for the most part make their own choices. If enrichment classes, the internet, or whatever is more important and you'd prefer a pill that is fine. Just quit blaming everyone else and saying it's impossible. Say Susie's art class is more of a priority than my health or her health although you might be running Susie to p.e. also. I know lots of people with large families, lots of people who work long hours, and everything is spread out everywhere up here and many CHOOSE to excercise. They fit it in according to what works best for their circumstances. Where there is a will there is a way. How you live is your own choice for the majority of Americans. I realize there are exceptions.

 

Wall-E people may have had it right.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

About the issue of the amount of time it takes, I think that really goes back to the point that most communities were built around cars.  I mean, if you live in a place that was designed with pedestrians in mind (or retroactively changed with pedestrians in mind, like the article Bluegoat linked to about Arlington), then you spend x minutes walking to the store.  If you live in a more typical car-based, spread out place, then you spend x minutes driving to the store.  Either way, we're going to spend a significant chunk of our day moving from point A to point B.  The question is how we want to do that.

 

And I'm not speaking of rural communities here, I'm talking about suburbs and towns that are more spread out than they need to be, because they were built in a car-based culture.

 

Take my neighborhood for example.  The elementary school is within easy walking distance of my house and many other houses.  The line of cars to pick up the kids when school lets out is astonishing.  The entire neighborhood is a congested mess for quite some time before and after the pick-up and drop-off times.  Cars are sitting there waiting, and waiting, and waiting.  I'm convinced that many of them could have walked in the same amount of time that they sit there and wait.  But it seems like we tend to think of the time we spend sitting in our cars as just a fact of life, we don't really question it.  But time spent walking is seen as a burden.  

 

 

(Edited for a misspelling)

Edited by Greta
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Take my neighborhood for example.  The elementary school is within easy walking distance of my house and many other houses.  The line of cars to pick up the kids when school lets out is astonishing.  The entire neighborhood is a congested mess for quite some time before and after the pick-up and drop-off times.  Cars are sitting there waiting, and waiting, and waiting.  I'm convinced that many of them could have walked in the same amount of time that they sit there and wait.  But it seems like we tend to think of the time we spend sitting in our cars as just a fact of life, we don't really question it.  But time spent walking is seen as a burden.  

 

To me, though, the question is more 'where are they going next'. 

Are they all going home?  I'm thinking not.  I'm thinking they are going to piano lessons, or scouts, or a sports team practice, or karate.  So they have to be in the car to get there, and they might as well start with that.  Whereas if those things were offered on campus, there would be no need for all this churn.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way walking errands works for me: I have a lunch break at work (unpaid).  I bring leftovers from home and eat in fifteen minutes.  In the remaining time I do errands on foot, walking briskly between locations.  Most days I get my 30 minutes of activity during that time.  In the evenings/at weekends, I also do intentional exercise for strength, stretching and more serious cardio, but the brisk walk is a good basis.  Today I picked up a prescription and a bag of coffee.  I do still do a big shop by car or delivery every now and then.

Edited by Laura Corin
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I miss the 'corner store'.  That is all.

 

 

Me too!  I grew up in a rural area, so we drove everywhere.  But summers I would sometimes stay with a cousin who lived right smack in the middle of a small town.  Together we rode bikes to the corner store, to the library, to the park.  It was so much fun!  Of course part of the fun of it was that it was just the two of us, no boring grown-ups.  :D  But there is also something very satisfying about getting somewhere you want to go using the power of your own body.  I wish I had given my daughter that kind of childhood.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, though, the question is more 'where are they going next'. 

Are they all going home?  I'm thinking not.  I'm thinking they are going to piano lessons, or scouts, or a sports team practice, or karate.  So they have to be in the car to get there, and they might as well start with that.  Whereas if those things were offered on campus, there would be no need for all this churn.

 

 

Yes, all of those things are spread out, miles and miles apart from one another.  It's madness, I tell you!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you really often can't. 

 

My husband did change in that he does go to a gym.  It's particularly good because this gym is opened 24 hours during the week.  But imagine trying to go to the gym after working 10 hours a day.  It's not easy.  And you think that leaves him time to go shopping?  It doesn't.  He is able to do some of these things because he has a stay at home wife who does all the stuff for him that he'd have to do that would take up more time.

 

Not everyone has a stay at home spouse of course.

 

Individuals aren't populations though.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way walking errands works for me: I have a lunch break at work (unpaid).  I bring leftovers from home and eat in fifteen minutes.  In the remaining time I do errands on foot, walking briskly between locations.  Most days I get my 30 minutes of activity during that time.  In the evenings/at weekends, I also do intentional exercise for strength, stretching and more serious cardio, but the brisk walk is a good basis.  Today I picked up a prescription and a bag of coffee.  I do still do a big shop by car or delivery every now and then.

 

Yup - my dh busses to work, but there are a lot of errands he can do down there - get a haircut, buy fish, veg, meat, go to the post office.  And they all seem to troop to a coffee shop at 10:30 every morning.

 

It would be crazy to try and use a car for those things.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might have missed some posts....many people post while on an exercise machine.

 

3 jobs? ha ha ha. You might have missed the economic situation in other states ... we are just now coming back from the recession and seeing help wanted signs here. Its been almost a decade. People around here have time to take their dc to ecs because they lost their jobs in mass layoffs. They are organizing and running the ecs in hopes of giving the children skills, so they can hang on to jobs when they are in their twenties. Or not fail out of college; down here college prep means prep for CC...and AA degree that leads to nowhere. You need an AS to find living wage.

 

By the way I grew up rural some years. We didn't bike and lounge all summer, we didn't get off the property unless we had paid work; we stayed and did chores. Lots of chores.

