Phat Pilates ~How Your Trainer Can Modify For The Big-Bellied so the Fat and Obese CAN do Pilates!
Please update your links/follows to the new blog. THANKS.
Happy Monday!
Showing posts with label obesity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label obesity. Show all posts
Read it here (and see the pics):
Please update your links/follows to the new blog. THANKS.
Happy Monday!
Please update your links/follows to the new blog. THANKS.
Happy Monday!
I've published a page with my Pilates workout pictures from both the June OUAD blog posts that featured them over at my new blog in a tab page: Phat Pilates.
If I was a trainer or Pilates stuidio owner, I'd start "Phat Pilates" classes and do an outreach to interest the overweight and obese and morbidly obese.
~~~~
~~~~
I was fiddling with the NIH's BMI Calculator. I know I'd done this before--trying to figure out where I stopped being obese, etc, but I'd forgotten.
So, I did it again.
The WHO's classification for obesity is this:
Well, at my highest, my BMI--as approximated using the NIH calculator-- was 48.3. That means that at 299, I was in a subset of Class III obesity called super obese.
When I started this blog at 289 lbs in 2007, my BMI was 46.6. Still super obese. Today, I was a scosh over 263, which has my BMI at 42.4. No longer in the worst category, but still in Class III. This is morbidly obese.
To leave Class III, I'd have to get down to 246, at which weight my BMI would be 39.9 and Class II Obesity, and I'd be considered severely obese. At 216, I'd have a BMI of 24.9 and be in Class I--plain old obese. No scary modifiers.
But 186 lbs is THE magic number: No longer obese at all. Merely categorized as overweight. BMI of 29.9.
The SUPER MAGIC NUMBER: 154. This was my weight on my wedding day. My weight at my first gynecological exam. My weight when I was 23. It was all UPscale from then... This was normal weight for my height, right on the border.
Which is funny, cause in the back of my mind, I've always wanted to be that poundage again. Not cause of the weight charts. Not cause I looked slim. That was the upper end of my doctor's weight chart numbers for me, for my height. I clearly felt a bit chubby. I couldn't shop at "normal" stores, cause they didn't have my size. I still was not slender. I even had hubby take pics of me in a bathing suit and hated the sight of my pudge. (I wish I was that pudgy now, dangit.) BUT...I was "normal weight."
154. Wedding Day Weight. Normal Weight. Youth weight.
Yeah. It's a very significant number.
I don't expect to get there. I'd love to, but I think the caloric sacrifice would be too much to even KEEP me there, if I got there. Big if. I choose to be realistic these days, and I don't know if I could be happy with that sort of caloric restriction. Shoot, just staying under 2000 is hard.
But 185. I can dream that without an immense twinge of disbelief at impossibilities. I can be "just overweight."
After two decades plus of obesity, merely overweight sounds really, really good. I can aim for that. I can dream of that.
It's not a bad dream.
If you want to fiddle with your numbers, HERE.
So, I did it again.
The WHO's classification for obesity is this:
| BMI | Classification | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| < 18.5 | underweight | ||||||||||||||||||
| 18.5–24.9 | normal weight | ||||||||||||||||||
| 25.0–29.9 | overweight | ||||||||||||||||||
| 30.0–34.9 | class I obesity | ||||||||||||||||||
| 35.0–39.9 | class II obesity | ||||||||||||||||||
| ≥ 40.0 | class III obesity |
Well, at my highest, my BMI--as approximated using the NIH calculator-- was 48.3. That means that at 299, I was in a subset of Class III obesity called super obese.
When I started this blog at 289 lbs in 2007, my BMI was 46.6. Still super obese. Today, I was a scosh over 263, which has my BMI at 42.4. No longer in the worst category, but still in Class III. This is morbidly obese.
To leave Class III, I'd have to get down to 246, at which weight my BMI would be 39.9 and Class II Obesity, and I'd be considered severely obese. At 216, I'd have a BMI of 24.9 and be in Class I--plain old obese. No scary modifiers.
But 186 lbs is THE magic number: No longer obese at all. Merely categorized as overweight. BMI of 29.9.
Which is funny, cause in the back of my mind, I've always wanted to be that poundage again. Not cause of the weight charts. Not cause I looked slim. That was the upper end of my doctor's weight chart numbers for me, for my height. I clearly felt a bit chubby. I couldn't shop at "normal" stores, cause they didn't have my size. I still was not slender. I even had hubby take pics of me in a bathing suit and hated the sight of my pudge. (I wish I was that pudgy now, dangit.) BUT...I was "normal weight."
154. Wedding Day Weight. Normal Weight. Youth weight.
Yeah. It's a very significant number.
I don't expect to get there. I'd love to, but I think the caloric sacrifice would be too much to even KEEP me there, if I got there. Big if. I choose to be realistic these days, and I don't know if I could be happy with that sort of caloric restriction. Shoot, just staying under 2000 is hard.
But 185. I can dream that without an immense twinge of disbelief at impossibilities. I can be "just overweight."
