Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

soror

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

Recommended Posts

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?

 

This is what literally happened at the school I work at a few years ago when laws were changed requiring healthy lunches.  I saw it happening during lunch duties I had and asked WTH?  I was informed of the reasons/legality then by a head honcho who was also shaking his head about the requirements at the time.  It seems that enough folks complained to state (federal?  I've no idea what level it was at, but it was more than our school) head honchos to get that part of the law changed or to slack off on it or something because it's no longer happening (that I've seen) this year.  I can't recall if it was changed by last year or not.  This year and last year I've worked considerably less due to family issues.  My youngest graduated 4 years ago so I can't ask for his inside information.

 

How does one get a kid to do it?  They're in the lunch line (whichever one they chose as we have 4 different options) and the lady looking over their tray and assessing how much to charge their ID notices it's missing and tells them to go back and get one.  They can't check out until they do.  Some protested at first, the law was explained, and then they realized it had to be done and adjusted accordingly.  Some kids (like my youngest lad) would gather unwanted fruit from those around him.  Our ponies and chickens enjoyed some of it.  But he only ate during one of four lunch periods we have and he's only sitting at one table.  Not every table had a collector for unwanted things.  The box one of our teachers put out worked for some time until it was deemed "not ok."

 

I agree totally that the law was messed up.  Many people did.  I like that now things are offered, but not required.  At least I think that's the case.  I'll be back at work all next week and can check on it to be sure things have changed.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So back that with some stats. 

 

You could look at these:

 

https://activelivingresearch.org/health-impacts-walkable-community

 

This has links to lots of other research: https://www.citylab.com/design/2014/12/growing-evidence-shows-walkability-is-good-for-you-and-for-cities/383612/

 

You could also look at the link I posted up-thread which details a town that changed the habits of it's residents significantly.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, consider that around here the schools give free breakfast and lunch to everyone.  They serve food within government guidelines for nutrition.  Calories are controlled for.  Kids spend a lot of time at school.  They even give them free snacks.  Problem is, Pop Tarts and Cocoa Puffs fall within the guidelines because there isn't too much fat in them.  Fruit juice is within guidelines because it's considered fruit.  Corn is a vegetable. 

 

I don't trust the government to get it right. 

 

Well, we are the government. It's a democracy. So if the government isn't getting it right, it's really our fault. It's not like we have a king who is some idiot up there and we can't do anything about it.

 

There are people who tried to get juice off the fruit list and starches off the list of vegetables, but apparently, like "wasted fruit" that was the hill people decided to die on. Nope, sorry, the government can give crappy guidelines written by industry but god forbid Michelle Obama try to re-write it and do something that made more common sense. That's over-reach.  :001_rolleyes:

 

But we can have unlimited Goldfish crackers and potatoes and corn as a vegetable because... why? Because industry supports it so that's not government? Like, there is an existing system, and we're at a point where could it even get any worse? Maybe government won't be perfect but could it get worse than 65% obese in a decade?

 

And if the government doesn't do it, who will? The same individuals who have already shown that they are incapable of doing it?

 

In some of our schools parents work really hard to get better food in the schools. But that means participating in local government and civil service and helping out and being aware. Just complaining will never do anything about it. Democracy is failing us because we are failing democracy... it always cracks me up when people complain about the government.

 

It's like when my children complain about their messy rooms. Whose fault is it? It's third-world thinking. Blaming our problems on other social classes and other ethnic groups.

 

I get it, the government is going to screw up because it's people and people screw up. But the question is not how do we create a fantasy utopia, but are there practical (not perfect) policies we can put in place to get obesity rates among children down by 5% every three years?

 

Yes! There are! But we're not doing it because we don't trust the government and we don't want to deal with a lunch lady apple nazi causing undue waste.

 

:willy_nilly:

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But a more realistic plan is to start with the kids and not make this crap available to them. Yes, this is the government parenting people's kids for them. What is the alternative? Corporations parenting people's kids? People aren't going to choose for themselves. That's not how humans evolved. We are social animals and we look to social norms.

 

I don't mind the gov't dictating what can and can't be served in public schools when they are trying to make that healthier, but remember it's not always those who want to make things healthier who are in charge. Ketchup was declared a vegetable not so long ago. Changes can be made based upon who is in power.  They don't always decide things the way we want them to.

 

But for individuals?  No.  I don't want the gov't policing my choices because of that fact that I might vehemently disagree with them. What if they decide that EVERY child must eat at McD's because it's such an American tradition?  What if they feel all MUST be introduced to Coke or Pepsi?  Perhaps they feel it's cruelty to deprive youngsters of things "all" kids should know about.  What if they decide "forcing" a child to walk a mile IS child abuse?

 

If I want the right to make my own decisions for my kids, I MUST grant others that same right to make their own choices.  I definitely wince when I see kids in cars with smoking adults, but I don't feel we get to dictate choices.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Truly poor people have community resources and receive premade meals already from those resources. After that, what we are seeing here is that premade meals from the grocery are priced very well.

 

Cars...sounds like your community needs to work on that. What's going on here is large communities cooperate and have bus services via their church or group when public transport and car sharing doesn't work out. The elderly and disabled have public transport here, its subsidized by the county govt. Other people have cars so they can get to work...and the big expense isn't the car, its the insurance, tolls, and taxes. Its just not a big deal to not have a car as the grocery stores all deliver, and the taxi is $5 each way to any destination in town...far cheaper than the cost of insurance, registration, gas etc.

 

Scouts are $125 a year and it includes the dc paying their own way via work. Music lessons...thats personal choice, many have bartering available.

 

It sounds like you are looking for people to give money for disabled and elderly. Most of my state's budget is going for that purpose. Maybe you should do some advocating in your state.

Wow, how did you get that? Side walks and safe streets benefit everyone. They allow children and the poor and everyone the ability to go somewhere without being killed.

 

You want to make someone without a licence wait around for someone to give them a ride taking away all their freedom? This is a thing and as someone related to some mentally handicapped I can tell you that is hugely restrictive and costly for the state. You realize salaries for tons of workers to ferry people around is going to be astronomical compared to allowing someone to walk somewhere?

 

Let's take away everyone's freedom and turn a million dollar problem into a billion dollar problem. It's the American way.

 

Not everyone wants your handouts. It's also obvious to me you have no experience with poverty.