1) If you're not working then wouldn't you have more time? We have went through a period of job struggles but really what's that have to do with anything? I'm not sure how your statement logically connects with the problem of having no time for excercise. If you are organizing ECs why not incorporate health into them?

 

2) Chores are excercise. Chores are awesome excercise. How does that help people claim they are too busy for doing anything healthy while posting on the internet? At times in my life I lived in the bush far from other people. We didn't leave often because it was hard to leave. I was probably healthier then than any other time in my life.

 

Your tone sounds like your disagreeing but maybe your just adding more ancedotal evidence?

 

Edited to add that if you are posting from an excercise machine, great. You've found something that works for you.

Edited by frogger
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that human beings are smart, lazy and playful. They are smart enough to develop machines to do the grunt work for them so they don't have to do it. In their free time they want to relax and/or have fun.  Getting people moving has got to appeal to humans in the same way. They aren't going to be "conned" into moving by creating "walkable" centres. There are already a multitude of opportunities for humans to walk, and in much nicer areas than city centres, and the majority of people don't bother or actively avoid doing it over the long-term. 

 

I think one key to getting people active is to appeal to the playfulness of human nature. Video games and video entertainment are hugely popular, and the businesses who are incorporating physical activity alongside videos and video games seem to be doing really well. They are also appealing to people through the convenience of being active at home. 

 

Maybe on-line social meet-ups or dating could be incorporated into promoting physical activity? Lots of couples meet while doing physical activities. It would be neat to explore promoting this so more people can meet with a common interest of getting and staying fit.

 

 

Edited by wintermom
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with your point that people need to take personal responsibility. But I already know from personal experience that you cant out exercise poor nutritional choices. Most people need to practice portion control, and get off processed carbs. Others have medical or genetic issues. There's no magic one size fits all solution, and there is no nanny that is going to get after all these people to get them to change. The only solution I see is what the grocers are doing...premade meals, heat - n - eat, and make those nutritious instead of junk.

 

I agree with all of those things except if you are trully poor you can't afford pre made meals. It is a good idea to make more nutritious pre made meals for those who don't cook. I certainly haven't disagreed with them anywhere in this thread. Everyone has to decide what works for them personally.

 

But over all health includes not being streatched too thin so we need to quit subsidizing things we can't afford and allow SOME people to not HAVE to afford cars if that is what they choose. Many disabled cannot ever ever drive. When the elderly have to give up their keys they feel like they are losing their freedom. You say I'm discounting other people's experiences. What I hear is people who can afford music lessons and cars and scouts telling people that are trying to survive that they don't give a damn about their safety.

 

I really can't see why making a road in residential or business districts safer for pedestrians is so evil to people. I don't understand why wealthy people with cars want the right to run over the poor who can't afford a vehicle. Those three jobs were minimum wage jobs. To own a car would have been a major detriment to my budget. Yet, people think that I shouldn't have a safe street to get to work on. It is the wealthy and middle class who can afford ECs and cars so I think you are dismissing other people's lifestyles.

 

Being healthy includes getting rest. Driving around 2 hours a day is time that could be used for cooking, resting, excercising.

 

Being healthy includes less junk and more good food. Good food is cheap. My budget was 4.44 per person per day with teen age boys last month in a state with above average food prices. Beans and legumes are some of the healthiest staples out there. Although, I did buy the cheap peanut butter. Hopefully, it doesn't kill my kids.

 

In real life you look at where you personally are at and make the decision that is best for YOU. Adults should be able to choose to do what's best and not have to be enticed by fun with more tax payer money. We should allow for safe travel between places for everyone even if we don't personally use it because it's public space and rich people don't have the right to monopolize it.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Individuals aren't populations though.

 

Exactly.  If you can't convince an individual, do you think you'll convince a bunch of them?

 

I kid.  I just don't think this would do anything at all.  And it completely ignores what is probably the bigger issue of food.  My BIL (yes an individual) lives in a walkable city.  In fact he is nearly 50 and does not have a driver's license.  He walks a lot.  But being that he lives in a city with lots of snack shops and fast food, he eats a lot of junk.  All the walking does NOT cancel out what he is eating (he is single so he often does not want to cook for himself). 

 

To me, we have to work around the reality of what is.  The reality being that people don't want to walk everywhere.  I don't walk everywhere so instead I go to a gym.  Somehow I was convinced to care enough to do that.  So something has to motivate people to want to make changes. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) depends.  travel needs to be done for purpose of unemployment benefits.  Childcare and eldercare now become more time and your direct responsibility since there is no income to hire help. The garden grows larger. Or your time goes to looking for a new job or retraining for that new job. 

 

2) chores are not all exercise.  You dont move a whole lot for many indoor chores.

 

"Just more anecdotal evidence"...go ahead, dismiss other people's way of life....if you can't hear the tree when it falls, it doesn't really fall...

 

I agree with your point that people need to take personal responsibility. But I already know from personal experience that you cant out exercise poor nutritional choices.  Most people need to practice portion control, and get off processed carbs. Others have medical or genetic issues. There's no magic one size fits all solution, and there is no nanny that is going to get after all these people to get them to change.  The only solution I see is what the grocers are doing...premade meals, heat - n - eat, and make those nutritious instead of junk.

 

Yeah we need to understand why people are overeating.  It is not as simple as lack of self control I don't think.  Or maybe it is.  So maybe we need to teach self control.  There is food everywhere...for every event...for purposes that go behind "I need food" and we tell people if only they had more self control with this constant bombardment of yummy yummy stuff...they'd be happier.  Commercials show a thin person eating Oreos and chips and being all happy.  It's part of their happy healthy lifestyle.  Same with Coke.  Nothing beats an ice cold coke with our meal we are told.  I mean come on...it's all intended to entice us and get us to buy more and eat more and consume more.  More more...  You don't see commercials for broccoli. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...