# Do Your Kids Ever Go to Bed Hungry?



## EdnaMarie

Okay, that's not how it sounds.

We have one meal for our whole family at each mealtime. In "addition", each meal is served with whole-grain, homemade bread. At breakfast, that's bread with butter. Bread is unlimited. The 3.5 yo gets milk at breakfast and lunch. They get a fruit snack once a day and a protein snack once a day, or a combo. They may have ketchup or yoghurt on their meal if they want, if they think it will make it better, but in moderation.

Now, the baby is still nursing more or less on demand so if she doesn't eat, I suffer at night.

But if the 3.5 doesn't eat, too bad. Sometimes, this results in her going to the park or to bed on an empty or near-empty stomach.

Is that like, super harsh? I mean, I cook a very varied diet, we have grains at each meal, they like them, and I cook their favorite foods (chickpeas, broccoli, whole-wheat spaghetti, rice, beans, baked potato "fries" with fried salmon) often enough so this only happens once or twice a week. We definitely have treats a couple times a week.

However, when I see threads on "my kid will only eat x" on facebook or here, and these are NOT kids with special needs otherwise or, to my knowledge, food (there's always the undiagnosed child, but let's be honest, how many children have a disability that makes them entirely normal except that they have to eat Spaghetti-Os at every meal? but otherwise have zero issues?)--I think, "Well, just don't give it to them every day."

Now, I KNOW that the child may go somewhat hungry for up to three days. My feeling is, that if this child is otherwise typical, they WILL eat other foods when they are really hungry.

Is that like, really harsh? I'm not going to suggest it because I don't want to be un-friended, LOL. I mean whatever, if you want to give your kid Spaghetti-Os 21 times per week, I have no problem with that. I'm sure they'll be fine. But I'm asking if *my* parenting is that harsh.

(Once again, I'm not talking about kids that reach a level of malnourishment over weeks or months due to a quantifiable special need. I completely understand that "just" serving them regular food and letting them deal will not change the child in that case.)


----------



## AFWife

After a certain age (pretty much when we were totally verbal) my parents handled it like that...This is dinner, eat it or don't, but you can't dictate what we eat.


----------



## MusicianDad

We don't make our kids go to bed hungry. We don't agree with making food that much of a control issue.

That being said, my own kids, would not be able to survive off of three meals a day a two-three snacks. They just need more food than that.

As for kids who will only eat one or two things everyday, it's not so much a disability as it is a part of childhood. Many, many go through a stage where they will only eat certain things. Making that into a source of stress for the child and parent is, IMO, a very bad idea. At 3.5 I would be making sure that every meal has something in it the kid likes. I mean you wouldn't appreciate sitting down to a meal of things you don't like and being told "it's this or nothing". In fact most people wouldn't even dream of doing that to an adult.


----------



## nola79

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EdnaMarie* 
Is that like, super harsh? I mean, I cook a very varied diet, we have grains at each meal, they like them, and I cook their favorite foods (chickpeas, broccoli, whole-wheat spaghetti, rice, beans, baked potato "fries" with fried salmon) often enough so this only happens once or twice a week. We definitely have treats a couple times a week.


No, not harsh at all. I see no reason to make a separate meal for the kids, you sound like you are incorporating a lot of their favorites into the weekly meals. I do the same thing.
Btw, parents who feed their kids spaghetti o's and chicken nuggets at every meal are a big pet peeve of mine.


----------



## mamazee

If my older dd (the one who isn't nursing) doesn't like what we have for dinner, or if she's hungry for a snack, she is welcome to make herself something simple, like pb&j, or have something like fruit and cheese or nuts that she can just grab and eat, but I don't make another meal. Since she can get herself something, she obviously doesn't go to bed hungry. Spaghettios aren't in our house, so that isn't an option.


----------



## ssh

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EdnaMarie* 

Now, the baby is still nursing more or less on demand so if she doesn't eat, I suffer at night.

But if the 3.5 doesn't eat, too bad. Sometimes, this results in her going to the park or to bed on an empty or near-empty stomach.

Is that like, super harsh?


What I don't understand is why self regulating food intake is good for your baby but not your 3 year old. I think unhealthy is a better word than harsh. Your 3.5 year old's little body needs fuel. If her blood sugar deeps low it can effect her behavior and her ability to learn. If she goes without food for long periods of time can effect her metabolism. Also being hungry a lot of the time can give her food issues. So If your DD doesn't eat dinner can she have a piece of fruit or leftovers as a bedtime snack?

My 4.5 year old self regulates her food intake. She can eat whenever she wants and what ever we have in the house. She usually does eat dinner with us, but the other meals/snacks are when she wants. Has she ever had Spaghetti-Os? No, we do buy canned beans though and she will have garbanzo or pinto beans for a snack or lunch. I control our family diet when I shop for food. Letting a child eat when they're hungry and letting a child eat overprocessed foods with poor nutritional value are not related issues. Letting a child eat when they are hungry and only as much as they want encourages them to listen to their body when it comes to food intake.


----------



## junipermuse

You're definitely stricter than I am, but that doesn't make you too harsh. I probably cater a bit too much to my kid. She's not the best eater, but she eats a variety of things and most of them are healthy. I have sent her to bed without eating though. If I put dinner out and she's too busy playing to eat then she goes to bed hungry. On the other hand she is always allowed to have bread, yogurt, and bananas at any meal, so if she doesn't like what I am serving she still has something she likes. I don't usually make her an alternative though unless I make something for dinner I know she hates. As far as lunch and breakfast though I usually make her whatever she wants (that's available, sometimes we're all out of something and I'm not running to the store). She's also allowed to have snacks whenever she wants, but it's still the same stuff (bread, bananas, yogurt, vegetables, toast, not usually any crackers or junk). I cater to my husbands pickiness much more than my dd.


----------



## mamazee

Quote:


Originally Posted by *junipermuse* 
I cater to my husbands pickiness much more than my dd.

I get not making alternatives, but I guess I don't understand this. Why would your dh get more accommodation than your dd?


----------



## TCMoulton

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MusicianDad* 
We don't make our kids go to bed hungry. We don't agree with making food that much of a control issue.

That being said, my own kids, would not be able to survive off of three meals a day a two-three snacks. They just need more food than that.

As for kids who will only eat one or two things everyday, it's not so much a disability as it is a part of childhood. Many, many go through a stage where they will only eat certain things. Making that into a source of stress for the child and parent is, IMO, a very bad idea. At 3.5 I would be making sure that every meal has something in it the kid likes. I mean you wouldn't appreciate sitting down to a meal of things you don't like and being told "it's this or nothing". In fact most people wouldn't even dream of doing that to an adult.

Agreed. My kids are generally good eaters, but even they have meals that they will not eat. Instead of sending them to bed hungry I will make sure that they have something to fill their stomach before heading up to bed for the night. I know that I hate going to bed with a growling stomach so why would I ever make my kids do the same thing.


----------



## AFWife

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TCMoulton* 
Agreed. My kids are generally good eaters, but even they have meals that they will not eat. Instead of sending them to bed hungry I will make sure that they have something to fill their stomach before heading up to bed for the night. I know that I hate going to bed with a growling stomach so why would I ever make my kids do the same thing.

I believe there's a difference between "I don't like this food...we've tried this before and I still hate it" and "I'm just throwing a fit" or whatever. I also know that there are things that we just have to eat to be healthy. I don't like apples (it's a texture thing) but they're good for me so I find a way to eat them...same with spinach...I think it's good to learn that at an early age.


----------



## Drummer's Wife

My kids wouldn't go to bed or to the park hungry (unless they truly didn't want something) because while our main meals are pretty standard, they can have snacks whenever they want. They aren't limited to two snacks a day at set times - personally, I'd hate that as an adult - what if I didn't want to eat then or was too busy? I really think everyone should be allowed to eat when they are hungry. Whether that's right before bed or at 11 am.

Anyhow, spaghetti-o's make me shudder, just because you couldn't pay me to eat them. I really doubt my kids would like them. Unless a parent of a picky eater was asking for advice (like via FB), I wouldn't comment on their kid's eating habits. I may not personally understand how a kid could refuse to eat anything but x,y, and z because I have pretty good eaters - but every family/kid/situation is different so I try not to be too judgemental.

Oh, and I don't see food as a disciple issue, but a nutritional one.


----------



## Llyra

My approach has always been to put a good meal on the table, at regular intervals, planned to include something that each person in the household normally likes. If they eat, they eat. If not, that's cool. That's their decision. If they were hungry, they'd eat. I also offer three snacks a day, again with several choices.

They do sometimes go to bed having eaten nothing, but I don't see that as harsh at all. It has nothing to do with me. If they don't eat, it's because they chose not to eat. So if they're hungry, they have nobody but themselves to blame. I'm not "making" them go to bed hungry. I have given them every opportunity to eat, and they've chosen not to.

What I won't do is keep junky food around, and let them eat that after they've refused perfectly good wholesome food. If a particular meal just really isn't appealing to a child on a particular day, I have cheese, fruit, and milk in the fridge usually, or yogurt, and they are welcome to help themselves to that.


----------



## EdnaMarie

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MusicianDad* 
We don't make our kids go to bed hungry. We don't agree with making food that much of a control issue.

That being said, my own kids, would not be able to survive off of three meals a day a two-three snacks. They just need more food than that.

As for kids who will only eat one or two things everyday, it's not so much a disability as it is a part of childhood. Many, many go through a stage where they will only eat certain things. Making that into a source of stress for the child and parent is, IMO, a very bad idea. At 3.5 I would be making sure that every meal has something in it the kid likes. I mean you wouldn't appreciate sitting down to a meal of things you don't like and being told "it's this or nothing". In fact most people wouldn't even dream of doing that to an adult.

Well, I do it to my husband, LOL! And he can't cook and I don't buy him junk so guess what. I am not sure if my husband qualifies as an adult. Sometimes I think he's in-between the 12-month-old and the pre-schooler in terms of emotional development, but that's a different story.

I don't have time to cook separate meals.

We don't have stress over meals. It's just a fact- we eat family food and we eat together and if you don't want it, cool, but I'm afraid I don't have time to prepare something else.

BTW, they get snacks when they want, just not unlimited. It's not like, come for your banana. It's more, "I'm hungry." "There's fruit in the basket on the table. Have a piece. Don't eat them all because that's all we have for the week."

Unlimited snacking is to my mind absurd. I thought snacks were for active days? When we asked for food (after a meal and a healthy snack) when I was a kid my mom said, "You're bored. Go make something." I say the same.

I thought snacking between meals was supposed to be bad?!? That only little kids needed a couple snacks instead of breastmilk if they weren't nursing?


----------



## Drummer's Wife

I don't think snacking is bad - especially if they have eaten the last meal. Like right now, my kids are warming up cheese quesadillas because they are hungry. They had lunch earlier, and strawberries for snack later on, as well as cucumbers about 20 min. ago. We won't be having dinner for a few more hours (7 ish) so I wouldn't not let them eat now, yk? And if they are hungry after dinner they might snack again. I have 3 boys and a pre-teen girl, so yes, some days it does seem like all they do is eat! But they are healthy, and we only have whole foods (for the most part - the tortillas they are eating are store bought b/c I haven't made any for awhile).

I don't think it's necessary to make separate meals - I never have. But like a PP said, if they don't feel like what we are eating they can help themselves to a sandwich, cheese, yogurt, etc.

oh, and regarding one of ythe replies - I never make them eat something they don't like forthe sake of nutrition, b/c that's silly to me. There are always other ways to getthe same nutrients. I hate milk, and my parent used to make me drink it as a kid - I have not had one tiny sip in over 15 years now. I still get plenty of calcium. Food shouldn't be made an issue, IMO - it's not healthy.


----------



## mamazee

It probably isn't a great idea for adults who aren't active and are finished growing to snack much between meals. But kids go through growth spurts and need very different amounts of food from one week to the next. I really think it's best to put kids in charge of how often and how much they eat, unless they've shown they have trouble with that, and even then I'd work with them to educate them about eating habits, and I'd be careful to only have healthy foods available, rather than limiting food. I've talked to dd about how sometimes when people are bored they eat out of boredom rather than hunger, but that's as much as I've done. And I do just have healthy options around. But she eats as much and as often as she wants, and she has developed great eating habits and is very healthy. Generally it is just meals and really one snack these days, but there have been times she's been very hungry and she's eaten more often.


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EdnaMarie* 
Well, I do it to my husband, LOL! And he can't cook and I don't buy him junk so guess what. I am not sure if my husband qualifies as an adult. Sometimes I think he's in-between the 12-month-old and the pre-schooler in terms of emotional development, but that's a different story.

I don't have time to cook separate meals.

We don't have stress over meals. It's just a fact- we eat family food and we eat together and if you don't want it, cool, but I'm afraid I don't have time to prepare something else.

BTW, they get snacks when they want, just not unlimited. It's not like, come for your banana. It's more, "I'm hungry." "There's fruit in the basket on the table. Have a piece. Don't eat them all because that's all we have for the week."

Unlimited snacking is to my mind absurd. I thought snacks were for active days? When we asked for food (after a meal and a healthy snack) when I was a kid my mom said, "You're bored. Go make something." I say the same.