 

Heigh ho, I really like you but I'm having a hard time understanding this conversation. Perhaps because we live on the opposite sides of the nation in different populations and probably with different priorities. It is time to do more productive things.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we are the government. It's a democracy. So if the government isn't getting it right, it's really our fault. It's not like we have a king who is some idiot up there and we can't do anything about it.

 

There are people who tried to get juice off the fruit list and starches off the list of vegetables, but apparently, like "wasted fruit" that was the hill people decided to die on. Nope, sorry, the government can give crappy guidelines written by industry but god forbid Michelle Obama try to re-write it and do something that made more common sense. That's over-reach.  :001_rolleyes:

 

But we can have unlimited Goldfish crackers and potatoes and corn as a vegetable because... why? Because industry supports it so that's not government? Like, there is an existing system, and we're at a point where could it even get any worse? Maybe government won't be perfect but could it get worse than 65% obese in a decade?

 

And if the government doesn't do it, who will? The same individuals who have already shown that they are incapable of doing it?

 

In some of our schools parents work really hard to get better food in the schools. But that means participating in local government and civil service and helping out and being aware. Just complaining will never do anything about it. Democracy is failing us because we are failing democracy... it always cracks me up when people complain about the government.

 

It's like when my children complain about their messy rooms. Whose fault is it? It's third-world thinking. Blaming our problems on other social classes and other ethnic groups.

 

I get it, the government is going to screw up because it's people and people screw up. But the question is not how do we create a fantasy utopia, but are there practical (not perfect) policies we can put in place to get obesity rates among children down by 5% every three years?

 

Yes! There are! But we're not doing it because we don't trust the government and we don't want to deal with a lunch lady apple nazi causing undue waste.

 

:willy_nilly:

 

Just so you are aware, there are folks working to try to bring about healthy change.  They just aren't the majority or even close to it.  You have a minority view and the minority seldom gets to set their views as law.  Even when the healthy lunch deal we currently have was passed, many parents and kids and community were vocal against it.  I still hear those grumbles more than once in a school year.

 

No one forces people to eat at McDs.  Those who do it choose to do it every single time.  We have kids and teachers who bring McDs to school for breakfast and/or lunch because they prefer it to what is offered in our cafeteria or what they could bring from home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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-

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. 

 

We pick up fast food more than I would like (though we have dramatically changed that recently.) And we did our best; If we were at McDonald's, my kids got double apples instead of fries, and usually apple juice. We didn't want juice, we wanted water. I COULD NOT ORDER WATER with a kids meal. It is not an option. You can pay extra for a bottled water, but there was no button on their cash register that allowed for their person to press the water button on their soda fountain. This is at dozens of McDonalds, in our city and others, and occasionally in other states. At restaurants that wanted to accommodate me, they would put "see me" on the order and I would have to explain (usually multiple times) to the person at the pick up window that I just wanted a cup of water with the happy meal. 

 

Usually when they told me I couldn't get a water, I just ordered apple juices, put them away for another day, and also ordered two small waters. 

 

Needless to say, I am glad they have finally added a water option to Happy Meals.  :glare: It's madness.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could look at these:

 

https://activelivingresearch.org/health-impacts-walkable-community

 

This has links to lots of other research: https://www.citylab.com/design/2014/12/growing-evidence-shows-walkability-is-good-for-you-and-for-cities/383612/

 

You could also look at the link I posted up-thread which details a town that changed the habits of it's residents significantly.

 

Re the first one.  Ok.  I'd like to see the results when implemented in a district that is MUCH worse off.  Then I'd be convinced it was the programs rather than the makeup of those in the program. 

 

Not that there isn't some positive stuff there. 

 

It's just on the long list of issues to address in a poor district, this often doesn't make the cut.  Or....they have to work within the constraints that they have.  Here "the" program is the backpack program.  They send home backpacks of food over the weekend with students who have been identified as not getting enough food to eat.  It's filled with Kraft...bagged junk, etc.  Which ya know when you are hungry is certainly appreciated.  But why don't they send home better food than that?  I know why,...but just saying there are issues that I think some cannot even begin to fathom that a lot of people face.  When you don't have enough to eat you don't give a crap about tracking your steps with a fitbit.  Ya know...you just don't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

 

I think you haven't read my other posts.  The children here can't play  outside and the elderly can't walk because of the min wage workers at the group home -- they won't respect the driving laws.  Yeah, i could film the next time they do the 'brush off' as they call the move where they swerve onto someone elses's driveway or sidewalk so they can brush my sleeve...but then I'd be out the lawyer $$ and have to spend my time sitting in court.  Cheaper to drive or use my own exercise equipment.

Oh, yeah, that group home -- its illegal.  Residential neighborhood not zoned for a business, but they arranged an exemption and didn't compensate the neighbors for the resulting loss in home value.  I'm not advocating for anyone of any economic circumstance to use a vehicle for harm or intimidation to a pedestrian or a bicyclist.  Most folks around here are filming with a dash cam, not to prosecute the scofflaw, but to prove to the insurance that they aren't at fault.  Maybe you could do similar if you have 'wealthy people with cars' who 'want the right to run over the poor'.  

 

As far as ecs not affordable to poor...sorry, but here its the middle class.  The poor have scholarships to every sports club and many academic ecs.  The middle class kids are the ones who don't do swim club, lacrosse, etc. because its way too much. 

 

 I'm not dismissing your lifestyle..but really, we are talking a state that pays each resident from its oil trust fund.  That covers a big chunk of the $200/mo lease a vehicle would cost or the gas to get to the ecs.  Its not going to help with insurance for under 25 unemployed people..and that's the big hurdle I'm seeing for those who can't find a job at home and be on parent insurance. I didn't own a car as a youngster either...I find it kind of funny to see that my college runs a shuttle bus now to grocery stores and laundromats when generations walked. The weather is nowhere near as frigid. Same for the college near here...my age 70 something friends moved in because it was walkable, but the college runs shuttles right past them and their grocery wheeled carts.

 

Really many of these solutions involve people following existing laws or taking personal responsibility and not passing their bills to others.

Edited by Heigh Ho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you haven't read my other posts.  The children here can't play  outside and the elderly can't walk because of the min wage workers at the group home -- they won't respect the driving laws.  Yeah, i could film the next time they do the 'brush off' as they call the move where they swerve onto someone elses's driveway or sidewalk so they can brush my sleeve...but then I'd be out the lawyer $$ and have to spend my time sitting in court.  Cheaper to drive or use my own exercise equipment.

