Is this how bad education is in the USA?

[!Kaggen]

I saw this on TV last night and couldn't believe it :eye-poppi

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGYs4KS_djg

What is going on in the US of A?

Are children being factory molded to be dumb consumers of Big Ag rubbish?

This is truly scary!!!

[Redtail]

Hmmm.... I like Jamie Oliver & what he tries to do but that clip could be a bit deceptive.

For instance, the tomatoes coming on a vine like that could be confusing to a 6 year old especially if the grocery stores in his/her area don't sell them still attached.

Also, the bok choy/rubarb (can't tell what it is. I'm on my android) being called celery by a 6 year old isn't surprising.

I can see them confusing cauliflower for broccoli, & not knowing wth an eggplant was, again, because they're 6.

Last but not least, it is a "reality" tv show so selective editing for drama is the norm.

[technoextreme]

For instance, the tomatoes coming on a vine like that could be confusing to a 6 year old especially if the grocery stores in his/her area don't sell them still attached.
Wait what??? The tomatoes weren't on a vine. Nor was there any rubarb or bok choy. I know what it was too but the name eludes me.
What is going on in the US of A?

Are children being factory molded to be dumb consumers of Big Ag rubbish?

This is truly scary!!!
Oooo please you probably wouldn't do much better.
EDIT:
Hahahaha...He didn't get the right tomato. Apparently the ones you turn into paste are not the ones he showed. If you are going to show a cooking show based upon identifying vegetables you might as well make the right associations.

[whiterabbit1996]

What?! That is...shocking...
I swear human kids are becoming less and less human, and turning slowly into wee robots...They should be able to identify a tomato :s

[technoextreme]

What?! That is...shocking...
I swear human kids are becoming less and less human, and turning slowly into wee robots...They should be able to identify a tomato :s
A tomato's only defining characteristic is that its red. Its kind of an ambiguous fruit in that regard. As I said before even he screwed up.
EDIT:
I can identify tomatoes fairly easily based upon type. Potatoes not so much probably because I've only ate one variety of potato in all my life.

[Tamarillicent]

Also, the bok choy/rubarb (can't tell what it is. I'm on my android) being called celery by a 6 year old isn't surprising.

Looked like a beet to me.

My Grandmother had a garden when I was growing up and there is nothing tastier than fresh tomatoes straight from the garden. It's sad that kids (people in general really, those supermarket veggies just aren't the same) these days don't seem to get that experience.

[Debaser]

A tomato's only defining characteristic is that its red.

Except when it's yellow, green or purple, of course. ;)

[dasmiller]

Looked like a beet to me.

My Grandmother had a garden when I was growing up and there is nothing tastier than fresh tomatoes straight from the garden. It's sad that kids (people in general really, those supermarket veggies just aren't the same) these days don't seem to get that experience.

Meh. Supermarket tomatoes taste like wet styrofoam. No comparison to 'real' tomatoes.

[/derail]

[Tatyana]

There is another take on this topic, which is 'how much pre-prepared food are American children eating'.

Being able to identify vegetables is not really highly academic.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Hmmm.... I like Jamie Oliver & what he tries to do but that clip could be a bit deceptive.

For instance, the tomatoes coming on a vine like that could be confusing to a 6 year old especially if the grocery stores in his/her area don't sell them still attached.Oh come on. You are saying that 4 tomatoes together look different to a kid than 4 tomatoes separated? That's a stretch.


I can see them confusing cauliflower for broccoli, & not knowing wth an eggplant was, again, because they're 6.

Last but not least, it is a "reality" tv show so selective editing for drama is the norm.I agree with these last 2 comments.

All this shows is kids whose parents put the food on the table and the kids don't go shopping. It would be interesting to see a broader sample.

And then there is the issue, what age do they need to learn these particular things? Ask the 12 yr olds and if they still don't know, you have a problem. But for 6 yr olds it depends on their more immediate environment. You can't learn everything by 6. They could very well know other stuff instead like everything about the latest gaming system. ;)

[!Kaggen]

I see, so not knowing about the basics is regarded as education.

[!Kaggen]

Later in the show the kids in this same class had all learnt about vegetables. It was purely the class teachers own initiative.

In another scene the principal and kitchen staff explained to Jamie that the kids from 6-10 yrs old don't get knives and forks to eat with. This would make it difficult for the kids to eat the freshly prepared food Jamie was going to serve for lunch. Jamie could not believe how a school did not actually teach children how to eat. They eventually handed out knives and forks. Jamie was left alone to walk around the dining hall and teach the kids how to use them. After a while the principle stepped up to help out with the "teaching" admitting he could also do this if Jamie was. The kids loved the challenge and dug into the delicious fresh food.

So teaching only occurs in a classroom now?

[Moon-Spinner]

I doubt I would have known what most of those fruits and vegetables were when I was 6 years old either. My family (and I'm sure we weren't an exception) got all our food out of cans. Our mothers boiled the veggies until they were like mush and tasteless. The only time we got fresh fruit was once every few months we were treated to some bananas! Even today, my father won't eat any fruit unless it comes out of a can - LOL

Today, of course, my eating habits are 180 degrees turned around from what I was raised on. If I had kids today, they would know how to plant and harvest all the fruits and veggies from the home garden by 6 years old ;)

[JWideman]

Just posting to say that the whole of the USA is not West Virginia. In fact, that state is ranked SECOND TO LAST.

[Gr8wight]

There is another take on this topic, which is 'how much pre-prepared food are American children eating'.

Being able to identify vegetables is not really highly academic.

I'm pretty sure that was Oliver's point.

[whiterabbit1996]

A tomato's only defining characteristic is that its red. Its kind of an ambiguous fruit in that regard. As I said before even he screwed up.
EDIT:
I can identify tomatoes fairly easily based upon type. Potatoes not so much probably because I've only ate one variety of potato in all my life.
But surely, a kid should be able to look at a tomato and see that it is a tomato, by the age of six?

[technoextreme]

But surely, a kid should be able to look at a tomato and see that it is a tomato, by the age of six?
You've never seen many tomatoes have you.
Oh come on. You are saying that 4 tomatoes together look different to a kid than 4 tomatoes separated? That's a stretch.

Someone else who has never seen many tomatoes either.
Except when it's yellow, green or purple, of course. ;)
Ehhh... I forgot about yellow tomatoes. Purple tomatoes I've never seen before but then again my grandpa found those more exotic varieties kind of pointless and dumb. So in fact tomatoes have no actual defining characteristics that would make it easy for a kid to identify.
EDIT:
In fact I'm fairly certain he used a tomato that you would never find in a supermarket.

[AvalonXQ]

He used the iconic appearance of various vegetables. I'm really surprised the kids didn't recognize them.

[technoextreme]

He used the iconic appearance of various vegetables. I'm really surprised the kids didn't recognize them.
Ehhh... Some of those vegetables have no iconic form to them where it wouldn't actually surprise me that kids would end up being confused over what type of vegetable it was. I may have been a young pudgey pudge when I was a kid but I certainly knew my vegetables to the point where even though I freaking hate tomatoes with a burning passion I can name all five varieties that one can obtain.

[AdMan]

Last but not least, it is a "reality" tv show so selective editing for drama is the norm.


True, we don't know how many classrooms Jamie visited in addition to this one, but a classroom full of first graders who can't identify tomatoes... embarrassing.

[tesscaline]

He used some pretty basic vegetables, but, I'll admit, the beet he showed them was... Well, kids aren't known for liking beets, and most people don't actually cook those at home anymore. Even my mother, who liked beets, never cooked them at home -- she bought them canned, pre-sliced/diced/julienne -- simply because of the pain in the butt it is to deal with them and avoid staining every surface in your kitchen.

All the other vegetables though, that was pretty pathetic. Tomatoes are on every darned commercial on tv these days. I was identifying them, in all shapes and sizes well before I was 5 years old. I may not have known the variety names, but I knew there were "baby" tomatoes (cherry), and "big" tomatoes (beefsteak), and "funny" tomatoes (roma). Even as a pre-schooler I was fond of "pear" tomatoes (honestly, I still don't know the official name of that variety for sure -- I know they're yellow/orange and tiny and have a shape vaguely reminiscent of a pear). But on a vine or off, I could easily tell you something was a tomato.

I'm not entirely sure what the video has to do with "education" though -- it seems to me that it comments more about the state of our children's food composition than it does about the education system. Unless the complaint is that reality TV shows with arrogant rock star chefs have no place in a classroom. That argument I can get behind. Especially since Jaime Oliver's "better" school food has turned out to be not actually that much better at all...

[Beelzebuddy]

Distasteful and disingenuous. Ben Stein has more integrity than this ponce. Michael Moore at least doesn't tour elementary schools with predatory background music and a heavy handed, accusatory "think of the children" vibe.

It's not the message, which I actually agree with, but the delivery. This is nutrition equivalent of tearfully-narrated PETA videos. Watching this infuriates me to the point where I want to hand out cheeseburgers to fat kids just to spite the bastard.

I could go into details about all the little things that piss me off just in that clip

Not shown: all the vegetables the kids immediately recognized.

You never see a whole tomato except in food preparation, which six year olds are not known for paying attention to. Had he cut it open, the response would have been different. Same goes for most of the vegetables, like onions.

Eggplants? Bok choi? In urban industrial West Virginia?

But anyone familiar with bias-based reasoning should be able to pull 'em out for themselves. He's not exactly being subtle here.

[Travis]

You all do realize that even kids know that bizarre wrong answers are more likely to get them airtime than boring right answers.

That said I'm not sure how this is an indictment of education even if it was totally genuine (which I doubt). With schools spending all their time preparing kids for standardized tests on math, writing and basic science I'm not sure where "vegetable identification" is to be squeezed in. Sure, kids that grow up in rural areas will know this stuff if they actually pay attention but a kid growing up in a city that rarely accompanies the parents to the supermarket (ie the parents shop on their way home from work) aren't necessarily going to.

[DC]

It sure is edited and only shows the worst cases. but the simple fact that he found a 6 year old not knowing tomatos is sad.

doesn't know the difference between Potato and Tomato but could propably identify and name different brands of Breakfast cereals.

[Redtail]

Wait what??? The tomatoes weren't on a vine.
Ok, stems?

Nor was there any rubarb or bok choy. I know what it was too but the name eludes me.
My mistake, when he picked up the beet the camera angle changes & I thought he'd set it down on the desk. The vegetable I was referring to was the pale green leafy thing with the stalk in the lower part of the frame.

[tesscaline]

Ok, stems?


My mistake, when he picked up the beet the camera angle changes & I thought he'd set it down on the desk. The vegetable I was referring to was the pale green leafy thing with the stalk in the lower part of the frame.That was a leek. And I don't expect a child to recognize that one...

[John Jones]

Meh. Supermarket tomatoes taste like wet styrofoam. No comparison to 'real' tomatoes.

[/derail]

What dasmiller said.

[bikerdruid]

I saw this on TV last night and couldn't believe it :eye-poppi

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGYs4KS_djg

What is going on in the US of A?

Are children being factory molded to be dumb consumers of Big Ag rubbish?

This is truly scary!!!

yup...

[Redtail]

That was a leek. And I don't expect a child to recognize that one...
Yeah, I watched it on the laptop just now & was able to recognize it there.

[Alan]

I saw part of a show he made in England where some children didn't recognise some vegetables.

[MummRa]

I'm sure my kids couldn't identify a few of those vegetables, which is sad. But, as several posters said, schools are cramming for time to teach and prep kids for state tests.

That's why I wait until AFTER the tests are over to cook things with my kids. Next week's menu: hasty pudding and gingersnaps, followed by "classroom-brewed" root beer. Hooray for culinary math and science!

[AdMan]

I'm sure my kids couldn't identify a few of those vegetables, which is sad. But, as several posters said, schools are cramming for time to teach and prep kids for state tests.

That's why I wait until AFTER the tests are over to cook things with my kids. Next week's menu: hasty pudding and gingersnaps, followed by "classroom-brewed" root beer. Hooray for culinary math and science!


That sounds like a good menu. Also, show them a tomato. ;)

[MummRa]

Thanks! Actually, we had tomatoes in our spaghetti today, though it was in chunks. Like a poster already said for her family, at our school our fruit comes in tins (except the veggies, which we grow in our garden. Yay!).

And, just to avoid the imaginary barrage, I am not a cafeteria worker. I'm just a teacher who loves baking crap with my kids after shoving knowledge down their heads all week. How else am I going to expose them to the wonderful lefse?

....and hopefully the root beer will actually work, and not just give us food poisoning or have a bad batch of yeast and fail to rise. *fingers crossed*

[Wavicle]

Wait what??? The tomatoes weren't on a vine.

My wife and I looked at 0:52 several times and could only conclude that the tomatoes most definitely were attached to each other by something green coming from their stem. If this wasn't the vine, what was it? It looked exactly like a cluster of 4 determinate variety hot-house ripened tomatoes sold in supermarkets all over the place these days. So what attached the tomatoes such that at 0:45 he was able to suspend all 4 with a pincher-grip using his thumb and forefinger?

He didn't get the right tomato. Apparently the ones you turn into paste are not the ones he showed. If you are going to show a cooking show based upon identifying vegetables you might as well make the right associations.

You can make paste from any ripe tomatoes. Ones with lower water content like Romas are usually preferred by commercial processors because making the paste is a matter of peeling, coring, removing the water and pureeing the tomato. If you start with a fleshy tomato with lower water content, you save yourself money. People who make paste at home will usually grab all of the tomatoes, regardless of variety, which they will not finish before they go moldy and can them or turn them into paste and can them.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I see, so not knowing about the basics is regarded as education.

In 'Murrica we teach the 4 urrs - Readin', Ritin', 'Rithmatic and Religion. We don't teach nothing 'bout no Rutebegas.

[brodski]

I saw part of a show he made in England where some children didn't recognise some vegetables.

Yup, the thick lipped mockney isn't on a crusade to show how stupid Americans are, he's, on a crusade to show how little kids in many western societies know about fresh food, and how poor their nutrition is (possibly as a consequence although it's an organic chicken and egg question)

[Red3]

Is there any chance that Jamie Oliver might be viewing these kids by the standards he views his own? He's a chef and his kids probably get involved in a big way at home cooking and preparing/learning about food. A bunch of random six year olds not knowing what vegetables are doesn't prove anything. I'm not sure I could tell you what any of those foods were at six years old, and why would i at that age - your parents buy and prepare your food for you. I eat perfectly healthy and it has nothing to do with what i did (or didn't) learnt at six years old. It would be more shocking if you asked a bunch of teenagers the same question! But that wouldn't make good t.v, because a lot of them would probably know what they were, know they were healthy, but choose to eat junk anyway.

Saying that though, there probably should be more education about food in schools, but there are other priorities at that age like reading and writing. The education systems in the U.S and U.K are often less than perfect and can;'t cover everything.

[technoextreme]

You can make paste from any ripe tomatoes. Ones with lower water content like Romas are usually preferred by commercial processors because making the paste is a matter of peeling, coring, removing the water and pureeing the tomato. If you start with a fleshy tomato with lower water content, you save yourself money. People who make paste at home will usually grab all of the tomatoes, regardless of variety, which they will not finish before they go moldy and can them or turn them into paste and can them.
Actually I screwed that up. I thought for some stupid reason they were a variety of tomatoes that kids would never ever ever seen if they lived in a city.

[AmandaM]

When I was 6 I wasn't even allowed in the kitchen. I probably wouldn't have been able to identify a whole tomato either, since I only ever saw them sliced, on a plate.

I don't remember specifically learning the names of any particular vegetable other than the ones I saw in books. Rabbits always ate carrots, so that was obvious, and James had his giant peach. Teachers always wore apple jewelry, but I'm not sure I ever saw a whole pear or pineapple until I was much older. I was at least in high school before I saw an eggplant.

Grocery stores in low-income areas don't often have "exotic" fruits and vegetables like eggplants, plantains, beets, squash, turnips, bok choy, etc.

WV is a livestock state. Their top 5 commodities are animals and hay.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/statefacts/wv.htm Maybe if you don't grow it, you don't see it?

[Travis]

I should point out that I probably wouldn't have known those vegetables at that age either. And I ate lots of fresh fruit and vegetables! It's just that all I knew about them, at that time, was that they mysteriously appeared on plates--diced and sliced--brought in from the kitchen by my mom.

So really this has nothing to do with whether kids eat fresh fruits and vegetables and everything to do with whether these kids are allowed to prepare their own meals or dutifully pay attention to whoever does.

[DC]

what are kids in the USA doing while they are in Kindergarten? here vegetables and fruits get teached to kindergarden children already. its not only part of learning about food, but also about learning to talk.

[Travis]

I believe we did mostly farm animals and things like cars.

That and endless hours of stupid cut and paste things.

[Jeff Corey]

I believe we did mostly farm animals and things like cars..


You were so fortunate. We had to wait until high school for that.

[JAStewart]

I have Dwight K. Schrute to thank for showing me beets.

[blobru]

Maybe a bit troubling, but those kids are only six years old. Let's not forget how bad things were 20 years ago, when sixth-graders in New Jersey couldn't even spell "potatoe" (without vice-presidential assistance) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wdqbi66oNuI)! :flag

Wdqbi66oNuI

[Ferguson]

I doubt I would have done better at 6, and I loved fresh fruits. Tomatoes I would have gotten, because we grew them, but the "normal" fruits and veggies that kids would have experience with were all absent: apples, pears, bananas, broccoli, raspberries, blueberries, etc.
I only knew what whole beets looked like from the cartoon Doug, and I don't know if I've ever seen a whole eggplant in person.

[!Kaggen]

Maybe a bit troubling, but those kids are only six years old. Let's not forget how bad things were 20 years ago, when sixth-graders in New Jersey couldn't even spell "potatoe" (without vice-presidential assistance) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wdqbi66oNuI)! :flag

Wdqbi66oNuI

Hilarious

[!Kaggen]

The thing about food and children is that it is such a brilliant medium to teach with.

One can teach math, physics, chemistry, biology, history, engineering and art through the medium of food.

That's apart from learning discipline, dexterity, dating, patience, smelling, tasting, feeling, timing and happiness.

And it's not like children can't relate to food.

Better still take another step and teach kids about growing vegetables. My 4 year old knows how to plant, weed and pick his own veggies. He and his 6 year old sister even know how to find edible weeds and wild berries. They eat olives, sushi and wasabi peanuts. They love a taste of a Local Microbrewery Beer,a port wooded Balvinie and a natural yeast Shiraz.

Why are the basics adults end up enjoying most of all such as quality food, drink and socializing not part of education?

Are we trying to make a miserable person who continuously consumes mediocrity and therefore is never satisfied?

Is this the cause of the obesity epidemic? The acceptance of poor quality food. It's interesting to see that cultures with a high regard for quality food have low obesity and live longer. France and Japan comes to mind.

[AmandaM]

They love a taste of a Local Microbrewery Beer,a port wooded Balvinie and a natural yeast Shiraz.


See now, in my area if you so much as ADMIT that you let your kid taste alcohol, you'd be in jail and the kid would be in foster care.


Consumption of alcohol by minors is illegal in the US. Does allowing your child a "sip" actually encourage them to disobey the law? What message is the parent sending?

[Emet]

Consumption of alcohol by minors is illegal in the US. Does allowing your child a "sip" actually encourage them to disobey the law? What message is the parent sending?

There are many exceptions.