I thought snacking between meals was supposed to be bad?!? That only little kids needed a couple snacks instead of breastmilk if they weren't nursing?

Snacking isn't bad, eating because your bored or emotional eating are bad. Snacking when you are actually hungry is simply responding to your bodies cues. Not everyone can eat three meals a day and be fine. I know at least one person who can't eat more then a "snack" at any given time because it's just too much food, and she's an adult. For her snacking is more healthy than eating enough to make her sick/feel sick just because it's "proper" to eat three big meals a day.

I don't know when DS, DD, Dh are hungry. I can't tell when they are hungry because I'm not attached and feeling what they are feeling. I have to either try and make them conform to my idea of what they should be feeling in relation to food, or let them tell me what they are feeling in relation to food.


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AFWife* 
I believe there's a difference between "I don't like this food...we've tried this before and I still hate it" and "I'm just throwing a fit" or whatever. I also know that there are things that we just have to eat to be healthy. I don't like apples (it's a texture thing) but they're good for me so I find a way to eat them...same with spinach...I think it's good to learn that at an early age.

You don't _have_ to eat those things to be healthy. You are simply choosing to eat things you don't like rather than find other ways of getting the same nutrients. DH doesn't eat apples, and he'd not unhealthy because of it either.


----------



## One_Girl

I don't send my dd to bed hungry. I tend to offer her a fruit, vegetable, of cereal if she is hungry for a snack towards bedtime for whatever reason but I am not going to let her go hungry at night just because she wants a change from one food group or because they don't like a certain food so they didn't eat it. If she is missing food from one or two specific food groups then I try to focus on those for our nighttime snack. You may want to offer more fruit and vegetable offerings if one is all they are getting a day. I believe the recommended daily serving amount is 2-3 for each of those. They may just be tired of having so much bread and wanting other options.

You don't have to give unhealthy food options like spaghetti-o's in order to give a snack that kids will like. Parents who don't send kids to bed hungry aren't necessarily parents who are giving them processed crap, they are parents who don't want their kids to have a hurting tummy when they should be full and sleepy. It isn't a black and white, "you let your kids snack before bed therefore you feed them garbage and I don't so my kids only get healthy food" kind of situation. I know a few families that feed crappy food but have your point of view about eating at the meal and going to bed hungry. Try to not get stuck seeing it as a black and white thing because that isn't anywhere close to the truth. It is more influenced by how you were raised and your view on cleaning your plate.


----------



## sgmom

I do about the same as one_girl. I always offer my daughter a snack before bed, whether she ate dinner or not. I try to limit the fluid intake because we EC (she drinks a lot of water during the day), but we always offer a healthy snack.


----------



## Carhootel

interesting thread...

I only have 1 kid and he's 15mo and still not big on the solids. Right now we eat at the table together and he is offered whatever we're having for dinner. I do try to accomodate him in the sense that if we are having indian food, I'll pull out some of the unseasoned veggies and rice for him to eat but generally he is given what we're eating. If for some reason he won't eat it then later - separate from our family dinner I'll give him something he will eat - usually yogurt. This is working for us right now but I have been warned by my Ped that he is manipulating me and I'm setting us up for big trouble down the road... I dunno but I'm subbing to this thread!


----------



## a-sorta-fairytale

I am very lenient with food for many many reasons.

I do not want food to be an issue and i don't want to create food struggles and food issues now that will haunt them the rest of their lives.

I think grazing is healthier - an apple here, a handful of nuts in an hour, a yogurt later etc. This keeps the body fueled and keeps the stomach used to small meals not huge portions. I feel much better when i have one egg and a piece of toast and tea for breakfast, a yogurt 2 hours later, a fruit and glass of milk 2 hours later etc rather then stuffing down 2 eggs, toast, fruit and milk then not eating again for 4 hours.

I am crabby when i am hungry. So are my kids. That is one reason dd has to eat something before school. It takes her an hour to eat 4 oz of yogurt but i would not dream of sending her without because then her poor teacher would be stuck with crabby pants till snack time. We eat before going anywhere so the public isnt stuck with abunch of crabby people too.

I sleep better when i am not hungry and so do the kids so again, i make sure no one goes to bed hungry. As a matter of fact, being huge pregnant i have been eating a piece of cheese 20 min before bed in the last month. Both kids have done the same and they are sleeping longer









I make sure every meal has something they like in it (that is not a carb) so they can eat too. If i am making something i know they hate i will make something different for them. I do NOT cook different meals all the time but if i want something specific and i know they dont like it i make them something else (usually just a sandwich or quesadilla etc). I would hate it if i was forced to eat something i didnt like or *nothing* Dh would eat steak and potatoes every day. I would be starving all the time. I would eat shellfish everyday - dh would starve. We try to work with the needs of all members of the family.

If the kids are hungry they are always welcome to fruits/veggies/nuts.

So, no, in short







no one goes hungry here.


----------



## nola79

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EdnaMarie* 
Well, I do it to my husband, LOL! And he can't cook and I don't buy him junk so guess what. I am not sure if my husband qualifies as an adult. Sometimes I think he's in-between the 12-month-old and the pre-schooler in terms of emotional development, but that's a different story.

I don't have time to cook separate meals.

We don't have stress over meals. It's just a fact- we eat family food and we eat together and if you don't want it, cool, but I'm afraid I don't have time to prepare something else.

BTW, they get snacks when they want, just not unlimited. It's not like, come for your banana. It's more, "I'm hungry." "There's fruit in the basket on the table. Have a piece. Don't eat them all because that's all we have for the week."

Unlimited snacking is to my mind absurd. I thought snacks were for active days? When we asked for food (after a meal and a healthy snack) when I was a kid my mom said, "You're bored. Go make something." I say the same.

I thought snacking between meals was supposed to be bad?!? That only little kids needed a couple snacks instead of breastmilk if they weren't nursing?

As long as my son has eaten a meal, I let him snack as much as he wants. What I don't do is let him not eat breakfast lunch or dinner and snack instead. I don't necessarily see anything wrong with unlimited snacks, as kids are still growing, but I do not agree with unlimited snacks if a nutritous meal hasn't been eaten.


----------



## Honey693

i haven't read the whole thread yet, but I wanted to chime in. DD (20 months) doesn't get sent to bed hungry. If she doesn't want to eat what we're eating, fine, but I refuse to make two dinners. If she doesn't eat dinner she can alwasy have fruit, cheese or whatever else she can feed her self out of the fridge.

Why can't your kids have fruit, veggie or some other healthy snack that they can self feed if they don't eat dinner? i completely understand not wanting to make two dinners or even heat up leftovers for someone, but if they can feed themselves, what's the big deal?


----------



## Honey693

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Carhootel* 
interesting thread...

I only have 1 kid and he's 15mo and still not big on the solids. Right now we eat at the table together and he is offered whatever we're having for dinner. I do try to accomodate him in the sense that if we are having indian food, I'll pull out some of the unseasoned veggies and rice for him to eat but generally he is given what we're eating. If for some reason he won't eat it then later - separate from our family dinner I'll give him something he will eat - usually yogurt. This is working for us right now but I have been warned by my Ped that he is manipulating me and I'm setting us up for big trouble down the road... I dunno but I'm subbing to this thread!

I just have to say your ped is ridiculous on that. If your hubby makes something for dinner he loves, but you don't like, or even just aren't in the mood for, and you don't eat it and have something else instead you're not manipulating him.


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nola79* 
As long as my son has eaten a meal, I let him snack as much as he wants. What I don't do is let him not eat breakfast lunch or dinner and snack instead. I don't necessarily see anything wrong with unlimited snacks, as kids are still growing, but I do not agree with unlimited snacks if a nutritous meal hasn't been eaten.

Meals aren't necessary in order to eat a healthy, nutritious meal. Plenty of people in this world have a healthy, balanced diet and rarely eat a full meal everyday.


----------



## lolar2

We offer DS a "bedtime snack" most nights (fruit, cookies and/ or cheese, usually). It's more substantial on nights when he hasn't eaten dinner. A lot of the time he doesn't want to eat the snack anyway, but we offer it.


----------



## Lilypie32

I don't have scheduled mealtimes for myself or for my child. We eat separate from each other most the time due to school/work conflict, etc. When he is hungry, I will make him his food. He gets unlimited healthy snacks every day. I don't control his healthy food intake because I grew up very poor and did not get much food and suffered both nutritionally and psychologically. If he is hungry, he asks to eat and I feed him.


----------



## Letitia

We have a rigid breakfast-snack-lunch-snack-dinner schedule, and we always offer food at fairly consistent times. They (2 and 3) have no obligation to eat it (although they almost always eat some), and on the rare occasion (truly it is rare) that they ask for something at an odd time I just give them some of the same food we would have eaten at one of our usual meals. It's all nutritious, we don't have junk in the house at all (I would definitely include spaghettios as junk), and throughout the day they get a good variety. My MIL made the comment once, when DD was eating a huge afternoon snack, that she would ruin her appetite for dinner, and I just answered that I really wasn't worried about that - even if she did (which she doesn't) she still would have eaten healthily that day. I just don't worry about when exactly they eat it.

Sometimes our kids eat dinner better than others. We eat all together and give them the same food we eat, but we try to always include something we know they like. Sometimes we miss and they don't eat a lot, but usually they eat well. I can only remember once ever when DD said she was hungry at bedtime, and we gave her a snack. If say, at dinner they want more of something like bread and haven't tried something else, we'll ask that they eat one bite of it, but otherwise don't make them eat anything.

So I dunno, I guess I wonder how can a person develop a fixation on spaghettios if you don't ever have spaghettios? Or whatever the thing is.

And for me, a big thing would be if a kid were saying he/she was hungry at bedtime, versus me just being concerned they didn't eat much dinner. If they didn't eat much but they don't say anything, I don't worry. That's assuming they are able to ask for food if they're hungry, but they both do.

I have no idea about when they're older. But right now, I just want them to get good fuel to grow and run around, and hopefully hold off on introducing all the body-image and food fixation issues their parents have dealt with.


----------



## sunshadow

If I've prepared something and my daughter doesn't want it I tell her that I went to the effort to make it and I would like it if she would just try it. Usually she will. Either way I will get her something else that is easy like yogurt or toast so that she has something in her tummy and isn't so cranky. She is welcome to have fruit or veggies, crackers, easy to grab foods anytime she wants and has a shelf for food she can access her self. As long as it's healthy and she is getting somewhat of a balanced diet, I don't really care when she eats. That's how it was when I grew up and I've never had any issues with food, health, or my weight. I don't see a reason in making it a battle really.


----------



## 34me

I have a 14 year old child that will choose to go to bed hungry because he hasn't liked dinner because it smells funny, has a funny texture, looks disgusting etc. There are homemade burritos in the freezer and 2/3 of the yogurt in the fridge are his preferred flavors, there are plenty of cheese sticks so he doesn't have to actually cut it and often he will still go to bed hungry because he just doesn't see food as a priority and is too lazy to make anything for himself. Yes we have been to an RD. If you totally cater to him, he will eat a wide variety of foods in small amounts - but yeah in an otherwise normal healthy kid, every once in a while you will get one who will choose to go hungry.

And this is my child that was at hockey camp from 8:15 am-4:30pm and then on the lacrosse field from 5-7, every week day/night for the last two weeks.


----------



## ledzepplon

My kids sometimes choose to go to bed without having eaten dinner.

I don't consider this "controlling" about food or unfair. I have three little kids and a husband, and I simply can't make everybody's favorite meal each night. I wouldn't ever force anyone to eat something they don't like, so there is no rule that they must eat. But I can't prepare 5 different meals and/or snacks 3 times a day.

Most of the time that my kids turn their nose up at food, it's not because I'm serving them something that revolts them. It's just that they're not in the mood for that particular meal--for example, they all like grilled chicken, but sometimes dd will just not feel like eating it.

If I had one or two children, I might allow them to fix themselves a snack or eat a yogurt or something. But there is simply too much food waste if people are allowed to follow their whims for every meal. I do try to prepare food that will please people, but I often tell them that food is fuel for their body, and it's okay if they're not eating their favorite thing each and every time.


----------



## mamadebug

My kiddo would only go to bed hungry if he chose to (never has). I usually only make one meal (maybe slight variations - set some food aside before adding a sauce or whatever). I make foods that I know he likes (maybe not his favorites at every meal, but food I know he will eat) at every meal. If DS chooses not to eat the meal at mealtime, he can have access to it at any time. There was a period of time when he was a toddler that he wouldn't really eat during meal time (although usually stayed at the table with us), but would come back for it a bit later. I just left it out for him. I also offer snacks pretty regularly. Aside from a special treat from time to time, all food I offer is healthy. I don't care if it is eaten all at once as a meal or as snacks through out the day. Kids bodies are growing, and they need more food at certain times and less food at certain times. My DS has been eating a crazy amount of food over the last week - I want him to listen to his body and eat when he needs it, but not eat because he is concerned he won't have access to food later. Also, like a PP said, their blood sugar can dip if they haven't eaten and that can lead to real crankiness. I don't think little ones put together the cause/effect of that, and it doesn't seem fair to hold them responsible for that.