Oh, yeah, that group home -- its illegal.  Residential neighborhood not zoned for a business, but they arranged an exemption and didn't compensate the neighbors for the resulting loss in home value.  I'm not advocating for anyone of any economic circumstance to use a vehicle for harm or intimidation to a pedestrian or a bicyclist.  Most folks around here are filming with a dash cam, not to prosecute the scofflaw, but to prove to the insurance that they aren't at fault.  Maybe you could do similar if you have 'wealthy people with cars' who 'want the right to run over the poor'.  

 

As far as ecs not affordable to poor...sorry, but here its the middle class.  The poor have scholarships to every sports club and many academic ecs.  The middle class kids are the ones who don't do swim club, lacrosse, etc. because its way too much. 

 

 I'm not dismissing your lifestyle..but really, we are talking a state that pays each resident from its oil trust fund.  That covers a big chunk of the $200/mo lease a vehicle would cost or the gas to get to the ecs.  Its not going to help with insurance for under 25 unemployed people..and that's the big hurdle I'm seeing for those who can't find a job at home and be on parent insurance. I didn't own a car as a youngster either...I find it kind of funny to see that my college runs a shuttle bus now to grocery stores and laundromats when generations walked. The weather is nowhere near as frigid. Same for the college near here...my age 70 something friends moved in because it was walkable, but the college runs shuttles right past them and their grocery wheeled carts.

 

Same here.  People don't respect the traffic laws/rules.  Although in some instances I'm a little floored by certain traffic situations.  For example, a crosswalk showing "walk" when a car turning left has green.  In what universe did anyone think this is a good idea?  Yes the pedestrian has the right of way, but it's just normal to think...I see green light, there is no oncoming traffic because there is no intersection across from me, so I'm gonna go.  There are portions of the cross walk not visible to the driver.  You basically just have to KNOW where these stupid spots are and look for pedestrians.  I almost got hit in one of these intersections because growing up I had never encountered such a thing.  It makes ZERO sense to me. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And as scary as it was (I was with my kids) I'm glad in a way it happened because now my kids will never forget it and look for cars even though the sign says "walk". 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding pickup lines at school, many kids are going straight to activities or they have open-enrolled in the school, so parents are required to provide transportation. In my town, which is walkable and tons of bike paths (because it is a priority), the pick up lines at the top rated elementary and middle schools are crazy.

Not so at the low rated ones.

 

I think open-enrollment is a postitive good, regardless of the car situation.

 

People vote for things that are important to their city. People buy the best house or rent in the best neighborhood they can afford. These are all personal choices about what works for them and their family. Changes that need to be made will be made when people decide to make the changes and not by shaming families just trying to do the best they can.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume hospitality courses run through your community colleges? Who do they cook for?

 

Mostly themselves.  Some run restaurants (with reservation only). 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Some people actually like to walk. I don't consider walking to be something I have to be conned into. Having a walkable  center not only increases the chance for exercise, it also gives a feel of community. When we moved to our current location in Florida, we chose the neighborhood primarily because it has a community feel, with stores and restaurants. It is almost 1/2 a mile to walk up to the stores and restaurants. Since we moved here, I walk a lot more. I've also feel like I know my neighbors and the shop owners. I really don't think there are many opportunities for Americans to walk apart from communities like this and cities. 

Edited by leeannpal
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you haven't read my other posts. The children here can't play outside and the elderly can't walk because of the min wage workers at the group home -- they won't respect the driving laws. Yeah, i could film the next time they do the 'brush off' as they call the move where they swerve onto someone elses's driveway or sidewalk so they can brush my sleeve...but then I'd be out the lawyer $$ and have to spend my time sitting in court. Cheaper to drive or use my own exercise equipment.

Oh, yeah, that group home -- its illegal. Residential neighborhood not zoned for a business, but they arranged an exemption and didn't compensate the neighbors for the resulting loss in home value. I'm not advocating for anyone of any economic circumstance to use a vehicle for harm or intimidation to a pedestrian or a bicyclist. Most folks around here are filming with a dash cam, not to prosecute the scofflaw, but to prove to the insurance that they aren't at fault. Maybe you could do similar if you have 'wealthy people with cars' who 'want the right to run over the poor'.

 

As far as ecs not affordable to poor...sorry, but here its the middle class. The poor have scholarships to every sports club and many academic ecs. The middle class kids are the ones who don't do swim club, lacrosse, etc. because its way too much.

 

I'm not dismissing your lifestyle..but really, we are talking a state that pays each resident from its oil trust fund. That covers a big chunk of the $200/mo lease a vehicle would cost or the gas to get to the ecs. Its not going to help with insurance for under 25 unemployed people..and that's the big hurdle I'm seeing for those who can't find a job at home and be on parent insurance. I didn't own a car as a youngster either...I find it kind of funny to see that my college runs a shuttle bus now to grocery stores and laundromats when generations walked. The weather is nowhere near as frigid. Same for the college near here...my age 70 something friends moved in because it was walkable, but the college runs shuttles right past them and their grocery wheeled carts.

 

Really many of these solutions involve people following existing laws or taking personal responsibility and not passing their bills to others.

Your last paragraph interests me because I'm confused why you are stating that in opposition to me. That paragraph is my whole point! To not pass your bills on to others but also to not restrict them by your reckless behaivor as you gave an example of.

 

My state's problem is metaphorically like a person who was given a lot of money, built a 10,000 square foot mansion for a family of three and wonders why they can't do the upkeep. I doubt your states issue is the same. We have a very different history. Most of suburban sprawl in the west (not the northeast) was financed by Federal Funds.

 

 

 

The other things you mentioned are exacatly what I have a problem with. People who drive are basically handling dangerous weapons and being allowed to get away with everything. We are in complete agreement there. I'm just fiestier when it comes to reclaiming public property from distracted speeding drivers and people behaving recklessly as you described. I don't want to pay taxes for them. When people talk about walkable cities they are often discussing safety. Separated paths, more obstacles in business districts to slow people down, harsher fines, higher gas taxes to encourage consolidation.

 

 

 

There are a ton of ways to make skirting laws less interesting without having to arrest everyone (which is very expensive and pretty much impossible). I honestly wish the city would quit maintaining our road. If it became full of pot holes people would slow down. Honestly, the crazy drivers you mentioned are a small percentage here. My kids are more likely to be hit by a regular dumb teen or a middle aged soccer mom late for her kids practice soccer practice. They want to drive 50 in a 25 because it's straight.