From Wiki:


Legal drinking age

United States

The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 states that revenue will be withheld from states that allow the purchase of alcohol by anyone under the age of 21. Prior to the effective date of that Act, the drinking age varied from state to state. Some states do not allow those under the legal drinking age to be present in liquor stores or in bars (usually, the difference between a bar and a restaurant is that food is served only in the latter). Contrary to popular belief, since the act went into law, few states prohibit minors and young adults from consuming alcohol in private settings. As of January 1, 2010, 15 states and the District of Columbia ban underage consumption outright, 17 states do not specifically ban underage consumption, and the remaining 18 states have family member and/or location exceptions to their underage consumption laws.
Federal law explicitly provides for religious, medical, employment and private club possession exceptions; as of 2005, 31 states have family member and/or location exceptions to their underage possession laws. However, non-alcoholic beer in many (but not all) states, such as Idaho, Texas, and Maryland, is considered legal for minors (those under the age of 21).[14]
By a judge's ruling, South Carolina appears to allow the possession and consumption of alcohol by those 18 to 20 years of age though a circuit court judge said otherwise.[15]



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_drinking_age#Americas

[fuelair]

I see, so not knowing about the basics is regarded as education.What basics (he asks curiously)? I honestly know of no state whose Standards (tested on the state test for academic progress) asks questions that involve recognizing tomatoes/ potatoes, bacon, rib-eye steaks or corn on the cob. Schools have rather enough to do teaching math, language and writing, very (my standards) limited history/socio-economics and science (though science is the one most likely to teach the vegetables/fruits by possibly doing a class garden as an ongoing science project). Problem is- the same teacher teaches all the subjects in elementary and they are mostly hired because of language/reading-writing teaching skills or same but math. No elementary school teacher is hired for science skills over the two noted and science is usually an elementary school teacher's weak area. NOT their fault, just life as she are done.:)

[AmandaM]

There are many exceptions.


Ah, interesting. I don't know why I assumed the laws would be the same in every state, but in Indiana it's a class D felony to provide alcohol to someone under 21, and a class C misdemeanor for anyone under 21 to possess or consume alcohol.

For what it's worth, I plan on getting my child involved in cooking as much as I can, maybe even writing my own ABC primer for vegetables! I have this fantasy about raising a professional chef who will love cooking for mommy. :)

[Emet]

Ah, interesting. I don't know why I assumed the laws would be the same in every state, but in Indiana it's a class D felony to provide alcohol to someone under 21, and a class C misdemeanor for anyone under 21 to possess or consume alcohol.

Yeah, state laws vary, as do local laws. There are still quite a few dry counties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_county).

Has the Hoosier State worked out its time zone controversies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_Indiana#Controversy) yet? :boggled:

[Travis]

I would probably have gotten an apple or banana at that age. But not a tomato or lettuce which I never saw until they were already inside a sandwich or salad.

[Mr. Purple]

I teach a helluva lot of 4-12 year olds in an enviro ed / animal context. Lots of 6 year olds don't really have a grasp on fruits and vegetables, and I teach in an area with ridiculously high quality schools (public and private).

These kids shop at Whole Foods with their parents, many help with community gardens (all the rage at the moment), and many of them help me feed these very fruits and vegetables to animals. These kids don't realize that chicken nuggets are from animals, or that they themselves eat plant material at all.

I am not really bothered by this, after all, THEY ARE SIX. There are entirely more important things to worry about at that age, like how to walk around and not idiot yourself to death.

They have been alive for a bit over 2000 days, give them a break.

[AmandaM]

Yeah, state laws vary, as do local laws. There are still quite a few dry counties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_county).

Has the Hoosier State worked out its time zone controversies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_Indiana#Controversy) yet? :boggled:


Gods no, and it just changed again in 2010. :boggled::boggled::boggled:

There's nothing quite so unsatisfying as living in one time zone and working in another. Or traveling a lot and trying to figure out who's on Chicago time, who's on Indianapolis time, and whether you're on daylight saving time or not. :mad:

[stilicho]

You all do realize that even kids know that bizarre wrong answers are more likely to get them airtime than boring right answers.

....

That's the real message.

[Ausmerican]

To a 6 year old:
Cauliflower; the one that looks like a tree that I dont like!
Broccoli; the one that looks like a tree that I dont like!

[Captain_Snort]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww


Anyway, I can believe the original clip was specially edited, and I know that it is very hard to know what food looks like. Part of my current studies is lecturing on food inspection and safety, part of that is arranging a 'Food Table.' Basically tables full of food, from the mundane to outright strange (it is masters degree level) and I do not think anyone will ever score 100%, when I did it I got about 80% which was a very good score.

[NoahFence]

I saw this on TV last night and couldn't believe it :eye-poppi

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGYs4KS_djg

What is going on in the US of A?

Are children being factory molded to be dumb consumers of Big Ag rubbish?

This is truly scary!!!

Answer = education in this country is B-A-D

(and every year some political dolt rams home how important it is. Been doing that for like 40 years)

Anyway I can't imagine that video is real. That's TOO messed up. Even for us.

[ConspicuousCarl]

Those kids are SIX. They can't even see over the edge of the bins in the produce section, or over the kitchen counter, and nobody sticks whole tomatoes on a kid's plate. I don't expect a school to tell a kid what a tomato is. When he is tall enough to actually see one, I can tell him.

[AdMan]

Those kids are SIX. They can't even see over the edge of the bins in the produce section, or over the kitchen counter, and nobody sticks whole tomatoes on a kid's plate. I don't expect a school to tell a kid what a tomato is. When he is tall enough to actually see one, I can tell him.


I'm surprised that some posters are saying this.

I knew what a tomato was when I was six. I probably didn't learn it at school, but at home, and at the market.

Why defend ignorance? :confused:

[!Kaggen]

I'm surprised that some posters are saying this.

I knew what a tomato was when I was six. I probably didn't learn it at school, but at home, and at the market.

Why defend ignorance? :confused:

I am asking myself the same thing.

It's only food folks not integrals!!!!

[!Kaggen]

Those kids are SIX. They can't even see over the edge of the bins in the produce section, or over the kitchen counter, and nobody sticks whole tomatoes on a kid's plate. I don't expect a school to tell a kid what a tomato is. When he is tall enough to actually see one, I can tell him.

No I do not stick whole tomatoes on my kids plate I take them into the veggie garden to pick their own. Then they cut it up themselves and make the family meal salad.

[technoextreme]

I'm surprised that some posters are saying this.

I knew what a tomato was when I was six. I probably didn't learn it at school, but at home, and at the market.

Why defend ignorance? :confused:
Because every person here seems to think its so easy to identify a vegetable which has a good chance of being named after another fruit. Seriously, at six I probably was the only person here on this forums who actually was readily able to identify any variety of tomatoes and that is only because my grandpa actually grew five different varieties of tomatoes at one time or another. Each having its own distinctive shape that wouldn't necessarily be all that hard to confuse with other plants.

[Nihilianth]

True, we don't know how many classrooms Jamie visited in addition to this one, but a classroom full of first graders who can't identify tomatoes... embarrassing.

I'm pretty sure those 6 year-olds are in kindergarten.

So a bunch of 6 year-olds couldn't identify a bunch of rarely seen fruits and vegetables. Big deal. The age of is not exactly known for being able to identify things terribly efficiently.

I teach second grade, and our science consists of learning what vegetables are, what fruits are, that trees grow from seeds, etc. And these kids are two years older.

I grew up in a family who owns and operates several restaurants. I didn't start knowing about foods until I was around the age of 8, when they had my little behind hit up the place as a bus boy, and to begin learning how to use a knife, and such.

[Earthborn]

So a bunch of 6 year-olds couldn't identify a bunch of rarely seen fruits and vegetables. Big deal.I think Jamie Oliver would argue that it is kind of a big deal that these fruits and vegetables are rarely seen...

[Nihilianth]

I think Jamie Oliver would argue that it is kind of a big deal that these fruits and vegetables are rarely seen...

I would agree with it, if it were actually true.

The problem is, as many others before me have said, by the time the fruit and/or vegetable is diced up on a plate and arrives in front of the child in question, it tends to look radically different.

In any case, some of those things, such as eggplants, are not exactly the most widely-eaten plants in the world. I am Italian with restaurants in my family. I grew up making Eggplant Parm. I know perfectly well what an eggplant is when I see one. But for someone who has never seen one, who cares?

If a six year old has never eaten eggplant, is that really such a tragedy? I would hardly think so. Just because you never touched an eggplant, or cauliflower, doesn't automatically mean their diet is terrible or anything like that.

[Ausmerican]

It isn't necessarily a lack of those foods though. My daughter is 4. Until a few weeks ago she wouldn't have recognised an apple unless it was already sliced up. Same for several other kinds of fruits and vegetables. Grapes and bananas she could pick though because she regularly saw them in an unprepared state.

[Ausmerican]

I would agree with it, if it were actually true.

The problem is, as many others before me have said, by the time the fruit and/or vegetable is diced up on a plate and arrives in front of the child in question, it tends to look radically different.

In any case, some of those things, such as eggplants, are not exactly the most widely-eaten plants in the world. I am Italian with restaurants in my family. I grew up making Eggplant Parm. I know perfectly well what an eggplant is when I see one. But for someone who has never seen one, who cares?

If a six year old has never eaten eggplant, is that really such a tragedy? I would hardly think so. Just because you never touched an eggplant, or cauliflower, doesn't automatically mean their diet is terrible or anything like that.

I am 43 and have lived on two different continents. I have never eaten eggplant to my knowledge. I have eaten kangaroo, rattlesnake, emu, alligator, bison and a bunch of other things but eggplant just hasnt found its way onto my plate. And my wifes mothers side of the family are Italian.

[Nihilianth]

I am 43 and have lived on two different continents. I have never eaten eggplant to my knowledge. I have eaten kangaroo, rattlesnake, emu, alligator, bison and a bunch of other things but eggplant just hasnt found its way onto my plate. And my wifes mothers side of the family are Italian.

:D

Stuff is pretty delicious, if you prepare it correctly. If you don't, it can be kinda of nasty. Has the same consistency as chicken, only a bit slimier. It even looks like a hunk of chicken when it's in the pan, covered with sauce and spaghetti. If you saw and ate my family's eggplant (which is REALLY friggin good,) then saw a raw eggplant, there is absolutely no way to identify the finished product as coming from the raw ingredient.

You should try the stuff! But, you have to find someone who knows how to cook eggplant parm, and cook it well. Otherwise, the stuff is NASTY. I wouldn't suggest eating eggplant salad. It's gross, smells awful, and tastes worse. It smells and tastes like sulfur. Blech! Makes me gag.

[Earthborn]

The problem is, as many others before me have said, by the time the fruit and/or vegetable is diced up on a plate and arrives in front of the child in question, it tends to look radically different.Yes, that is the problem: it means that parents do not teach their children what they are eating and how it came to be the way it looks on their plates. In other words, children are conditioned from an early age to think of food as something that comes ready made and prepared by someone else in a process they are not part of, instead of being incorporated into food culture.

In any case, some of those things, such as eggplants, are not exactly the most widely-eaten plants in the world.Tomatoes are, and I think children should be able to recognise the things they eat.

[MummRa]

Problem is- the same teacher teaches all the subjects in elementary and they are mostly hired because of language/reading-writing teaching skills or same but math. No elementary school teacher is hired for science skills over the two noted and science is usually an elementary school teacher's weak area. NOT their fault, just life as she are done.:)

Actually (and happily), one of the big reasons I was hired by my school district was because I have such an affinity and ability for science. And now I am leading the charge to have all grades teach more science (as opposed to just 4th and 5th, where they are to get ready for the state test).

So there are some schools out there looking to make a change. My kids are just happy because we get to light things on fire. :)

[Stellafane]

Is this how bad education is in the USA?


I saw this on TV last night and couldn't believe it :eye-poppi

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGYs4KS_djg

What is going on in the US of A?

Are children being factory molded to be dumb consumers of Big Ag rubbish?

This is truly scary!!!

Why ar you blaming this on USA education? These children have barely had any. If after a few years in school they still can't identify basic veggies, then you might have a point. But these kids may only have been in school a matter of a few weeks or even less. If anything, this is a testament to the quality of the US school system: they take kids lacking in the most basic of knowledge and still manage to educate them.

[Emet]

Actually (and happily), one of the big reasons I was hired by my school district was because I have such an affinity and ability for science. And now I am leading the charge to have all grades teach more science (as opposed to just 4th and 5th, where they are to get ready for the state test).

So there are some schools out there looking to make a change. My kids are just happy because we get to light things on fire. :)

Sweet. :) Since I am a scientist, but not an educator, I'd like to ask a question.

Many moons ago, I roomed with elementary education majors while an undergraduate (small sample size). Their lack of understanding and fear of science was amazing to me.

How hard do you (or anyone else) think it will be for educators like that (if they exist) to even teach very elementary science?

[Nihilianth]

Yes, that is the problem: it means that parents do not teach their children what they are eating and how it came to be the way it looks on their plates. In other words, children are conditioned from an early age to think of food as something that comes ready made and prepared by someone else in a process they are not part of, instead of being incorporated into food culture.

Not everything has to be a life-lesson for children, ya know.

Tomatoes are, and I think children should be able to recognise the things they eat.

They should, but six is still a bit on the young side for them to fully understand everything in front of their eyes. Someone mentioned they have only been around for about 2000 days. As that person said: Give them a break.

[Nihilianth]

Actually (and happily), one of the big reasons I was hired by my school district was because I have such an affinity and ability for science. And now I am leading the charge to have all grades teach more science (as opposed to just 4th and 5th, where they are to get ready for the state test).

So there are some schools out there looking to make a change. My kids are just happy because we get to light things on fire. :)

Pushing the agenda for science is great and all, but not at the expense of math and reading, and grammar, especially for under 3rd grade. ;)

[Jaggy Bunnet]

In another scene the principal and kitchen staff explained to Jamie that the kids from 6-10 yrs old don't get knives and forks to eat with.

Seriously?

[Travis]

Yes, that is the problem: it means that parents do not teach their children what they are eating and how it came to be the way it looks on their plates. In other words, children are conditioned from an early age to think of food as something that comes ready made and prepared by someone else in a process they are not part of, instead of being incorporated into food culture.

Tomatoes are, and I think children should be able to recognise the things they eat.

And I think you are utterly wrong. Why is this even important to a six year old? At that age they are struggling to get that reading and even counting numbers thing down.

And I'm very skeptical about all the people claiming they could have identified these things at that age. It's human nature to overestimate how intelligent and worldly wise we were at young ages.

And why is it important to have kids steeped in "food culture" whatever the hell that is? I wasn't even allowed in the kitchen when I was that age. But I learned to cook. Sure I didn't grow up to be some sort of snobby vegan but I do know how to cook.

[bikerdruid]

i find it remarkable that this discussion is still going on.
i'm not overly concerned about whether or not young children can recognize a tomato.
i'm more concerned whether or not they can recognize the word 'tomato', and spell it.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

i find it remarkable that this discussion is still going on.
i'm not overly concerned about whether or not young children can recognize a tomato.
i'm more concerned whether or not they can recognize the word 'tomato', and spell it.


That's nothing.

I heard there are people here in Alberta Canada who taught public schools and think that 9/11 was an inside job.

[bikerdruid]

That's nothing.

I heard there are people here in Alberta Canada who taught public schools and think that 9/11 was an inside job.

please note, that regardless of your implication, that does not equate to "taught that 911 was an inside job".
i taught English literature and language, to kids.
(note the illustration of basic capitalization skills, which i also taught.)

[Travis]

I do not readily expect six year old children to have mastered reading enough to get that word at that age. By age eight I think they definitely should but otherwise I would not be so concerned.

[Stellafane]

i'm more concerned whether or not they can recognize the word 'tomato', and spell it.

Actually, we've made it as easy as possible for kids -- we give them credit if they so much as recognize the word "catsup," and we let them spell it any way they want.

[Ausmerican]

Actually, we've made it as easy as possible for kids -- we give them credit if they so much as recognize the word "catsup," and we let them spell it any way they want.

Australia is much harder on them What is called catsup or ketchup here is called Tomato Sauce there. So they have to be able to spell the vegetable and another word. Hard stuff.

[Number Six]

I've seen a few Jamie Oliver program and while he seemed to be a very pleasant person I went away with the impression that he is just out of touch and unrealistic. After watching the clip in the OP I now think he's __really__ out of touch and unrealistic if he thinks the things in that clip were so bad (and as others have noted, those were probably the Worst Of parts).

Jamie Oliver strikes me as someone trying to teach others to be good people by following his religion instead of teaching others to be good people and letting them pick their own religion. I understand teaching people to eat healthy because everyone has to eat so it might as well be healthy so they can live longer. But what is with all the "relationship with food" stuff? Why?

I thought the point of having experts was that they could figure out the stuff in their area of expertise and save the rest of us the trouble of becoming experts too. Quick and easy food became popular for a reason, namely because people would rather spend time doing things other than making meals from scratch every night. If it turns out that the quick and easy food isn't very healthy then the thing to do is for chefs to find a way to make it healthier, not try to make everyone become a chef. I know that that particular video isn't trying to make the kids become chefs but geez, the kids are 6 and he's offended they're not so into food they don't know what an eggplant is!

[TX50]

...

[Ausmerican]

...

Interesting take, tell me more of your theory.

[AdMan]

...


I disagree totally, especially about the eggplant.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

please note, that regardless of your implication, that does not equate to "taught that 911 was an inside job".

Which is a good thing. If any teacher actually taught such a thing, it would be grounds to have him fired.

[Nihilianth]

i find it remarkable that this discussion is still going on.
i'm not overly concerned about whether or not young children can recognize a tomato.
i'm more concerned whether or not they can recognize the word 'tomato', and spell it.

And for once, I actually agree with something you have said. ;)

[Nihilianth]

Actually, we've made it as easy as possible for kids -- we give them credit if they so much as recognize the word "catsup," and we let them spell it any way they want.

Who lets kids spell any way they want!? Not in MY second grade classroom, I sure as heck don't.

although, if they knew and recognized both the words "ketchup," "catsup," and "catchup," they can get away with it. But only if they actually understand what it is they are spelling.

[Nihilianth]

I've seen a few Jamie Oliver program and while he seemed to be a very pleasant person I went away with the impression that he is just out of touch and unrealistic. After watching the clip in the OP I now think he's __really__ out of touch and unrealistic if he thinks the things in that clip were so bad (and as others have noted, those were probably the Worst Of parts).

Jamie Oliver strikes me as someone trying to teach others to be good people by following his religion instead of teaching others to be good people and letting them pick their own religion. I understand teaching people to eat healthy because everyone has to eat so it might as well be healthy so they can live longer. But what is with all the "relationship with food" stuff? Why?

I thought the point of having experts was that they could figure out the stuff in their area of expertise and save the rest of us the trouble of becoming experts too. Quick and easy food became popular for a reason, namely because people would rather spend time doing things other than making meals from scratch every night. If it turns out that the quick and easy food isn't very healthy then the thing to do is for chefs to find a way to make it healthier, not try to make everyone become a chef. I know that that particular video isn't trying to make the kids become chefs but geez, the kids are 6 and he's offended they're not so into food they don't know what an eggplant is!

Well, I honestly think it is rather important for people to be able to make their own informed decision, especially when it comes to food.

[tomgv15]

I wonder if kids have too much control over their diets, maintaining a limited palate into adulthood.

[Travis]

I don't know when I was a kid I helped my mom pick out meals and I was always eager to try new things. I liked most vegetables and even..........liver!

[brodski]

i taught English literature and language, to kids.
(note the illustration of basic capitalization skills, which i also taught.)

Did you teach irony?

Sorry, should that be Irony?

[Number Six]

Well, I honestly think it is rather important for people to be able to make their own informed decision, especially when it comes to food.

I do too but I don't think that necessarily corresponds to being able to identify an eggplant or preparing a meal from scratch every night.

[Suddenly]

Now that I think about it, it does show how bad education is in the USA (or wherever) when a person thinks it is significant as to the national quality of education that a random six year old in Huntington, West Virginia can't identify a tomato.

[bikerdruid]

Did you teach irony?

Sorry, should that be Irony?

why, yes i did.
no, irony does not require a capital letter.;)

[!Kaggen]

So anyone watch Jamie's TED speech?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIwrV5e6fMY&feature=player_embedded

Obesity is a problem in the USA and the simple solution starts with small kids learning about food. What it is, where it comes from and what food is good for you.

The fact that it takes a cook from Essex to point out the solution under the noses of "professionals " is indicative of the failure of the top-down approach of education.

[Ausmerican]

So anyone watch Jamie's TED speech?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIwrV5e6fMY&feature=player_embedded

Obesity is a problem in the USA and the simple solution starts with small kids learning about food. What it is, where it comes from and what food is good for you.