On the other hand, I have a friend whose 4 year old would like to live on 2 foods. She won't offer those foods at every meal, although she does always offer kid friendly foods. He sometimes will refuse to eat if she doesn't give him those two foods - and then he goes to bed hungry. But, they have gotten into a pretty bad power struggle (he pretty much at only these two foods at every meal because she would always cave and give him what he wanted) and she is now trying to correct that. But, I think that is a pretty unique situation.

Barring a situation like that, I wouldn't let a kid go hungry.


----------



## littlest birds

We have one special needs child (our ds) with some serious food pickiness issues. He still needs to be pushed to be somewhat flexible or else he'd control what everyone eats/never eat with us. The others have different needs but also share some similar options since we don't want the structure too much different for different kids.

We generally allow toast as an alternative to dinner. Nothing too attractive. Ds is eating PB&J sandwiches for breakfast because he refuses to use the raw local milk we get and never drinks soy milk. He wants milk from walmart but we decided to draw a line. He agreed that he would use it if we removed the cream, but he has in fact decided not to. We never make anyone eat anything. I have allowed kids to go to bed without after refusing dinner, but settled on having a boring alternative instead as a gentler solution.

We have open snacks unless it gets close to dinnertime. We usually have one or two fruit, a protein like cheese, and crackers available at any time. A sweet maybe once a day, sometimes not at all, usually midafternoon. Just not within about an hour of dinner. Lunch normally includes several options instead of one for everyone.

I have often based my restrictions on rationing out food within a budget. So everyone gets a reasonable portion and the food lasts and goes around. This has been a big deal at times. So offering extra choices would cut into something else in food budget and that wasn't okay. I had to say no to eat as much as you want when you feel like it. I mean there was always enough but if someone got a lot cause they just wanted to pig out on a favorite we might have someone else get too little or maybe have no snacks left for later that week. I sometimes felt bad, but now I feel good about that and sort of wish I'd been more particular about how I went about that. Now I can simply tell them what a serving size is or how many people are supposed to get a share and they get it. And it's not so much about $$ these days, but I still like the idea that they picture a reasonable amount. Like I teach them to do something similar at potlucks or refreshment tables--look around and think about how many other people should get a cookie from that tray before you take a pile. If a lot off people are sharing a smallish amount of food, taking a smaller share is the right choice.

Letting a child go to bed hungry isn't really shocking to me, but I am happier with just having some plain alternative instead. I thought a lot about how kids can be sensitive to different things and decided I can't be sure when I am being fair and when I am being insensitive. An empty tummy can cause other mood issues I find, no need to add that to the mix. I will draw lines with some things like snack options but if someone doesn't like any of the four snack choices come on they can get a little hungrier and revisit that question.


----------



## *LoveBugMama*

Interesting thread.









I have one child. A nine year old boy.
I always make atleast one thing I know he likes for dinner, but usually more than one thing. If he one day decides that he doesn`t want what I have made, he ofcourse can fix himself something else. Fruit, pbj, some veggies etc.
Here in Norway it`s normal to eat dinner a little earlier than in USA, it seems. We usually eat at 4-5 PM. So, most kids have an eveningmeal, too, before bed. LoveBug always has. And if he doesn`t go to bed right after the eveningmeal, he sometimes gets hungry before he falls asleep. I don`t make him something big at that time, and he totally understands that. But he always gets something. Most often a banana or an apple.









About snacking: I really don`t understand how snacking can be unhealthy. It`s not the snacking we need to worry about, it`s the food we choose when snacking (or eating bigger meals, for that matter). LoveBug spent his first 3-4 years mostly snacking. But the food was wholesome, healthy etc. So there was nothing unhealthy about it. Infact, we still snack a lot. Like today. It`s 11.45 AM, and we haven`t eaten breakfast yet. (He didn`t get up until 11AM, late night yesterday.) So now I will be making a tray of different foods, and put it on the table. And we both can choose what we want from that. And the tray will likely be staying there until it`s empty/we decide we want dinner.


----------



## EdnaMarie

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Honey693* 
i haven't read the whole thread yet, but I wanted to chime in. DD (20 months) doesn't get sent to bed hungry. If she doesn't want to eat what we're eating, fine, but I refuse to make two dinners. If she doesn't eat dinner she can alwasy have fruit, cheese or whatever else she can feed her self out of the fridge.

Why can't your kids have fruit, veggie or some other healthy snack that they can self feed if they don't eat dinner? i completely understand not wanting to make two dinners or even heat up leftovers for someone, but if they can feed themselves, what's the big deal?

Well, fruit and cheese are expensive foods per calorie, so we can't afford to feed them only those foods, and they would eat them to the exclusion of anything else if they could. Fruits are desserts--healthy, but not if you eat only those. I should say that when my first was 20 months, and for my 14-month-old, they are allowed to nurse on demand, so they were never hungry that young.

I'm not talking about babies. I'm talking about kids.

"I have often based my restrictions on rationing out food within a budget."

So do we.

And to emphasize, the children ALWAYS have access to plain, whole-grain bread in addition to a tasty, homemade meal. My three-year-old has only gone to bed hungry two or three times, but I do allow it as an option if she insists she won't eat anything but X. It keeps her from refusing food that in principle she likes, but would not prefer to, say, yoghurt and strawberries.









"Most of the time that my kids turn their nose up at food, it's not because I'm serving them something that revolts them. It's just that they're not in the mood for that particular meal--for example, they all like grilled chicken, but sometimes dd will just not feel like eating it."

Exactly.

Interesting to see the reactions, thanks for replying.


----------



## Rhannie

Has my 3 year old gone to bed or the park hungry? Probably.

Is it because she doesn't have access to food? No.

I don't make alternative meals here either. The meals made are what you get, if you don't want it now we'll save it for later. If the meal doesn't suit you, you're welcome to open the veggie drawer and eat whatever is in there (raw or you prepare it ).

Additional Snacks in our house are 80% vegetable, 10% fruit and the rest nuts, crackers and sardines or pate, seaweed sheets, dried fish, etc. Chips, prepared foods, and desserts are for special occasions only. We don't do dairy, so no cheese sticks etc.

I sound pretty harsh, but at the play group my daughter goes to the other parents are shocked at the stuff my daughter LOVES to eat


----------



## EdnaMarie

*Littlestbirds*

Quote:

"On the other hand, I have a friend whose 4 year old would like to live on 2 foods. She won't offer those foods at every meal, although she does always offer kid friendly foods. He sometimes will refuse to eat if she doesn't give him those two foods - and then he goes to bed hungry. But, they have gotten into a pretty bad power struggle (he pretty much at only these two foods at every meal because she would always cave and give him what he wanted) and she is now trying to correct that. But, I think that is a pretty unique situation. "
See, I think that's actually a REALLY amazingly common situation.

Your style sounds like mine, or at least similar. I cook foods my kids like, of course, but not exclusively, because they're part of the family, not the only people who count. Sometimes they only mildly like it. It's not as though I'm making some wierd soup every night. Most nights they like what's on offer. When they don't, though, tough luck.

And I think that's what prevented it from being a power struggle.

When they can cook their own meals, they can make whatever they want for dinner (barring baked goods... don't touch my sugar, LOL!).

Rhianne, I bet my kids would LOVE seaweed sheets. Such a great idea. Where do you get the dried fish?


----------



## joanna0707

I always have some food with me when we go out, some fruit, LARABAR bars or other healthy stuff so DS can snack whenever he needs to. I also offer a snack before bed if DS doesn't eat well at dinner.


----------



## Rhannie

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EdnaMarie* 
*Littlestbirds*
Rhianne, I bet my kids would LOVE seaweed sheets. Such a great idea. Where do you get the dried fish?

I get them at the local supermarket when/if we ever run out of what MIL sends us







but you might have to try an asian grocery or something like that. They're popular snacks/toppings in Japan and larger ones are used for making stock for miso soup.

--Rhannie in Japan


----------



## mamaofthree

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nola79* 
As long as my son has eaten a meal, I let him snack as much as he wants. What I don't do is let him not eat breakfast lunch or dinner and snack instead. I don't necessarily see anything wrong with unlimited snacks, as kids are still growing, but I do not agree with unlimited snacks if a nutritous meal hasn't been eaten.

if the snacks are nutritious why not? i mean what is wrong with yogurt as a snack instead of eggs for breakfast? and if they just ate a big meal why would they be hungry? why would you let your child go hungry because at the time of the meal they were not hungry or didn't like what was being served?

wow, this topic is so hot for me. my parents were very very controlling with food to the point of being hit if we didn't eat fast enough. so the idea of denying children food because A.) they don't like it B.) because i don't want to be inconvenienced to help them C.) so i am in unlimited control over what goes in and out of them... just makes me so upset.
how do i know when someone other then me is hungry? how do i know what they need? a three year old has a small stomach, how are they suppose to get all they need in in one day in three meals and a snack? them grazing all day will more then likely assure that they get all they need, especially if what you are supplying is healthy food. heck when my 3 year old wants a salad after not eating dinner, who am i to say no. go to bed hungry. seems a bit harsh. sorry but it does. i keep in my house what i do not mind them eating. and if at dinner what i make sounds yucky they are more then welcome to make a sandwich, have some cheese, have a yogurt, have a muffin, etc. it's all good to me.
we also do a bedtime snack and since i started making a serious point on this, everyone seems happier. usually it is something like warm milk and whole wheat toast with butter and honey. other times it might be cheese and crackers and maybe a few apple slices.

it could very well be my own experiences as a child that have made me make a serious effort to not make food an issue in my house. my kids have gone thru phases of only wanting this food or that food, and as long as it is healthy what do i care. i eat what i like, why not treat them the same way.

h


----------



## happysmileylady

Quote:

We don't make our kids go to bed hungry. We don't agree with making food that much of a control issue.
He He, see, I was going to say I don't make food that much of a control issue so my older dd absolutely went to bed hungry on occasion







:

For meals, I made what I made and that was it. If she didn't want it, I would put it in the microwave, if she decided she wanted it later, we could heat it up. If she really didn't want it, she was welcome to get something from "her shelf" in the fridge, or once she was old enough, make herself a sandwich or cereal or something. "Her shelf" in the fridge was a shelf I set up of healthy snacks, like cheese cubes, grapes, applesauce etc etc. Basically, if she didn't want what I made, then she took care of her hunger herself.

And this, on occasion, meant that she went to bed hungry, if she was too stubborn to get something herself. There was the occasional night or two where she INSISTED she wanted tacos or whatever, when that wasn't what I had made. Too bad. So, if she was so insistant that she never got herself something, then she went to bed hungry.


----------



## nextcommercial

Within reason, that's pretty much how I handle it too.

I make one meal, there are enough things on the plate there should be at least ONE thing they like. I'm not playing "What else can I have?" at meal time. I don't even have that much money to let them get more food from the pantry.

I have daycare parents who say "but, my child is a picky eater and will only have chocolate milk". I won't make chocolate milk twice a day for one child. He or she will eat something that day. They never just sit there eating nothing. But, I don't mind if they just eat a fourth of what I serve and throw the rest away.

My cousins broke all thee of their kids by allowing them to eat only the foods they love. Now all three are morbidly obese, and two have type 2 diabetes. Yet, at every family meal or get together, they bring a huge sack of fast food for themselves, AND cupcakes or hostess treats that they don't share with the other cousins. The three of them will spend the day at the kitchen table eating what they brought, then go lay on the couch. Mom keeps saying "I know, but they are so picky".

I say, healthy eating starts early. If they don't like what you are having, they can certainly eat an extra peice of bread, or a piece of fruit. They will feel pretty full just on a glass of milk.

Now, if I KNEW my child hated salmon, I would give her a peanut butter and jelly in place of salmon. We don't always like what everybody else does. And, we all have foods we hate. I think substituting a food every now and then is perfectly fine. But, if you had to make two or three dinners every night, that would be too expensive and time consuming.


----------



## JamieCatheryn

If DS is insistent he's hungry before bed I often give him a very quick, easy, high calorie snack like a cheese slice or some nuts. If it's playtime at home he's welcome to grab a carrot from the garden and wash it off, or in the past couple weeks blackberries from the canes. If he didn't finish his most recent meal and it's still good enough to eat I'll ask him to go finish it if we have time for that. I avoid using grains to fill him up, maybe a few Triscuits once in a blue moon.


----------



## Drummer's Wife

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JamieCatheryn* 
I avoid using grains to fill him up, maybe a few Triscuits once in a blue moon.

same here. Bread at every meal isn't very healthy, IMO, and I know my kids would fill up on it and not eat as much veggies and protein. I am low-carb, no sugar currently myself, so I keep an eye out on much my kids eat - even whole grain.


----------



## Magali

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MusicianDad* 
Snacking isn't bad, eating because your bored or emotional eating are bad.

Yes. It has taken me basically my whole adulthood to get over the fact that I am not a horrible fat pig for wanting/needing a snack, and that has helped me to not eat out of boredom or for emotional reasons. Food issues are not something I wish on my son at all. So I limit the amount of crappy foods we have in the house so we don't have access to them, and let him make choices about what snacks he wants to eat and when.


----------



## EdnaMarie

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Drummer's Wife* 
same here. Bread at every meal isn't very healthy, IMO, and I know my kids would fill up on it and not eat as much veggies and protein. I am low-carb, no sugar currently myself, so I keep an eye out on much my kids eat - even whole grain.