 

The same goes for the food issues. You can give food to people but you can't make them eat it. Despite thinking that WIC is more of a farming subsidy I still think that cereal and milk and peanut butter are probably better for the kids whose parents won't cook for them. These are items a 6 year old can make themselves. Give a 6 year old a bag of dried beans and what can they do with that?

 

I have offered to buy healthy food for a pregnant mom in a shelter. She responded, "Oh, WIC takes care of that. I'm just wanting a dinner" Further conversation revealed she just wanted box food. Of course, that's her choice and I went on with life. We don't have the right to force things upon people. We don't have the ability to control people either. It's a free country.

 

But we can think about what incentives we are creating and what enviroment and culture we are contributing to.

Edited by frogger
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Fruit juice is within guidelines because it's considered fruit.  Corn is a vegetable. 

 

I don't trust the government to get it right. 

And ketchup!  Ketchup is a veggie!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mostly themselves.  Some run restaurants (with reservation only). 

 

Maybe they should cook school lunches.

 

Over here, those programs tend to be subsidised by the government, and your government subsidises school lunches, so it could work if the right people wanted it to. Cooking for hundreds of fussy people would be good practice.  :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I work in an old town with limited parking. If I gave up my place by driving somewhere at lunchtime then I might well end up having to park a mile away.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they should cook school lunches.

 

Over here, those programs tend to be subsidised by the government, and your government subsidises school lunches, so it could work if the right people wanted it to. Cooking for hundreds of fussy people would be good practice.  :laugh:

 

 

 

The govt subsidizes food for the homebound, through the Meals On Wheels program.  Its a hot meal cooked and delivered daily by volunteers.  When you compare their menu to the school menu you'd be shocked at the quality difference.  Or maybe not, depending on the school.  Last time I went to Oregon, I wanted to eat at the schools, since the photos in the newspaper showed some pretty good meals.   You'd never see that quality here as the school meals are made from frozen things that are reheated, with the occasional NY apple also served. There are no cooks, and there is no kitchen..its just ovens to reheat trays.

Edited by Heigh Ho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reheated food tray thing is gross.

 

In the last few years they've stopped serving those in the hospitals here.  Previously the food was made centrally and trucked to all the hospitals, heated up on special trays and distributed.

 

Now, you order from your room.  You have a menu with a bunch of regular items and some daily changing ones.  You can order a certain number of things from each category for each meal.  You get three meals, any time you want, and they are enough to keep things for snacks if you order that much.  Guests and employees can also order and pay.

 

It's pretty good food too - some more typical things like burger and fries, or sandwiches, but also things like roast pork, linguini with various sauce choices, salads.

 

And - the big surprise - it's costing them less to do it this way.

 

I think sometimes we assume doing things in a way that seems cheap will actually be cheaper - but it isn't always the case.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind the gov't dictating what can and can't be served in public schools when they are trying to make that healthier, but remember it's not always those who want to make things healthier who are in charge. Ketchup was declared a vegetable not so long ago. Changes can be made based upon who is in power.  They don't always decide things the way we want them to.

 

But for individuals?  No.  I don't want the gov't policing my choices because of that fact that I might vehemently disagree with them. What if they decide that EVERY child must eat at McD's because it's such an American tradition?  What if they feel all MUST be introduced to Coke or Pepsi?  Perhaps they feel it's cruelty to deprive youngsters of things "all" kids should know about.  What if they decide "forcing" a child to walk a mile IS child abuse?

 

If I want the right to make my own decisions for my kids, I MUST grant others that same right to make their own choices.  I definitely wince when I see kids in cars with smoking adults, but I don't feel we get to dictate choices.

 

You're right. It's not always the best people in charge. But more involvement based on good faith is what we need, not more arguments to the effect of "it won't work always". We are at an emergency situation and it's because nothing is ever good enough. We need to accept some small level of improvement and commit to funding it and following up even knowing that yes, it's possible that one lunchroom nazi is going to make everyone take soft ugly apples for months. But overall, why throw out a whole program for that? That is a genuine question. I just don't understand this as a public policy suggestion, that "it's not always working out".

 

As for individuals, in your states are people going door to door confiscating flavored yoghurts or something?

 

Like what does it even mean to worry about the government controlling your individual food choices? To whom is this happening?

 

I live in Washington State, a liberal state, in an urban area. Literally nobody from the government has ever, not in California, not in Oregon, not in Washington, not on trips to Texas or New York or Michigan, not one time ever tried to stop me from eating anything. Actually this never even happened when I was in legit bona fide communist countries. I've never even heard of a policy that would control what you eat directly. People are allowed to get fat all over the world and this is abundantly clear from the actual number of people who have gotten fat. 

 

Clearly, it's legal to get yourself and your kids fat.

 

As a matter of fact, it's absurdly easy to get a wide variety of drugs without a prescription in the US, not to mention, any food I desire, as well as things that are not foods which are in foodlike packaging, such as certain types of candy.

 

What is the point of bringing up these straw men of government control?

 

What's the concern? This is a serious question.

People are DYING. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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-

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.

I just read recently that McDonalds has dropped the cheeseburger as an option in its Happy Meals, in order to keep the meals under 600 calories as well as cutting the sodium.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so you are aware, there are folks working to try to bring about healthy change.  They just aren't the majority or even close to it.  You have a minority view and the minority seldom gets to set their views as law.  Even when the healthy lunch deal we currently have was passed, many parents and kids and community were vocal against it.  I still hear those grumbles more than once in a school year.

 

No one forces people to eat at McDs.  Those who do it choose to do it every single time.  We have kids and teachers who bring McDs to school for breakfast and/or lunch because they prefer it to what is offered in our cafeteria or what they could bring from home.

 

I am aware of this.

 

I'm speaking to your specific arguments, which appear to be in favor of "not doing the little things we are already doing because it's not working because government control".

 

If that's not your intended argument, I don't understand why you keep bringing up counterexamples and situations of government control of individual food choices.

 

I also disagree about food choices. I think that free choice is far more complicated than simply having two theoretical options. I think habits are the enemy of choice, and that the less attention one has to give to something, the more power habits have.

 

I think you are taking the Platonic view.