After two decades plus of obesity, merely overweight sounds really, really good. I can aim for that. I can dream of that.
It's not a bad dream.
If you want to fiddle with your numbers, HERE.
Labels:
BMI,
body image,
calculators,
dreams,
fat,
goals/objectives,
morbid obesity,
obesity,
personal stuff,
weight history
Easter Sunday I was over at my big bro's home. He has two grandkids and I got a look at the elementary school lunch menu. It was taped to the fridge and smack in front of my face as I stored the extra chicken satay.
What crap we feed our kids. How come taxpayer dollars go to feed kids fattening, unhealthful crap? Chicken nuggets. Meat pizza (I'm guessing NOT on a whole grain crust or with low-fat cheese). Hot dogs (omigod). Corn Dogs (doubleomigod).
A quick google got this article with this summary of research findings regarding obesity and these crap school lunches:
If I were Empress of the US, school lunches would be the epitome of healthful, balanced eating to give kids a great start and energy to get through their studies. Whole grains. Nothing fried. No caffeine. Nothing with sugar (except for rare treats on a holiday times or other special occasions). No sugar-laden chocolate milk, for sure. No sodas--diet or otherwise. No junk chips (unless baked and low-salt and ideally made from something that has fiber). Fruit cups would have no added sugar. Certainly no hot dogs would be featured. Egads.
I know, they'll say this: kids won't eat healthful stuff.
Guess what? Tough patooties. Give parents before school starts an idea of a menu and what items are included. "If your child has not been trained at home to eat these foods, then please pack as suitable brown bag or bento or boxed lunch for them each day."
I figure it's up to parents to train kids to eat fruits, veggies, whole grains, etc. If they don't, then make lunch. I, as a taxpayer, don't wanna finance the ticking time bomb that is obesity and diabetes. I am a product of this junk food lunch system training kids to want and like more and more crap. (I remember grilled cheese sandwiches DRiPPING with margarine, fatty meat pizzas, oily fried chicken, sloppy joes on white buns, oily fries, huge-sized cookies.) Funny, cause at home we got rice, beans, salad with avocado and olive oil, and things that were far less damaging than what schools gave.
So, today, I caught Jamie Oliver on The Doctors (where I got a look at a liver and a heart that probably look like mine, given I'm obese. Ick.) He was showing kids how gross chicken nuggets can be made. It was vile. But when he fried them up and asked which of the kids would eat them, all of them raised their hands. Even after seeing the globs of fat and goo that went into the nuggets, they'd eat 'em. Hah. Jamie was shocked.
They also showed the crazy amounts of salt and sugar in kid's lunch meals. One could weep.
I really am amazed parents tolerate those menus. Corn dogs. CORN DOGS???
Insane.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I caught a couple episodes of LOST IT! on Discovery Health channel. I wanted to see if the stories could up my mojo factor. It's always nice to see folks get it off and feel happier and healthier. One lady did WW. One did Jenny Craig. One guy did hypnosis tapes, which actually looked maybe interesting.
I'm not feeling all that motivated, but I did feel a tad more hopeful watching. :)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gotta admit that the Shapelover meals this week have been very good. Their food is tastier than when I first tried them more than a year ago (for a brief while). Very tasty. Yesterday, I had the Normandy Beef consomme, and while it wasn't so much consommeish (it had thick veggies in there), it was really delicious and hearty.
Hubby really liked his pork fricasse with carrots that I served him with the mashed new potatoes that came with my blue cheese beef dish. Today, for lunch, I had a pesto beef lasagna for lunch that was excellent, if a tad tad tad salty (prolly the cheese sprinkled on top was to blame for that). It came with a tomato basil onion salad that had a lovely balsamic/basil flavor. The chocolate berry dessert was so good for 70 calories. Mmm.
Been eating a lot of strawberries, too. The harvest right now is huge from Central Florida, so prices are low and berries are sweet. :D I hope you check for them when you go shopping this week. Good for ya!
~~~~~~~~~~~
Hubby went to get some home repair stuff, and I asked him to pick me up some carrot juice and the new Five Fruit Frenzy smoothie that Jamba Juice has been highlighting as having "five servings of fruit in a 16 oz serving." I asked for the smaller size (in case I'm not wild about it, anyway). It's got strawberries, blueberries, banana, mango, peaches--ye five fruits there--mixed in peach juice, berry juice with ice. I'm a sucker for mango, so I hope this is numsy.
If ya wanna try it, get a dollar off with a printable coupon until 4/10.
What crap we feed our kids. How come taxpayer dollars go to feed kids fattening, unhealthful crap? Chicken nuggets. Meat pizza (I'm guessing NOT on a whole grain crust or with low-fat cheese). Hot dogs (omigod). Corn Dogs (doubleomigod).
A quick google got this article with this summary of research findings regarding obesity and these crap school lunches:
Research presented this past weekend at a meeting of the Annual College of Cardiology determined that kids who eat lunches served by their schools are almost 60 percent more likely to be overweight or obese when compared to children who bring their lunch from home. The survey of nearly 1,300 Michigan-based sixth graders, taken over three years, also found that school lunch eaters ate more fat-intensive meats and sugar, as well as fewer vegetables than their counterparts—which contributed to them showing elevated levels of bad cholesterol in their bloodstreams.