This is a good point, and I would suspect an undiagnosed special need for a child that literally ate bread at every meal to the exclusion of everything else for days at a time.

I can say that I don't know any bread-eating families (DH is from Asia where bread is the centerpiece of every single meal, no matter what--we're a high-grain family, LOL) in which the children eat only the bread. It's just an alternative to the main meal IF they don't like it.

I hope it doesn't sound like my kid goes to bed hungry every night. She doesn't seem to. She falls asleep and wakes up with energy and is not begging for breakfast. She has gone to bed complaining of hunger once or twice. That was after I made a decent meal and she had bread and milk offered, but she refused.









Quote:

Now, if I KNEW my child hated salmon, I would give her a peanut butter and jelly in place of salmon.
My child doesn't hate much but since we always have a vegetable, grain, and meat (sorry, we're the urban poor, we can't afford 100% veggies and fruits and meats) I don't make an alternative. I will refrain from mixing in a spice or food she doesn't like--I'll make sure she can separate it.

Quote:

wow, this topic is so hot for me. my parents were very very controlling with food to the point of being hit if we didn't eat fast enough. so the idea of denying children food because A.) they don't like it B.) because i don't want to be inconvenienced to help them C.) so i am in unlimited control over what goes in and out of them... just makes me so upset.
I'm so sorry.







I never deny my children food. We just do not have extra food prepared for them. They do not have to eat anything they do not want. They have time to eat. We don't use corporal punishment ever and certainly no punishments for eating or not eating.

I appreciate that it's a sensitive subject for you but I don't think that the abuse you suffered can be compared to not making an extra meal at every meal, or even at occasional meals, you know?

I guess I come more from the perspective of living in Asia with DH's family and seeing the whole family eat the same thing. I never saw a kid refuse food. They always fought over meat and vegetables from an early age. They didn't provide alternatives for SO MANY REASONS but it was not a control issue for them. It was just... they ate from one pot. And none of them had food issues. My own kids don't appear to, either. They eat whatever, or they eat bread. They are normal weight and rarely complain of being hungry, except when they know there are sugary treats their dad brought from work.


----------



## TCMoulton

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EdnaMarie* 
This is a good point, and I would suspect an undiagnosed special need for a child that literally ate bread at every meal to the exclusion of everything else for days at a time.

I'm really not sure how you can equate a child preferring bread to whatever else is offered as an undiagnosed special need. I like bread - some restaurants I have been known to enjoy it more than the meal (especially this wonderful Italian restaurant). While I was in college I went on a tour of Europe and there were times that bread was all I had to eat for several meals in a row - it was always the one thing that I could count on that I would like if there were no other options that I would eat.

Kids can be extremely picky at times in their lives - they can also be stubborn. If there was nothing that my child wanted to eat that was offered I would be glad that bread was something that was acceptable and would fill her belly until the next meal/snack/morning.


----------



## EdnaMarie

I am talking about ONLY bread for SUCH a long time that it would be to the exclusion of any other thing. Not sure if you read the whole thread, but we do offer bread at each meal and my children eat it every so often instead of a meal.

However, another poster suggested that eating "so much bread" could also be unhealthy. And I am just saying, if you're eating so much bread that it's unhealthy, that suggests another problem. It suggests that you really cannot stand to eat anything else.

Not that filling up on bread at Guido's suggests a special need. I love bread! But I also occasionally eat other things, LOL.


----------



## heartmama

I don't police how much my child uses the bathroom and I don't police how much he eats. That is what his body signals exist to determine. If I see a problem arise I address it, but he is always free to eat if he believes his body is hungry. I trusted ds to tell me when he was hungry as a baby, and there is no reason to think he lost that ability with age.

The only thing I control is the food that comes in the house--and that is a lot of control indeed, more than enough to ensure he eats well.

So, yes I think it is harsh to withhold healthy food. I don't think it is horrible or anything, but it isn't a choice I would make.


----------



## NellieKatz

I agree with *Mamaofthree*. I think that the whole rigid "3 meals a day plus X number of snacks" each day is actually less healthy than "snacking." (we call it grazing) (provided that the "snacks" are nutritious food) Of course we serve the major meals but if a person's hungry in between those meals, and the overall foods being eaten by the children are nutritious, I think all the other controlling stuff can be done away with. We (in America) seem to look at things in this really rigid, scheduled, food-pyramid kind of way (left over from when we were growing up), but it's really arbitrary, I think. Give the body what the body needs. Seriously! What if you ate whole grain rice for all 3 meals one day, and veggies for the next day, and proteins for the third day....by the end of the week you'd get all the nutrition you need! But I guarantee there are many people who would just feel that was WAY too weird. Of course it is weird to some extent but take a look at diets around the world; our way is not the only way. Viewing other ways of eating gives us some valued perspective.

And by the way, so much of the conventional wisdom we grew up with (like "drink your milk" and "you must have meat at each meal so you can get enough protein") is being proven to be unhealthy. (I just turned vegan recently and in the vegetarian "starter" kit material, I read with great surprise that eating too much protein can actually cause us to fail to absorb calcium properly, resulting in deficiency....I had been raised to think that milk was practically sacred! Oh well, another childhood food "rule" blown away....)

Anyway, I need to get back to work. I am afraid that I will rant if I hurry too much (that ship has probably sailed...my post is all over the map. haha!!) so I guess I'll sign off.

I just wanted to say that two-cents worth that a little flexibility can be sensible and even healthy.


----------



## ssh

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nola79* 
As long as my son has eaten a meal, I let him snack as much as he wants. What I don't do is let him not eat breakfast lunch or dinner and snack instead. I don't necessarily see anything wrong with unlimited snacks, as kids are still growing, but I do not agree with unlimited snacks if a nutritous meal hasn't been eaten.

If your snacks have the same nutritional level as the foods you use for meals, what does it matter?


----------



## *LoveBugMama*

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ssh* 
If your snacks have the same nutritional level as the foods you use for meals, what does it matter?

This.









I just don`t get what people find unhealthy with grazing. Grazing is just eating smaller amounts of food at a time. What might be unhealthy is WHAT people are eating. Not how many times a day they do it.


----------



## karika

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ssh* 
What I don't understand is why self regulating food intake is good for your baby but not your 3 year old. I think unhealthy is a better word than harsh. Your 3.5 year old's little body needs fuel. If her blood sugar deeps low it can effect her behavior and her ability to learn. If she goes without food for long periods of time can effect her metabolism. Also being hungry a lot of the time can give her food issues. So If your DD doesn't eat dinner can she have a piece of fruit or leftovers as a bedtime snack?

My 4.5 year old self regulates her food intake. She can eat whenever she wants and what ever we have in the house. She usually does eat dinner with us, but the other meals/snacks are when she wants. Has she ever had Spaghetti-Os? No, we do buy canned beans though and she will have garbanzo or pinto beans for a snack or lunch. I control our family diet when I shop for food. Letting a child eat when they're hungry and letting a child eat overprocessed foods with poor nutritional value are not related issues. Letting a child eat when they are hungry and only as much as they want encourages them to listen to their body when it comes to food intake.


----------



## Magali

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama* 
I don't police how much my child uses the bathroom and I don't police how much he eats. That is what his body signals exist to determine. If I see a problem arise I address it, but he is always free to eat if he believes his body is hungry. I trusted ds to tell me when he was hungry as a baby, and there is no reason to think he lost that ability with age.

The only thing I control is the food that comes in the house--and that is a lot of control indeed, more than enough to ensure he eats well.

So, yes I think it is harsh to withhold healthy food. I don't think it is horrible or anything, but it isn't a choice I would make.

I totally agree.


----------



## amma_mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by **LoveBugMama** 
This.









I just don`t get what people find unhealthy with grazing. Grazing is just eating smaller amounts of food at a time. What might be unhealthy is WHAT people are eating. Not how many times a day they do it.









Isn't it more healthy to eat smaller "meals" more often rather than three large meals anyway. I agree, as long as the snacks are healthy and even out throughout the day in terms of food groups/nutritional aspects, then what is the worry? That is actaully what we should all strive toward, rather than eating larger meals that are dictated by the modern lifestyle.

I often cook separate meals (or parts of meals) for DD as she does not like curry. She often get a choice on those evenings. If, on occasion, she is too busy to eat or not hungry for dinner when it is ready, then it is set aside until she is ready. No biggie - why force a person to eat that is not ready or punish them by witholding food? She also gets plenty of snacks, including a small bedtime snack, which I help her to balance out throughout the day by giving her choices along the way (if she already had two protein oriented snacks, I will encourage fruit or veggies, for example).


----------



## 2xy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NellieKatz* 
I think that the whole rigid "3 meals a day plus X number of snacks" each day is actually less healthy than "snacking." (we call it grazing) (provided that the "snacks" are nutritious food)

So do I.

We didn't always have domesticated animals and agriculture. At one time, we were hunter gatherers and ate when we found something. Our bodies are meant to graze.

I think the whole "3 meals a day" thing began with agriculture and industry, out of convenience.

DS1 went to bed hungry a few times when he was 5-6 years old. It was a matter of him being a PITA about what I'd made, and too stubborn to get himself a healthy alternative. For us, it was a phase and it passed.


----------



## User101

Personally (although maybe it's just in our family







) I've found that having fairly structured meal and snack times has made all this a non-issue. They're eating every 2-3 hours. I always make sure to serve at least something they like. They're always welcome to bread and spread (butter, all fruit, pb, whatever) if nothing suits. And we try to just have healthy choices. If my kid didn't eat dinner at 5:30, I probably wouldn't offer anything too exciting if they came to me at 7:30 and said they were hungry... but I wouldn't send them to bed hungry either. Yogurt, cheese, something like that.


----------



## nola79

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ssh* 
If your snacks have the same nutritional level as the foods you use for meals, what does it matter?

Because we eat together as a family, and everyone eats the same thing. I never really put that much thought into it until now. It's just what we do. I think it would be kinda silly for me to prepare something for 2 of us and the 3rd just sat there with a cup of yogurt


----------



## lmk1

I think whether a family has a structured schedule for meals or not is really a family preference. I hear so much how much better it is for kids to eat at regular set intervals, but I've never seen any evidence to support that. In fact the adults I've seen that eat like that (that need to eat at 8am, 12pm, 5pm) are by no means in great shape and to me it seems to indicate a certain inflexibility. Having said that, I think we all have a built-in schedule or non-schedule preference. I am pretty positive that my mom fed me on a regular schedule (and enforced a bedtime etc), but I am completely non-schedule type person. Sometimes I am not remotely hungry at meals, and could be starving in between. I don't think it's a big deal one way or another as long as you get in a certain amount of good food.

Ds (2.5 yrs old) eats a variety of foods...I think the only thing he's ever had out of a can was olives (anyone else's kid an olive fanatic???). Otherwise we just don't buy food we don't want him to eat except once in a while.

My big problem with feeding him is that we travel a lot. And there's not always healthy food around, plus there's the distract-ability factor so when we can make a healthy meal on the road, there's too much new stuff around for him to be able to concentrate on the meal. And it's not like you can keep wild salmon around waiting to be eaten when there's no fridge. And, if we're visiting my family, the kids eat crap (like ice cream before, after and instead of dinner). How do I tell my kid that he can't do the same when he's had ice cream like only 4 times in his entire life? Or yesterday, for dinner everyone was drinking Gatorade...and of course, what kid doesn't want to drink stuff that looks like antifreeze? Ugh! So, it's really hard when you're not in your own house taking care of all the meals.


----------



## laurata

Well... I have gently told my kids that they could eat breakfast when they woke up. But I allow them to have a snack up until about 20 minutes before bed, and I do think it would be harsh to refuse a child food if they were really hungry. Leftover dinner, if I felt strongly about it, but no, I don't send my kids to bed hungry.


----------



## Marsupialmom

You seem a little stricter than I -- but I do agree panicky parents create picky kids.

I do and did give more options, especially at snack.

I am not a short order cook, but at the same time I do have a child with reflux so at times I have felt like it....but now she if she can't eat what is cooked she can cook her own food or wait and warm it up. Not my concern.


----------



## ssh

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nola79* 
Because we eat together as a family, and everyone eats the same thing. I never really put that much thought into it until now. It's just what we do. I think it would be kinda silly for me to prepare something for 2 of us and the 3rd just sat there with a cup of yogurt









We eat dinner as a family too. My DH isn't home for the other two meals. We also eat the same thing at dinner. The difference is that if DD doesn't want to eat during the meal, it's ok. And if she wants to eat after dinner, she can. For example last Friday I was baking chicken and steaming corn and broccoli. DD was very hungry so she ate corn and broccoli in the kitchen while the chicken was still cooking. At dinner time she drank some veggie juice and just hung out at the table because she wasn't hungry any more. She wanted left over cold chicken and grapes for a bedtime snack about 2.5 hours later. I don't fix different or extra stuff for meals, it just not an issue if someone doesn't eat. Eating just isn't an issue.


----------



## Calee

I do not make a special dinner for my son. We all eat the same thing. Before bed, if he is hungry, he has two-three choices.