 

Normally I wouldn't get into this but it's a classical education forum so I'll let it all hang out here... I think that if we were to consider the Protagoras dialogue, for example, with respect to McDonald's, we would say well people make that choice. But then Plato also recognizes that not all people are able to make choices in the same way, and he also suggests that there are appropriate lies to tell for society.

 

In fact both Aristotle and Plato acknowledge that people, in general, can't really be trusted as a group to make good decisions.

 

And that's where I am frustrated, because it's not just that people don't make good decisions. It's not just that they need a leader. It's that they will find a leader and it's either the best of us, who determinedly fight for a better future, using political power, or it will be whoever takes the vacuum of power left over when we give up (commercial enterprise).

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think every public school, weather permitting, should have a big vegetable garden that the students take care of, and the food grown there be fed to them. In middle and high school, prepping the food could also be done in a class setting.

 

Same deal with prisons. They should all have gardens.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think every public school, weather permitting, should have a big vegetable garden that the students take care of, and the food grown there be fed to them. In middle and high school, prepping the food could also be done in a class setting.

 

Same deal with prisons. They should all have gardens.

 

Veg garden at school is not done because

a. it would be seen as stigmatizing the poor.

b. field hands, farmers, and  families who already garden do not send their dc to school to produce food, they send them for academics.  

c. the majority of students know how to cook. many middle and high schoolers are in charge of a hot dinner daily at home as well as watching the younger children when they arrive home after school until the parents do.  Here, they are forced to take middle school cooking unit and learn things the average 8 year old knows how to do: make instant pudding, follow the cookie box recipe, scramble an egg. In high school, there are cooking classes for those who do not have the opportunity at home...that's very few. Students routinely refuse these classes as electives and take study hall or work release instead.

 

Prisons here do produce food. Some do have gardens. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah weather permitting.  We definitely do NOT have the weather for it.  Nor the land. 

 

But, that said, we do have a small garden up the street that is run by kids.  They set up a little farm stand and sell veg.  We are involved with a community garden organization and they do a lot of outreach stuff including a veggie mobile where they deliver vegetables. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right. It's not always the best people in charge. But more involvement based on good faith is what we need, not more arguments to the effect of "it won't work always". We are at an emergency situation and it's because nothing is ever good enough. We need to accept some small level of improvement and commit to funding it and following up even knowing that yes, it's possible that one lunchroom nazi is going to make everyone take soft ugly apples for months. But overall, why throw out a whole program for that? That is a genuine question. I just don't understand this as a public policy suggestion, that "it's not always working out".

 

As for individuals, in your states are people going door to door confiscating flavored yoghurts or something?

 

Like what does it even mean to worry about the government controlling your individual food choices? To whom is this happening?

 

I live in Washington State, a liberal state, in an urban area. Literally nobody from the government has ever, not in California, not in Oregon, not in Washington, not on trips to Texas or New York or Michigan, not one time ever tried to stop me from eating anything. Actually this never even happened when I was in legit bona fide communist countries. I've never even heard of a policy that would control what you eat directly. People are allowed to get fat all over the world and this is abundantly clear from the actual number of people who have gotten fat. 

 

Clearly, it's legal to get yourself and your kids fat.

 

As a matter of fact, it's absurdly easy to get a wide variety of drugs without a prescription in the US, not to mention, any food I desire, as well as things that are not foods which are in foodlike packaging, such as certain types of candy.

 

What is the point of bringing up these straw men of government control?

 

What's the concern? This is a serious question.

People are DYING. 

 

It was not one lunchroom lady.  It was all of the lunchroom ladies enforcing the LAW because they were told to.  I doubt any wanted to do it, but honestly didn't ask them.

 

The whole "eat healthier" in school was NOT all ditched because of that one glitch.  That glitch was spotted and fixed (as far as I know - I can check next week).  I haven't met a single person at our school who is in favor of mandating waste.  That's why we wanted it fixed.  Whether our school decided to interpret the law differently or whether the law indeed got defined differently, I'm not sure.

 

I posed the other possibilities because you said something to the effect of wanting the gov't to have more control to get the obesity levels down and "we are the gov't."  (May be quoted inaccurately.  I'm on very limited time.  The meaning is what I'm after.)  I agree that "we" (citizens) are the gov't.  I don't think you realize how much of a minority you are.  If "we" decided to act through the gov't, I'm not so sure what you want would actually win... in my area they definitely wouldn't.  In yours, maybe.

 

Edited by creekland
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think every public school, weather permitting, should have a big vegetable garden that the students take care of, and the food grown there be fed to them. In middle and high school, prepping the food could also be done in a class setting.

 

Same deal with prisons. They should all have gardens.

 

We have schools with gardens here. How well they do seems to depend a bit on whether there is someone to head them up - a teacher or parent.

 

But they are great fr science as well as nutrition.

 

I had a boss when I was in the army who had been educated in the UK - he had gardening as a school subject.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people actually like to walk. I don't consider walking to be something I have to be conned into. Having a walkable  center not only increases the chance for exercise, it also gives a feel of community. When we moved to our current location in Florida, we chose the neighborhood primarily because it has a community feel, with stores and restaurants. It is almost 1/2 a mile to walk up to the stores and restaurants. Since we moved here, I walk a lot more. I've also feel like I know my neighbors and the shop owners. I really don't think there are many opportunities for Americans to walk apart from communities like this and cities. 

 

Sure, but for the people who can't walk or where walking is dangerous (e.g., ice, snow, cold, crime), removing the possibility of using vehicles is now restrictive. And those people who enjoy walking will walk by choice in more places than certain targeted business areas. 

 

Why do you think so many businesses have moved away from congested town/city centres out into areas that are easily accessible? It's not because people don't want to walk, it's for convenience and efficiency. Finding a parking place, walking to a store, then carrying items back to the car is a dying process.

 

Also, more people are buying on-line so they don't even have to walk out of their home. Taking those steps to their own car is too much for them. They'd rather someone else do the walking, shopping and carrying. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was not one lunchroom lady.  It was all of the lunchroom ladies enforcing the LAW because they were told to.  I doubt any wanted to do it, but honestly didn't ask them.

 

The whole "eat healthier" in school was NOT all ditched because of that one glitch.  That glitch was spotted and fixed (as far as I know - I can check next week).  I haven't met a single person at our school who is in favor of mandating waste.  That's why we wanted it fixed.  Whether our school decided to interpret the law differently or whether the law indeed got defined differently, I'm not sure.