If I were Empress of the US, school lunches would be the epitome of healthful, balanced eating to give kids a great start and energy to get through their studies. Whole grains. Nothing fried. No caffeine. Nothing with sugar (except for rare treats on a holiday times or other special occasions). No sugar-laden chocolate milk, for sure. No sodas--diet or otherwise. No junk chips (unless baked and low-salt and ideally made from something that has fiber). Fruit cups would have no added sugar. Certainly no hot dogs would be featured. Egads.
I know, they'll say this: kids won't eat healthful stuff.
Guess what? Tough patooties. Give parents before school starts an idea of a menu and what items are included. "If your child has not been trained at home to eat these foods, then please pack as suitable brown bag or bento or boxed lunch for them each day."
I figure it's up to parents to train kids to eat fruits, veggies, whole grains, etc. If they don't, then make lunch. I, as a taxpayer, don't wanna finance the ticking time bomb that is obesity and diabetes. I am a product of this junk food lunch system training kids to want and like more and more crap. (I remember grilled cheese sandwiches DRiPPING with margarine, fatty meat pizzas, oily fried chicken, sloppy joes on white buns, oily fries, huge-sized cookies.) Funny, cause at home we got rice, beans, salad with avocado and olive oil, and things that were far less damaging than what schools gave.
So, today, I caught Jamie Oliver on The Doctors (where I got a look at a liver and a heart that probably look like mine, given I'm obese. Ick.) He was showing kids how gross chicken nuggets can be made. It was vile. But when he fried them up and asked which of the kids would eat them, all of them raised their hands. Even after seeing the globs of fat and goo that went into the nuggets, they'd eat 'em. Hah. Jamie was shocked.
They also showed the crazy amounts of salt and sugar in kid's lunch meals. One could weep.
I really am amazed parents tolerate those menus. Corn dogs. CORN DOGS???
Insane.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I caught a couple episodes of LOST IT! on Discovery Health channel. I wanted to see if the stories could up my mojo factor. It's always nice to see folks get it off and feel happier and healthier. One lady did WW. One did Jenny Craig. One guy did hypnosis tapes, which actually looked maybe interesting.
I'm not feeling all that motivated, but I did feel a tad more hopeful watching. :)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gotta admit that the Shapelover meals this week have been very good. Their food is tastier than when I first tried them more than a year ago (for a brief while). Very tasty. Yesterday, I had the Normandy Beef consomme, and while it wasn't so much consommeish (it had thick veggies in there), it was really delicious and hearty.
Hubby really liked his pork fricasse with carrots that I served him with the mashed new potatoes that came with my blue cheese beef dish. Today, for lunch, I had a pesto beef lasagna for lunch that was excellent, if a tad tad tad salty (prolly the cheese sprinkled on top was to blame for that). It came with a tomato basil onion salad that had a lovely balsamic/basil flavor. The chocolate berry dessert was so good for 70 calories. Mmm.
Been eating a lot of strawberries, too. The harvest right now is huge from Central Florida, so prices are low and berries are sweet. :D I hope you check for them when you go shopping this week. Good for ya!
~~~~~~~~~~~
Hubby went to get some home repair stuff, and I asked him to pick me up some carrot juice and the new Five Fruit Frenzy smoothie that Jamba Juice has been highlighting as having "five servings of fruit in a 16 oz serving." I asked for the smaller size (in case I'm not wild about it, anyway). It's got strawberries, blueberries, banana, mango, peaches--ye five fruits there--mixed in peach juice, berry juice with ice. I'm a sucker for mango, so I hope this is numsy.
If ya wanna try it, get a dollar off with a printable coupon until 4/10.
Two-thirds of Americans are overweight or obese, and there’s no end in sight to this dangerous trend. According to the Centers for Disease Control, in 2007 25.6 percent of Americans were obese. But in 2008, it crept up to 26.1 percent.
There are six states that can dubiously boast the fact that over 30 percent of their citizens are obese: Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee and West Virginia.
Colorado is the only state in which less than 20 percent of its citizens are not obese.
Man, this is scary stuff. If risk of stroke and heart disease and diabetes were all not enough, add the increased risk of cancer to the worries of the obese--like moi.
Yeah, read it and weep:
I go in for an endometrial biopsy in three weeks. I think this finding will be weighing on my mind until I get those results.
And for a while after.
It may be what I needed to make a good choice for supper tonight, too.
Have a healthful weekend, folks!
Yeah, read it and weep:
A new report released yesterday by the World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute for Cancer Research states that most cancers are preventable.Full post on the study is at Dr. Sharma's blog.Poor diet, lack of exercise, obesity and smoking account for the vast majority of cancers; the role of genetic factors is by far overrated.