1) Eat the dinner he didn't eat earlier
2) Have some fruit or yogurt
3) Go to bed hungry


----------



## kittywitty

We've changed things over the years. We make one dinner. If the kids don't like it, they need to try at least one bite and eat the fruits/veggies. Without complaining, preferably, though they fail that one every time. They actually love most fruits & veggies so that's never an issue. I have one vegetarian dd who I don't make eat meat or anything, but I encourage her to make herself something or tell me something vegetarian to replace the main dish if our meal has meat. She loves to cook, so that's never a problem.

But if they don't like what we made, they're welcome to make themselves something else after dinner. We also eat a snack before bedtime. I eat one, so I can't expect them to not want one. If they fail to eat a snack of their choosing, then they're out of luck after that. Sometimes they will and then insist on eating a snack several hours after bedtime and then we find rotting food in their room or they fall asleep eating or it's obviously an excuse to stay up later, so we've stopped allowing it-mostly due to the safety issues after one too many kids falling asleep with mouthfuls of apple.


----------



## nola79

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ssh* 
We eat dinner as a family too. My DH isn't home for the other two meals. We also eat the same thing at dinner. The difference is that if DD doesn't want to eat during the meal, it's ok. And if she wants to eat after dinner, she can. For example last Friday I was baking chicken and steaming corn and broccoli. DD was very hungry so she ate corn and broccoli in the kitchen while the chicken was still cooking. At dinner time she drank some veggie juice and just hung out at the table because she wasn't hungry any more. She wanted left over cold chicken and grapes for a bedtime snack about 2.5 hours later. I don't fix different or extra stuff for meals, it just not an issue if someone doesn't eat. Eating just isn't an issue.

Well, to me, what you described is eating dinner. You made chicken, broccoli, and corn. She ate chicken, broccoli, and corn, plus some grapes. That is not what I'm talking about. When I refer to "snacking", it means that my ds is not going to refuse what I've prepared and then 10 mintues later want chips or whatever else.


----------



## ssh

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nola79* 
Well, to me, what you described is eating dinner. You made chicken, broccoli, and corn. She ate chicken, broccoli, and corn, plus some grapes. That is not what I'm talking about. When I refer to "snacking", it means that my ds is not going to refuse what I've prepared and then 10 mintues later want chips or whatever else.

I'm diabetic and my DH and I are overweight. We don't buy chips. The snack foods we do buy are things like triscuts, cheese, beans, nuts, fruit, and raw veggies. If DD asks for something at the store that we don't consider 'real food' I tell her why it isn't a good food choice and we pick out something she likes that is. We buy a 'treat' food once a month ....... like a pint of natural ice cream.


----------



## greenmansions

I do not send my kids to bed hungry. I have found that if they have not had enough to eat they will not get to sleep in a timely way, and they will wake up very early because they are still hungry. Either way, I am the one totally inconvenienced and I'd prefer they eat something.

After a certain point (say 8pm or so), all they are allowed are cheese sticks. No mess for me to clean up, and they are filling enough to help with sleep. If they will eat a bit earlier, they can have pretty much whatever they want.

Sometimes they eat dinner and sometimes they don't. Occasionally I have veggie booty or something similar for an afternoon snack for them, but usually it is something healthier - and never junkier food at bedtime. They love quesadillas, fig newmans, fruit, berries, cheese, crackers, yogurt, nori, rice cakes with peanut or sunflower butter, tamari almonds, homemade whole wheat pancakes, etc. My DD loves raw cauliflower or brussels sprouts.

We try to eat at set mealtimes, and allow snacking in between/on demand, pretty much right up to bedtime.


----------



## Sharlla

we all eat what we want within reason. im not into getting into power struggles over food. i blame my parents for my major food issues for this very reason.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## nola79

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ssh* 
I'm diabetic and my DH and I are overweight. We don't buy chips. The snack foods we do buy are things like triscuts, cheese, beans, nuts, fruit, and raw veggies. If DD asks for something at the store that we don't consider 'real food' I tell her why it isn't a good food choice and we pick out something she likes that is. We buy a 'treat' food once a month ....... like a pint of natural ice cream.

Believe me, I'd rather not have chips either. I don't even eat them, but DH does. That's part of my problem with ds snacking, and why I don't allow it unless he's eaten a "meal" first. I do my best to get him to snack on fruit and cheese, crackers, but when he sees DH eating ice cream, he wants some too.That's a whole other story, though, and I don't want to hijack the thread!


----------



## crowcaw

My dds must be a bit odd. They rarely ask for snacks or say they're hungry unless the see food -- and I'm pretty sure it's not because they're denied when they do ask (because they're not denied, it just doesn't come up). And since dh and I aren't snackers, they don't see that much out food outside of the regular times. They usually nibble on what's being prepared when they see me making dinner and sometimes ask for some other snack at that time (which they get). And they're immediately hungry when we walk into a party or something where food is out and available, but if they don't see something, they don't ask. We have regular meals and snacks and sometimes they eat what's there and sometimes they don't, particularly at dinner they'll not eat much, but they don't ask for other things then. So I guess I don't know if they go to bed hungry. For us dinner is pretty close to bed time and I've assumed if they're not eating their dinner, they're not hungry. Maybe I should ask.


----------



## loraxc

We do things differently at our house. 6 nights a week, the kids eat early, without us. I don't ask them what they want, though I may give them choices, like peas vs. broccoli. I choose foods that are healthy but that I know they will eat. We do it this way because I prefer to cook my own dinner without having to cater to their tastes. I'm a big foodie, and cooking is fun and relaxing for me. We also eat a lot of "weird" food, like very spicy curries, unusual salads, and so on (yes, I know some kids love it, but mine do not, although as I say below, the older is getting much better).

I know I could go the route of "one thing they like," but I am not comfortable with the kids eating bread, fruit, and yogurt 4 nights out of 7. DD had some pretty bad health issues for a while and it's important to me to see that she eats a balanced diet.

We do have family dinner one night a week and I make something I am pretty sure they will like. They are expected to eat it, but if they absolutely won't, they can have a banana or bread or something.

DD has actually expanded her tastes a lot in the last year, in spite of this "incorrect" approach. She will try almost anything and would probably eat a lot of our grown-up dinners. However, just as she got unpicky, DS turned 2 and got very picky.

It's not worth it to me to cater to a toddler/preschooler palate for my own meals all the time, or to battle at meals or stress about their diet. Dinner is also our adult time together. I do anticipate that we'll mostly all eat together when the younger is school-aged.

Oh, and no, they don't go to bed hungry. They can have something boring--toast or fruit--but this rarely happens, because I do cook things they like for their dinners. (Not chicken nuggets and Spaghetti-os! It's healthy, but boring by my standards.)

I was a very picky eater as a kid, and now I'll eat anything.


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kittywitty* 
We've changed things over the years. We make one dinner. If the kids don't like it, they need to try at least one bite and eat the fruits/veggies. Without complaining, preferably, though they fail that one every time. They actually love most fruits & veggies so that's never an issue. I have one vegetarian dd who I don't make eat meat or anything, but I encourage her to make herself something or tell me something vegetarian to replace the main dish if our meal has meat. She loves to cook, so that's never a problem.

That's interesting, because I know that if I am cooking for a group where one person is vegetarian I make sure the meal is made in such a way that the main course is two parted so people can opt for the vegetarian part or the non-vegetarian part. I don't really expect them to tell me what else to make or to make something else themselves.


----------



## kittywitty

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MusicianDad* 
That's interesting, because I know that if I am cooking for a group where one person is vegetarian I make sure the meal is made in such a way that the main course is two parted so people can opt for the vegetarian part or the non-vegetarian part. I don't really expect them to tell me what else to make or to make something else themselves.

If I had someone over, I would do (and have done) the same. But my dd's goal in life is to be a chef and she BEGS to cook all the time, so I let her pick what she wants and I help/watch as she does so. It makes her immensely happy. I used to be veg and just made whatever making sure there were veg sides for me or an alternative. It's not like I'm serving steak with a side of ground beef for dinner at every meal.







Most stand alone without the meat, or I make something like veg and carnivore lasagna so that everyone can pick from one-I usually pick veg, but sometimes eat meat, myself. But my dd doesn't like most beans or veg options, so letting her pick something after we talk about what is nutritionally missing (calcium, protein, whatever depending on the meal) is easier.


----------



## flower01

I always enjoy reading how other people handle food - especially on this board where people eat so healthy.

Food is not an issue for us. DH and I LOVE food. We love healthy food, we love not-so-healthy food and we love to cook. Our 3 year old has always eaten what we eat. Maybe we are lucky. We have never forced her to eat - we present the meal and she eats what she likes. For awhile she didn't eat peppers (like bell peppers) because she "thought" they were spicy. We always just reminded her that they weren't, but we also didn't make her eat them. Recently, we cooked some on the grill and she decided to try them. She loved them and now she always talks about peppers-that-aren't-spicy...like it's one word. So cute.

Anyways, we generally don't have junk in the house...and if we do it's usually one bag of chips that we've eaten over the course of 2 days. So she wouldn't ever skip a meal for a bag of chips.

I've also allowed my daughter to eat a cupcake right before dinner. I do it and the reality is that she will eat veggies at some point. We always encourage the healthiest option and almost always my daughter goes for it. And this is not because she is an easy child - she can throw a tantrum. We just don't fight over food.

And though i don't cater to my daughter i also always consider her. We eat a lot less spicy food than we used to, but that;s really not that big of a deal.

Not having junkfood (which is what I consider spaghetti-o's) in the house has made my daughter a better eater, IMO.

Oh, and we snack. I started eating 6 meals a day in college and felt a LOT better. I don't deliberately do that anymore, but I still need to eat often and it really needs to be a protein and a carb. So my daughter snacks with me.

I don't think my daughter has ever gone to bed hungry. If she is hungry or stalling right before bed, she can have a piece of bread. I hate being hungry...it makes me feel sick. I don't know if my daughter feels the same way, but I would never withhold food from her.


----------



## BetsyNY

These kind of threads depress me. Why people would choose to make food such a huge issue is beyond me.







If your kid is hungry, feed them. If they don't like what you've got, offer something else.

Quote:

I always enjoy reading how other people handle food - especially on this board where people eat so healthy.
You also have to consider who's responding to these threads. People who DO feed their kids chicken nuggets and Spaghetti-os (like me) usually don't respond, because if it's a competition of whose kids eat healthier, eat what they're told when they're told to eat it, me and my kids lose every time.

Anyway.

My one son has a severely restricted diet. We see a pediatric dietician, feeding therapist, etc. Here's what our experts say:

Offer three meals and three snacks a day. Don't comment on what's eaten and what's not, don't coerce, bribe, threaten, etc. Serve it and leave it out for a determined amount of time, then take it away.

When serving new foods, serve it the same way every time--ie, if noodles are the new food (my son does not eat noodles, hot dogs, sandwiches)--serve them the same way each time. So serve buttered noodles every time you serve noodles--don't try them with butter one day, cheese one day, sauce one day, etc. Be consistent.

If he doesn't eat at a certain meal, I make the snack something he likes and give him seconds.

The objective is to expand his palate and remove the stress around eating, not create more by attaching shame.


----------



## nextcommercial

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BetsyNY* 
These kind of threads depress me. Why people would choose to make food such a huge issue is beyond me.







If your kid is hungry, feed them. If they don't like what you've got, offer something else.

Financially, that just isn't always feasable. I have been lucky, that my daughter will eat almost everything (except meat) that I serve. But, if she didn't want what I made, and wanted a different meal, that would probably be a meal that was meant for another day. Plus, I'd be throwing away part of that night's meal. I'd most likely have to throw part of the second meal away too because she can only eat so much.

She is always welcome to eat cereal, or a PBJ. But, she can't go get part of a separate meal that I planned to use for another night.

I'm the same way with my daycare kids. I make LOTS of food for them. So, there is enough for them to choose from. But, I'm not making a backup meal.


----------



## A&A

There is definitely a middle ground between "my kids eat Spaghetti-Os 21 times a week" and kids going to bed hungry.

*I* was that picky child, once upon a time. My parents just called me finicky. But now that I have the language of an adult to process it, I can tell you that it really was/is a sensory issue. Certain textures, smells, etc. just make me want to gag.

And you know what, honestly, I resent my parents for not caring more about my needs in that way.

Also, now that I eat a lot of organic food, I also can tell (when I eat conventional produce) that I can taste pesticides. Strange, but true. So perhaps the kids out there who don't "eat their vegetables" would like them more if they were organic.

Therefore, since I have empathy, I am very accommodating to my children, but I feed them healthy things and there is nary a can of Spaghetti-Os in my whole house.

Also, there is, in fact, a "picky gene."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/0404/01.html

Moreover, when I send my kids to bed hungry, and I have a houseful of food, it feels disrespectful to the universe and ungrateful for what I have. I think of mothers around the world who would kill for the food supplies I have. I say a silent prayer of thanks, set aside what else I was doing, and feed my kids.


----------



## BetsyNY

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nextcommercial* 
Financially, that just isn't always feasable. I have been lucky, that my daughter will eat almost everything (except meat) that I serve. But, if she didn't want what I made, and wanted a different meal, that would probably be a meal that was meant for another day. Plus, I'd be throwing away part of that night's meal. I'd most likely have to throw part of the second meal away too because she can only eat so much.

She is always welcome to eat cereal, or a PBJ. But, she can't go get part of a separate meal that I planned to use for another night.