The fact that it takes a cook from Essex to point out the solution under the noses of "professionals " is indicative of the failure of the top-down approach of education.

Which still has nothing to do with 6 year olds being able to pick eggplant from a lineup. If they had finished Elementary School and still couldn't do it then the school may be the problem. But at 6 most by far of their interaction with food has been via parents not school.

[!Kaggen]

Which still has nothing to do with 6 year olds being able to pick eggplant from a lineup. If they had finished Elementary School and still couldn't do it then the school may be the problem. But at 6 most by far of their interaction with food has been via parents not school.

Ah so the parents were educated where?

[Ausmerican]

Ah so the parents were educated where?

Well looking around my family, mine were educated in Australia, my wifes in the U.S, my sister in law; one in Taiwan and one in China and all of them say they learned about food at home, not at school.

[technoextreme]

So anyone watch Jamie's TED speech?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIwrV5e6fMY&feature=player_embedded

Obesity is a problem in the USA and the simple solution starts with small kids learning about food. What it is, where it comes from and what food is good for you.

The fact that it takes a cook from Essex to point out the solution under the noses of "professionals " is indicative of the failure of the top-down approach of education.
That is the stupidest assertion that I have ever heard. I know more about vegetables and fruits than anyone here that isn't a farmer. I was still a fat rolly olly cherub. I came to the obvious realization a long time ago that if you actually move around you can offset the large amount of junk food that you eat. Its extremely hard to do but holy crap that is far more important than teaching kids about food because it really didn't help me at all.

[!Kaggen]

That is the stupidest assertion that I have ever heard. I know more about vegetables and fruits than anyone here that isn't a farmer. I was still a fat rolly olly cherub. I came to the obvious realization a long time ago that if you actually move around you can offset the large amount of junk food that you eat. Its extremely hard to do but holy crap that is far more important than teaching kids about food because it really didn't help me at all.

Nice anecdote

[Nihilianth]

I do too but I don't think that necessarily corresponds to being able to identify an eggplant or preparing a meal from scratch every night.

You don't even have to prepare anything from scratch every single night. You can eat a perfectly healthy meal that takes all of 5-10 minutes to throw together real quick.

So anyone watch Jamie's TED speech?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIwrV5e6fMY&feature=player_embedded

Obesity is a problem in the USA and the simple solution starts with small kids learning about food. What it is, where it comes from and what food is good for you.

The fact that it takes a cook from Essex to point out the solution under the noses of "professionals " is indicative of the failure of the top-down approach of education.

It should be more of the parents' responsibility to teach about food, not the schools'. The school already has enough on its plate (no pun intended!) trying to teach kids how to read, write, do math, and etc. We barely have enough time to even teach those things. I have no idea where we could possibly fit in food education. lol.

That is the stupidest assertion that I have ever heard. I know more about vegetables and fruits than anyone here that isn't a farmer. I was still a fat rolly olly cherub. I came to the obvious realization a long time ago that if you actually move around you can offset the large amount of junk food that you eat. Its extremely hard to do but holy crap that is far more important than teaching kids about food because it really didn't help me at all.

Uh, you do realize that diet has a much more profound effect on weight control than exercise, do you not?

The most efficient way of losing weight: Eating rabbit food, with some protein here and there, and swimming laps every single day. I guarantee you will literally see the pounds just melt away.

[Ausmerican]

Uh, you do realize that diet has a much more profound effect on weight control than exercise, do you not?

The most efficient way of losing weight: Eating rabbit food, with some protein here and there, and swimming laps every single day. I guarantee you will literally see the pounds just melt away.

Yes but many people would rather put a lot more effort into working out to allow themselves to indulge their gluttony. I am one of those myself. By the way, I think that might be an incorrect use of 'literally' in that last sentence. At least i hope it is.

[Travis]

So that's why my friends are obese. They just don't know about the existence of healthy foods!

Oh wait.......they do. They just don't care. They'd rather be fat.

[Ausmerican]

For the most part children get to select from the foods their parents eat. Because that is what their parents buy.
Even if the kid comes home and tells them he wants to start eating healthy and lays out his diet plan quite often the response will be "You'll eat what the rest of us are eating." Trying to change this at a young school level, like first grade, is silly.

Most people know from a fairly early age what constitutes healthy food versus junk but as Travis points out we eat what we like not what we should. It often isn't a matter of education or ignorance. It is a matter of choice.

Rather than asking these 6 year olds to identify various vegetables if you had put candy, fast food, fruits, vegetables, and cookies out and asked the kids to dentify which groups were good for you and which werent, they probably would've scored 100%.
Then they would've eaten the candy and cookies! :D

[MummRa]

FYI...I saw a worksheet for Kindergarteners at my school today. Real vs. Imaginary stuff. And one item was a bunch of tomatoes growing on the vine.

Suck on THAT, Jamie Oliver. :-p

[Aepervius]

Uh, you do realize that diet has a much more profound effect on weight control than exercise, do you not?

The most efficient way of losing weight: Eating rabbit food, with some protein here and there, and swimming laps every single day. I guarantee you will literally see the pounds just melt away.

Diet change might have a more profound effect, but diet change are *much* harder to implement, especially the craving which can be terrible , and the psychological impact. Doing sport is much easier and require only an iron will to follow up on it, rather than the titanium-steel will dieting might require.

[technoextreme]

Diet change might have a more profound effect, but diet change are *much* harder to implement, especially the craving which can be terrible , and the psychological impact. Doing sport is much easier and require only an iron will to follow up on it, rather than the titanium-steel will dieting might require.
I think if you read that carefully that was well placed sarcasm. Also, I don't think diet change will do much of anything contrary to his/her assertion. My diet was never really all that bad primarily because well for the same reason why James Oliver is trying to help those kids.

[bikerdruid]

FYI...I saw a worksheet for Kindergarteners at my school today. Real vs. Imaginary stuff. And one item was a bunch of tomatoes growing on the vine.

Suck on THAT, Jamie Oliver. :-p


real or imaginary?

[MummRa]

well, the counterpart was a tomato with feet talking on the telephone. I'll let you make the educated hypothesis. ;)

[AmandaM]

I wonder if kids have too much control over their diets, maintaining a limited palate into adulthood.

My husband and I eat at restaurants a lot, and lately I've been looking at the "children's menu" at some of them. It's the same crap -- hotdog, fried chicken pieces, some kind of finger food meat -- that usually bears no resemblance to the cuisine the restaurant actually serves.

I'm wondering if having a limited children's menu plays a factor in kids having a limited palate.

And it's not just in restaurants -- I have friends who make one meal for the adults and serve a "kid's meal" for the kids. Same crappy selections. A lot of times the excuse is that it's all the kid will eat. Really?

Tell me, please -- is this "it's all the kid will eat" excuse legitimate? As a parent, is this just one battle you all choose not to fight? Is it acceptable to cave in and let your kid eat PB&Js until it gets tired of them? If kids have that much control over what they eat, how do you keep them from demanding twinkies and ice cream for every meal?

[tesscaline]

My husband and I eat at restaurants a lot, and lately I've been looking at the "children's menu" at some of them. It's the same crap -- hotdog, fried chicken pieces, some kind of finger food meat -- that usually bears no resemblance to the cuisine the restaurant actually serves.

I'm wondering if having a limited children's menu plays a factor in kids having a limited palate.

And it's not just in restaurants -- I have friends who make one meal for the adults and serve a "kid's meal" for the kids. Same crappy selections. A lot of times the excuse is that it's all the kid will eat. Really?

Tell me, please -- is this "it's all the kid will eat" excuse legitimate? As a parent, is this just one battle you all choose not to fight? Is it acceptable to cave in and let your kid eat PB&Js until it gets tired of them? If kids have that much control over what they eat, how do you keep them from demanding twinkies and ice cream for every meal?No, it is not a legitimate excuse. I almost never ordered for my son off the children's menu, and instead just had him eat whatever it was I was eating. He's been eating sushi since he was old enough to medically handle raw fish. He's been eating authentic mexican food, italian, french, spanish, and so on since he was old enough to handle solid foods.

As a result, he's got the most varied palate I've ever seen on a 12 year old. And he definitely knew what tomatoes were well before he was 6. In addition to that, he's the type of kid who will opt for a carrot over a chocolate chip cookie. I've also kept him fairly involved in food preparation, even as a toddler/infant, by keeping him in the kitchen with me while I cooked, and telling him the names of things and what I was doing with them.

Yes, we did hotdogs and chicken nugget sorts of things, but only because toddlers eat about 6 meals a day, when I only eat 2 or so. And yes, it was solely out of convenience of being able to throw something in the microwave and have it just be "done" while I was busy doing other things. But for parents to rely on those foods as staples for their children is, in my opinion, negligent. Doing so just teaches them that those things are "meals" instead of the instant snacks/treats they are. People don't realize that you mold a child's tastes at such an early age, and they're doing those children a vast disservice by drowning them in "fake" foods that are nothing but corn syrup (not that there's anything intrinsically wrong with corn syrup, mind you), highly processed carbohydrates, and the bits of meat that are so distasteful that the only use for them is to grind them up and press them into funny shapes.

[!Kaggen]

Finally some realization that education is not just about learning abstract ideas in a classroom. An "educated" sense of taste is an essential and basic requirement for a healthy human being.

Children should be educated to utilize all their senses to their fullest.
Instead they are being bombarded with abstractions and their senses are left to waste away till they except rubbish as long as it's justified by numbers.

I watched the 3rd episode last night. There was a perfect example of what I am talking about. Jamie went to the high school to start changing the meals there from burgers, pizza's, fries and flavoured milk to grilled chicken, pasta salad and fruit salad. The district inspector complained that there was not enough veggies and fruit in Jamie's meal according to the USDA guidelines! Apparently fries are acceptable as a vegetable and serving a salad which nobody actually helped themselves too was acceptable. When Jamie pointed out that his meal had 8 different veggies in the pasta salad and 3 types of fruit in the fruit salad and they were part of the actual meal and not an optional he was ignored. So having a theoretical amount of "classified" vegetables in a meal of hamburgers and fries was more acceptable to the USDA guidelines than an actual amount of 8 different veggies and 3 fruit in a pasta salad and fruit salad!

Talk about blindly following the book.... The bible has been replaced by the USDA guidelines in the USA.

[Number Six]

No, it is not a legitimate excuse. I almost never ordered for my son off the children's menu, and instead just had him eat whatever it was I was eating. He's been eating sushi since he was old enough to medically handle raw fish. He's been eating authentic mexican food, italian, french, spanish, and so on since he was old enough to handle solid foods.

As a result, he's got the most varied palate I've ever seen on a 12 year old. And he definitely knew what tomatoes were well before he was 6. In addition to that, he's the type of kid who will opt for a carrot over a chocolate chip cookie. I've also kept him fairly involved in food preparation, even as a toddler/infant, by keeping him in the kitchen with me while I cooked, and telling him the names of things and what I was doing with them.

Yes, we did hotdogs and chicken nugget sorts of things, but only because toddlers eat about 6 meals a day, when I only eat 2 or so. And yes, it was solely out of convenience of being able to throw something in the microwave and have it just be "done" while I was busy doing other things. But for parents to rely on those foods as staples for their children is, in my opinion, negligent. Doing so just teaches them that those things are "meals" instead of the instant snacks/treats they are. People don't realize that you mold a child's tastes at such an early age, and they're doing those children a vast disservice by drowning them in "fake" foods that are nothing but corn syrup (not that there's anything intrinsically wrong with corn syrup, mind you), highly processed carbohydrates, and the bits of meat that are so distasteful that the only use for them is to grind them up and press them into funny shapes.

Your first couple paragraphs are okay but your last paragraph evolves into woo IMO.

Is something intrinsically bad because it is cooked in a microwave oven and it is convenient? Why is something not a meal because it was cooked in a microwave oven instead of a traditional oven?

And "fake" foods? Do you really want to stick with that on a board like this? If "fake" foods were really fake then people wouldn't be able to survive for long eating a lot of them. Instead, people that eat them routinely survive decades. If you insist on calling something that it clearly is not then it's a red flag for me.

As far as health goes, what matters is the effect on your body when you put the food into your mouth. Except that for each meal what matters is what is in that particular meal whereas what matters in the long run is the sum total of what you put into your body.

The things we put into our mouths don't care about us. They're just things.

[stokes234]

As far as health goes, what matters is the effect on your body when you put the food into your mouth. Except that for each meal what matters is what is in that particular meal whereas what matters in the long run is the sum total of what you put into your body.

I like Jamie Oliver, because even though he is rubbish on science and practically treats cooking as a religion, and even though his toungue is way too big for his mouth, his message is a good one and it worked well in the UK with school dinners.

What food you eat doesn't just affect a kids health in the long run, it also affects their ability to concentrate and learn in the classroom in the short term. If you have a better solution, go ahead and implement it, but I think you'll struggle to argue that he is making the world a worse place in his attempts to convince kids to eat more healthily.

[tesscaline]

Your first couple paragraphs are okay but your last paragraph evolves into woo IMO.

Is something intrinsically bad because it is cooked in a microwave oven and it is convenient? Why is something not a meal because it was cooked in a microwave oven instead of a traditional oven?

And "fake" foods? Do you really want to stick with that on a board like this? If "fake" foods were really fake then people wouldn't be able to survive for long eating a lot of them. Instead, people that eat them routinely survive decades. If you insist on calling something that it clearly is not then it's a red flag for me.

As far as health goes, what matters is the effect on your body when you put the food into your mouth. Except that for each meal what matters is what is in that particular meal whereas what matters in the long run is the sum total of what you put into your body.

The things we put into our mouths don't care about us. They're just things.Do you have any idea what goes into a chicken nugget? Or a hot dog? Or any of the other "instant" foods people end up eating? They are "fake" food. There are little to no nutrients, but a ton of calories instead. This is not "food" -- it is obesity in the making.

Maybe if people actually understood what they were putting in their mouths, they wouldn't be so cavalier about attacking statements such as the ones I've made. Or, maybe they would -- out of some sense of understanding that what they're eating is BAD for them, and shame for it. Either way... These foods are NOT healthy if they are ALL a child is eating. Or maybe you missed that part of the equation -- that this junk is ALL some parents are feeding their children. Period. Even going so far as to prepare it separately from real meals (you know, ones with vitamins, and minerals, and dietary fibre) so that they can feed it to their children.

And where did I say that something was intrinsically bad because it was microwaved? I think I specifically pointed out the lack of nutritional content (nothing but cornsyrup, processed carbs, and junk meats). But you know, go ahead and ignore all that, and make a strawman instead. Whatever floats your boat.

[tyr_13]

Do you have any idea what goes into a chicken nugget?

Chicken and breading.

[technoextreme]

Do you have any idea what goes into a chicken nugget? Or a hot dog? Or any of the other "instant" foods people end up eating? They are "fake" food. There are little to no nutrients, but a ton of calories instead. This is not "food" -- it is obesity in the making.

Are you referring to the paranoid dellusion foodie version of a chicken nugget or hot dog or are you referring to reality based version of a chicken nugget or hot dog?

[AmandaM]

Ingredient list is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_McNuggets

but I'm not particularly "down" on McDonald's. I wouldn't take my family there more than once a month, and I don't particularly like the nuggets there (prefer Chick-Fil-A for that) but I'm not anti-MickeyD's at all. I do think "moderation" means considerably less than once a week, though.


Tess, I really appreciate your comments. I plan on keeping my baby as involved in the kitchen as I can (mostly because I think it would be super cool if it grows up to be a chef and can cook for Mommy! LOL) I was never allowed/encouraged to be in the kitchen as a kid, and I think that was a missed opportunity for some bonding between me and my mom -- and I don't want to miss out on that.

It seems to me maybe that some parents just automatically assume kids won't eat vegetables or healthier foods, and that gets reinforced when the parents "force" the kid to eat the vegetables, "because they're good for you." ?

[technoextreme]

Ingredient list is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_McNuggets


I don't' think one ingredient list makes for a representative population for all chicken nuggets.

[AmandaM]

Are you referring to the paranoid dellusion foodie version of a chicken nugget or hot dog or are you referring to reality based version of a chicken nugget or hot dog?

There is something very different about the chicken nuggets from McD's and those from Chick-Fil-A, for instance. But the chicken on McD's salads tastes a lot different from the plain old grilled chicken I make myself at home for salads. I have a suspicion that McD's chicken is injected with water to "bulk" it up (No proof - just a suspicion) because their chicken doesn't fill me up in the way that the same amount of chicken from home does. Also the texture is much different. The texture of a McNugget puts me off. The texture of the same from Chick-Fil-A is different and I like it. To me, I'm reminded of the difference between ground beef and steak.

[AmandaM]

I don't' think one ingredient list makes for a representative population for all chicken nuggets.

Really?

Chicken, water, salt, sodium phosphates.

I don't add water or preservatives, but the base chicken and salt (with some pepper and lemon) is pretty much how I make boneless chicken strips/fingers/nuggets in my house.

The breading recipe is variable -- but apart from spices, is there really going to be a huge difference?

[ZirconBlue]

When I was 6 I wasn't even allowed in the kitchen. I probably wouldn't have been able to identify a whole tomato either, since I only ever saw them sliced, on a plate.

I don't remember specifically learning the names of any particular vegetable other than the ones I saw in books. Rabbits always ate carrots, so that was obvious, and James had his giant peach. Teachers always wore apple jewelry, but I'm not sure I ever saw a whole pear or pineapple until I was much older. I was at least in high school before I saw an eggplant.

This post makes me sad.



To a 6 year old:
Cauliflower; the one that looks like a tree that I dont like!
Broccoli; the one that looks like a tree that I dont like!

My daughter likes both, although she complains of how the broccoli at school is overcooked and mushy.


And I'm very skeptical about all the people claiming they could have identified these things at that age. It's human nature to overestimate how intelligent and worldly wise we were at young ages.

Well, luckily, I don't have to rely on my own memory. I have an 8-year old daughter, and I can tell you that she could recognize most of those things way before age 6.


I know more about vegetables and fruits than anyone here that isn't a farmer.

What color are tomatoes again?

Tell me, please -- is this "it's all the kid will eat" excuse legitimate? As a parent, is this just one battle you all choose not to fight? Is it acceptable to cave in and let your kid eat PB&Js until it gets tired of them? If kids have that much control over what they eat, how do you keep them from demanding twinkies and ice cream for every meal?

I think it's crap. We don't always require our daughter to eat the same exact meal we have (since there are foods that we like that she doesn't), but she eats a lot of different foods. When she was little we exposed her to a lot of different things, and if we make something new, she is required to try it. (If she doesn't like it she doesn't have to finish it, however.)




I don't' think one ingredient list makes for a representative population for all chicken nuggets.

Between McDonalds and frozen nuggets (like Tyson or Banquet brand) you'd have a pretty good representative sample of the nuggets most kids in the US eat.

[ZirconBlue]

There is something very different about the chicken nuggets from McD's and those from Chick-Fil-A, for instance. But the chicken on McD's salads tastes a lot different from the plain old grilled chicken I make myself at home for salads. I have a suspicion that McD's chicken is injected with water to "bulk" it up (No proof - just a suspicion) because their chicken doesn't fill me up in the way that the same amount of chicken from home does. Also the texture is much different. The texture of a McNugget puts me off. The texture of the same from Chick-Fil-A is different and I like it. To me, I'm reminded of the difference between ground beef and steak.

McDonalds nuggets are chopped and formed chicken, whereas I believe the Chick-Fil-A nuggets are made from whole pieces of chicken.

[!Kaggen]

I plan on keeping my baby as involved in the kitchen as I can (mostly because I think it would be super cool if it grows up to be a chef and can cook for Mommy! LOL) I was never allowed/encouraged to be in the kitchen as a kid, and I think that was a missed opportunity for some bonding between me and my mom -- and I don't want to miss out on that.


:clap:

[technoextreme]

What color are tomatoes again?


The only reason why I worded it that way originally because I know most vegetables come in so many funky varieties that the odds are likely that you would come up with some weird colors. Basically I know enough to claim that any general characteristics of some vegetables is engaging in a hasty generalization fallacy and anyone who says otherwise is just as dumb as how those kids were made to be.