Indeed, the dramatic impact of obesity on cancer is now increasingly appreciated – one in three cancers may be caused by obesity (or as a result of lifestyle factors that promote obesity). It is therefore perhaps not surprising, that large prospective studies have shown an almost 60% reduction in deaths from cancer with bariatric surgery.
I go in for an endometrial biopsy in three weeks. I think this finding will be weighing on my mind until I get those results.
And for a while after.
It may be what I needed to make a good choice for supper tonight, too.
Have a healthful weekend, folks!
While I totally believe that stress screws your body and mind up, and destressing and learning to do things that involve quietness and meditation are healthful (they prove so to me), I can't get too excited about that study recently reported all over the diet world online. You may have heard about it, the one that says that destressing with meditation and Yoga and such is better for weight loss than diet and exercise.
The destressors kept off the five pound weight loss for two years, while the nutrition info and the diet/exercise groups didn't lose or keep off.
When you're big like me and five pounds barely registers, this is not big news. If the women in the study had lost and kept off 25+ pounds (just with destressing), I might perk up.
But I've struggled to keep off 25 lbs. I had lost 29, then regained, then lost, then regained a bit, then lost. After my last bout with asthma (3.5 weeks of ickiness), I'm up again. For me, 25 pounds is an ongoing battleground. Makes me nuts. So, excuse me if a five pound loss after two years doesn't make me go yippee for Yoga.
Five pounds. This is gonna solve the obesity epidemic? I think not.
I still think that it's a holistic thing that's gonna get us there--ie, dealing with sedentary habits and moving into movement; dealing with excess calories and outsized portions and learning to eat less; cutting down or out the junk and non-nutritive foods and snacks and focusing on whole and clean foods; working with internal/emotional issues and learning how to tap into the self-control we all have to some extent; tapping into our spiritual power (if we believe in such); creating support systems in and even beyond our family/friendship circles; committing to a lifestyle change that is lifelong; changing the societal landscape so that it is fashioned and structured to support healthful living; encouraging employers to make room for exercise at work and offer healthful snacks instead of junk on the jobsites; incorporating stress management techniques; eliminating all junk from schools; adding penalty taxes to junk foods and using that money to offset health care costs for obesity; tax deductions for gym memberships and buying at-home health gear (bikes, ellipticals, treadmills, etc); making health a top family and personal priority for life.
Destressing, as you see, imo is part of that holistic approach. But without diet and exercise and support, etc, I'm sorry, the very overweight and obese and superobese can't be satisfied with losing five pounds doing yoga. That's not gonna cut it.
So, I'll take the study for what it's worth. Yes, I'll continue to incorporate mind-body/destressing times and activities into my life. But that will not solve my obesity problem--or the nation's. Or the world's. Life is stressful, no matter what we do. Destressing helps, but when you'r mom is dying or your husband leaves you or your kid gets a major illness, or your car is totalled or your country is at war or your house is foreclosed on or someone robs you at gunpoint or a hurricane is coming--stress is hard to eradicate. I think the researchers who de-emphasize or pooh-pooh (or seem to) the role of diet and exercise ain't helping us as much as they might think.
They probably just make us worry about destressing enough. :)
The destressors kept off the five pound weight loss for two years, while the nutrition info and the diet/exercise groups didn't lose or keep off.
When you're big like me and five pounds barely registers, this is not big news. If the women in the study had lost and kept off 25+ pounds (just with destressing), I might perk up.
But I've struggled to keep off 25 lbs. I had lost 29, then regained, then lost, then regained a bit, then lost. After my last bout with asthma (3.5 weeks of ickiness), I'm up again. For me, 25 pounds is an ongoing battleground. Makes me nuts. So, excuse me if a five pound loss after two years doesn't make me go yippee for Yoga.
Five pounds. This is gonna solve the obesity epidemic? I think not.
I still think that it's a holistic thing that's gonna get us there--ie, dealing with sedentary habits and moving into movement; dealing with excess calories and outsized portions and learning to eat less; cutting down or out the junk and non-nutritive foods and snacks and focusing on whole and clean foods; working with internal/emotional issues and learning how to tap into the self-control we all have to some extent; tapping into our spiritual power (if we believe in such); creating support systems in and even beyond our family/friendship circles; committing to a lifestyle change that is lifelong; changing the societal landscape so that it is fashioned and structured to support healthful living; encouraging employers to make room for exercise at work and offer healthful snacks instead of junk on the jobsites; incorporating stress management techniques; eliminating all junk from schools; adding penalty taxes to junk foods and using that money to offset health care costs for obesity; tax deductions for gym memberships and buying at-home health gear (bikes, ellipticals, treadmills, etc); making health a top family and personal priority for life.
Destressing, as you see, imo is part of that holistic approach. But without diet and exercise and support, etc, I'm sorry, the very overweight and obese and superobese can't be satisfied with losing five pounds doing yoga. That's not gonna cut it.