I'm the same way with my daycare kids. I make LOTS of food for them. So, there is enough for them to choose from. But, I'm not making a backup meal.

Again, offer something else. Nobody said it had to be a "meal."

I find that many times people use the financial piece to exercise control and because it's a convenient excuse.


----------



## EdnaMarie

"These kind of threads depress me. Why people would choose to make food such a huge issue is beyond me. If your kid is hungry, feed them. If they don't like what you've got, offer something else."

First of all- food isn't an issue in our house. I think it is partly due to the fact that our children are neurotypical, and partly due to the fact that we have a matter-of-fact, happy attitude towards food. We never force.

To me, always having options at meals creates the basis for a power-struggle. If something is optional, then the child can get attached to the choice and the power inherent in that, instead of the joyful ritual of eating.

And once again, as I said like three times in the OP, I'm NOT talking about kids with special needs. A child who could NOT eat certain foods would not. And the parents would realize this and try to take an alternative approach.

My kids do NOT have to eat everything they are served. I don't even make them try things!

But I do not make two meals or serve endless snacks.

So I guess what I'm hearing is that not being a short-order cook and having snacks available all day IS harsh for some people, LOL. I'm okay with that.

(PS... it's not to me so much about the health of the foods, as the idea of food being an individual vs. communal activity. I'm not saying all our meals are like, super healthy! I SAH so we can eat a lot of homemade meals, but Spaghetti-Os are not shorthand for "gross junk". They're just a fast food, nothing more, nothing less...)


----------



## StephandOwen

DS is a picky eater and has seen a feeding therapist for years (he stopped about a year ago, next month he goes back to her to start again). He does not ever go to bed hungry. He is offered what we eat at every meal. Most of the time he doesn't accept it. He has about a dozen or so foods that he eats and we rotate through those and serve him those foods. No sense in stressing the boy out with a plate full of food he doesn't want to eat. From August through May he ate the same exact thing for breakfast every day (he has autism and thrives on routine). Lunches are pretty much the same every day (I packed his lunches). Dinners vary somewhat, but since he refuses most of what people consider "meals", then he mostly eats different foods than dp and myself eat.

If he's still hungry before bed then he can eat anything he wants. Most of the time he chooses bananas (he eats probably 10-12 good sized bananas a week). Rarely does he choose "junk" (ice cream or a hershey's kiss... basically the only sweets he eats). Since I (and dp) do the grocery shopping, we just plain don't buy what we don't want ds eating. So ds is free to eat anything he wants at any time, since I know everything in the house. More often than not, dp and I eat way more junk than ds does


----------



## ssh

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EdnaMarie* 
But I do not make two meals or serve endless snacks.

So I guess what I'm hearing is that not being a short-order cook and having snacks available all day IS harsh for some people, LOL. I'm okay with that.

Most people haven't said you need to offer other things at meals. And I've never said anyone needs to _serve_ endless snacks. My DD eats anytime she wants to, but unless it's something that needs to be cooked she can get it herself. She can go to the refrigerator and get a container of garbanzo beans out, get a bowl of cherries, grapes or strawberries, open the container of left over meatloaf, reach in the cabinet and get a box of triscuts. The tomatoes and apples are in a bowl on the counter. Anyone over 2 can learn to get most of their own snacks.

You said your baby feeds on demand. I imagine you eat whenever you want. Why is it wrong for children to eat just when their bodies are hungry? You asked if it was harsh. I said going hungry is unhealthy and can lead to unhealthy eating. Self regulating food intake by listening to your body instead of learning to eat at habitual times or for social reasons is healthier and can prevent obesity and other food issues.


----------



## Sharlla

yeah ds2 is a major grazer
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Super~Single~Mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BetsyNY* 
Again, offer something else. Nobody said it had to be a "meal."

I find that many times people use the financial piece to exercise control and because it's a convenient excuse.

She said that her children are always welcome to a PB&J or cereal. I think that IS offering something else.

And, lucky you that you're in a financial situation so that you don't have to worry about eating every day. Not all of us are. That doesn't mean that we are "conveniently" using it as an excuse - it means that we don't have the money to provide unlimited access to expensive foods.

I will say that my son has never gone to bed hungry since he is still nursing and so he gets nutrition that way. But, as he gets older and more capable of fixing himself foods, he will be required to make himself something when he doesn't want what I make for dinner. Thats where cereal and PB&J come in.


----------



## Drummer's Wife

I also didn't see where anyone said you have to make separate meals and remain in the kitchen all day serving snacks. But that we would never make our kid go to bed hungry.

The special needs/food allergy thing is interesting to me, b/c it's hard to know what people are sensitive to especially kids. I may not (or maybe I do) test positive for milk or gluten allergies, yet as a kid I hated milk and PBJ sandwiches - especially on wheat bread. My parents made me eat them b/c that was the meal served, and I needed milk to grow big and strong. Whatever. I mentioned upthread about not drinking any milk as an adult, and I still wouldn't eat a pbj. I am now 2 weeks gluten and dairy-free (minus cottage cheese I had a couple times - but it's cultured), and let me tell you - I feel sooooo much better. A lot of my health issues have gone away, or subsided a ton. I'm just mentioning this b/c maybe as a kid consuming those things made me feel crummy.

I know people here aren't saying they force their kids to eat whatever is prepared, exactly, but I just think we should let our kids decide what and when they eat. If beans don't appeal to them, have other options available. It doesn't mean you have to be a short-order cook, or that kids will only eat junk food (don't buy it) - but certainly everyone should be able tofill their belly with something they actually like eating.


----------



## cappuccinosmom

Quote:

I do not make a special dinner for my son. We all eat the same thing. Before bed, if he is hungry, he has two-three choices.

1) Eat the dinner he didn't eat earlier
2) Have some fruit or yogurt
3) Go to bed hungry
I do something similar. Mostly, the option is carrot sticks or plain yogurt with strawberries. They like them. Have no problem eating them. So if they're *truly* hungry, that's what they'll eat.

However, often the not eating supper is really jockying for something else (like dessert, which we rarely have). When that's the case, they'll refuse the proffered carrot sticks and I'm on to them.







So yes, each of my kids has gotten to bedtime having eaten no supper and probably pretty hungry. Their choice.


----------



## heartmama

Quote:

it means that we don't have the money to provide unlimited access to expensive foods.
Neither do I, but there are things like beans and rice, potatoes, oatmeal, fruit on sale etc. which are filling but not expensive. Once you have a teenager it is really important to have stuff like this--you can't believe how much kids eat when they grow 7 inches in one year!


----------



## BetsyNY

forget it


----------



## EdnaMarie

Quote:

And give me a break about how "lucky" I am with my situation that you know *zero* about. I'm so lucky to have a son whose sensory needs are so great that he doesn't eat anything besides Cheerios and pretzels. I'm so lucky that he qualifies for nothing in our school system, and insurance won't pay for a feeding therapist. I'm so lucky that I get to pry his BMs from his butt while he screams and cries.
I am so sorry.

I really thought it was clear at the beginning of this thread that I was talking about typically-developing children, and specifically not special-needs children.

I don't think anyone here that does the three-meals-limited-snacks-too-bad is talking about what they would do for a special-needs child. We are talking about what we do for our children who are developing more or less normally.

I hope your son gets the services he needs.

Quote:

Neither do I, but there are things like beans and rice, potatoes, oatmeal, fruit on sale etc. which are filling but not expensive. Once you have a teenager it is really important to have stuff like this--you can't believe how much kids eat when they grow 7 inches in one year!
That is what we eat already! Not what they would prefer to, say, what I cook. My kids want as alternative dinners, mangos, pineapples, apples, oranges, bananas (and I'm sorry, calorie for calorie these are expensive), walnuts, almonds, and chocolate.

The walnuts thing gets me the most. I mean walnuts are hecka expensive.

Quote:

She can go to the refrigerator and get a container of garbanzo beans out, get a bowl of cherries, grapes or strawberries, open the container of left over meatloaf, reach in the cabinet and get a box of triscuts. The tomatoes and apples are in a bowl on the counter. Anyone over 2 can learn to get most of their own snacks.
Okay. Those are all expensive foods to us. I only buy canned tomatoes. We do not buy grapes, cherries, or strawberries unless I can get them through WIC organic.

And... my child is three. So, I appreciate that an older child could make her own meal and I cannot wait for that day, LOL. But if my small child wants something, I'm going to be the one to make it, especially if dad's home late.

Quote:

he eats probably 10-12 good sized bananas a week
We buy 12 bananas for our family per week. That's it. We cannot afford more, we simply cannot. That's what I'm talking about when I say, "We can't afford to have them snacking like that."


----------



## EdnaMarie

Quote:

I find that many times people use the financial piece to exercise control and because it's a convenient excuse.
You know, if your examples of healthy alternatives were apples on sale in season, that would be one thing. But the alternatives being offered here- meatloaf? Do you know that we eat meatloaf twice a year? Fresh, seasonal fruits? BERRIES? These are all foods that people living on less than $2,000 month for a family of four cannot afford much of.

I mean I'd love to go Paleo and everything but we live in the city and I lost my WAHM job so we're living on not a lot of cash.

If the suggestion is, give my kids fruit and veggies alternative to those which I've prepared (and usually I prepare frozen ones which are often cheaper than fresh), that's just not going to happen. It would last two days, and then we'd have no snacks for the rest of the week.









Dried / preserved legumes, grains, and frozen veggies make up the majority of our meals. The alternative- bread- is the alternative because it's part of our culture, cheap and requires no additional preparation, not because I want to torture my children with homemade sourdough.


----------



## kittywitty

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EdnaMarie* 
You know, if your examples of healthy alternatives were apples on sale in season, that would be one thing. But the alternatives being offered here- meatloaf? Do you know that we eat meatloaf twice a year? Fresh, seasonal fruits? BERRIES? These are all foods that people living on less than $2,000 month for a family of four cannot afford much of.

I mean I'd love to go Paleo and everything but we live in the city and I lost my WAHM job so we're living on not a lot of cash.

If the suggestion is, give my kids fruit and veggies alternative to those which I've prepared (and usually I prepare frozen ones which are often cheaper than fresh), that's just not going to happen. It would last two days, and then we'd have no snacks for the rest of the week.









Dried / preserved legumes, grains, and frozen veggies make up the majority of our meals. The alternative- bread- is the alternative because it's part of our culture, cheap and requires no additional preparation, not because I want to torture my children with homemade sourdough.

I agree. Food is expensive here. We're now able to grow some of our own and sometimes get lucky at the Farmer's Market, but most of the suggestions for letting kids eat whatever are waaaaaay too expensive for your average family. Seriously. Cherries? My kids if let alone to eat whatever they want will eat pounds a day. And at $4 a lb even one lb a day for a month is $120 just for cherries. And that would only be a few cherries per kid and not all of their food by any means. Bananas are pricey here, too. Not where we used to live, but they are now. I try to let my kids eat as much fresh stuff as they need, but sometimes have to draw the line. I don't think that makes me cruel or "making excuses", that's called reality.


----------



## ssh

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EdnaMarie* 
You know, if your examples of healthy alternatives were apples on sale in season, that would be one thing. But the alternatives being offered here- meatloaf? Do you know that we eat meatloaf twice a year? Fresh, seasonal fruits? BERRIES? These are all foods that people living on less than $2,000 month for a family of four cannot afford much of.

I mean I'd love to go Paleo and everything but we live in the city and I lost my WAHM job so we're living on not a lot of cash.

If the suggestion is, give my kids fruit and veggies alternative to those which I've prepared (and usually I prepare frozen ones which are often cheaper than fresh), that's just not going to happen. It would last two days, and then we'd have no snacks for the rest of the week.









Dried / preserved legumes, grains, and frozen veggies make up the majority of our meals. The alternative- bread- is the alternative because it's part of our culture, cheap and requires no additional preparation, not because I want to torture my children with homemade sourdough.

The mentioning of leftover meatloaf was that it was leftover from dinner. It doesn't matter what food you have, if it's available to eat when your DC is physically hungry not just when it's "time to eat". My suggestion is not to offer your child special alternate foods at dinner, just to let them eat what you have later if they are hungry. Garbanzo beans aren't expensive, beans in general aren't. Brown rice is nutrient rich and not expensive. We have a farmers market store here that has really good specials on their produce, especially in the summer. We rent but there is a raspberry bush on our fence and 3 apricot trees by the back fence. We also have a potted tomato plant. So we have fresh fruit this time of year. It's cheaper right now than canned or frozen stuff.

Also my DD has been getting alot of her own snacks since before she turned 3. You really don't have to fix a piece of cheese or a few triscuts or a container of beans. You just get some of it and put the rest back.


----------



## madskye

Why is this post in GD? We're not talking about sending a kid to bed hungry as punishment, as far as I can tell? The OP stated that she offers bread and yogurt (acceptable to her child) at every meal, so it's not eat what I make or go to bed hungry punishment?

Why is it about GD?


----------



## EdnaMarie

"We rent but there is a raspberry bush on our fence and 3 apricot trees by the back fence."

Argh.

Okay. That's really nice for you. We used to have a cherry tree and blackberries, too. We now live in an area where all the berries are contaminated by some worm which can be fatal to humans, so there are NO ORGANIC BERRIES in this entire region, because they MUST kill the worms, or process the berries.