 

I posed the other possibilities because you said something to the effect of wanting the gov't to have more control to get the obesity levels down and "we are the gov't."  (May be quoted inaccurately.  I'm on very limited time.  The meaning is what I'm after.)  I agree that "we" (citizens) are the gov't.  I don't think you realize how much of a minority you are.  If "we" decided to act through the gov't, I'm not so sure what you want would actually win... in my area they definitely wouldn't.  In yours, maybe.

 

And yes, we are the government, you've paraphrased fairly. I'm not a minority on the West Coast. This is a whole other discussion, sadly. When I go to after school activities in the Seattle area, people are all allergy aware.  When I go to parties even in our small towns, people increasingly only offer water and not pop. People are changing.
 
 
 
Yes, we in the West are a minority in the US. But can we not base our national policies around people in states where they are resigned to failing anyway? Can we have national policies based on what works, not what doesn't work, run by people from healthy states, not states that are not healthy?
 
 
 
Defending the right to have a failing culture and not be interfered with, is costing people their lives. If the South (and I mention the South because that is ground zero of the obesity epidemic) doesn't want other people up in their business then they better get it the heck together because the rest of us are sick of getting dragged down by having to pretend like somehow, West Virginia and Alabama have something to teach us about food policy and that we can't move forward because they can't implement it.
 
 
 
 
 
 
And if anyone suggests it's African Americans, it's not, the whiter states are actually fatter, West Virginia, looking at you, not to mention Arkansas, and look at DC, blackest area on here, also skinniest up there with Massachusetts and Colorado:
 
 
 
 
 
 
This is not a race thing, it's a governance thing. Who is running schools? Who is running zoning? Who is planning cities? Who is planning anything, who is funding public health informational campaigns?
 
 
 
For good measure, a couple of corruption indices:
 
 
 
 
 
 
The map below summarizes a different source's rankings:
 
 
 
 
 
Now you might be wondering whether I'm just trying to rank on these poor people. Obviously, nobody wants to live in a state that has poor health and which is corrupt, and I get that.
 
 
 
My argument is that you seem to think that a lot of this stuff can't be done, that this is how we work. But some places are doing it right. Some places are succeeding. We need to look to them, not to places where people are getting it wrong again and again. Those folks need to realize that maybe there is something to be learned from best practices. My state needs to learn from CA and Massachusetts. We need to improve, not say "well we failed so you should stop trying, it will never work".
 
 
 
In the United States we do have places with amazingly talented people, with hard workers in government, and with successful public policies that people support. And we might be a minority in your area, but we are not a minority here, so can we discuss the possible without throwing out the equivalent of "well that won't work down here" type things? We'd still have segregation if we listened to that old refrain.
 
 
 
insert infographic showing 30% decrease in childhood obesity over 10 years WOOT WOOT but it's not allowed here because of the URL, sorry
 
 
 
YES WE CAN.  :hurray: 
 
We can change. My state is getting worse but we're not going to get better by listening to people who are already worse off than we are to start with.
Edited by Tsuga
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, but for the people who can't walk or where walking is dangerous (e.g., ice, snow, cold, crime), removing the possibility of using vehicles is now restrictive. And those people who enjoy walking will walk by choice in more places than certain targeted business areas.

 

 

Who said people should remove the option to drive? I did not see a single post like that and yet people keep harping on it.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yes, we are the government, you've paraphrased fairly. I'm not a minority on the West Coast. This is a whole other discussion, sadly. When I go to after school activities in the Seattle area, people are all allergy aware. When I go to parties even in our small towns, people increasingly only offer water and not pop. People are changing.

 

 

 

Yes, we in the West are a minority in the US. But can we not base our national policies around people in states where they are resigned to failing anyway? Can we have national policies based on what works, not what doesn't work, run by people from healthy states, not states that are not healthy?

 

 

 

Defending the right to have a failing culture and not be interfered with, is costing people their lives. If the South (and I mention the South because that is ground zero of the obesity epidemic) doesn't want other people up in their business then they better get it the heck together because the rest of us are sick of getting dragged down by having to pretend like somehow, West Virginia and Alabama have something to teach us about food policy and that we can't move forward because they can't implement it.

 

 

 

https://stateofobesity.org/adult-obesity/

 

 

 

And if anyone suggests it's African Americans, it's not, the whiter states are actually fatter, West Virginia, looking at you, not to mention Arkansas, and look at DC, blackest area on here, also skinniest up there with Massachusetts and Colorado:

 

 

 

https://stateofobesity.org/adult-obesity/

 

 

 

This is not a race thing, it's a governance thing. Who is running schools? Who is running zoning? Who is planning cities? Who is planning anything, who is funding public health informational campaigns?

 

 

 

For good measure, a couple of corruption indices:

 

 

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ranking-the-states-from-most-to-least-corrupt/

 

 

 

The map below summarizes a different source's rankings:

 

 

 

 

 

Now you might be wondering whether I'm just trying to rank on these poor people. Obviously, nobody wants to live in a state that has poor health and which is corrupt, and I get that.

 

 

 

My argument is that you seem to think that a lot of this stuff can't be done, that this is how we work. But some places are doing it right. Some places are succeeding. We need to look to them, not to places where people are getting it wrong again and again. Those folks need to realize that maybe there is something to be learned from best practices. My state needs to learn from CA and Massachusetts. We need to improve, not say "well we failed so you should stop trying, it will never work".

 

 

 

In the United States we do have places with amazingly talented people, with hard workers in government, and with successful public policies that people support. And we might be a minority in your area, but we are not a minority here, so can we discuss the possible without throwing out the equivalent of "well that won't work down here" type things? We'd still have segregation if we listened to that old refrain.

 

 

 

insert infographic showing 30% decrease in childhood obesity over 10 years WOOT WOOT but it's not allowed here because of the URL, sorry

 

 

 

YES WE CAN. :hurray:

 

We can change. My state is getting worse but we're not going to get better by listening to people who are already worse off than we are to start with.

I'm glad your state is doing so very well. Obesity in the US is correlated with poverty. Maybe your state can donate some to W Virginia.

 

"Socioeconomics and Obesity

 

Individuals with lower income and/or education levels are disproportionately more likely to be obese:

 

Nearly 33 percent of adults who did not graduate high school were obese, compared with 21.5 percent of those who graduated from college or technical college.