[Ausmerican]

I plan on keeping my baby as involved in the kitchen as I can (mostly because I think it would be super cool if it grows up to be a chef and can cook for Mommy! LOL) I was never allowed/encouraged to be in the kitchen as a kid, and I think that was a missed opportunity for some bonding between me and my mom -- and I don't want to miss out on that.

You might want to find a balance between "keeping my baby as involved in the kitchen as I can" and 'as involved in the kitchen as they would like.'
My parents love tennis. Everyone in my family, cousins, uncles, aunts brothers, play tennis to varying degrees of competency. My parents decided we would all be as involved in tennis as we could. Upshot was I became the best tennis player in a family of competition tennis players (my little brither regularly beat Pat Cash at state level in his teens). The instant I was old enough I informed them I would never pick up a tennis raquet again because the overexposure had made me despise the game.

Let a kid do something they enjoy and it may become a passion, make them do something you enjoy and it may become a passionate hatred.

My daughter is 4 and has NO interest in the kitchen at all. But she can point out the difference between a stegosaurus and a kentrosaurus, knows therpods and teranodons and what many types of dinosaur eat. None of which we taught her (she actually corrected me on the stego/kentro thing).

[AmandaM]

At least I have an excuse for my vegetable "illiteracy." I live in the only place on the planet where a green bell pepper is referred to as a "mango" and a honeydew is a "squash melon." :boggled:

[AmandaM]

Let a kid do something they enjoy and it may become a passion, make them do something you enjoy and it may become a passionate hatred.


Believe me, this scares me so much!! I'm a dancer and a knitter/spinner and obviously I want to share that with my child, but I'm really afraid of fostering a hatred like you mention. Most of my dancer friends have told me, "let the child see you doing it, but if they want to learn, make somebody else teach them!" lol.

[!Kaggen]

You might want to find a balance between "keeping my baby as involved in the kitchen as I can" and 'as involved in the kitchen as they would like.'
My parents love tennis. Everyone in my family, cousins, uncles, aunts brothers, play tennis to varying degrees of competency. My parents decided we would all be as involved in tennis as we could. Upshot was I became the best tennis player in a family of competition tennis players (my little brither regularly beat Pat Cash at state level in his teens). The instant I was old enough I informed them I would never pick up a tennis raquet again because the overexposure had made me despise the game.

Let a kid do something they enjoy and it may become a passion, make them do something you enjoy and it may become a passionate hatred.

My daughter is 4 and has NO interest in the kitchen at all. But she can point out the difference between a stegosaurus and a kentrosaurus, knows therpods and teranodons and what many types of dinosaur eat. None of which we taught her (she actually corrected me on the stego/kentro thing).

Good points.
However food, sleep and hygiene are essentials rather than passing interests. So the challenge is for parents to entice the uninterested child to get interested in them.
Some parents are lucky others not.

[Earthborn]

Tell me, please -- is this "it's all the kid will eat" excuse legitimate?It can be; it is how food psychologists recommend treating children with severe food aversions, who may in some cases refuse to eat at all. It is crucial that these children are not taught to associate certain food stuffs with punishment, because that will reinforce their aversion to them. Also they should not be taught that they get a reward if they eat them, because that too perpetuates the view that it is something bad. And parents should not sneak in the ingredients a child is averse to without telling them, because that damages the trust a child has in what his/her parents put on their plates.

What does work is letting kids have control over what they eat and at the same time familiarising them with a great variety of foods; so they know what they are, where they come from, what they look like in raw form, how they are prepared. The more familiar they are with food stuffs, they more likely they are to want to try them on their own accord.

It should be noted of course that when parents say "it's all the kid will eat" it means that they have already failed to familiarise their child from a very early age with different tastes and food textures. It may be that children's preferences and dislikes of foods are negatively influenced by the fact that many parents feed their children bland mushy baby foods instead of familiarising them with the separate ingredients in adult food as soon as possible.

It seems to me maybe that some parents just automatically assume kids won't eat vegetables or healthier foods, and that gets reinforced when the parents "force" the kid to eat the vegetables, "because they're good for you." ?That's definitely a big part of it. Another part of it is the fact that their sense of taste is not the same as an adult; children tend to be more sensitive to bitter and especially leafy vegetables tend to have bitter substances in them. If a child is willing to try something and acts as if something tastes awful, it really does taste awful to them. Pressuring them to eat it anyway doesn't do anyone any good.

[Number Six]

Do you have any idea what goes into a chicken nugget? Or a hot dog? Or any of the other "instant" foods people end up eating? They are "fake" food. There are little to no nutrients, but a ton of calories instead. This is not "food" -- it is obesity in the making.

Maybe if people actually understood what they were putting in their mouths, they wouldn't be so cavalier about attacking statements such as the ones I've made. Or, maybe they would -- out of some sense of understanding that what they're eating is BAD for them, and shame for it. Either way... These foods are NOT healthy if they are ALL a child is eating. Or maybe you missed that part of the equation -- that this junk is ALL some parents are feeding their children. Period. Even going so far as to prepare it separately from real meals (you know, ones with vitamins, and minerals, and dietary fibre) so that they can feed it to their children.

And where did I say that something was intrinsically bad because it was microwaved? I think I specifically pointed out the lack of nutritional content (nothing but cornsyrup, processed carbs, and junk meats). But you know, go ahead and ignore all that, and make a strawman instead. Whatever floats your boat.

Almost nothing or possibly absolutely nothing humans eat is "fake food." You can't survive for long periods of time without eating real food and yet lots of people survive for decades eating what you call "fake food." How do they remain alive if they're not eating real food?

As far as the microwave goes you were saying you saved time by microwaving food and it was bad for the kids and now you've gotten away from it. Okay, so the food you were microwaving for them was bad but you could have just microwaved good food instead, although maybe you wouldn't have been able to get them to eat it. People don't need to regularly cook with fresh ingredients to eat well, as Jamie Oliver seems to imply, to me at least.

[Number Six]

I like Jamie Oliver, because even though he is rubbish on science and practically treats cooking as a religion, and even though his toungue is way too big for his mouth, his message is a good one and it worked well in the UK with school dinners.

What food you eat doesn't just affect a kids health in the long run, it also affects their ability to concentrate and learn in the classroom in the short term. If you have a better solution, go ahead and implement it, but I think you'll struggle to argue that he is making the world a worse place in his attempts to convince kids to eat more healthily.

There's nothing wrong with attempting to convince kids to eat more healthily of course. But how you go about something matters. Most of those kids are going to grow up and be adults with a full life and without the time or inclination to make meals like Jamie Oliver makes.

[TragicMonkey]

There's chicken in McNuggets now? I thought it was "pressed skunkmeat byproducts, with some amount of newspaper as filler". I wonder when that changed, and if it was as severe a blow as the recent discovery that armadillos can cause leprosy? Where will the Filet O Fish come from now? I know what you're thinking, but mice simply aren't large enough.

[Ausmerican]

There's chicken in McNuggets now? I thought it was "pressed skunkmeat byproducts, with some amount of newspaper as filler". I wonder when that changed, and if it was as severe a blow as the recent discovery that armadillos can cause leprosy? Where will the Filet O Fish come from now? I know what you're thinking, but mice simply aren't large enough.

Yup. Changed over when skunk became more expensive than chicken. It is a specific type of chicken though. The small beaked flying grey ones that are totally adapted to cities and are often found on rooftops and statues. Pigeon chicken I think they are called. Or Cornish hens as they call them when you buy them whole.

[Madalch]

Yup. Changed over when skunk became more expensive than chicken. It is a specific type of chicken though. The small beaked flying grey ones that are totally adapted to cities and are often found on rooftops and statues. Pigeon chicken I think they are called. Or Cornish hens as they call them when you buy them whole.
And the "Filet-O-Fish" only tastes like fish because that's what seagulls eat.

[Number Six]

You all are behind the times. Hasn't McDonald's changed it's image a lot and now is into pushing healthier fare? It's now Hardee's that prides itself on selling stuff that's bad for you.

[Travis]

Any one food being bad for you isn't an issue. You are supposed to have a varied diet. One meal of something loaded with transfats, HFCS and such isn't going to kill you or make you overweight.

[Ausmerican]

You all are behind the times. Hasn't McDonald's changed it's image a lot and now is into pushing healthier fare? It's now Hardee's that prides itself on selling stuff that's bad for you.

I "behind the times" you back. Carls Jr, which I believe is Hardees as well is now selling turkey burgers around 400 calories apiece in a section of their menu designed in conjunction with Mens Health magazine and the writers of Eat This, Not That. Touche'!

[tesscaline]

Almost nothing or possibly absolutely nothing humans eat is "fake food." You can't survive for long periods of time without eating real food and yet lots of people survive for decades eating what you call "fake food." How do they remain alive if they're not eating real food?

As far as the microwave goes you were saying you saved time by microwaving food and it was bad for the kids and now you've gotten away from it. Okay, so the food you were microwaving for them was bad but you could have just microwaved good food instead, although maybe you wouldn't have been able to get them to eat it. People don't need to regularly cook with fresh ingredients to eat well, as Jamie Oliver seems to imply, to me at least.
You don't actually seem to be reading my posts, and are instead responding to some set of statements I didn't actually make. So. Have fun talking to yourself :)

[Number Six]

You don't actually seem to be reading my posts, and are instead responding to some set of statements I didn't actually make. So. Have fun talking to yourself :)

That wasn't a real post, it was a fake post. :)

[tesscaline]

Are you referring to the paranoid dellusion foodie version of a chicken nugget or hot dog or are you referring to reality based version of a chicken nugget or hot dog?Reality based.

"Chicken nuggets" can be perfectly fine, if they're actually made with lean cuts of chicken and breaded with, well, bread. But if you go and take a look at the industrial operations that make "chicken nuggets" you'll find that this is not always what is being done. Not to mention the number of preservatives and the ridiculously high salt contents you'll find. As well as (in at least one instance of label reading) corn syrup. Can you explain why corn syrup needs to be added to a chicken nugget? Or a hot dog? Or why they need to have sodium levels that are easily 2x the entire recommended daily intake?

And don't even get me started on "fish sticks"... :sour:

[tesscaline]

Tess, I really appreciate your comments. I plan on keeping my baby as involved in the kitchen as I can (mostly because I think it would be super cool if it grows up to be a chef and can cook for Mommy! LOL) I was never allowed/encouraged to be in the kitchen as a kid, and I think that was a missed opportunity for some bonding between me and my mom -- and I don't want to miss out on that.

It seems to me maybe that some parents just automatically assume kids won't eat vegetables or healthier foods, and that gets reinforced when the parents "force" the kid to eat the vegetables, "because they're good for you." ? :D

I was lucky in that I grew up in a big italian family where life revolved around food, and the preparation thereof. Making things from scratch together was something that everyone in the family bonded over, even across gender roles. Knowing that much about how food was made, where it came from (my grandfather would grow his own squash, and my grandmother would have us grandkids help her prepare it, for example), made me appreciate good, fresh, food more than the kids i went to school with.

In addition to that, my mother had one rule about trying new foods: We had to taste it once (a single bite, mind you). If we didn't like it, we didn't have to eat it ever again. She'd still make it, and we'd still have to help her make it, but we wouldn't be forced to eat it again unless we wanted to. It's a rule I've kept alive in my house, now that I have my son, and it works out pretty well. After the initial dislike of something, he keeps seeing it made different ways, and eventually comes back to try things he "hates" again on his own. He's come around to eating octopus a few times now, just out of his own curiosity, without me having to even suggest it. He still doesn't care for the suckers on the tentacles, but *shrugs* I'm just happy he's willing to give something "weird" like that a second, third, and fourth try.

Another thing that I've found turns kids off to healthy foods is how they're prepared. As was mentioned by someone else, kids don't like bitter foods. That's one aspect to take into account. Another is that improperly preparing a food can make it entirely unpalatable. For example: my boyfriend grew up in a household with his grandmother, who was an awful cook. She would overcook things, undercook things, fail to season things, etc. So, when my bf met me, he thought he hated all sorts of foods. But, I applied the "taste it once" rule to him as well, with the slight modification of "taste it once the way I make it", and soon he discovered that he actually did like salmon, and mushrooms, and a variety of other vegetables and meats, because I cooked them properly and with seasoning.

[Madalch]

In addition to that, my mother had one rule about trying new foods: We had to taste it once (a single bite, mind you). If we didn't like it, we didn't have to eat it ever again.

Lucky. My mother always declared that the single bite of foul-smelling slop that I had willingly placed on my plate "wasn't enough to taste", and I had to take half a cup of some crap that looked and smelled exactly like a dish that we all knew damned well that I didn't like.

"This isn't overcooked swiss chard in a revolting cream sauce- it's overcooked endive in a revolting cream sauce! It will taste completely different! Eat a whole plateful before you say you don't like it!"

Sure, Mom. Sure.

[tesscaline]

Lucky. My mother always declared that the single bite of foul-smelling slop that I had willingly placed on my plate "wasn't enough to taste", and I had to take half a cup of some crap that looked and smelled exactly like a dish that we all knew damned well that I didn't like.

"This isn't overcooked swiss chard in a revolting cream sauce- it's overcooked endive in a revolting cream sauce! It will taste completely different! Eat a whole plateful before you say you don't like it!"

Sure, Mom. Sure.
Yikes :(

See, I hear stories like that, and I'm not surprised in the least that people think they hate all sorts of foods...

[Macgyver1968]

Hmmm.... I like Jamie Oliver & what he tries to do but that clip could be a bit deceptive.

For instance, the tomatoes coming on a vine like that could be confusing to a 6 year old especially if the grocery stores in his/her area don't sell them still attached.

Also, the bok choy/rubarb (can't tell what it is. I'm on my android) being called celery by a 6 year old isn't surprising.

I can see them confusing cauliflower for broccoli, & not knowing wth an eggplant was, again, because they're 6.

Last but not least, it is a "reality" tv show so selective editing for drama is the norm.

I agree. The video was retarded. They're 6 year olds, for crying out loud...and I'm sure having a funny-looking guy with a weird accent and video cameras, lights and crew didn't have any effect on the children...and didn't make them shy, or nervous and reluctant to answer.

Notice how it's edited to only show the wrong answers. What were the kids answers when he held up a carrot, or an apple?

[AnnoyingPony]

I agree. The video was retarded. They're 6 year olds, for crying out loud...and I'm sure having a funny-looking guy with a weird accent and video cameras, lights and crew didn't have any effect on the children...and didn't make them shy, or nervous and reluctant to answer.

Notice how it's edited to only show the wrong answers. What were the kids answers when he held up a carrot, or an apple?

I agree with you - the results are extremely edited. If they showed all the right answers, or even right answers interspersed with wrong answers, the audience wouldn't be weepy-eyed with shock and ready to do anything the host says! Also, I find him a little arrogant - "You don't have the time, energy, or money to cook up a MAAAVELOUS creme of spinach soup? Psh, you're just uneducated, overweight, stupid American rabble! Don't worry though - EPICUREAN MAN TO THE RESCUE!"

I think when I was 6, I could name simple things like apples and pears and carrots. But the average 6-year-old cannot name a bok choi when they see one, and it's stupid to think that they're somehow being deprived of something important if they can't.

As for the confusion between cauliflower and broccoli, that happens a lot with young kids. As far as 6-year-olds are concerned, both are yucky veggies that look like trees. Someone else said this on this very thread.

I only learned what bok choi and tomatillos were when I went to the supermarket with my mom when I was about seven or eight. Give them a year or two and they will improve a lot. You cannot evaluate the entire educational system based on the selectively edited answers of one class of six-year-olds.

[tyr_13]

I just realized that I have no idea what bok choi looks like. Is it a daikon or something?

[tesscaline]

I just realized that I have no idea what bok choi looks like. Is it a daikon or something?It's a cabbage, with a very wide bright white center vein, and dark green leaves.

[tyr_13]

Oh. I was WAY off.

[Madalch]

I only learned what bok choi and tomatillos were when I went to the supermarket with my mom when I was about seven or eight.

I went shopping with my mother every week when I was a child, and I never saw a bok choi or a tomatillo until I was in my twenties, when they started building larger grocery stores and started importing a greater range of strange foreign vegetables. I never even saw a pomegranate until I was twelve or thirteen.

[tesscaline]

Oh. I was WAY off.
It looks like this: http://roorback.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/bok_choy1.jpg

[UnrepentantSinner]

I never even saw a pomegranate until I was twelve or thirteen.

I was eating them when I was 7... because we were living in Iran. It would be another 25ish years before I'd encounter and eat another one.

[Nihilianth]

Yes but many people would rather put a lot more effort into working out to allow themselves to indulge their gluttony. I am one of those myself. By the way, I think that might be an incorrect use of 'literally' in that last sentence. At least i hope it is.

The use of the word "literally" was obviously an exagerration. ;)

It's cool if you work out that hard, and you are already in shape. I'm in good enough of a shape myself where eating at McDonald's, and "indulging in my gluttony" wouldn't have a very severe effect on my health.

But speaking iin terms of those who are already overweight, diet is more effective than working out.

[stokes234]

There's nothing wrong with attempting to convince kids to eat more healthily of course. But how you go about something matters. Most of those kids are going to grow up and be adults with a full life and without the time or inclination to make meals like Jamie Oliver makes.

I think you may have overestimated how complicated he makes things. His current flagship is Jamie Oliver's 30 minute meals (http://www.jamieoliver.com/jamies-30-minutes-meals/), and plenty of people can spare 30 minutes in the evening to make food. It's a case of whether or not they want to, and he is trying to encourage them to want to by showing them how, and showing them the benefits. Seems like a perfectly good idea to me.

[whatthebutlersaw]

Several excellent points that I, as a former food averse child, can buy wholesale. I do have one, very minor, point though.

It can be; it is how food psychologists recommend treating children with severe food aversions, who may in some cases refuse to eat at all. It is crucial that these children are not taught to associate certain food stuffs with punishment, because that will reinforce their aversion to them. Also they should not be taught that they get a reward if they eat them, because that too perpetuates the view that it is something bad. And parents should not sneak in the ingredients a child is averse to without telling them, because that damages the trust a child has in what his/her parents put on their plates.


Parents of picky eaters: I can only speak for myself, but yeah - all of the above sounds right to me and was actually the advice my mother got from the GP she sought when she couldn't get me to eat. I accepted a very limited range of foodstuffs and the doc simply said: "Then give her that. And a multivitamin".


What does work is letting kids have control over what they eat and at the same time familiarising them with a great variety of foods; so they know what they are, where they come from, what they look like in raw form, how they are prepared. The more familiar they are with food stuffs, they more likely they are to want to try them on their own accord.


Yep. Yep. And yep. The proprietress at the local chinese restaurant actually enticed me to eat some unfamiliar stuff by challenging me to use chopsticks, but aside from her magic, I didn't start eating until I started cooking.


It should be noted of course that when parents say "it's all the kid will eat" it means that they have already failed to familiarise their child from a very early age with different tastes and food textures. It may be that children's preferences and dislikes of foods are negatively influenced by the fact that many parents feed their children bland mushy baby foods instead of familiarising them with the separate ingredients in adult food as soon as possible. That's definitely a big part of it.


Here's my minor issue. I was certainly exposed to all kinds of flavours and textures as a kid and up until the turning point I would eat broccoli, liver, black pudding, spicy stuff - most stuff put in front of me and it was neither bland or mushed up.

It's not always that parents have failed at providing the variation. My mother certainly didn't. But she also didn't calculate with a mysterious stomach bug picked up at holiday almost killing me, at age one, and causing me to projectile vomit whatever I got in my mouth to the point where I had to be hospitalized with a 40% chance of survival. (If you wonder why my mom let it go that far, she didn't. The three first times she sought medical help she was brushed off and sent home with instructions to try strained carrots and dextrose in very small spoonfuls. The fourth time the same thing happened, but a bossy nurse showed up out of nowhere, gave the doc a dressing down, Nurse Jackie style, and basically whipped me off to intensive care herself. Turned out it wasn't a regular stomach bug and I was hours from dying of dehydration. According to mom, they had to stick the IV straight into my head because there simply wasn't vein space anywhere else. Don't know if that was why or if it is regular practice with toddlers but I can very well understand it looked scary to my poor mom.)