Now, that is not usual and that certainly was not a factor in how we choose to structure mealtimes, LOL. I am just saying... don't assume that everyone has the same facilities as you do.

I mean God, if I had a peach tree and a backyard, my kids would have fresh fruit all summer, too. We live in military housing, and apartment. We grow indoor tomatoes and peppers and if you can find out how to start an orchard in the kitchen, let me know.

Quote:

Garbanzo beans aren't expensive, beans in general aren't. Brown rice is nutrient rich and not expensive.
But I have to cook the rice for them, do I not? I mean as I understood it, people are saying, "It's really not that hard, just give the kids an easy snack, like fresh fruits."

To which I say, if it's easy, and healthy, it's probably expensive.

We spend 35% of our budget on food. We do not eat out, ever. Believe me when I say, we cannot spare anything on this. I have 8 cans of garbanzo beans a month. That's my budget. If I lose one of those because my child doesn't want barley, then at another meal, the rest of us go without protein.

Quote:

We have a farmers market store here that has really good specials on their produce, especially in the summer.
Lucky you. I'm happy for you. We used to live near a CSA, too. We don't now.

To madskye, I posted this in GD because I wanted to know what people thought about this type of, I thought pretty standard, family meal type eating. The thing about it is, if you really don't prepare alternatives (or have a mini-orchard in your backyard, I guess), and a child doesn't "feel like" barley and salmon and salad, or even bread, then yes, she will go to bed hungry. To me that is an natural consequence, not an imposed consequence. But it's still a consequence. So that is why I posted it here.


----------



## *LoveBugMama*

The cherries got me, too.








Here in Norway cherries are $10-12 a lb. Yeah. Not exactly something to snack on whenever you feel like it.


----------



## MusicianDad

Probably because the OP posted it here.

That being said, I do think sending a child to bed hungry because they didn't want to eat what was served _is_ punishing a child for wanting some control over what they eat and when. Especially if your child is not in a position to access their own shelf/plate/container of snack foods on their own.


----------



## 2xy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EdnaMarie* 
We spend 35% of our budget on food. We do not eat out, ever. Believe me when I say, we cannot spare anything on this. I have 8 cans of garbanzo beans a month. That's my budget. If I lose one of those because my child doesn't want barley, then at another meal, the rest of us go without protein.

I understand your position, but I don't see a child consuming an entire can of garbanzo beans in one meal. I would think it would go more like....the kid eats _some_ garbanzo beans, the rest of the beans are stored for a future meal, and the barley the child didn't eat will be eaten at a future time (either by the child or by someone else). That's how I would do it, anyway.


----------



## 2xy

I also want to mention....

EdnaMarie, your original post asked if people thought you were too harsh. Obviously, some do. Isn't that why you asked....to get the opinions of others?

I know you think of the way you do things as the "standard, family way," but there are lots of different types of families. I have friends and acquaintances who are both poorer and richer than I am, but I don't think any of them are as strict with food as you are. That doesn't mean I think you're horrible for doing things the way you do; it's just not the way I do things.

That being said, military people do qualify for food stamps, WIC, and I believe all branches of service have relief programs for hard times. Just thought I'd throw that out there in case you weren't aware. Most bases also have workshops to help military spouses find work if necessary.


----------



## Drummer's Wife

Regarding expensive berries or what-have-you, my children know that when they are gone, they are gone (until I can get more - maybe it's a couple days, maybe it's a week or so). My kids had raspberries for a bedtime snack the other night, and the four of them ate the whole $6 package - so, as a consequence, that particular item wasn't available as a fruit for the rest of the week. Not a big deal, b/c the whole point in me buying them was for my kids to enjoy them.

I admit, we do spend a lot of money every month on groceries, and a big portion of that is for fresh produce - but that's just a priority for us, and it may mean making sacrifices in other areas (for example, we don't have cable and I drive a car with 220K miles on it). I'm not saying everyone could afford an abundance of healthy foods if they budgeted right for it, I promise, b/c I've been in a position where I wasn't sure how we were going to be able to buy food until payday - much less fresh, more expensive foods. But even then, we didn't ration food or say no if the kids were hungry (they were younger then, so it meant being creative and yes, preparing something that we did have available to feed them). My older two kids can now cook things for themselves - like the rice example. They know how to dump a cup of rice in the rice cooker and add water and flip the switch. Same for opening a can of beans.

Anyhow, I was also questioning why this was in GD, as it has nothing to do with behavior, IMO, but it is helpful to see what obstacles have mentioned - be it money or time or convenience.


----------



## One_Girl

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EdnaMarie* 

We spend 35% of our budget on food. We do not eat out, ever. Believe me when I say, we cannot spare anything on this. I have 8 cans of garbanzo beans a month. That's my budget. If I lose one of those because my child doesn't want barley, then at another meal, the rest of us go without protein.


That is a lot of money to spend on groceries. Have you looked at other shopping options? I mention it because I have been out of work and living on very little savings and a couple hundred dollars from babysitting and I have had to become very aware of where I can get the best deal so we could live until I got a job. I can see that you don't have a lot of choices for snacking because your budget is limited. Trying out another store may free up some of your budget and relieve your stress around this issue, and any stress you may be feeling from losing your job. It really helped me to feel less stressed when there was no job until a couple weeks ago. We have three major stores in our area that are easy to get to and they vary in cost. There is one that I like because I can get the same food and non-food grocery items for $200 a month whereas going to the other one I spend at least twice that amount on the exact same brands. If you have more than one store that you can get to easily then that may be something to look into. Also, if you are lucky enough to have a fruit stand at all where you can get to it I suggest trying it out, they are dirt cheap and have amazingly fresh foods in our area.


----------



## ssh

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MusicianDad* 
That being said, I do think sending a child to bed hungry because they didn't want to eat what was served _is_ punishing a child for wanting some control over what they eat and when. Especially if your child is not in a position to access their own shelf/plate/container of snack foods on their own.

This is the point.

Not what's in my refrigerator right now that a 3 year old could serve herself. I was just listing stuff in my refrigerator. Sorry if the availability of affordable fresh produce here offends anyone. The OPs example of dinner foods includes salmon which is very expensive here and we can't afford to buy, so I didn't know money was an issue for her, especially early in the thread.

The real issue isn't what foods you have access to. It's giving your DC control over when and what they eat, of what's available. Everyone is focusing on how expensive some foods are where they live instead of answering "Why is it wrong for children to eat just when their bodies are hungry?" Going hungry is unhealthy and can lead to unhealthy eating. Self regulating food intake by listening to your body instead of learning to eat at habitual times or for social reasons is healthier and can prevent obesity and other food issues.


----------



## ssh

Quote:


Originally Posted by *2xy* 
I understand your position, but I don't see a child consuming an entire can of garbanzo beans in one meal. I would think it would go more like....the kid eats _some_ garbanzo beans, the rest of the beans are stored for a future meal, and the barley the child didn't eat will be eaten at a future time (either by the child or by someone else). That's how I would do it, anyway.

My DD usually asks for garbanzo beans when she sees me making hummus. She gets some, I make hummus with the rest. When we do open a can just for her, she has beans several times out of one can or someone else has some of them too.

When my food budget was tighter and I was living in an area with higher food cost I cooked my own beans instead of using canned.

Also letting a child eat when they want doesn't mean they are going to eat more total food per day, just that they are not going to eat when they aren't really hungry and they aren't going to go hungry because they can eat. So it doesn't have to be more expensive.


----------



## User101

I must have very abnormal children, then. Given free access to food, they are like goldfish. They will just eat and eat and eat and eat until the food is gone. For ten years we had an open pantry policy. We simply can no longer afford it. And after being married for 15 years and mothering for 11, I know my way around a budget, a coupon organizer, and a surplus outlet. It's not a matter of me being better organized, it's a matter of them eating the food until it's gone. And I'm not willing to say "Tough crap, then, I guess we're out of snacks." That seems crueler to me than structured mealtimes and snacktimes with steady alternatives available.

ETA: I don't think there's a one size fits all method for this. There are many contributing factors-- our past experiences with food, family size, budget, family culture, health needs, etc. I think there are many different choices along the continuum that could be done with love and gentleness, and I don't think one is right and one is wrong. I think it's a matter of finding what works for everyone in your family. As long as you are not using food as a punishment (You didn't do what I want so now I won't let you eat), I think it's fine.


----------



## thatgirliknew

I do much the same thing. I say "This is what's for dinner. I'm not cooking a special meal for you. If you don't eat now and tell me again you're hungry later, we will reheat this." My son is 4 and would love to just eat toast and milk all day, every day. On rare occasions if I really want to cook something that I know he doesn't like (spaghetti, for example, which he has tried many times and really hates) I might make sure that he has something I know he'll eat.

BUT, I don't "make" him eat if he isn't hungry and if he is hungry at some time during the day that we aren't eating dinner, I will make him a small snack.


----------



## Laggie

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Honey693* 
I just have to say your ped is ridiculous on that. If your hubby makes something for dinner he loves, but you don't like, or even just aren't in the mood for, and you don't eat it and have something else instead you're not manipulating him.

I would never do that, and if DP did it to me I would find it rude. Maybe not so much if it was something that he hates, but if he was just "not in the mood" I would feel that it was some kind of weird power game. So yes, I would think it was manipulative. FTR, that has never happened in my house. Neither of us are picky eaters and wouldn't dream of turning up our noses at the dinner that somebody else made for us.

As for the OP, I do think that a bedtime snack for young kids is a good idea. If your child goes to bed hungry, does he sleep well? Personally, if I don't eat enough in the evening then I wake up feeling famished at about 5 am.


----------



## Honey693

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Laggie* 
I would never do that, and if DP did it to me I would find it rude. Maybe not so much if it was something that he hates, but if he was just "not in the mood" I would feel that it was some kind of weird power game. So yes, I would think it was manipulative. FTR, that has never happened in my house. Neither of us are picky eaters and wouldn't dream of turning up our noses at the dinner that somebody else made for us.

Really? DH and I have frequent nights where one of us wants something and the other just isn't in the mood. Rather than spending 30 minutes trying to figure out something we'll both eat we just make separate meals.


----------



## kittywitty

Quote:


Originally Posted by *One_Girl* 
That is a lot of money to spend on groceries. Have you looked at other shopping options?

This is totally unrealistic a lot of places. Many countries and areas here in the US have very high food costs. It's not always possible to grow your own, either. We probably spend 30%+ of our income on food, too. And we don't eat anything fancy almost ever and eat out maybe 2 times a month if we have extra money. It was the same with 2 kids as it is now with 4 because I've gotten better at comparison shopping and now buy more natural and healthy foods. I see budgets for families where they'll list what stuff costs and it just isn't the reality here. We don't have a lot of food competition and live in a rural area-it's Walmart or IGA which is twice as much. The HFS is outrageous, but I have to buy stuff there on occasion. We could eat cheaper-but it would be beans and rice every day or else cheap processed foods like Kraft Mac & Cheese.


----------



## heartmama

Quote:

But I have to cook the rice for them, do I not? I mean as I understood it, people are saying, "It's really not that hard, just give the kids an easy snack, like fresh fruits."

To which I say, if it's easy, and healthy, it's probably expensive.
I make rice and lentils twice a week and they are in the fridge for whoever wants it. Ds has been making his own oatmeal for years.


----------



## littlest birds

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie* 
I must have very abnormal children, then. Given free access to food, they are like goldfish. They will just eat and eat and eat and eat until the food is gone. For ten years we had an open pantry policy. We simply can no longer afford it. And after being married for 15 years and mothering for 11, I know my way around a budget, a coupon organizer, and a surplus outlet. It's not a matter of me being better organized, it's a matter of them eating the food until it's gone. And I'm not willing to say "Tough crap, then, I guess we're out of snacks." That seems crueler to me than structured mealtimes and snacktimes with steady alternatives available.

ETA: I don't think there's a one size fits all method for this. There are many contributing factors-- our past experiences with food, family size, budget, family culture, health needs, etc. I think there are many different choices along the continuum that could be done with love and gentleness, and I don't think one is right and one is wrong. I think it's a matter of finding what works for everyone in your family. As long as you are not using food as a punishment (You didn't do what I want so now I won't let you eat), I think it's fine.

AnnetteMarie, I assure you that even if your kids are abnormal that yours are not the only ones. My kids and my experience are rather like your own. By kids are just big eaters and they will eat until everything is gone too. We've seen our share of food chaos, now turned to a moderate structure. I've just had to find a comfortable balance while responding to ALL of our family's needs. My children eat a lot, there is always some kind of snacks available, but I tend to set reasonable amounts and they have learned to set those amounts themselves now. We have an open pantry on a few basic things like saltine crackers and apples, and I let them know what is available for snacks on a given day. (We're one of the families who allow our kids to eat toast instead of dinner if they want to.)

We used to post a snack list on a chalkboard. The kids sometimes helped figure out what to post and often one of them wrote it. There would typically be a fruit, a grain, and a protein. Our current approach doesn't use a list, but uses a similar availability of a set of choices, with portion limits sometimes for certain things. It might be that having several children, and then also having them get older and more independent in the kitchen combine naturally into a situation that calls for a navigable structure. What we do now is not what we did when we had toddlers, or when we had only one older child who could help herself instead of four.