So, I'll take the study for what it's worth. Yes, I'll continue to incorporate mind-body/destressing times and activities into my life. But that will not solve my obesity problem--or the nation's. Or the world's. Life is stressful, no matter what we do. Destressing helps, but when you'r mom is dying or your husband leaves you or your kid gets a major illness, or your car is totalled or your country is at war or your house is foreclosed on or someone robs you at gunpoint or a hurricane is coming--stress is hard to eradicate. I think the researchers who de-emphasize or pooh-pooh (or seem to) the role of diet and exercise ain't helping us as much as they might think.
They probably just make us worry about destressing enough. :)
The following snippet is from "New Bariatric Device Doesn't Require Surgery, Can Be Removed"
Okay, just for perspective, that would be like me losing 22 pounds in 3 weeks, more than a pound a day. Yoiks! (And I calculated that only using my "excess body weight", not my total weight.)
I'm gonna keep an eye on this one. I'm curious to see how the trials end up in terms of results. I think a lot of folks who don't want to be cut into or cut up (intestinally) may see this as a viable alternative, especially if it has far, far fewer complications than bypass or gastric-banding.
~~
Dr. Randal Baker, a local bariatric surgeon, said he and his partners are negotiating with three well-known companies who are bidding to buy the rights to the device he invented, the patented Full Sense Bariatric Device.
The two-section implement, made of silicone and nitinol, sits at the end of the esophagus and just inside the stomach. It is inserted through the mouth by a flexible tube called an endoscope and kept in place by three sutures. Baker said the pressure of the lightweight device is enough to convince the brain that the stomach is full.
The device induced significant weight loss in animal trials in dogs, Baker said. Last month, he and two other doctors inserted the device into three people in Mexico. He said they reported losing 18 percent of excess body weight in less than three weeks, without overwhelming hunger.
Okay, just for perspective, that would be like me losing 22 pounds in 3 weeks, more than a pound a day. Yoiks! (And I calculated that only using my "excess body weight", not my total weight.)
I'm gonna keep an eye on this one. I'm curious to see how the trials end up in terms of results. I think a lot of folks who don't want to be cut into or cut up (intestinally) may see this as a viable alternative, especially if it has far, far fewer complications than bypass or gastric-banding.
~~
A blogger named Atara--who has a lovely new baby, too, and a blog I've enjoyed perusing this AM--asked the following in a previous post of mine about junk food and kids:
Lyn made a great point in the comments section of that post: Kids, when they are older and are mobile and have friends who share, will get junk. Unavoidable. Kids like sweet. Kids like fast food. Humans like salty, sweet, fatty. We just do.
The thing is that just like parents try to instill all sorts of "against natural desires" behaviors in kids (ie, don't just jump in and have sex when you get those first stirrings, don't cheat on a test just cause you can and everyone else does, don't be a bully just cause you're bigger and stronger and faster and power is fun, don't blow off school when you're bored, don't shoplift if you can't afford that pretty necklace cause stealing is wrong, etc), what cuisine/foods/tastes a kid has is partially (if not fundamentally) set in the home. I love bean soup, avocado, olive oil on bread, and fresh fruit cause we ate those a lot (almost daily, except for avocados, those in season) as a kid. We ate beans about every day, and I can still eat beans about every day now, cause my taste buds adapted. But I also had candy and pizza and potato chips and Cheetos a lot, and that was NOT a good thing for my teeth or my weight. Daily crap is not good for anyone.
But especially not kids who are learning how to eat for life. What should be "sparingly" eaten is now routinely eaten. A factotum from Junk Food Wars:
I simply think that parents who don't want kids burdened with junk food habits and weight woes need to do what they can at home to develop from the earliest age a taste for fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and other "clean" and nutritious fare and show kids what normal portions are like. Two cups of rice is not a normal portion. A big fat heaping bowl of spaghetti is not a normal portion, and neither is 20 ounces of fruit juice (much less fruit drinks that are full of sugar and very little fruit).
Keeping the junk mostly out of the home and putting the emphasis on treating a sweet tooth with natural sweets created by God in their perfect form--an apple, grapes, an orange, strawberries, pineapple, lychees, plums, peaches, pears, kiwi, blueberries, etc. And to make sure they start eating a wide variety of veggies as soon as possible, so they can develop a taste for produce and not just go yuck at greens (or any other color veggie). It's simply part of teaching good habits, along with brushing and flossing and getting exercise in play (cause video games all afternoon long is hardly healthful, either).
What they do with what they learn at home when they're older and have access to Burger King and the Kwik Mart, what they do as adults out of your home...you cannot control. No parent can. (Though Madonna sure is giving it the best and most obssessive shot she can!)
Parents can control IN the home (except for creative sneaking of candy). What's in the fridge, in the pantry, on the table, and in the lunchbox. That is controllable. Mom or dad buy it and store it and cook it. They can control it.
Our society is too riddled with junk to have utter faith that kids won't sneak it, buy it with an allowance, get it from friends, have it at school. But if the foundation is laid not to indulge in it freely at home and to think of cookies and candies and cakes and sugary drinks as special-occasion treats that are NOT good for us, but that we can use for a limited purpose, that's a step in the right direction. Of course, if a kid develops a taste at home for healthier versions of junk, "redeemed" junk, as it were, cause mom and dad are willing to find alternatives to the high-fat, sugary crap, that's also good. Oatmeal cookies made less sweet and with whole grains, nuts with dark chocolate in modest portions, etc.