After that I associated eating with very unpleasant things indeed and stopped wanting to put stuff in my mouth at all. For a long time I only accepted dry toast and any attempts at forcing, cajoling or bribing were lost.

At two points in my life there were attempts at "tough love" with my eating. One holiday I was first docked my Easter egg for not eating and then not offered anything other than the rejected dish for two days. On day three I discreetly puked greenish gut juice and my mom relented. You can not force a food averse child to eat what scares them (I could easily have starved to death in a mashed potato factory.) and maybe parents of a food averse child can take some comfort in this? You are not bad parents for relenting and making something they do eat. It is not a battle of wills - your child is literally in death angst regarding that food. The second attempt was in school and it was equally unsuccesful and frustrating to all involved.

My closest cousin't oldest was born with a plethora of food allergies. Real epi-pen carrying allergies, not sensitivities. There was no way around it, they had to monitor what she got in her mouth and as a result she too became hyper vigilant and almost as food averse as I was. (She still is at 14, but she's more polite about it now.) Yet, she is a champion gymnast and obviously gets the nourishment she needs to train hard and compete. (Holy crisis, her upper arms are bigger than my calfs.) Her parents didn't set out to keep diverse foodstuffs from her but the fact that she could die instantly from all but a small subset of foods kind of made it hard for them to find the balance.

It can't always be blamed on parental laziness if kids won't eat.


Another part of it is the fact that their sense of taste is not the same as an adult; children tend to be more sensitive to bitter and especially leafy vegetables tend to have bitter substances in them. If a child is willing to try something and acts as if something tastes awful, it really does taste awful to them. Pressuring them to eat it anyway doesn't do anyone any good.

Yep. Yep. Yep. The sensation I got from trying to eat something from my no-go list (Potatoes in any form was a main offender. And unsurprisingly cooked carrots.) was the same relentless dread that I since have felt only when my life has been in actual danger. (Like when I nearly drowned or when an ex threatened to drive us both off the road.)

The sensation is real to the child. You can't out-will it: it's fight or flight.

I'm very glad you brought that up, because whenever I do I feel like I get shouted down by Naughty-steppers who don't understand that when something as fundamental as the wish to eat is out of whack, it is real and not mind games. A kid who is asserting its willpower will have the next meal. No one died from skipping one meal. A kid who has a genuine dread of getting unwanted stuff in their mouth will not relent no matter how many lunch recesses they have to spend in the lunch room with dinner ladies shouting at them, instead of being out playing.

After the whole puking green incident my mom decided never to let social pressure from child rearing besserwissers inform her decisions. She gave me what I could eat (and supplements) and in time I outgrew it all on my own. Granted, this is anecdotal, but my experiences as a picky eater do seem to back up your advice.

Granted: if given the choice "Eat this or we cut your foot off with a blunt saw" I probably could have forced myself to eat (and puke immediately) but why on earth would my parents want to subject me to something that to me was only marginally less scary than having your foot sawed off without anaesthetia?

[Nihilianth]

Diet change might have a more profound effect, but diet change are *much* harder to implement, especially the craving which can be terrible , and the psychological impact. Doing sport is much easier and require only an iron will to follow up on it, rather than the titanium-steel will dieting might require.

I don't think it is all that hard to change your diet. For some people, maybe. And when you first begin that diet. But all anyone has to do, is stick with it, and it can become second nature.

What my aunt always told her client, was to take baby steps. If you tried to go cold-turkey and cut out all bad junk food all at once, then yes, your diet will become a miserable failure. Unfortunately, that is what most people think has to happen: Completely but out all junk food, and go cold-turkey. And more often than not, they completely fail on their diet.

The first thing you should cut out is soda, and replace it with water. If you can successfully do this for two-four weeks, your golden. You just cut out a LOT of caffeine, and a LOT of sugar, and washed it out of your system with water. Your addiction to both sugar and caffeine has probably decreased ten fold. (Unless you drink a lot of coffee. lol.) And you probably notice you already are losing weight, and carrying around a lot more water-weight.

It doesn't have to be all that difficult.

[ZirconBlue]

In addition to that, my mother had one rule about trying new foods: We had to taste it once (a single bite, mind you). If we didn't like it, we didn't have to eat it ever again. She'd still make it, and we'd still have to help her make it, but we wouldn't be forced to eat it again unless we wanted to. It's a rule I've kept alive in my house, now that I have my son, and it works out pretty well.

This is pretty much our approach, as well.

I never even saw a pomegranate until I was twelve or thirteen.

We had pomegranates every year around Xmas time in my house, but few of my friends knew what they were. I think it's because I grew up in a small rural town, but the rest of my family was from Chicago and had more exposure to exotic things.

It's not always that parents have failed at providing the variation.

True. I think some kids are naturally more "picky" than others, and some develop food aversions through bad experiences like yours. But I suspect I large percentage of picky eaters are made, not born.

[ZirconBlue]

I don't think it is all that hard to change your diet.

Sure. Piece of cake. That's why so few people are overweight, and those that are have such an easy time losing weight.

[AmandaM]

The first thing you should cut out is soda, and replace it with water. If you can successfully do this for two-four weeks, your golden. You just cut out a LOT of caffeine, and a LOT of sugar, and washed it out of your system with water. Your addiction to both sugar and caffeine has probably decreased ten fold. (Unless you drink a lot of coffee. lol.) And you probably notice you already are losing weight, and carrying around a lot more water-weight.



I agree with you on the baby steps thing.


But why do you assume all overweight people are drinking soda?

Most of my friends who have weight problems don't drink soda at all. They may indulge in ALCOHOL too much, but soda is not their issue.


I agree with the other posters who say a change in diet is MUCH harder to effect than adopting a fitness routine, and I'm a huge fan of resistance training because of the multiple positive effects on the body. If you're single and live alone, it's probably a lot easier to change your diet and eating habits, but if you have family members who aren't interested in changing their diets, it can be an uphill and exhausting battle that not everybody has the energy to fight.

[!Kaggen]

Although the discussion is interesting, perhaps we can stick to OP topic of food education?

[Number Six]

I think you may have overestimated how complicated he makes things. His current flagship is Jamie Oliver's 30 minute meals (http://www.jamieoliver.com/jamies-30-minutes-meals/), and plenty of people can spare 30 minutes in the evening to make food. It's a case of whether or not they want to, and he is trying to encourage them to want to by showing them how, and showing them the benefits. Seems like a perfectly good idea to me.

I can't look at that right now, although I'll look at it later because I'm genuinely curious. But although people could spend 30 minutes to make a meal, they could do a lot of things that they're not actually going to do, en masse at least.

And if it takes you 30 minutes just to prepare your meal then how long does it take from the start of preparation to the end of clean up? (I'm assuming clean up from a 30 minute meal is longer than clean up from a 3 minute meal.)

People have soccer practice and work and stuff to do, etc. Some people actually enjoy the cooking process, and if so good for them, but most people do it only because they have to. The popularity of restaurants and frozen food that just needs heated and take out food is testament to that.

[ZirconBlue]

I can't look at that right now, although I'll look at it later because I'm genuinely curious. But although people could spend 30 minutes to make a meal, they could do a lot of things that they're not actually going to do, en masse at least.

And if it takes you 30 minutes just to prepare your meal then how long does it take from the start of preparation to the end of clean up? (I'm assuming clean up from a 30 minute meal is longer than clean up from a 3 minute meal.)

People have soccer practice and work and stuff to do, etc. Some people actually enjoy the cooking process, and if so good for them, but most people do it only because they have to. The popularity of restaurants and frozen food that just needs heated and take out food is testament to that.

I think most people don't realize that their so-called fast food is not really all that much faster. For example, a froze pizza is probably going to take 30 minutes to make, once you factor in preheating the oven.

Sure, if you're just microwaving a plain chicken breast, it's quick, but most people don't do that.

I don't know what Oliver's "30-minute" meals consist of, but I use the Cook's Illustrated 30-Minute Meals cookbook extensively, and in those recipes, the 30-minutes is meant to include all the prep time.

[Number Six]

If you want to eat pizza there are faster ways, such as taking it out or getting the microwave kind. But even if you get the frozen kind you put into the oven and even if it takes a half hour total, you're spending 2 minutes cooking and 28 minutes doing whatever you want and most people prefer that to spending 30 minutes cooking.

As far as getting the thread back to the OP topic, okay, when it comes to food education in the USA I think the most fruitful approach is to teach people how to put food into their mouths that will keep their body running properly rather than trying to get them to become lovers of the entire food process a la Jamie Oliver. Some people will get way into it like him but most people just want to eat so they keep their body going and do whatever else they want.

[ZirconBlue]

If you want to eat pizza there are faster ways, such as taking it out or getting the microwave kind. But even if you get the frozen kind you put into the oven and even if it takes a half hour total, you're spending 2 minutes cooking and 28 minutes doing whatever you want and most people prefer that to spending 30 minutes cooking.

My point was a lot of the things people actually do to "save time" don't really end up saving time. Microwaving one frozen dinner for yourself is fast. By the time you microwave 4+ dinners for a whole family, returning to the microwave every couple of minutes to check, stir, rotate, or switch items, you might as well have cooked a meal that likely would have been healthier, tastier, and possibly cheaper.


Plus, I'm sure more people would enjoy the cooking part, if they were raised in that sort of environment.


As far as getting the thread back to the OP topic, okay, when it comes to food education in the USA I think the most fruitful approach is to teach people how to put food into their mouths that will keep their body running properly rather than trying to get them to become lovers of the entire food process a la Jamie Oliver. Some people will get way into it like him but most people just want to eat so they keep their body going and do whatever else they want.

But, the best way to get a healthy diet, is to prepare the food yourself. I think the success of cooking shows and the Food Network, demonstrate that a good number of people are interested in cooking.

[ZirconBlue]

Although the discussion is interesting, perhaps we can stick to OP topic of food education?

For the record, I'm not sure how much "food education" needs to be going on at school. My daughter gets most such education at home, and that seems appropriate to me.

[!Kaggen]

For the record, I'm not sure how much "food education" needs to be going on at school. My daughter gets most such education at home, and that seems appropriate to me.

The whole problem that Jamie is trying to tackle is the school meal.

The question is should the school meal not also be an opportunity to educate kids about food, rather than an opportunity for food processors to flog their rubbish?

[!Kaggen]

But, the best way to get a healthy diet, is to prepare the food yourself.

Bingo

[Number Six]

Why is preparing food yourself the best way to get a healthy diet?

Also, talking about preparing food yourself is moving the goalposts a bit. You can prepare food yourself without preparing meals like I (get the impression that) Jamie Oliver does it.

[AmandaM]

The question is should the school meal not also be an opportunity to educate kids about food, rather than an opportunity for food processors to flog their rubbish?

Ideally, yes, but in the 15-20 minutes that some schools allow for lunches, how are you going to accomplish that?

http://thegazette.com/2010/11/22/is-15-minutes-enough-time-for-elementary-school-lunch/

http://www.ecnnews.com/cgi-bin/05/etarchivestory.pl?200509+fn-fn-lunch.rbp-20050906-fn

http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/28170474.html

etc.


Students who were provided with a 30-minute lunch period consumed more food and nutrients than those who had the shorter lunch period, with a corresponding decrease in food waste from 43.5% to 27.2%. Providing a longer lunch period may provide the time necessary to encourage students to eat more of the foods most often neglected, such as fruits, vegetables, and milk (Guthrie & Buzby, 2002). However, according to the School Health Policies and Programs Study (Wechsler, Brener, Kuester, & Miller, 2000), one-fifth of U.S. schools give students less than 20 minutes to eat lunch.

It's a little old, so I don't know what the current numbers are. Taken from http://docs.schoolnutrition.org/newsroom/jcnm/04fall/bergman/bergman2.asp


Do elementary students have "health" class or PE anymore? That's where I can remember learning about nutrition and healthy foods, not during the lunch period.

[ZirconBlue]

Why is preparing food yourself the best way to get a healthy diet?

Because,

(A) prepared foods tend to not be all that healthy, and

(2) what is "healthy" eating varies by the individual, so preparing it yourself lets you take control of exactly what is included in your diet.

[Number Six]

So if the food you make yourself is healthier than food you buy then it's healthier to make food yourself. Okay, I agree. But conversely if the food your make yourself is less healthy than food you buy then it's less healthy to make food yourself. You can make bad food yourself or buy good food.

What if you make food yourself but instead of eating it you give it or sell it to someone else? Is it good for you but bad for them? It's the same food either way.

[!Kaggen]

So if the food you make yourself is healthier than food you buy then it's healthier to make food yourself. Okay, I agree. But conversely if the food your make yourself is less healthy than food you buy then it's less healthy to make food yourself. You can make bad food yourself or buy good food.

What if you make food yourself but instead of eating it you give it or sell it to someone else? Is it good for you but bad for them? It's the same food either way.

So you claim ignorance is bliss...
Show us the evidence.

[Number Six]

Let me say something else about "good food" or "bad food." It's misleading to look at things in isolation. Overall you need enough good stuff (nutrients, etc) and not too much bad stuff. (And realistically, the amount of those probably varies a good bit amongst individuals, especially how much bad stuff you can tolerate).

So suppose we're talking about what normally would be considered "good food." If your body already has enough nutrients, etc at the time you're eating the "good food" then the "good food" isn't good food at all and instead is merely empty calories.

Conversely suppose we're talking about "bad food," say chicken mcnuggets since that was a subject earlier in this thread. In reality chicken mcnuggets (say ones that were prepared the worst possible way) have both good things and bad things about it. You body can tolerate a certain level of bad things. If you haven't eaten any bad things that day then the bad parts of chicken mcnuggets aren't hurting your but the good parts of chicken mcnuggets are helping you. In other words, in that context even the worst chicken mcnuggets are "good food."

You could eat what people in this thread would consider to be "bad food" every single day and yet have an overall diet just as healthy as someone that never at any "bad food."

ETA: When you get right down to it, probably every single food has plusses and minuses. The goal should be to have a diet that overall is a good one. No "bad food" is completely bad and no "good food" is completely good.

[ZirconBlue]

So if the food you make yourself is healthier than food you buy then it's healthier to make food yourself. Okay, I agree. But conversely if the food your make yourself is less healthy than food you buy then it's less healthy to make food yourself. You can make bad food yourself or buy good food.

Correct. The best way to ensure a healthy diet for yourself is to prepare your own food. But, preparing your own food does not ensure a healthy diet.

What if you make food yourself but instead of eating it you give it or sell it to someone else? Is it good for you but bad for them?

Only if they have dietary restrictions that you don't have.

It's the same food either way.

Right. I hope you're not going to now claim that store-bought prepared food is the same as just buying the food that someone else prepared in their home, though.

[ZirconBlue]

You could eat what people in this thread would consider to be "bad food" every single day and yet have an overall diet just as healthy as someone that never at any "bad food."

If you're eating a lot of "bad food" on a daily basis, then you're likely to be getting a lot of the same "bad" components on a daily basis. Most fast food items, canned goods, and frozen foods are loaded with salt, for example.

[Number Six]

Right. I hope you're not going to now claim that store-bought prepared food is the same as just buying the food that someone else prepared in their home, though.

No fair narrowing it down to store-bought prepared food. The dichotomy I'm interested in is the one Jamie Oliver seems to be setting up, namely, buying fresh ingredients and cooking a meal from scratch vs Everything Else.

[Number Six]

If you're eating a lot of "bad food" on a daily basis, then you're likely to be getting a lot of the same "bad" components on a daily basis. Most fast food items, canned goods, and frozen foods are loaded with salt, for example.

You can get canned and frozen foods with a lot of salt or with little or none. As I've said elsewhere in this thread I believe, if the Jamie Olivers of this world really wanted to have a positive effect they'd put their efforts towards developing canned and frozen foods that are healthy instead of trying to get everyone to make their own food from scratch.

And also tolerance for salt varies amongst individuals. There is the recommended guidelines, 200 mg a day or whatever, but that assumes less than 2000 mg a day is okay for everyone and more than 2000 mg a day is bad for everyone. In reality different people have different tolerances.

[!Kaggen]

You can get canned and frozen foods with a lot of salt or with little or none. As I've said elsewhere in this thread I believe, if the Jamie Olivers of this world really wanted to have a positive effect they'd put their efforts towards developing canned and frozen foods that are healthy instead of trying to get everyone to make their own food from scratch.

And also tolerance for salt varies amongst individuals. There is the recommended guidelines, 200 mg a day or whatever, but that assumes less than 2000 mg a day is okay for everyone and more than 2000 mg a day is bad for everyone. In reality different people have different tolerances.

Sure lower standards and everyone can have a job, food and free healthcare.

[AmandaM]

I hope you're not going to now claim that store-bought prepared food is the same as just buying the food that someone else prepared in their home, though.

Wait - my grocery store sells whole rotisserie-cooked chicken. I can make rotisserie chicken. What's the diff? I genuinely don't understand.

[tesscaline]

Wait - my grocery store sells whole rotisserie-cooked chicken. I can make rotisserie chicken. What's the diff? I genuinely don't understand.There may not be a difference, depending on the store. However, commercially produced food products are generally much higher in salt, fat, and sugar, than those foods which we prepare at home. It's simply because commercially produced foods are adjusting their flavor profiles to the least common denominator, and people (in general) like the way salt, fat, and sugar taste. By making the same item at home, you have control over how much salt, fat, and sugar you add. And I'll bet that making it at home you wouldn't add any sugar.

I'm not saying that all prepared foods are intrinsically bad, mind you. Just that you have to be careful to read the labels and make informed decisions about what it is you choose to buy.

[AmandaM]

ok, that makes sense. Thank you. :)


I'm probably one the unhealthier cooks among all of you. I use cream, cook in butter, and stir- or pan-fry a lot of stuff. :o

[ZirconBlue]

No fair narrowing it down to store-bought prepared food.

OK. I also hope you aren't going to try to equate restaurant foods to home-made. :p

You can get canned and frozen foods with a lot of salt or with little or none.

Not easily. I've never seen "no salt" frozen foods, and few canned goods are "no salt". "Low salt" versions are also fairly rare and of limited variety, in my experience.

Also, food manufacturers tend to trade these things off. If a product is "low fat", they'll often add more salt (or msg) to compensate, and vice versa. "Fat free" coffee creamer has added sugar, such that the number of calories is often unchanged from the fat-containing versions.

If (like me) you are trying to find foods relatively high in fiber and protein, but low in simple carbs, saturated fats, and sodium, then that pretty much excludes 99% of what's available in the prepared foods world.

As I've said elsewhere in this thread I believe, if the Jamie Olivers of this world really wanted to have a positive effect they'd put their efforts towards developing canned and frozen foods that are healthy instead of trying to get everyone to make their own food from scratch.

There are already people trying (and mostly failing) at that task. "Tasty, Healthy, and Convenient : pick any two." There is very little that falls into all 3 categories.

And also tolerance for salt varies amongst individuals. There is the recommended guidelines, 200 mg a day or whatever, but that assumes less than 2000 mg a day is okay for everyone and more than 2000 mg a day is bad for everyone. In reality different people have different tolerances.

True. That was just an example. I could have use fat or sugar content, instead.

Wait - my grocery store sells whole rotisserie-cooked chicken. I can make rotisserie chicken. What's the diff? I genuinely don't understand.

tesscaline already addressed this, but check out the nutrition information on that rotisserie chicken sometime.



I'm probably one the unhealthier cooks among all of you. I use cream, cook in butter, and stir- or pan-fry a lot of stuff. :o

Stir-frying is actually pretty healthy, most of the time. And butter is at least better than transfat-containing margarine. I use cream and butter, too, I just try to do so in moderation.

[Nihilianth]

You might want to find a balance between "keeping my baby as involved in the kitchen as I can" and 'as involved in the kitchen as they would like.'
My parents love tennis. Everyone in my family, cousins, uncles, aunts brothers, play tennis to varying degrees of competency. My parents decided we would all be as involved in tennis as we could. Upshot was I became the best tennis player in a family of competition tennis players (my little brither regularly beat Pat Cash at state level in his teens). The instant I was old enough I informed them I would never pick up a tennis raquet again because the overexposure had made me despise the game.