More than 33 percent of adults who earn less than $15,000 per year are obese, compared with 24.6 percent of those who earned at least $50,000 per year.1

---------

Socioeconomics and Obesity among Children

 

An analysis of the 2007 National Survey of Children's Health found that:2,3,4

 

Children of parents with less than 12 years of education had an obesity rate 3.1 times higher (30.4 percent) than those whose parents have a college degree (9.5 percent).

 

Children living below the federal household poverty level have an obesity rate 2.7 times higher (27.4 percent) than children living in households exceeding 400 percent of the federal poverty level.

 

Children living in low-income neighborhoods are 20 percent to 60 percent more likely to be obese or overweight than children living in high socioeconomic status neighborhoods and healthier built environments.

 

Girls (ages 10 to 17) living in neighbor- hoods having lower socioeconomic characteristics are more likely to be obese (19.2 percent) and overweight (35.7 percent) than are girls living in neighborhoods having higher socioeconomic characteristics."

https://stateofobesity.org/socioeconomics-obesity/

Edited by Sandwalker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This link came today in my dietetics newsletter:

53% of Parents Don't Believe BMI Report Cards.

If we can't see a problem we have little desire to fix it.

 

consumer.healthday.com/vitamins-and-nutrition-information-27/body-fat-health-news-300/parents-find-kids-weight-report-cards-hard-to-swallow-731086.html

 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Edited by joyofsix
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad your state is doing so very well. Obesity in the US is correlated with poverty. Maybe your state can donate some to W Virginia.

 

"Socioeconomics and Obesity

 

Individuals with lower income and/or education levels are disproportionately more likely to be obese:

 

Nearly 33 percent of adults who did not graduate high school were obese, compared with 21.5 percent of those who graduated from college or technical college.

More than 33 percent of adults who earn less than $15,000 per year are obese, compared with 24.6 percent of those who earned at least $50,000 per year.1

---------

Socioeconomics and Obesity among Children

 

An analysis of the 2007 National Survey of Children's Health found that:2,3,4

 

Children of parents with less than 12 years of education had an obesity rate 3.1 times higher (30.4 percent) than those whose parents have a college degree (9.5 percent).

 

Children living below the federal household poverty level have an obesity rate 2.7 times higher (27.4 percent) than children living in households exceeding 400 percent of the federal poverty level.

 

Children living in low-income neighborhoods are 20 percent to 60 percent more likely to be obese or overweight than children living in high socioeconomic status neighborhoods and healthier built environments.

 

Girls (ages 10 to 17) living in neighbor- hoods having lower socioeconomic characteristics are more likely to be obese (19.2 percent) and overweight (35.7 percent) than are girls living in neighborhoods having higher socioeconomic characteristics."

https://stateofobesity.org/socioeconomics-obesity/

 

 

However, people in areas afflicted by poverty benefit even more from the health elements of a walkable neighbourhood than those who are wealthier do.

 

Which is to say, all the more reason to make walkability a factor in urban design for the poor.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, but for the people who can't walk or where walking is dangerous (e.g., ice, snow, cold, crime), removing the possibility of using vehicles is now restrictive. And those people who enjoy walking will walk by choice in more places than certain targeted business areas. 

 

Why do you think so many businesses have moved away from congested town/city centres out into areas that are easily accessible? It's not because people don't want to walk, it's for convenience and efficiency. Finding a parking place, walking to a store, then carrying items back to the car is a dying process.

 

Also, more people are buying on-line so they don't even have to walk out of their home. Taking those steps to their own car is too much for them. They'd rather someone else do the walking, shopping and carrying. 

 

I think you are backwards on the trend.  Suburbs and cities have flipped their values, and even with shopping the direction is reversing somewhat.  Car use is down among younger adults.  

 

I'm not sure why you think people will be prevented from walking, but it is actually possible to do it in the winter.  Cold cities in Northern climates still have walkers if they are built right.

 

But where areas aren't walkable, you just don't get walkers.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

amazingly, the way democracy works isn't that people who think they have the right answer get to tell all the other people what to do

 

lol

 

Haha...today I had a thought that I wanted to post that I no longer give a damn about any of this cuz I'm gonna drop dead anyway.

Edited by SparklyUnicorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

amazingly, the way democracy works isn't that people who think they have the right answer get to tell all the other people what to do

 

lol

 

 

You still have to set public policy though.  Often doing nothing is not neutral, if it's an option at all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I agree that experts appointed by elected officials should set policy, and that it should be good policy - although I suspect you and I disagree about the extent to which a government body should make policies, and how much control it needs to have over people's lives.  I'm just saying that the idea that we should let one group (PNW liberals, basically) decide policy for the rest of the country, not because the people vote for people who represent these ideas but just because PNW people are healthier on average and therefore should get to make healthcare and diet decisions for the rest of the country...that's not democracy.

 

Should they band together and make a push to educate the rest of the country as to the right way to live?  Sure, go for it.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

That would be an amazing ability to have. Sadly, neither dh nor I have ever worked at a job location where running errands on foot in 40 minutes was a possibility. Not even one errand. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that's an . . . interesting attempt at a salad. :lol:

Weirdly enough add onion and our foodie Italian neighbours eat exactly that as a salad ...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should they band together and make a push to educate the rest of the country as to the right way to live?  Sure, go for it.  

 

I'm definitely all for education rather than legislation.  I think folks need to know about the results of their choices, then they get to make their choices.  We all have differing likes/dislikes, priorities, and more.  To each their own.

 

I think legislation is useful when it comes to advertising, esp false advertising with "nutrition" (or lack thereof).  No company should be able to make claims that just aren't proven true.

 

I think public schools should teach nutrition and basic cooking skills.  I love the idea of school gardens if they could be implemented too.  I know one near us has one - it's made the news.  I also know it's not in the budget for our school to do one unless someone were to donate specifically for it.  We have a tough enough time meeting budget just with state and federal requirements.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be an amazing ability to have. Sadly, neither dh nor I have ever worked at a job location where running errands on foot in 40 minutes was a possibility. Not even one errand. 

 

At my previous work there were no nearby shops, but there was a walking/cycling trail that ran through the industrial park, so I used to walk that at lunchtime.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: the post above on poverty: We do give money to the federal government. On an individual taxpayer level, we have no local income tax and pay a ton of federal taxes because of our high COL.

 

It won't help though, because we have no say in how it's spent.