I was one of those kids whose eating was not at all monitored,except by the limitation of "this is what's there". Once the platters of food ran out on the table, well, that was the limitation. Or if the box of cookies finished. Or the bag of bread lay empty. But... if I wanted to fill a bowl with five cups of sugar-rich, artificially colored cereal (which I did) and dump in 3 cups of full fat milk (which I did), as a between meal snack, I did. If I wanted to dump 5 tablespoons of sugar in my oatmeal, I could. If I wanted to drink the whole jug of orange juice, I could. And nobody said anything to indicate that I was out of control or doing something that was unhealthful. Not till I got older and did get fat. But it takes all those steps to get there. It's not overnight.
I could eat whatever, whenever. And this is not a good system. For anyone at any time. I learned that I could eat until stuffed and I could eat sugar at will. How nuts is that? And especially not kids in the formative and "training" stages of life--from pureed foods to table manners training to first grade. And no kid should have total access to a pantry or fridge full of crap. How is that good nutritional sense?
To quote Obama's former pastor: The chickens have come home to roost...and they are breaded, fried, salted like the Dead Sea, and (until recently) utterly riddled with trans fats and come with an fatty, white-flour, salty biscuit on the side.
Fast food, easy "convenience foods", processed foods, junk foods, oversized portions, sugary supersized drinks, big candy bars....they have resulted in many kids considering the fattiest items at McDonalds and KFC and Pizza Hut what lunch and dinner are supposed to be. That a 32 ounce soda is a serving. That a giant muffin or humongo cookie is for one person at one sitting. That Doritos is a normal after school snack. Something's wrong with that.
I mean, come on--watermelon, fresh and chilled, really is so much better than cupcakes as a treat. Just not cheaper or easier to have on hand. A ripe mango has it all over artificially flavored jelly beans, even mango-flavored ones. The thing is that real food will cost more than processed crap, oftentimes. And fruit goes bad quickly, while convenience foods are...convenient, with long shelf lives. It's easy to eat bad. It takes a bit more effort--and maybe cash--to eat cleanly.
So, that rant--and this one--is out of my fear of the next generation being even fatter and and more riddled with diabetes and cursed with shorter life expectancies than today's because WE ALLOW and WE OFFER them junk instead of real, honest, fresh, wholesome food that they can develop a taste for. And they CAN develop a taste for all sorts. Just look at kids in cultures without fast food or candy shops. They eat what the parents eat--be it nuts, seeds, fruits, veggies, meats, etc.
Oh, and this study goes counter to idea that kids hate fruits and veggies. That article says this, emphasis mine:
Will they want junk anyway? Probably. But they can be trained to love good, healthful food, too, and that means they will crave that as well.
Sorry. It's a sore subject, I guess.
Y'all should just go look at Atara's cute baby, now. :)
~
OK, I'm just curious because I have a 3 month old. If I never bring the junk in the house, will he still want it? In other words, do they just get used to eating it? Is that it?Well, I'm not a mom and never have been. I posted--er, vented may be a better word--because I keep reading about the obesity increase in kids, the increase in diabetes, earlier-in-life atherosclerosis, etc, and I've observed how very many kids are allowed to just snack and feast on all sorts of crap from morning till night--sugary sodas with meals, candy between meals, allowed to skip veggies but have white bread, etc.
Lyn made a great point in the comments section of that post: Kids, when they are older and are mobile and have friends who share, will get junk. Unavoidable. Kids like sweet. Kids like fast food. Humans like salty, sweet, fatty. We just do.
The thing is that just like parents try to instill all sorts of "against natural desires" behaviors in kids (ie, don't just jump in and have sex when you get those first stirrings, don't cheat on a test just cause you can and everyone else does, don't be a bully just cause you're bigger and stronger and faster and power is fun, don't blow off school when you're bored, don't shoplift if you can't afford that pretty necklace cause stealing is wrong, etc), what cuisine/foods/tastes a kid has is partially (if not fundamentally) set in the home. I love bean soup, avocado, olive oil on bread, and fresh fruit cause we ate those a lot (almost daily, except for avocados, those in season) as a kid. We ate beans about every day, and I can still eat beans about every day now, cause my taste buds adapted. But I also had candy and pizza and potato chips and Cheetos a lot, and that was NOT a good thing for my teeth or my weight. Daily crap is not good for anyone.