Let a kid do something they enjoy and it may become a passion, make them do something you enjoy and it may become a passionate hatred.

My daughter is 4 and has NO interest in the kitchen at all. But she can point out the difference between a stegosaurus and a kentrosaurus, knows therpods and teranodons and what many types of dinosaur eat. None of which we taught her (she actually corrected me on the stego/kentro thing).

Is this actually true though? I would highly doubt that it is, otherwise "culture" in general wouldn't proliferate so much. Generally, you tend towards what you grow up with.

I mean, baseball enjoys huge popularity n the US. Second most popular sport in America. I would think because kids are exposed to it. It is also, incidentally, the second most popular sport in the world. I highly doubt that it would enjoy such success if kids tended to dislike it, just because their parents and other adults expose and teach them the game at a young age. In fact, the largest, and most popular sports league in the world is Little League Baseball. Because of Little League, I dunno that it would be very popular at all in Japan, China, South Korea, Taiwan, Central and South America, and the Caribbean. The game of baseball is even popular in Europe and the Middle East. Not quite to the degree of soccer in the latter two. But it is still the second most popular sport in those areas. Probably because of the proliferation of Little League.

I think, so long as you are not at all one of those crazy overbearing parents, you may find the kid will come to love something they otherwise would never have even tried. This goes to the person who responded to your post immediately afterwards about dancing! Go ahead. Teach your child to dance. Expose them to it. It's a GREAT workout, and would be a great opportunity to bond with your child. Just, don't push them around. Praise them for any success they find in a certain move, and correct them in a meaningful way when they make a mistake, patting them on the back for giving it a try.

Don't not teach them a new activity, just because you had a bad experience one time when you were a kid.

[tesscaline]

ok, that makes sense. Thank you. :)


I'm probably one the unhealthier cooks among all of you. I use cream, cook in butter, and stir- or pan-fry a lot of stuff. :oOh, don't assume :) Just because I know what's healthy and what isn't, doesn't mean I always cook that way.

I use cream, and butter too, and sugar, and salt, etc. They taste good. But I also do plenty of healthy stuff to try and counter balance it.

By the way, stir-fry isn't really bad for you at all, as long as you only use a minimal amount of oil :)

The point about home-cooked vs. store bought isn't really even about what you actually do at home. It's about what you can choose to do at home. In your kitchen, working with fresh raw ingredients, you have full control over what you add to them. You can choose to leave out extra oil. You can choose to minimize salt. You can choose to make brown rice instead of white. When you buy pre-made foods, you're giving up that control and putting yourself at the mercy of whoever wrote the recipe, and all the special additions that are needed to make mass production, distribution, and shelf life possible.

As long as you read labels carefully, and understand them, buying pre-made food can be okay. It's just that most people don't read those labels, and they don't understand that the things they are buying pre-made are usually prepared in drastically different ways than they would be if they were made at home.

To pull this sort of back towards topic -- I think that people really need to be educated about how to read the nutrition labels and ingredient lists on packaged food. If there's anything about food that should be taught in school, it's that. Me, I had to take a college level nutrition course to be taught how properly. I think that's sad, that it should be common knowledge. I also think that if people did read those labels, and understood what they meant, they'd make some different choices about what they eat. But, that opinion is based on anecdotal evidence, so I could be wrong. *shrugs*

[Nihilianth]

Any one food being bad for you isn't an issue. You are supposed to have a varied diet. One meal of something loaded with transfats, HFCS and such isn't going to kill you or make you overweight.

Right. But that is the mentality that ALL fitness trainers and dieticians EVERYWHERE cringe when they hear someone say anything to that effect.

This is why I was so vehement in the other thread about HCFS, and how bad it is for you. You should NEVER, EVER, say anything positive about a substance with no nutritional value, and is very poor for your health, especially to someone who is trying to lose weight, and get healthy.

Rather than say "one soda, or one Big Mac meal at McDonald's is not going to kill you or make you overweight," you should rather say "Big Mac meals and soda is terrible for your health, as it offers far too much sodium, transfats, sugar, and so forth for a daily diet."

It makes things worse when those who have a healthy weight and levels and knows about diet and exercise to be telling other people that "Oh, on Big Mac is not going to kill you or make you overweight." You are, in effect, breaking down their psychological willpower that they are trying to build up, and that dietitians are helping them with.

Of course, saying such things will only bring more business into gyms, and for dieticians across the country in general..... ;)

[Nihilianth]

Reality based.

"Chicken nuggets" can be perfectly fine, if they're actually made with lean cuts of chicken and breaded with, well, bread. But if you go and take a look at the industrial operations that make "chicken nuggets" you'll find that this is not always what is being done. Not to mention the number of preservatives and the ridiculously high salt contents you'll find. As well as (in at least one instance of label reading) corn syrup. Can you explain why corn syrup needs to be added to a chicken nugget? Or a hot dog? Or why they need to have sodium levels that are easily 2x the entire recommended daily intake?

And don't even get me started on "fish sticks"... :sour:

I can tell you why: Because those things have addictive qualities, and big manufacturers only care about lining their own pockets, and don't care about peoples' health.

Funny thing is, I wonder how much health insurance costs would be reduced by, if the majority of the population ate healthy diets.....

:D

I was lucky in that I grew up in a big italian family where life revolved around food, and the preparation thereof. Making things from scratch together was something that everyone in the family bonded over, even across gender roles. Knowing that much about how food was made, where it came from (my grandfather would grow his own squash, and my grandmother would have us grandkids help her prepare it, for example), made me appreciate good, fresh, food more than the kids i went to school with.

In addition to that, my mother had one rule about trying new foods: We had to taste it once (a single bite, mind you). If we didn't like it, we didn't have to eat it ever again. She'd still make it, and we'd still have to help her make it, but we wouldn't be forced to eat it again unless we wanted to. It's a rule I've kept alive in my house, now that I have my son, and it works out pretty well. After the initial dislike of something, he keeps seeing it made different ways, and eventually comes back to try things he "hates" again on his own. He's come around to eating octopus a few times now, just out of his own curiosity, without me having to even suggest it. He still doesn't care for the suckers on the tentacles, but *shrugs* I'm just happy he's willing to give something "weird" like that a second, third, and fourth try.

Another thing that I've found turns kids off to healthy foods is how they're prepared. As was mentioned by someone else, kids don't like bitter foods. That's one aspect to take into account. Another is that improperly preparing a food can make it entirely unpalatable. For example: my boyfriend grew up in a household with his grandmother, who was an awful cook. She would overcook things, undercook things, fail to season things, etc. So, when my bf met me, he thought he hated all sorts of foods. But, I applied the "taste it once" rule to him as well, with the slight modification of "taste it once the way I make it", and soon he discovered that he actually did like salmon, and mushrooms, and a variety of other vegetables and meats, because I cooked them properly and with seasoning.

HAHAHA, wow. Your own lifestyle mirrors my own to a T. I also grew up in a big Italian family. Hell, we now own and operate four restaurants, one of them a four-star. Everyone had to pitch in and help out at the restaurants. It was our very livelihood. Thank God for the government allowing small family-run businesses to pretty much ignore child labor laws (within reason, of course.)

Funny thing is, I am far more skilled, with far more experience cooking and preparing foods than 99% of all people who go to culinary school. I don;t have any sort of degree in culinary arts whatsoever. I applied as a cook at the local steakhouse (forget what it was called now) while I was going to school for Secondary Education. A degree was required. During the interview process, I showed them my experience (started cooking for my family's restaurant at the age of 8, and still cook there, even managing on some weekends, when we were busiest. I took over the role of head cook, and had nary a complaint about the food I served up.)

There were two kids, both younger than me, who held an associate degree in culinary arts, and they were both hired over me, even though they showed very little work experience. I was kinda T'ed, and told the manager: "Good luck with those young kids, who couldn't cook their way out of a paper bag!" and walked away. Less than a month later, I saw a spot opened up, and I received a phone call from the same manager, asking me to come in for another interview. Told the guy: "Sorry pal, but you blew it. I already have a job that I enjoy much better, and pays better. A work-study job, at the local elementary school."

heh, anyway, as for your story about your boyfriend, I had a roomate in college who had a very similar mother, who mostly cooked potatoes and meatloaf. Both of which were dry as all get-out (which he thought was pretty delicious. Until, that is, I had him try MY meatloaf and potatoes! :D )

He told me all sorts of foods he hated. I thought he was crazy, because he even disliked pizza! He was adament about NOT trying any of the food I cooked, and yet, he always told me how great it smelled. I was lik "you need to try it." He asked what was in it. I told him, and he was all like "Yuck!" I finally was able to pressure him into trying some of my food, and he almost always liked it. Even my eggplant parm! (I also dislike eggplant for the most part, but my eggplant parm is pretty delicious.)

[Ausmerican]

Is this actually true though? I would highly doubt that it is, otherwise "culture" in general wouldn't proliferate so much. Generally, you tend towards what you grow up with.

I mean, baseball enjoys huge popularity n the US. Second most popular sport in America. I would think because kids are exposed to it. It is also, incidentally, the second most popular sport in the world. I highly doubt that it would enjoy such success if kids tended to dislike it, just because their parents and other adults expose and teach them the game at a young age. In fact, the largest, and most popular sports league in the world is Little League Baseball. Because of Little League, I dunno that it would be very popular at all in Japan, China, South Korea, Taiwan, Central and South America, and the Caribbean. The game of baseball is even popular in Europe and the Middle East. Not quite to the degree of soccer in the latter two. But it is still the second most popular sport in those areas. Probably because of the proliferation of Little League.

I think, so long as you are not at all one of those crazy overbearing parents, you may find the kid will come to love something they otherwise would never have even tried. This goes to the person who responded to your post immediately afterwards about dancing! Go ahead. Teach your child to dance. Expose them to it. It's a GREAT workout, and would be a great opportunity to bond with your child. Just, don't push them around. Praise them for any success they find in a certain move, and correct them in a meaningful way when they make a mistake, patting them on the back for giving it a try.

Don't not teach them a new activity, just because you had a bad experience one time when you were a kid.

Oh sure. I never said anywhere in that post you should not expose your kids to things that interest you. That was not mt point at all. I am all for exposing them to everything. Just not forcing your interests to be theirs.
Although I'm gonna have to look up some numbers on baseball being the 2nd most popular game in the world. Where I grew up I knew exactly zero people in 29 years that played baseball. Knew many that played rugby, cricket, Aussie Rules, soccer, golf, and just about every other ball sport but not a one that played, or had any interest in, baseball. I knew it was popular here in the States (although funnily enough in all the places I have worked here I never hear it discussed like basketball or football) and it's big in Japan but as far as I knew that was about it.

ETA: Nearly every site I have looked at so far (7) lists the most popular sports in the workd as 1. Soccer, 2. Cricket, 3. Basketball, havent seen any that list baseball highly at all yet.

[Number Six]

Right. But that is the mentality that ALL fitness trainers and dieticians EVERYWHERE cringe when they hear someone say anything to that effect.

This is why I was so vehement in the other thread about HCFS, and how bad it is for you. You should NEVER, EVER, say anything positive about a substance with no nutritional value, and is very poor for your health, especially to someone who is trying to lose weight, and get healthy.

Rather than say "one soda, or one Big Mac meal at McDonald's is not going to kill you or make you overweight," you should rather say "Big Mac meals and soda is terrible for your health, as it offers far too much sodium, transfats, sugar, and so forth for a daily diet."

It makes things worse when those who have a healthy weight and levels and knows about diet and exercise to be telling other people that "Oh, on Big Mac is not going to kill you or make you overweight." You are, in effect, breaking down their psychological willpower that they are trying to build up, and that dietitians are helping them with.

Of course, saying such things will only bring more business into gyms, and for dieticians across the country in general..... ;)

It may be true that the effect you have on people is better if you demonize food that isn't great in order to scare them away from it but if so then it's a case of the ends (getting people to eat healthy) justifying the means (exaggerating how bad the food is). Your quoted sentence about McDonald's isn't literally true, or at least not for many people. You could eat a meal at McDonald's every day and have as good a diet as someone that eats every meal made from scratch, depending on what you ate at the other meals that day.

[Nihilianth]

Sure. Piece of cake. That's why so few people are overweight, and those that are have such an easy time losing weight.

Well, you DO realize I responded to this post:

Diet change might have a more profound effect, but diet change are *much* harder to implement, especially the craving which can be terrible , and the psychological impact. Doing sport is much easier and require only an iron will to follow up on it, rather than the titanium-steel will dieting might require.

do you not?

[ZirconBlue]

Well, you DO realize I responded to this post:



do you not?


Yes, I realize that.

[Nihilianth]

I agree with you on the baby steps thing.


But why do you assume all overweight people are drinking soda?

Most of my friends who have weight problems don't drink soda at all. They may indulge in ALCOHOL too much, but soda is not their issue.

I never assumed all overweight people drink soda. But most do. It is an example to illustrate the process of getting on a better diet. And soda isn't the only crappy thing overweight people consume, either. There are probably far worse things than that. But it is a leading cause of diabetes, and general overweightedness.

The point was, to identify a bad choice in your diet, and eliminate one thing at a time, and replace it with a healthier choice. Soda: bad. Water: good. Do it for 2-4 weeks, and identify another bad thing. Candy bars: bad. Celery with some peanut butter: good. Go 2 to 4 weeks, and identify another bad thing in your diet....and so on.

But the easiest thing to change in your diet is what you are drinking. There are so many healthy alternatives out there other than water if you absolutely insist on having something tasty to drink. There are Sobe Life Waters, various Vitamin Waters, unsweetened iced tea, such as Gold Peak. but the point is, changing your drink choices doesn't require a ton of will-power. Drinking water not only makes you feel full, but some waters can provide great nutrients; but most of all, it is a great way to "wash" your system out, and help your body to begin to pass the bad crap out of your system.

Changing what you are drinking should almost always be your first step towards a better diet, and healthier lifestyle.


I agree with the other posters who say a change in diet is MUCH harder to effect than adopting a fitness routine, and I'm a huge fan of resistance training because of the multiple positive effects on the body. If you're single and live alone, it's probably a lot easier to change your diet and eating habits, but if you have family members who aren't interested in changing their diets, it can be an uphill and exhausting battle that not everybody has the energy to fight.

I never said it was easier than getting more exercise. Food is very much tied in with your psyche. What I said was, it doesn't have to be nearly as difficult as it is made out to be.

In any case, if you do not "have the energy to change your diet" because of the people you are around, dieticians and physical fitness instructors will give those people a couple of solutions:

1). They can try to influence those around them, and hopefully make them aware that they are trying to get healthy, and hopefully get them to try to change their bad habits as well.

2). They can tell those people they will not have anything to do with them, so long as they cannot be supportive, and will continue to eat badly in front of them, or invite them over for pizza parties and such.

There are other various alternatives, but those are the big two.

[Nihilianth]

ok, that makes sense. Thank you. :)


I'm probably one the unhealthier cooks among all of you. I use cream, cook in butter, and stir- or pan-fry a lot of stuff. :o

Replace butter with EVOO. I find it really doesn't change the taste a whole lot, and the only purpose for cooking in either oil or butter, is just to lubricate the pan to keep things from sticking anyway.

However, if you can find some really good EVOO and use it as flavoring, like you probably do with butter, you may find your food may actually taste better.

What I do with my oil to add more flavoring, if I want to:

I will buy some cheaper EVOO, (but not TOO cheap, mind you. It still should have a nice rich greenish color to it.) Instead of buying the flavored oils, I buy my own garlic cloves, I have basil and other such herbal plants growing in my kitchen. I will dice up the garlic and some of the different herbal leaves, and drop it into the entire container of oil, and allow the flavors to diffuse and mix together. It can even be used as the base ingredient for a nice marinade as well, after the oil has been sitting around for a little while, absorbing the flavor of the garlic and herbs.

[Number Six]

But the easiest thing to change in your diet is what you are drinking. There are so many healthy alternatives out there other than water if you absolutely insist on having something tasty to drink. There are Sobe Life Waters, various Vitamin Waters, unsweetened iced tea, such as Gold Peak. but the point is, changing your drink choices doesn't require a ton of will-power. Drinking water not only makes you feel full, but some waters can provide great nutrients; but most of all, it is a great way to "wash" your system out, and help your body to begin to pass the bad crap out of your system.

Wash our your system? I don't think there is any such thing. Stuff is always moving through your system. If you stop eating then there is less in your system because some stuff is leaving it but none is entering. If there is "bad crap" (whatever that is) it's going to go through your system just like anything else, unless you take a laxative to push everything along or something to slow everything up.

I've seen people express a belief that our system gets clogged with bad stuff that stays in there permanently unless we do something to remedy it and it's not true.

[Nihilianth]

Oh sure. I never said anywhere in that post you should not expose your kids to things that interest you. That was not mt point at all. I am all for exposing them to everything. Just not forcing your interests to be theirs.
Although I'm gonna have to look up some numbers on baseball being the 2nd most popular game in the world. Where I grew up I knew exactly zero people in 29 years that played baseball. Knew many that played rugby, cricket, Aussie Rules, soccer, golf, and just about every other ball sport but not a one that played, or had any interest in, baseball. I knew it was popular here in the States (although funnily enough in all the places I have worked here I never hear it discussed like basketball or football) and it's big in Japan but as far as I knew that was about it.

ETA: Nearly every site I have looked at so far (7) lists the most popular sports in the workd as 1. Soccer, 2. Cricket, 3. Basketball, havent seen any that list baseball highly at all yet.

Not to get TOO off-topic, but I am pretty sure that baseball is the second most popular in the world. Australia is a rather smallish nation, with a fairly dispersed population. Baseball is HUGE in Asia, (Japan, China, S.Korea, and Taiwan, mostly) and I have heard it is actually overtaking soccer over there. (Shame, the Olympics have decided to do away with baseball and softball for the summer game, though. :( )

And Little League is the largest single sports organization around the world, that no other organization even comes close to touching. I know baseball has overtaken soccer in Mexico and the Caribbean, and catching up to soccer in South America. Especially now that Brazil isn't nearly as dominant a soccer team as it once was.

Anyway, sorry about that digression. Maybe an admin would want to split this off into it's own topic? :)

[Nihilianth]

It may be true that the effect you have on people is better if you demonize food that isn't great in order to scare them away from it but if so then it's a case of the ends (getting people to eat healthy) justifying the means (exaggerating how bad the food is). Your quoted sentence about McDonald's isn't literally true, or at least not for many people. You could eat a meal at McDonald's every day and have as good a diet as someone that eats every meal made from scratch, depending on what you ate at the other meals that day.

Absolutely. I 100% do believe that the ends do justify the means in this case. I honestly don't think that stating how bad McDonald's food is, is overstating or exaggerating anything at all. It may be true that Mcdonald's is not all that harmful to many people. But for many others, it is absolutely terrible for them.

The biggest group of people most at risk of McDonald's food: Those who already have heart disease, or are well on their way there. Those who are overweight, and trying to seriously lose weight, and get in better shape.

Those who are overweight and not trying anything to lose weight, I think it would be best to educate them, and keep putting in their minds about the "badness" of McDonald's would at least hopefully implant a seed in their mind. Not really to the point of making them feel "guilty," necessarily, but hopefully get them to change their attitude towards what they are consuming, and even more hopefully, get them to try to change their minds about staying fit and healthy.

For those who are already in good shape, know their foods and their limits, and generally maintain their health and know how ot go about doing so, they don't need any sort of encouragement about McDonald's at all. They are the ones who are already probably fairly well-informed, and know already know it will not harm them.

In conclusion: public statements about how McDonald's is "not all THAT bad for you," may be true for many people. But they probably do not even need to be told this, and probably will not influence them one way or the other. However, it can most certainly influence the many people for whom planting such seeds in their minds may be disastrously counter-productive. In other words: There is no reason to say something like that whatsoever.

[Nihilianth]

Yes, I realize that.