 

I'm not blaming people for being poor. I am complaining that when an entire community is unable to manage it's state economy, and public health, why do they insist that they should be the ones to dictate policy for the rest of the country. Okay, New York or whoever couldn't figure out a reasonable healthy school lunch program. That is sad, but they don't have a leg to stand on when claiming that the rest of the states should not tell them how to manage things.

 

I understand the link between poverty and obesity but there are states that buck the trend, such as New Mexico and Maine.

 

Can we follow their lead?

 

My point is that if we are going to solve the problem it is not going to be solved by people who say it can't be done.

 

"No soda tax. No lunch program improvements. No food recommendations, no change to food culture. That's something only rich states can do. Won't work here."

 

Except New Mexico is not rich. Maine is not rich. Minnesota is not super rich and they sure as heck aren't closer to coasts than Alabama, they make the most of geograohy and rule of law to provide much better health to their citizens.

 

Wealth and health go hand in hand but so do wealth and rule of law, and the willingness to change.

 

I ALWAYS object to the "that won't work here" argument because no matter where you go on Earth, people who use it are poorer, sicker, and less educated than people who say, "let's make it work".

 

We have internationally proven ways to achieve better nutrition for kids and school feeding is a proven, effective delivery method.

 

What I object to is the counterexample of people.tossing food in ONE district or state. And they throw out baby formula in southern Afghanistan because it is distributed by the US, too. "Not our way." Everybody hates a Yankee.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I think Food network and eating out and etc has done to our diets is that we expect so much more out of food than we used to. I speak about my grandparents and particularly what my father remembers eating, from the farm, when he was a child. They killed a hog each year. They had chicken when they killed a chicken. Red meat was extremely rare. They grew corn and wheat. They had a garden and canned everything in sight. So their diet was pretty simple: some pork, but definitely no fancy pork chops, chicken Breasts, or steaks except on special occasions. Green beans, corn, sweet potatoes. No sodas. There were usually desserts in the house, but this is a piece of cake after dinner sort of thing after working all day. Lots of vegetable soup. Most cooked on a wood stove. No pasta. Of course we can't go back to that. But, re cooking, if I needed to make simple and cheap meals, I would eat dried beans and cornbread one night, vegetable beef soup, maybe a taco soup, chicken legs and vegetables, spaghetti, lasagna, and something else along those lines. All simple and easy to make ahead of time. I think people look at food network and magazines and Pinterest and think that cooking needs to be something fancy.

I agree wholeheartedly. When we watch Food network and eventually start believing this is “normal†food, people naturally begin to doubt their ability to cook and want to eat out. The foods created on all of those shows are restaurant food, made to be beautifully presented in individual portions and with a long list of ingredients. I laughed at my husband the other day when I made a chocolate pudding cake. He’d never seen it before, but recognized it as the same thing as a little molten lava cake, only a big dish full. Yes, I said. It’s the fifties version, from when people made these things at home rather than bought them at restaurants.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree wholeheartedly. When we watch Food network and eventually start believing this is “normal†food, people naturally begin to doubt their ability to cook and want to eat out. 

 

I am not sure this is true. Watching cooking shows has given many people a new interest in cooking and trying out recipes. People learn about flavor combinations and technical skills from watching. I know that cooking shows helped my DD become the fabulous cook she is. When I watch the Great British bakeoff, I don't feel like I want to go to a pastry shop and buy stuff -it makes me want to bake. And I have heard similar comments from many friends. I rather think cooking shows helped foster the new DIY movement in the kitchen. Most of my friends are very good cooks and cook daily, and that includes not just the women but also many men.

Edited by regentrude
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure this is true. Watching cooking shows has given many people a new interest in cooking and trying out recipes. People learn about flavor combinations and technical skills from watching. I know that cooking shows helped my DD become the fabulous cook she is. When I watch the Great British bakeoff, I don't feel like I want to go to a pastry shop and buy stuff -it makes me want to bake. And I have heard similar comments from many friends. I rather think cooking shows helped foster the new DIY movement in the kitchen. Most of my friends are very good cooks and cook daily, and that includes not just the women but also many men.

But what I’m seeing is weekend cooks, people who desire to learn to make something fabulous. There’s nothing wrong with that, but it’s a hobby, it’s not the daily getting a good nutritious meal on the table after a long workday with the ingredients you have in hand. It’s not vegetable soup with muffins, it’s not something quick with the leftover roast chicken and a salad with lettuce, a can of mandarin oranges and a fistful of almonds. These things don’t sound like rocket science to some of us, but when you don’t have the example of others or the practice, frozen nuggets and pizza are cheap and plentiful, it’s a hard skill to learn. And it’s a skill you won’t really get from watching cooks on tv do a different style of meal prep entirely.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited by SamanthaCarter
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For one thing your all or nothing attitude tells me that you aren't serious about the conversation. Nobody said you had to do everything in the early morning and evening. We already discussed that everyone has unique situations.

 

I already explained that I think your temperatures are more challenging and you ignored it. I lived with my grandparents in a record breaking summer and have done outdoor stuff in Arizona quite a bit. I know the dangers of heat but the main difference between us is I look for solutions while you look for problems.

 

I know lots of people who live in very hot enviroments who choose to strap on their running shoes and head out for a run at 5 AM because it makes their life better.

 

Once again you focus on doing everything without a car like you are obsessed. That is no different than the person who can't eat healthy because they can't buy the non GMO, organic specialty stuff every day of the year so they just eat junk all the time. There is an in between. Small differences in daily activity and attitude make a big difference over a lifetime.

Hot and humid here at least 4 months of the year. I still walk. I do shopping early or late, and we walk for leisure late. If I have to go out for work or other activities during the middle of the day, I carry water and an umbrella for shade, and use public transport to cut down on the walking. I hope all the walking is making a difference! When we get offered a lift in a nice air conditioned car, I do think that if I could drive, I'd struggle to walk as much as I do right now, because I don't have a choice.

 

It's definitely doable if there are places you can walk to in 20 min or less, like the grocery store or the train station, or a library or soccer fields. We choose to rent smaller, older houses in exchange for the walkability you get closer to the city.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER & RECEIVE A COUPON FOR
10% OFF
We respect your privacy.You’ll hear about new products, special discounts & sales, and homeschooling tips. *Coupon only valid for first-time registrants. Coupon cannot be combined with any other offer. Entering your email address makes you eligible to receive future promotional emails.
0 Shares
Share
Tweet
Pin
×