But especially not kids who are learning how to eat for life. What should be "sparingly" eaten is now routinely eaten. A factotum from Junk Food Wars:
Even though the Food Guide Pyramid suggests eating fats and sweets sparingly, the survey found that children consume more than three servings of these foods daily. Fatty goods such as French fries, desserts, potato chips and soft drinks have become staples rather than occasional treats.And kids don't have to eat tons to gain weight, says the article. Two hundred extra daily calories than what is needed by a child's bodymeans a half-pound gain a week. 26 a year. That kid can be 100 pounds overweight in 4 years. Scary, huh? And how easy is it to eat 200 calories? A small pack of 4 Oreos will do it. A bag of chips goes over that (unless it's a very small bag). Half a slice extra of a meaty pizza. A candy bar will do that and more. An extra cup of sugary cereal. Eight Hershey's kisses. A 16 ounce glass of Coke (non-diet). Easy peasy to eat 200 calories too many.
I simply think that parents who don't want kids burdened with junk food habits and weight woes need to do what they can at home to develop from the earliest age a taste for fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and other "clean" and nutritious fare and show kids what normal portions are like. Two cups of rice is not a normal portion. A big fat heaping bowl of spaghetti is not a normal portion, and neither is 20 ounces of fruit juice (much less fruit drinks that are full of sugar and very little fruit).
Keeping the junk mostly out of the home and putting the emphasis on treating a sweet tooth with natural sweets created by God in their perfect form--an apple, grapes, an orange, strawberries, pineapple, lychees, plums, peaches, pears, kiwi, blueberries, etc. And to make sure they start eating a wide variety of veggies as soon as possible, so they can develop a taste for produce and not just go yuck at greens (or any other color veggie). It's simply part of teaching good habits, along with brushing and flossing and getting exercise in play (cause video games all afternoon long is hardly healthful, either).
What they do with what they learn at home when they're older and have access to Burger King and the Kwik Mart, what they do as adults out of your home...you cannot control. No parent can. (Though Madonna sure is giving it the best and most obssessive shot she can!)
Parents can control IN the home (except for creative sneaking of candy). What's in the fridge, in the pantry, on the table, and in the lunchbox. That is controllable. Mom or dad buy it and store it and cook it. They can control it.
Our society is too riddled with junk to have utter faith that kids won't sneak it, buy it with an allowance, get it from friends, have it at school. But if the foundation is laid not to indulge in it freely at home and to think of cookies and candies and cakes and sugary drinks as special-occasion treats that are NOT good for us, but that we can use for a limited purpose, that's a step in the right direction. Of course, if a kid develops a taste at home for healthier versions of junk, "redeemed" junk, as it were, cause mom and dad are willing to find alternatives to the high-fat, sugary crap, that's also good. Oatmeal cookies made less sweet and with whole grains, nuts with dark chocolate in modest portions, etc.
I was one of those kids whose eating was not at all monitored,except by the limitation of "this is what's there". Once the platters of food ran out on the table, well, that was the limitation. Or if the box of cookies finished. Or the bag of bread lay empty. But... if I wanted to fill a bowl with five cups of sugar-rich, artificially colored cereal (which I did) and dump in 3 cups of full fat milk (which I did), as a between meal snack, I did. If I wanted to dump 5 tablespoons of sugar in my oatmeal, I could. If I wanted to drink the whole jug of orange juice, I could. And nobody said anything to indicate that I was out of control or doing something that was unhealthful. Not till I got older and did get fat. But it takes all those steps to get there. It's not overnight.
I could eat whatever, whenever. And this is not a good system. For anyone at any time. I learned that I could eat until stuffed and I could eat sugar at will. How nuts is that? And especially not kids in the formative and "training" stages of life--from pureed foods to table manners training to first grade. And no kid should have total access to a pantry or fridge full of crap. How is that good nutritional sense?
To quote Obama's former pastor: The chickens have come home to roost...and they are breaded, fried, salted like the Dead Sea, and (until recently) utterly riddled with trans fats and come with an fatty, white-flour, salty biscuit on the side.
Fast food, easy "convenience foods", processed foods, junk foods, oversized portions, sugary supersized drinks, big candy bars....they have resulted in many kids considering the fattiest items at McDonalds and KFC and Pizza Hut what lunch and dinner are supposed to be. That a 32 ounce soda is a serving. That a giant muffin or humongo cookie is for one person at one sitting. That Doritos is a normal after school snack. Something's wrong with that.
I mean, come on--watermelon, fresh and chilled, really is so much better than cupcakes as a treat. Just not cheaper or easier to have on hand. A ripe mango has it all over artificially flavored jelly beans, even mango-flavored ones. The thing is that real food will cost more than processed crap, oftentimes. And fruit goes bad quickly, while convenience foods are...convenient, with long shelf lives. It's easy to eat bad. It takes a bit more effort--and maybe cash--to eat cleanly.
So, that rant--and this one--is out of my fear of the next generation being even fatter and and more riddled with diabetes and cursed with shorter life expectancies than today's because WE ALLOW and WE OFFER them junk instead of real, honest, fresh, wholesome food that they can develop a taste for. And they CAN develop a taste for all sorts. Just look at kids in cultures without fast food or candy shops. They eat what the parents eat--be it nuts, seeds, fruits, veggies, meats, etc.