Then you should probably know why this statement:

Sure. Piece of cake. That's why so few people are overweight, and those that are have such an easy time losing weight.

doesn't really apply, in the context of my post you have quoted.

[AmandaM]

Wait a minute -- I call shenanigans.



But the easiest thing to change in your diet is what you are drinking. There are so many healthy alternatives out there other than water if you absolutely insist on having something tasty to drink. There are Sobe Life Waters, various Vitamin Waters, unsweetened iced tea, such as Gold Peak. but the point is, changing your drink choices doesn't require a ton of will-power.

Sobe is full of stevia and artificial flavors.
http://www.fooducate.com/blog/2010/08/07/sobe-lifewater-0-calories/

Gold Peak ADVERTISES it's sweetened with sugar.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/329573-gold-peak-tea-nutrition/

Vitamin water has as much sugar as a Coke:
http://recipes.howstuffworks.com/vitaminwater2.htm


Drinking water not only makes you feel full,

That's never been the case for me. I honestly think this is, for the most part, a myth. It CAN make me feel bloated, but it does not reduce the feeling of hunger for me. And I drink well over the 8x8 standard.

but some waters can provide great nutrients;

Along with a boatload of sugars and artificial flavors. I think I'll take real food, thank you.

Have you ever TASTED some of those "vitamin enriched waters" ? YECH! They're way too sweet for my taste. Closer to hummingbird food than water, and yes I have accidentally tasted hummingbird food.

but most of all, it is a great way to "wash" your system out, and help your body to begin to pass the bad crap out of your system.

? :confused:

So if I don't drink water, my digestive system won't work?

Although I have not done an exhaustive study, I'm fairly certain that even if I drink nothing but Coke for 3 days, I will still digest, sweat, and urinate like normal.

(Gotta warn you -- if, in your rebuttal, you use the word "toxin," I'm going to come through your screen and slap you in the head.) :)

[Nihilianth]

Wash our your system? I don't think there is any such thing. Stuff is always moving through your system. If you stop eating then there is less in your system because some stuff is leaving it but none is entering. If there is "bad crap" (whatever that is) it's going to go through your system just like anything else, unless you take a laxative to push everything along or something to slow everything up.

I've seen people express a belief that our system gets clogged with bad stuff that stays in there permanently unless we do something to remedy it and it's not true.

It was a simplified statement that is not entirely inaccurate, without having an exhaustive explanation.

Drink a lot of water, will tend to make you go pee more often. Anytime you pee, you are removing waste from your system. I forget where I saw a couple of different studies that drinking a lot of water can help reduce the risk to prostate cancer for men.

Of course, in order to remove the worst offenders of waste products in your body, is consuming a lot of fiber (and laxatives, if you REALLY want to go that route. lol.) But water still serves some benefits in regards to getting things to "move along" a lot quicker. It also helps to transport the good nutrients throughout your body, as drinking a lot of water can tend to be a bit of a blood-thinner. But you need to drink plenty of it in order for there to be any decent results. But the goal is to GET people to drink more water.

[tesscaline]

Replace butter with EVOO. I find it really doesn't change the taste a whole lot, and the only purpose for cooking in either oil or butter, is just to lubricate the pan to keep things from sticking anyway.

However, if you can find some really good EVOO and use it as flavoring, like you probably do with butter, you may find your food may actually taste better.

What I do with my oil to add more flavoring, if I want to:

I will buy some cheaper EVOO, (but not TOO cheap, mind you. It still should have a nice rich greenish color to it.) Instead of buying the flavored oils, I buy my own garlic cloves, I have basil and other such herbal plants growing in my kitchen. I will dice up the garlic and some of the different herbal leaves, and drop it into the entire container of oil, and allow the flavors to diffuse and mix together. It can even be used as the base ingredient for a nice marinade as well, after the oil has been sitting around for a little while, absorbing the flavor of the garlic and herbs.Um. Do not fry with EVOO. EVOO is too delicate of an oil for frying. It's smoke point is drastically lower than other oils, and the flavors in it are radically changed by the sort of heat required to fry something -- EVOO gets very very bitter, very very fast if you try to fry with it.

Regular olive oil, not EVOO, can be used for frying, though not for deep frying.

For frying, canola or safflower are really the best options, health wise.

And no, the purpose of cooking in fat is not just for "lubrication". There are heat transfer properties, chemical reactions of browning, and a number of other reasons for cooking in fat.

(culinary school really does have it's uses... )

[tesscaline]

Wait a minute -- I call shenanigans.




Sobe is full of stevia and artificial flavors.
http://www.fooducate.com/blog/2010/08/07/sobe-lifewater-0-calories/

Gold Peak ADVERTISES it's sweetened with sugar.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/329573-gold-peak-tea-nutrition/

Vitamin water has as much sugar as a Coke:
http://recipes.howstuffworks.com/vitaminwater2.htm




That's never been the case for me. I honestly think this is, for the most part, a myth. It CAN make me feel bloated, but it does not reduce the feeling of hunger for me. And I drink well over the 8x8 standard.



Along with a boatload of sugars and artificial flavors. I think I'll take real food, thank you.

Have you ever TASTED some of those "vitamin enriched waters" ? YECH! They're way too sweet for my taste. Closer to hummingbird food than water, and yes I have accidentally tasted hummingbird food.



? :confused:

So if I don't drink water, my digestive system won't work?

Although I have not done an exhaustive study, I'm fairly certain that even if I drink nothing but Coke for 3 days, I will still digest, sweat, and urinate like normal.

(Gotta warn you -- if, in your rebuttal, you use the word "toxin," I'm going to come through your screen and slap you in the head.) :)Seconded.

Some people really need to learn to do their research before spouting off about how "good" some things are for you.

[tesscaline]

It was a simplified statement that is not entirely inaccurate, without having an exhaustive explanation.

Drink a lot of water, will tend to make you go pee more often. Anytime you pee, you are removing waste from your system. I forget where I saw a couple of different studies that drinking a lot of water can help reduce the risk to prostate cancer for men.

Of course, in order to remove the worst offenders of waste products in your body, is consuming a lot of fiber (and laxatives, if you REALLY want to go that route. lol.) But water still serves some benefits in regards to getting things to "move along" a lot quicker. It also helps to transport the good nutrients throughout your body, as drinking a lot of water can tend to be a bit of a blood-thinner. But you need to drink plenty of it in order for there to be any decent results. But the goal is to GET people to drink more water.Why is the goal to get people to drink more water?

You're getting awful close here to some very wooish beliefs about the properties of water on the human body. In fact, you're getting close enough that you need to start providing citations for your rather extraordinary claims.

[Nihilianth]

Wait a minute -- I call shenanigans.




Sobe is full of stevia and artificial flavors.
http://www.fooducate.com/blog/2010/08/07/sobe-lifewater-0-calories/

Gold Peak ADVERTISES it's sweetened with sugar.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/329573-gold-peak-tea-nutrition/

Vitamin water has as much sugar as a Coke:
http://recipes.howstuffworks.com/vitaminwater2.htm


the first type mentions tap water as the "best" form of hydration. Better than bottled? Really? Someone in the comments section complained about how the blogger in that link keeps espousing in other articles about how "great" tap water is.

The second article is only talking about SWEET Gold Peak tea in the opneing paragraph. In the second paragraph down, the section titled: "Carbohydrates" says this about Gold Peak:

A serving of green, lemon or sweetened Gold Peak Tea contains 21g of carbohydrate, all from simple sugars. Next to water, sugar is the most abundant ingredient listed on the nutritional label. The front of the bottle includes the fact that Gold Peak Tea is made with "real sugar." The unsweetened version contains no sweetener, while the diet version contains aspartame, an artificial sweetener approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Hence the word: "Unsweetened." Which is what I specifically mentioned.

Vitamin water is more of a sports drink as it contains magnesium lactate, but you have a great point, in the context of that post. I also think it's rather lame that a bottle of Vitamin water is TWO AND A HALF FRIGGIN SERVINGS, something which went beyond my notice, and kinda disgusts me. This sort of misleading labeling probably should fall under false advertising, even though it says "two and a half servings" on the bottle.

However, this post sort of took mine a bit out of context anyway, as I was espousing just "drinking water." I only mentioned flavored drinks, because a lot of people "don't like" to drink water. (even though, that is actually virtually impossible. I don't think it is possible for people to not "like" water. Or rather, I think it not possible for people to actually "DISLIKE" water.) but the point of my post, was to drink more water, and for those who insist on having taste, there are healthier alternatives than soda.


That's never been the case for me. I honestly think this is, for the most part, a myth. It CAN make me feel bloated, but it does not reduce the feeling of hunger for me. And I drink well over the 8x8 standard.

That is anecdotal evidence, first off. But second of all, doesn't "feeling bloated" intrinsically mean you are probably not as hungry? Are you able to eat just as much as if you were not "bloated?"



Along with a boatload of sugars and artificial flavors. I think I'll take real food, thank you.

Have you ever TASTED some of those "vitamin enriched waters" ? YECH! They're way too sweet for my taste. Closer to hummingbird food than water, and yes I have accidentally tasted hummingbird food.

You have!? :D how in the world....?

heh, in any case, I can give you that, about vitamin water. I missed the whole "2.5 servings" in a bottle! :eye-poppi



? :confused:

So if I don't drink water, my digestive system won't work?

Did I say that? Or did you merely take that out of context, or misunderstood?

Although I have not done an exhaustive study, I'm fairly certain that even if I drink nothing but Coke for 3 days, I will still digest, sweat, and urinate like normal.

That's probably because Coke contains a lot of water, first of all. Second of all, it's probably because three days is not a lot of time to notice any changes (if there even would be.) Third of all, I remember you saying you were a dancer at some point, so the sugar is probably not going to be such a disasterous thing for you, as it would be for those who are actually trying to stay away from the stuff and lose weight.

(Gotta warn you -- if, in your rebuttal, you use the word "toxin," I'm going to come through your screen and slap you in the head.) :)

Toxin? lol, too much sugar and sodium IS toxic to your system though. As is too much vitamins and minerals. Even someone without diabetes can go into a sugar shock if they have too much sugar in their system. Too much sodium flooding your system can also cause some strange heart-palpitations, and possibly lead to a heart-attack.

[Emet]

It was a simplified statement that is not entirely inaccurate, without having an exhaustive explanation.

No explanation, no matter how exhaustive, will make this true.

Drink a lot of water, will tend to make you go pee more often. Anytime you pee, you are removing waste from your system. I forget where I saw a couple of different studies that drinking a lot of water can help reduce the risk to prostate cancer for men.

You really should learn how the liver and kidneys work in the body. More frequent urination, in real world conditions, has no effect on waste removal. The kidneys do excrete urea; they also dilute or concentrate urine, based on body water status. Do you understand the concept of biological homoeostasis?

Of course, in order to remove the worst offenders of waste products in your body, is consuming a lot of fiber (and laxatives, if you REALLY want to go that route. lol.) But water still serves some benefits in regards to getting things to "move along" a lot quicker. It also helps to transport the good nutrients throughout your body, as drinking a lot of water can tend to be a bit of a blood-thinner. But you need to drink plenty of it in order for there to be any decent results. But the goal is to GET people to drink more water.

You really should learn how the gastrointestinal system actually functions.

[tesscaline]

Toxin? lol, too much sugar and sodium IS toxic to your system though. As is too much vitamins and minerals. Even someone without diabetes can go into a sugar shock if they have too much sugar in their system. Too much sodium flooding your system can also cause some strange heart-palpitations, and possibly lead to a heart-attack.Too much water can be toxic as well. The word "toxic" is really rather meaningless the way you're using it.

[Nihilianth]

Um. Do not fry with EVOO. EVOO is too delicate of an oil for frying. It's smoke point is drastically lower than other oils, and the flavors in it are radically changed by the sort of heat required to fry something -- EVOO gets very very bitter, very very fast if you try to fry with it.

Regular olive oil, not EVOO, can be used for frying, though not for deep frying.

For frying, canola or safflower are really the best options, health wise.

And no, the purpose of cooking in fat is not just for "lubrication". There are heat transfer properties, chemical reactions of browning, and a number of other reasons for cooking in fat.

(culinary school really does have it's uses... )

AH! But I never mentioned about slow-cooking, which is the best, most flavorful way of cooking. Your meat, especially chicken, really benefits from slow-cooking. Unless you are searing a nice hunk of steak. But then once seared, you have to turn the heat down, and allow the oils to cook it the rest of the way to the desired wellness. (Heat transfer, of course! lol.)

The thing about using oil, fat, or butter, is to not use it as an actual means of flavoring, though. The preparation before cooking (marinading, proper seasoning, and so forth should be sufficient in flavoring your foods, and so, the cooking substance of choice shouldn't really factor into flavoring. The only exceptions: Starches like the use of butter for mashed potatoes and pastas, and as a thickener for a sauce. Butter is also great for flavoring vegetables in preparation for a good stir-fry. And lard to properly make such things as fastnachts and other such pastries.)

Other than for some really specific foods and meals, the cooking substance of choice really should mostly be used as lubrication, and heat transfer. Not for flavoring. This is especially true for meats, and most vegetable preparations, and baking.

[commandlinegamer]

Ideally, yes, but in the 15-20 minutes that some schools allow for lunches, how are you going to accomplish that?

That is just heartbreaking. I find it incomprehensible that educators would expect children to get a decent lunch in 15 mins.

At high school we had an hour for lunch. I'm almost certain we had the same at primary school. Having an hour meant you could eat, then go out and play, or if you lived close enough, go home and have lunch there.

I'm not saying we savoured the dining experience but you didn't feel rushed.

[tesscaline]

AH! But I never mentioned about slow-cooking, which is the best, most flavorful way of cooking. Your meat, especially chicken, really benefits from slow-cooking. Unless you are searing a nice hunk of steak. But then once seared, you have to turn the heat down, and allow the oils to cook it the rest of the way to the desired wellness. (Heat transfer, of course! lol.)

The thing about using oil, fat, or butter, is to not use it as an actual means of flavoring, though. The preparation before cooking (marinading, proper seasoning, and so forth should be sufficient in flavoring your foods, and so, the cooking substance of choice shouldn't really factor into flavoring. The only exceptions: Starches like the use of butter for mashed potatoes and pastas, and as a thickener for a sauce. Butter is also great for flavoring vegetables in preparation for a good stir-fry. And lard to properly make such things as fastnachts and other such pastries.)

Other than for some really specific foods and meals, the cooking substance of choice really should mostly be used as lubrication, and heat transfer. Not for flavoring. This is especially true for meats, and most vegetable preparations, and baking.
Where did I say anything about flavoring? I was speaking solely to the physics and chemistry of cooking, and didn't mention anything at all about flavoring. Butter has different chemical properties than olive oil, which has different chemical properties than lard, which has different chemical properties than sesame oil, which has different chemical properties than shortening, which has different chemical properties than safflower oil.

Your blanket statements of "just substitute EVOO" and "oil is really only for lubrication" are simply wrong. You cannot "just substitute EVOO" for any fat, and oil in cooking is for far more than just "lubrication" (and now that you're moving goal posts, "heat transfer").

For someone who supposedly grew up in and around restaurants... You're lacking some basic culinary knowledge :|

[Ausmerican]

Not to get TOO off-topic, but I am pretty sure that baseball is the second most popular in the world. Australia is a rather smallish nation, with a fairly dispersed population. Baseball is HUGE in Asia, (Japan, China, S.Korea, and Taiwan, mostly) and I have heard it is actually overtaking soccer over there. (Shame, the Olympics have decided to do away with baseball and softball for the summer game, though. :( )

And Little League is the largest single sports organization around the world, that no other organization even comes close to touching. I know baseball has overtaken soccer in Mexico and the Caribbean, and catching up to soccer in South America. Especially now that Brazil isn't nearly as dominant a soccer team as it once was.

Anyway, sorry about that digression. Maybe an admin would want to split this off into it's own topic? :)

Last thing I am gonna post on the OT thing but I still dont think so.
Australia is smallish populationwise yes. India isn't (1.15billion) and they play cricket, Pakistan (169 million) play cricket, The UK (62 million) cricket, Bangladesh (162 million) cricket, South Africa (50 million) cricket, and then there is the West Indies, New Zealand, Zimbabwe, and Australia as the countries with lower populations that round out the world class playing countries.
And like I said, all the websites I look up say it is cricket, not baseball.

[UNLoVedRebel]

I saw this on TV last night and couldn't believe it :eye-poppi

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGYs4KS_djg

What is going on in the US of A?

Are children being factory molded to be dumb consumers of Big Ag rubbish?

This is truly scary!!!

How bad is the education of someone who thinks what he sees on TV and YouTube is representative of reality?

[Madalch]

I only mentioned flavored drinks, because a lot of people "don't like" to drink water. (even though, that is actually virtually impossible. I don't think it is possible for people to not "like" water. Or rather, I think it not possible for people to actually "DISLIKE" water.
That just shows that you're an idiot. It's perfectly possible to dislike water.

[AnnoyingPony]

Do elementary students have "health" class or PE anymore? That's where I can remember learning about nutrition and healthy foods, not during the lunch period.

Yes. In elementary class, we had a fitness class that we went to every other day, which included lessons on healthy eating. In junior high, we also had health classes, which included info against fast food and for the BMI. (On a side note, after some perfectly normal-looking girls were told that they were "overweight" according to the BMI, they all joined the track team and stopped eating their lunches altogether. One had to be hospitalized because she would not eat.)

[tesscaline]

That just shows that you're an idiot. It's perfectly possible to dislike water.Wow, how did I miss that bit? No kidding. I don't happen to care for plain water myself. In fact, I'd probably say that I dislike the stuff. That's why I'm always dumping artificially sweetened flavorings in mine.

[Ausmerican]

That just shows that you're an idiot. It's perfectly possible to dislike water.

No kidding. I live in Arizona where it is important to try and like water but I only like it cold, very cold. Room temperature water is just something I never developed a taste for.

[AmandaM]

the first type mentions tap water as the "best" form of hydration. Better than bottled? Really?

Have you seen the Bullsh!t episode about bottled water? Very enlightening.

I drink tap water, albeit chilled. I always have. Always will. I refuse to pollute the environment any further with hundreds of plastic bottles filled with TAP WATER.

Bottled water brands sold for $1.99 - $3.00 at my grocery that are actually just tap water:

- Aquafina is tap water. "Derived from municipal water systems" is marketingspeak for Tap Water. Check their wiki.

- Dasani is tap water. Check their wiki.

- Deja Blue is tap water. same.

- Poland Springs, the number one best selling bottled water in the USA is ........

... wait for it ....

...


...

tap water. Check their wiki.



Someone in the comments section complained about how the blogger in that link keeps espousing in other articles about how "great" tap water is.

What is your issue with bloggers? You act like because it's on a blog, somehow it's not real. The ingredient list for Sobe is ALSO on the packaging, but I didn't feel like buying one and scanning it to illustrate its uselessness.

and for those who insist on having taste, there are healthier alternatives than soda.

Because it has "vitamin" or "water" on the label it's healthier than soda? Marketers LOVE people like you.


That is anecdotal evidence, first off.

Fine. Cite the published research that says that water fills you up.

I will acknowledge there is research that FOODS with high-water content contribute to a feeling a satiety. But I'm asking about water itself.

But second of all, doesn't "feeling bloated" intrinsically mean you are probably not as hungry? Are you able to eat just as much as if you were not "bloated?"

No, feeling bloated (as I use the phrase) means (to me) that my bladder is full but my stomach is still craving food.

Water intake has no effect on how much I eat -- and I've explored that a lot! Maybe I'm a freak of nature, but I think it's more likely that the water fills you up thing is a widely spread myth.

You have!? :D how in the world....?

The hummingbird food? Long ridiculous story, but idiot cousin (the one I mentioned on the grimoire thread) decided to make Vodka and Clearly Canadian drinks for us. Unknown to idiot cousin, his roommate had taken an old CC bottle and filled it with hummingbird food. (Upon reflection, it should have been obvious that the bottle didn't contain "Clearly Canadian," which is clear and the liquid was red.

I remember you saying you were a dancer at some point, so the sugar is probably not going to be such a disasterous thing for you, as it would be for those who are actually trying to stay away from the stuff and lose weight.