Oh, and this study goes counter to idea that kids hate fruits and veggies. That article says this, emphasis mine:
Fewer than half of California’s children ages 2 to 11 eat the recommended amount of fruit and vegetable servings daily (5 or more servings), according to the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. Further, almost 25 percent of them eat two or more servings of cookies, candy, donuts or popsicles every day.
Lack of proper nutrition contributes to certain health problems, such as the rising trend in childhood obesity. In California, one in three children is overweight or at risk of becoming overweight – far worse than the national average.
“While there has been a lot of research on barriers to childhood nutrition, this study dispels the myth that kids are predisposed to dislike healthy foods,” Perry said. “Now our challenge is to help parents find simple, affordable ways to prepare nutritious meals and snacks for their kids.”
Will they want junk anyway? Probably. But they can be trained to love good, healthful food, too, and that means they will crave that as well.
Sorry. It's a sore subject, I guess.
Y'all should just go look at Atara's cute baby, now. :)
~
With the holiday season in full swing, I've been a bit concerned about how entrenched unhealthful foods are part of the gift-giving tradition. Fatty cakes. Butter-laden cookies. Sugary treats in huge portions in pretty cans and jars and boxes.As people fighting the fight against fat, we know that cookies, candies, and cakes are things that ought to be RARE treats (or, in the cases of those with bad triggers, banned altogether or modified significantly into less-dangerous versions).
But what do I see, including from women and men as big as I am (or bigger)? People with kids...
They stuff them with candy, cookies and cakes. Not just once week or once a month, but regularly. And moreso in this holiday time.
With childhood obesity a major health concern (some call it an epidemic) in the US (and other nations), we really need to take a look at this. A good hard no-excuses sort of look.
Imagine if we had grown up with our parents more disciplined about what cereal we ate in the morning (no KABOOM or Cap'n Crunch, but whole grain and no sugar--fruit instead?). Imagine if a candy bar or pack of animal crackers was a special weekend treat, and not a regular afterschool yumsy, if the daily treat was apples and oranges and carrots with hummus or celery with Laughing Cow light or a whole grain role with peanut butter. Imagine if our parents stocked the pantry with stuff that was clean, nutritious, no to low-sugar, high fiber, and fresh.
Would we be where we are?
Maybe. :)
But I think we train kids to like what they like. I love fruit because my parents loved fruit and had plenty of it around and made smoothies before smoothies were a commonly enjoyed commodity around town. They used olive oil and vinegar, not bottled dressings. They offered us beans almost daily, so we were all bathroom regular.
But I was the one who grew up from age 2 in this country, so I got the junk cereals that were mostly sugar and refined grains. I got candy bars after school. Sno-cones daily in summer. Pocket money for potato chips and other crap.Of all my siblings, I am the ONLY one who got superobese (or even obese, for that matter). My brothers and sisters, who grew up in another country, much more physically active and eating more natural foods and much less junk--they didn't develop the crazy food relationship I did. They didn't grow up with junk food commercials on television sending them off into cravings for Milky Ways and pizza and burgers and fries and Starburst and cupcakes and whatnot.
So, when I see someone, especially a parent with weight issues, struggling, on diets, struggling to lose, that same parent buy candy and cupcakes and sugary cereals for their kids, I wonder about the dissonance. Why give them the taste habits and food issues we have? Why not hand them pears and grape tomatoes and mango slices and low-fat string cheese and almonds and raspberries? Why not end the crazy food cycle NOW?
I've begged a particular family member not to inflict our curse on her own kids. She and I are both obese. She has two kids who are currently normal weight. When I see the kids fed crap, it hurts. When I see kids catered to (ie, they don't want to eat the wholesome fair, and just pick at, say, white bread and then rush to eat a handful of candy), I want to cry.
In 20 or 30 years, they'll be where we are. Oversized and health-impaired.
It frightens me, and I don't even have kids.
I, both my nieces and both my nephews are overweight to obese. (Three of us obese, one overweight.) Five out of five of us born in the sixties and seventies in the immediate family--all too big. I don't want the next generation to have this curse. I want them to radiate good health and love good, clean food and be active and be happy and live vibrantly.
If it's not good for us to eat, big as we are, then it's not good for kids to eat, especially in their formative years, when they need the BEST nutrition to build bones and spare teeth from decay and develop the strongest neuromuscular system.
Junk ain't for us. But junk ain't for kids, either.
Why do we not see that?
Maybe it's long past time to tax the hell out of junk foods and treats. How many cupcakes will a kid buy if they're 5 bucks each? How many candy bars if one uses up their whole allowance? I'd rather tax crap that does nothing for one's wellbeing and use that money to subsidize fruit and veggies, so they're more affordable for a family's budget.
I am vowing not to buy junk for the kids in my family anymore. (This will be sooo hard. Habits die hard.) And I'm gonna work hard to break the holiday junk-food giving tradition. I'll find alternatives--sugarless, low-fat, or just plain better treats--like dark chocolate (I've tasted excellent sugar-free varieties) or dried fruit or nuts.
I want the people I love to be healthy and live a long, long time. And I want to be healthy and live longer, too, so I can enjoy their company for years and years.
~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)