I retired from ballet in 1999, but still teach and perform ethnic dance. Since then, you're right -- I haven't really struggled with my weight. Some would chalk that up to genetics, since it's not like I REALLY look at calories or fat grams.

Anything can be toxic if taken in large enough quantities.

[AmandaM]

Where did I say anything about flavoring? I was speaking solely to the physics and chemistry of cooking, and didn't mention anything at all about flavoring. Butter has different chemical properties than olive oil, which has different chemical properties than lard, which has different chemical properties than sesame oil, which has different chemical properties than shortening, which has different chemical properties than safflower oil.


I have to laugh. Thinking I could saute chicken in EVOO was how I met our local fire department! That was before I understood anything about smoke points.

Our home security system automatically phones the FD when the smoke alarm goes off. Which it did that night, 4 times. Husband agrees the meal wasn't worth the hassle, and for several months afterward, every time I went to the stove, the dog would run and hide. :blush:

[Ausmerican]

Have you seen the Bullsh!t episode about bottled water? Very enlightening.

I drink tap water, albeit chilled. I always have. Always will. I refuse to pollute the environment any further with hundreds of plastic bottles filled with TAP WATER.

Bottled water brands sold for $1.99 - $3.00 at my grocery that are actually just tap water:

- Aquafina is tap water. "Derived from municipal water systems" is marketingspeak for Tap Water. Check their wiki.

- Dasani is tap water. Check their wiki.

- Deja Blue is tap water. same.

- Poland Springs, the number one best selling bottled water in the USA is ........

... wait for it ....

...


...

tap water. Check their wiki.




What is your issue with bloggers? You act like because it's on a blog, somehow it's not real. The ingredient list for Sobe is ALSO on the packaging, but I didn't feel like buying one and scanning it to illustrate its uselessness.



Because it has "vitamin" or "water" on the label it's healthier than soda? Marketers LOVE people like you.




Fine. Cite the published research that says that water fills you up.

I will acknowledge there is research that FOODS with high-water content contribute to a feeling a satiety. But I'm asking about water itself.



No, feeling bloated (as I use the phrase) means (to me) that my bladder is full but my stomach is still craving food.

Water intake has no effect on how much I eat -- and I've explored that a lot! Maybe I'm a freak of nature, but I think it's more likely that the water fills you up thing is a widely spread myth.



The hummingbird food? Long ridiculous story, but idiot cousin (the one I mentioned on the grimoire thread) decided to make Vodka and Clearly Canadian drinks for us. Unknown to idiot cousin, his roommate had taken an old CC bottle and filled it with hummingbird food. (Upon reflection, it should have been obvious that the bottle didn't contain "Clearly Canadian," which is clear and the liquid was red.



I retired from ballet in 1999, but still teach and perform ethnic dance. Since then, you're right -- I haven't really struggled with my weight. Some would chalk that up to genetics, since it's not like I REALLY look at calories or fat grams.

Anything can be toxic if taken in large enough quantities.

Aquafina and Dasani have a truly special kind of stupid attached to them however. This was basically Pepsi and Cokei saying, "Hey, you know what? I bet we could add NONE of the other ingredients to the water we use, bottle it and still sell it for damn near the same amount!"
And they were right!

[tesscaline]

I have to laugh. Thinking I could saute chicken in EVOO was how I met our local fire department! That was before I understood anything about smoke points.

Our home security system automatically phones the FD when the smoke alarm goes off. Which it did that night, 4 times. Husband agrees the meal wasn't worth the hassle, and for several months afterward, every time I went to the stove, the dog would run and hide. :blush:LOL.

Well... At least you learned something? :D

Most people don't understand about smoke points either, so don't feel too bad :)

[!Kaggen]

How bad is the education of someone who thinks what he sees on TV and YouTube is representative of reality?

Of course there are no obesity problems in the USA its all a big conspiracy.:rolleyes:

[tyr_13]

Of course there are no obesity problems in the USA its all a big conspiracy.:rolleyes:


I thought this was about education.

[tesscaline]

I thought this was about education.Much as I hate to agree with !Kaggen on anything... He's at least got a point.

Lack of education (formal or otherwise) about food, and what effects it has on the body, could be (are?) contributing to the obesity issue in the US. His view seems to be that this education should be formal education, instead of informal education given by parents/family/society at large. To some degree, I agree with that. I wish I had been taught more about foods at a younger age by people who actually understood the science behind whether or not those foods are "good" for you, and in what amount they are "good" (I use " " because good is a subjective term), and why.

Education about what you eat is just as much education as education about math, or history, or language are. And yeah, education about food is important. Even if Jaime Oliver is being kind of a douche in his new show... It illustrates a point through hyperbole.

[!Kaggen]

Much as I hate to agree with !Kaggen on anything... ~snip

Confirmation bias runs deep :p

[!Kaggen]

I thought this was about education.

Correct, so what's your contribution to ours?

[tesscaline]

Confirmation bias runs deep :plol. It's confirmation bias that I don't like to agree with you? Okay... Suffice it to say, we do actually agree, in principle at least, on this subject. :)

[!Kaggen]

lol. It's confirmation bias that I don't like to agree with you? Okay... Suffice it to say, we do actually agree, in principle at least, on this subject. :)

Its the hating to agree bit ;)

[tesscaline]

Its the hating to agree bit ;)lol. At least I can do it, despite it leaving a bad taste in my mouth :p

Really, I do agree that education about food is severely lacking. I just don't know how to solve the problem. So few people really understand food science. And even fewer are teachers.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Aside from a lot of nonsense re HFCS, water and flavoured water (which tastes way too weak.. )

I don't necesarily think identifying vegetables is important at 6, but I do think learning to cook (the basics, anyway) should be taught in middle or high school.

[whatthebutlersaw]

Generally, I don't feel that demonizing things is the best course of action. I'd rather big up the healthier stuff than tear down the less healthy stuff and I also think that what constitutes a functional attitude to good eating habits is individual. What will re-enforce me is not the same things that will re-enforce my neighbour and what made me make the connection will not necessarily push the buttons of my friend.

Some people need the occasional treat to not just go "aw, **** it". The mere idea of never having Pizza again will have them call the whole thing off beore they even start. Other people can't stray that much because of compulsive and/or addictive behaviour. I get motivated by an awkward middle class sense of "doing the right thing". While someone else is able to stay on the wagon because there's a bread and butter pudding reward - or why not a trip to McD's - at the end of a two week cycle. And I second what someone said about iron will vs titanium plated adamantium will previously. Controlling how much exercise you take is generally easier for most people vs. controlling what you eat. However, I would like to add the caveat that for many, many people it's not an either or situation. Diet and exercise may both need to be in place for some people to get results. Life is not fair and metabolism is one of those unfair things.

These are things that need addressing in and of themselves, but when it comes to which side to push I kind of come down on the "Find your individual situation and act from that" side. The catchall approach seems to actually catch very few people.

Of course, I would be incredibly gratified if discussions about healthy food did not immediately veer into weight territory. It is perfectly possible to get fat on a healthy, varied diet if you take too little exercise, eat too large portions of your otherwise perfectly healthy food, if you are already experiencing metabolic syndrome, pre-diabetes, diabetes, hypothyroidism, eat certain medications etc, etc. Not to mention the ability you have to take care of yourself when you are severely depressed. Once the weight is on it is a mofo to get off, no matter how simplistic the physics of it seem to simple minds. I once was part of a team working with a person with a degenerating disease who was trying to get to a healthy weight and I have to tell you that the tiny amounts of energy you are allowed per day when you are bed bound, medicated with antidepressants and cortison and can't take any exercise at all due to pain are just torturous. This person was in charge of h**self so it wasn't foisted on them, it was their own plan and they worked with a dietician and a GP to set up the plan. It was still bloody horrible to hear h** cry from hunger pangs at night when they thought the staff couldn't hear. And it was almost a full time job to ensure enough nutrition on those paltry kcals/day. And it took months to find the cutoff point where this person actually started losing weight and not just stopped putting it on.

As I said earlier, I was a food averse child and maybe that's why I have come to think of food and our attitudes to it as highly individual. No one seemed to understand what I was going through when I literally thought I would die from potato so I don't assume I know what other people are going through with their relationship to food. My favourite cousin was a healthy child who grew into an anorexic teen and it took her many years to get back to healthy eating habits. I don't pretend I know what went on in her head when she lived on an eighth of an apple for days. I just wished she was happier.

Diet may be one of those things that has no catchall, which is why - as Zircon pointed out - the safest and easiest way to know your diet is healthy is to know yourself somewhat and cook most of it yourself. Personally I cook most of my meals from scratch, but I know I'm privileged to be able to do that: I can afford fresh produce, I have an outlet for fresh produce close by (since I don't drive, I would be screwed if I hadn't), I have a well equipped kitchen an interest in cooking and enough spare time. Despite this I recently found myself resenting the time I spent in the kitchen. I can see both your sides. I do 80% of my cooking in the oven for the very reason that I can then leave it to do its stuff while I have some time for hobbies and crafts and stuff. (Of course, if I had kids that time would still not be me-time.) But Zirc is right. Most of the ready made stuff we buy is designed to have long shelf lives and to replace healthy fats with fillers or sugars to the detriment of their nutritional value. (In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out the stuff that is worst for you is the stuff that is marked Weight Watchers or "Light" or "Diet" etc.) But of course there is nothing wrong with using, e.g, frozen vegetables. But healthy cooking really doesn't have to take more time than heating prefab. It's down to planning, and as I said I realize that the willingness - and sometimes ability - to plan and stick to the plan is highly individual, and not only for personal reasons but for outside influences like proximity to good food outlets, economy, transportation etc.

I don't believe in demonizing drugs or food by lying about them. I don't believe in shaming as a paedagogical tool. Lying creates a lack of trust in the good advice too. Lie enough and they stop listening to you altogether.

But maybe we need to be clearer?

Instead of saying "McD's every now and then won't make you fat or unhealthy." maybe we need to be more specific: "McD's on one day per month won't make you fat or unhealthy."?

For ages we were told, in Sweden, that fat would kill you instantly and the only way to save your heart was to have absolutely none of it. Cue a food industry bulking up "fat free" products with sugars and empty carbs and an instant rise in obesity levels and heart disease.

This was a direct application of the scare tactic to push the agenda of a more complex truth (that we need some fat in our dieat, preferably from good sources, but that we were eating far too much of the bad kind). Diabetes skyrocketed. When the dietary advice was moderated to include some fats and people stopped looking for "fat free" when shopping, the graph planed out almost instantly. Swedish people are very responsive to advice. We have - or had - a high level of trust in expert opinion and fat intake was cut almost instantly that advice was released. When the advice had to be revised and the fallout from that tactic became evident, a lot of people felt distrust towards the surgeon general and as a result lost trust in all kinds of authorities. The result is a growing CT movement which is oddly enough spearheaded by paleo-dieters, LowCarbHighFatters who took the leap from distrusting a government that told them to eat stuff that was really bad for them to avoid eating stuff that was slightly bad for them, to believing in chemtrails, twoothing, antivaxxing, homeopathy and amega wands. As the doctor who first raised the issue of the possible non-lethalness of fat became high profile while taking a lot of flak from established dieticians woosters of all kinds latched onto her for sticking it to the man and now she is the hub of all things CT in Sweden which with her high profile gave them an eminent platform to spread their ****. Because she was right, that one time, and the establishment was wrong, people now believe her when she says Big Pharma created the H1N1 epidemic to sell vaccines or links utubes to What on Earth are the Spraying.

From being a society that mainly trusted expert advice to one that only trusted tinfoilhatters in less than five years. That's what dishonest simplification did in our case. Maybe other countries would have a different reaction, I don't know. But if our experts had explained the complicated truth about fats instead of simplifying it and just scaring us of it, we probably wouldn't suddenly have whooping cough and TB back.

[stokes234]

I can't look at that right now, although I'll look at it later because I'm genuinely curious. But although people could spend 30 minutes to make a meal, they could do a lot of things that they're not actually going to do, en masse at least.

And if it takes you 30 minutes just to prepare your meal then how long does it take from the start of preparation to the end of clean up? (I'm assuming clean up from a 30 minute meal is longer than clean up from a 3 minute meal.)

People have soccer practice and work and stuff to do, etc. Some people actually enjoy the cooking process, and if so good for them, but most people do it only because they have to. The popularity of restaurants and frozen food that just needs heated and take out food is testament to that.

I followed some of his recipes in uni, because I was lazy as hell and didn't want to spend time cooking that could be spent doing absolutely nothing, but I wanted some relatively healthy food and some variety/my girlfriend made me do it. It wasn't grandmaster chef stuff, it really was just slicing up a few vegetables and stir-frying them, or making gratin potatoes, or fajitas or whatever. It's quite good, I recommend it.

And yes, people don't do it because they don't want to. Jamie Oliver is trying to make them want to, by making it easy and demonstrating the benefits. This seems like a perfectly logical solution to the problem, and certainly better than no solution.

[excaza]

I only mentioned flavored drinks, because a lot of people "don't like" to drink water. (even though, that is actually virtually impossible. I don't think it is possible for people to not "like" water. Or rather, I think it not possible for people to actually "DISLIKE" water.)
This is actually virtually untrue. I know many people who dislike water. My mother is one of them, she won't drink it unless there's some sort of flavoring in it.

but the point of my post, was to drink more water, and for those who insist on having taste, there are healthier alternatives than soda.
Then make your point without throwing in all the 'cleansing your body' woo.

[excaza]

And yes, people don't do it because they don't want to. Jamie Oliver is trying to make them want to, by making it easy and demonstrating the benefits. This seems like a perfectly logical solution to the problem, and certainly better than no solution.
I find today's Zits relevant :)

http://www.arcamax.com/newspics/19/1914/191406.gif

[ZirconBlue]

Then you should probably know why this statement:



doesn't really apply, in the context of my post you have quoted.


You are wrong. You suggest that changing diet to effect weight loss is not hard. For many people that is a false statement, regardless of "context".

[whatthebutlersaw]

I find today's Zits relevant :)

http://www.arcamax.com/newspics/19/1914/191406.gif

Reminds me of an episode of "Bottom" where Rich finds the thoroughly pished Eddie eating something straight from a canister in the kitchen and the dialogue goes:

Richie: What are you eating?
Eddie: [With genuine enjoyment] Lard.
Richie: Why on EARTH are you eating LARD?
Eddie: Cos I'm hungry and I'm too drunk to cook.

[ZirconBlue]

Reminds me of an episode of "Bottom" where Rich finds the thoroughly pished Eddie eating something straight from a canister in the kitchen and the dialogue goes:

Richie: What are you eating?
Eddie: [With genuine enjoyment] Lard.
Richie: Why on EARTH are you eating LARD?
Eddie: Cos I'm hungry and I'm too drunk to cook.


I once heard a story of someone rolling a stick of butter in sugar, then eating it. Now, I like butter, but yuck.

[Emet]

I once heard a story of someone rolling a stick of butter in sugar, then eating it. Now, I like butter, but yuck.

Have you ever eaten fried butter (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/32665106/ns/today-food/)?

[excaza]

I once heard a story of someone rolling a stick of butter in sugar, then eating it. Now, I like butter, but yuck.

When my brother was a kid he used to sneak out of his room at night and eat frozen butter.

[tyr_13]

Correct, so what's your contribution to ours?

You have one class of sixth graders who don't know what tomatoes look like not cut up, and the fact that we have a obesity problem, and you conclude therefore, that there is an education problem.

A lot of people don't know enough about food. They also don't know enough about history, or politics, or geography, or spelling or a lot of other people's pet subject.

Then there is the (false I believe) premise that if people did know a lot about food science, they would be inclined to eat more healthy. I'm wondering if there is any correlation at all with knowing what is unhealthy eat patterns and actually avoiding said patterns.

WTBS made my point a lot better than I was going to though, so I'll stop on that line of thought. (VERY well said.)

In short, if you want to argue there is an education problem, argue that. What amounts to one anecdote edited reality TV episode and the fact we have an obesity problem isn't sufficient to therefore conclude that people don't get enough food education. I remember that in high school, we had to take home and careers, and health classes, probably amounting to an entire class a year (just like History).

[!Kaggen]

You have one class of sixth graders who don't know what tomatoes look like not cut up, and the fact that we have a obesity problem, and you conclude therefore, that there is an education problem.

A lot of people don't know enough about food. They also don't know enough about history, or politics, or geography, or spelling or a lot of other people's pet subject.

Then there is the (false I believe) premise that if people did know a lot about food science, they would be inclined to eat more healthy. I'm wondering if there is any correlation at all with knowing what is unhealthy eat patterns and actually avoiding said patterns.

WTBS made my point a lot better than I was going to though, so I'll stop on that line of thought. (VERY well said.)

In short, if you want to argue there is an education problem, argue that. What amounts to one anecdote edited reality TV episode and the fact we have an obesity problem isn't sufficient to therefore conclude that people don't get enough food education. I remember that in high school, we had to take home and careers, and health classes, probably amounting to an entire class a year (just like History).

So you have nothing to add then except your opinion that knowledge has no part to play in solving the obesity problem.:rolleyes:

[tyr_13]

So you have nothing to add then except your opinion that knowledge has no part to play in solving the obesity problem.:rolleyes:

Great straw man. More school education might not. You certainly haven't shown that it is through your reality tv clip.

Not all social change is done though 'education'. I'm a Democrat for example, but I wouldn't be so pretentious (dickish actually) to claim that I want to educate independents and Republicans to vote Democrat. I want to convince them.

[ZirconBlue]

Have you ever eaten fried butter (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/32665106/ns/today-food/)?

No. After reading the link, I'll say that the reality of it didn't live up to my imagination.

I hope to try someday try deep-fried beer (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/foodanddrinknews/7973944/Deep-fried-beer-invented-in-Texas.html), though.

[AmandaM]

Then there is the (false I believe) premise that if people did know a lot about food science, they would be inclined to eat more healthy. I'm wondering if there is any correlation at all with knowing what is unhealthy eat patterns and actually avoiding said patterns.

I think if a person doesn't perceive themselves as having a weight or health problem, they won't be in any way motivated to change their eating habits.

Personally I know whole-wheat pasta is better for you than regular pasta. But I haven't bothered to substitute in my house. I'm not a huge fan of the flavor, and since I don't have weight or blood sugar issues, I can't see any really good reason to eat something I don't care for.

On the flip side, I have overweight friends who consider their weight to be "genetic" and after multiple failed attempts to lose weight, they gave up and now have gone back to their old eating habits.

Anecdotally, I'd say that just because people KNOW what's healthy, that doesn't mean they'll choose those options. I don't turn down cheese fries these days. But I don't eat them every day, either.

[!Kaggen]

So now food education is equivalent to political persuasion..
Yip food education is lacking in the US of A....

[tyr_13]

So now food education is equivalent to political persuasion..
Yip food education is lacking in the US of A....

Now I remember why I stopped caring about engaging you in any type of discussion; your rabid staw manning and spinning.

You do more discredit to the issues you advocate than you know.

[!Kaggen]

The point of food education, Jamie Oliver style, is not to pass on the theory of good food/bad food to kids, hell that is a major part of the problem since the USDA guidelines are rubbish even if they are based on knowledge.
Jamie is bringing a sensual and participatory education to these kids based on an essential part of their daily school life, the school lunch. Its not just about the calories and the vitamins, its about real education for the whole person which empowers them to make informed decisions on their future lifestyles.

[!Kaggen]

Now I remember why I stopped caring about engaging you in any type of discussion; your rabid staw manning and spinning.

You do more discredit to the issues you advocate than you know.

Can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen ;)

[Nihilianth]

That just shows that you're an idiot. It's perfectly possible to dislike water.

Wrong. No need to call me an idiot, but this is absolutely WRONG.

Water doesn't really have a taste. People nowadays are just so used to drinking soda, tea, coffee, juice, and other things with a lot of taste. When they drink water, they claim they dislike it. Unfortunately, water has no flavor. Therefore, there is no possible way to actually dislike water. That would be akin to saying "I don't like the smell of pure oxygen." Or "I don't like the smell of carbon monoxide."