----------



## wholebreath

You are responsible for what gets put in front of your child and when. They are responsible for whether they eat it or not. What you are doing is not harsh, you are providing healthy meals with a "fill up on bread and milk" option if they need it.

Being a bit hungry until your next meal or snack once or twice a week is not the end of the world.


----------



## EdnaMarie

"I don't see a child consuming an entire can of garbanzo beans in one meal."

Hah, you don't know my kids. If I don't use two cans of garbanzo beans in the pilaf, believe me, I am not going to get more than ten beans, because they will eat. them. all. They will beg and beg and beg for our garbanzo beans and of course we cannot resist and they end up with their own beans and our beans.

I don't know why they love them so much, LOL. I looked at the vitamin content and our diet to see if it could be a deficiency but it doesn't seem so.

Quote:

I cooked my own beans instead of using canned.
Yes, I do this as well. Chickpeas are hard only because they are not always available dried. We live in a tiny town and I still haven't found a good source for organic beans and grains yet as I've been busy settling in. I did find organic chickpeas recently, dried. However I think they are as expensive as the canned chickpeas!









Quote:

That is a lot of money to spend on groceries.
It's actually not. We're just really poor right now. We spend less, dollar-wise, than is recommended for a family of our size, by the USDA. Like, $100 less. But we spend more, percentage wise, than most Americans, by like 200% (most people spend 10%, we spend 30%). I'm not going to post our exact after-taxes cash income, but if you calculate the numbers by the USDA, you can figure it out. It's not a lot.

I think we eat pretty darn well, all things considered. We make a lot of sacrifices for food, to have leafy greens every day, to buy thin-skinned fruits and veggies organic because I truly believe they are a necessity. We'd love to save more for retirement but this is worth it to us.

Quote:

"If your child goes to bed hungry, does he sleep well? Personally, if I don't eat enough in the evening then I wake up feeling famished at about 5 am."
She seems to sleep really well, but wake up early. Yeah, 5:30. She can eat breakfast then if she wants. The problem with a before-sleep snack has more to do with bedtime. With her, if there is a break in the routine she goes crazy. She has to re-test every associated limit and then that becomes the new routine. Because it's special. So for example one night, dinner was interrupted and I didn't sit long with them. I later noticed she'd hardly eaten anything. When she asked for a snack at bedtime, I let her get up and have some bread and milk.

Oh. My. Gosh. What a disaster. Then she wanted, of all things, to play Dinosaur Train videos. She wanted to sing loud. Couldn't fall asleep for hours. And every night after that for three months--THREE MONTHS! that's as long as it took to establish our bedtime routine in the first place--she wanted a bedtime snack. I mean literally three freaking months.

Now we do not have bedtime snacks







. They go to bed just two hours after dinner so if they don't eat bread at dinner when it's ending at 6:30, there's not a lot of time between that and the bedtime routine to have an additional snack.

So the after-dinner snack has been tried, and it was an epic fail.

Quote:

Being a bit hungry until your next meal or snack once or twice a week is not the end of the world.
Honestly, that's what I thought, but again, I realized that others must not agree if they do have kids who are getting alternate meals at several meals of the week.


----------



## MusicianDad

Being hungry and having to wait for meals on a regular basis _can_ harm your metabolism and eating habits.


----------



## prothyraia

I get the money thing, I really do. We've been in pretty much the same boat before (1/3 of our paltry income to rent, 1/3 to bills, 1/3 to food & gas).

We still always tried to let our kids snack when they were hungry and self-select their food. Sometimes that meant our meal-planning got all messed up. Sometimes it meant that my husband didn't get to eat any fruit that week because the kids ate it all. Sometimes it meant that I had to finish off several half-eaten pieces of fruit (I *hate* fruit) rather than let them go to waste.

In a crunch, I'd rather compromise my own food and nutrient intake and allow my kids to eat what their bodies were telling them to. They're still growing. As an adult, I have more nutritional leeway.

I do believe that my job is to offer a selection of food, and theirs is to decide what and how much to eat. If they are saying that they're hungry, then I think I need to provide food for them. Not an unlimited selection by any means, but certainly whatever is available in the house at the time (cheese, fruit, nuts, etc.). Bread is all well and good for calories, but has limited nutritional value.


----------



## mamaofthree

would it be considered harsh to send an adult to bed hungry if they didn't like dinner? or is it harsh to nurse an infant only when you feel that they are hungry or when they should be hungry? if the answer is yes to these, then i think it isn't much different to do to a child.
we have had many different levels income, sometimes i could buy all organic at whole foods and other times (like now) we are looking at food stamps and WIC to help supplement our food budget. but i have yet to send my kids off to bed hungry because they didn't want to eat dinner. i LOVE to cook, love it, but not more then i love my kids. and YES my up bringing did color how i see food and how i treat my kids. i don't mind at all scrambling an egg (which all things considered are pretty cheap) and making them some toast, i make muffins which are not any harder to make then bread, we eat beans (which if you buy in bulk are way cheaper then in the can) and rice. we don't always have all the verity that i would love to have, but we always have more then enough food for them. i see people saying they don't want to be a short ordered cook... well welcome to parenthood, it is all about compromise and giving. lets say i am roasting a chicken, and i want to make chard with sweet potatoes, well dh, dd and i will eat that up, but the 4 boys would look at me like i had 3 heads, so i boil up some potatoes make them mashed potatoes and maybe cut up some carrots, I am already cooking what is a couple more steps. i don't make it a big deal so it isn't.
i guess it depends on how you choose to see your kids, more then what your budget is like. i like to see them as people, and try (especially in the body regulation area) to treat them they way i would wish to be treated. i don't police there toilet use, i don't know when they are hot and cold, i don't know when they are in pain or not... i have to believe them when they tell me something hurt, that they are hot, that they need to pee, so i also trust them when they say they are hungry and when they say they like or don't like something.

h


----------



## laurata

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie* 
I must have very abnormal children, then. Given free access to food, they are like goldfish. They will just eat and eat and eat and eat until the food is gone.

Mine too...

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EdnaMarie* 
"I don't see a child consuming an entire can of garbanzo beans in one meal."

Hah, you don't know my kids.









Mine too...


----------



## EdnaMarie

Quote:

Being hungry and having to wait for meals on a regular basis can harm your metabolism and eating habits.
But most kids who live in families that eat regular meals as a family almost never are hungry or have to wait for meals. They get meals three times a day, nutritious meals, and healthy snacks.

Not being the sole decider of what kind of food you eat and when does not mean you must be hungry often. It might happen occasionally, but then you learn to suck it up and just eat what everyone is eating. If that sounds harsh, that is how like, 99% of the world lives, and it's not only out of deprivation.

FWIW, my child is 60th % weight for height right now. So I guess she's getting what she needs!


----------



## A&A

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Honey693* 
Really? DH and I have frequent nights where one of us wants something and the other just isn't in the mood. Rather than spending 30 minutes trying to figure out something we'll both eat we just make separate meals.

We do this a lot, too.


----------



## A&A

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamaofthree* 
i like to see them as people, and try (especially in the body regulation area) to treat them they way i would wish to be treated. i don't police there toilet use, i don't know when they are hot and cold, i don't know when they are in pain or not... i have to believe them when they tell me something hurt, that they are hot, that they need to pee, so i also trust them when they say they are hungry and when they say they like or don't like something.


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EdnaMarie* 
But most kids who live in families that eat regular meals as a family almost never are hungry or have to wait for meals. They get meals three times a day, nutritious meals, and healthy snacks.

Not being the sole decider of what kind of food you eat and when does not mean you must be hungry often. It might happen occasionally, but then you learn to suck it up and just eat what everyone is eating. If that sounds harsh, that is how like, 99% of the world lives, and it's not only out of deprivation.

FWIW, my child is 60th % weight for height right now. So I guess she's getting what she needs!

If you ask me, "once or twice a week" is often. At least IMO. If it's not, then I don't want to know how many times it has to be to be "often".

That being said, anyone else telling me I can't eat when I am hungry is unacceptable. Anyone telling my children they can't eat when they are hungry is unacceptable. If I won't let other people treat me or my children like that, why would I let myself treat them like that?


----------



## ssh

The problems associated with social eating instead of listening to your body and only eating when hungry is more often obesity than other things. People who have been hungry for awhile eat more than they need when there is food available. The harm that going without food and being hungry does to your metabolism would more often cause obesity instead of problems with being underweight.

My DH and I are both overweight. Our parents did the normal "eat your dinner" "You asked for it, so eat it" and have tried "you need to eat this food before you can have that food" with our DD. We have the normal food habits of our culture. 3 meals a day with the largest one being at night isn't healthy. Since humans are born being able to tell how much and what food they need, we as our DD's parents refuse to interfere with our DDs ability to pay attention to her body's fuel needs. The most we ever do if offer food and make healthy foods available. Also telling someone they can't eat when they are hungry is not respecting them as a person.


----------



## A&A

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MusicianDad* 
If you ask me, "once or twice a week" is often. At least IMO. If it's not, then I don't want to know how many times it has to be to be "often".

That being said, anyone else telling me I can't eat when I am hungry is unacceptable. Anyone telling my children they can't eat when they are hungry is unacceptable. If I won't let other people treat me or my children like that, why would I let myself treat them like that?


MusicianDad,
I just want to tell you that I read a lot of your posts and think you're a GREAT parent!!


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A&A* 
MusicianDad,
I just want to tell you that I read a lot of your posts and think you're a GREAT parent!!









Thanks. I don't always feel like a great parent.


----------



## ssh

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A&A* 
MusicianDad,
I just want to tell you that I read a lot of your posts and think you're a GREAT parent!!

Yeah I think so too.


----------



## Anastasiya

My kids have never gone to bed hungry.

We have no real rules about food here anymore. Our life is too hectic, it seems....so any normalcy went by the wayside.

The kids have days where they snack healthily all day and never eat a meal. Then there are days when they fill up on good meals and don't even ask for snacks.

Regardless, if I do make a meal at the end of the day and they don't want to eat it their only other choice is a peanut butter sandwich, which they will all happily eat IF they don't like the meal. They usually eat the meal, though.

Now, IF my kids were whining and moping about not being in the mood for a particular meal that they normally liked, AND they whined and moped about not wanting a PB sandwich which they all normally like, all because they REALLY wanted ice cream or some other random kid-friendly food, then at that point I would tell them it's the meal or the PB sandwich or NOTHING.

It's never gotten to that point, though.









ETA: I would also be highly offended if I prepared a wonderful meal that my DH normally loves and he said he wasn't in the "mood" and fixed something else for himself. That would be soooo rude. However, once again, lately we've been eating separate meals anyway because I'm on more of a whole foods diet and he's slowly coming over to my side. Slooooowly.


----------



## NicaG

I am really struggling with food issues and my kids. My dh usually doesn't get home until around 7pm, so we don't usually eat dinner together as a family. Sometimes I make something for the whole family that can be served to the kids and then reheated for dh later. But sometimes I make a simple dinner for the kids and then another simple dinner for dh and me. So if I make a dinner for the kids, it's hard for me to make something that I know they won't eat. It's hard to have the whole dinner rejected and thrown away. As a result, I end up making scrambled eggs, grilled cheese, spaghetti and meatballs, and a couple other "kid" dinners in rotation all week. I feel like the kids are getting pickier and pickier because I'm not challenging them to eat new things....at the same time, I hate it when they dislike and reject food. It's a bad cycle. I don't like sending them to bed hungry, because my ds will ask for food before bedtime, and will wake up in the night asking for food. I feel like it's easy to be judgmental about parents who "cater" to their kids' pickiness, but it's really hard if you are the parent dealing with this issue.

Personally I think it's ok to have one "alternative" for the kids if they don't like the main meal, like a bowl of cereal or a peanut-butter sandwich.


----------



## MusicianDad

Nica, have you thought of including one small amount of something new with the food you make the kids? Instead of having to deal with a whole meal of unwanted food, it would only be a couple of servings of something that can be stored and eaten by you or DH later.


----------



## EdnaMarie

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MusicianDad* 
If you ask me, "once or twice a week" is often. At least IMO. If it's not, then I don't want to know how many times it has to be to be "often".

That being said, anyone else telling me I can't eat when I am hungry is unacceptable. Anyone telling my children they can't eat when they are hungry is unacceptable. If I won't let other people treat me or my children like that, why would I let myself treat them like that?

My kids can eat when they're hungry.

They can eat what we have. We have bread or a meal for the family.

They can't eat, let me remember what the more recent demands were... Nutella sandwich (recalled from months prior), ice cream and blueberry pancakes (and no we don't stock these in the fridge, sorry everyone







), chickpeas (we didn't have any), almonds (didn't have any), waffles (she was offered pancakes, and we don't have a waffle iron).

They eat what we have. That is the SAME as for my husband and I. I don't waste my time cooking myself special food if my husband asked for pilaf, or if my daughter wanted macaroni and (you guessed it) chickpeas. I just eat it.

My children don't refuse once or twice a week. I'd say it's once a month at most that my child will refuse the whole meal. Once a week she tests the rule, ("Let's just see, maybe TONIGHT she'll make me waffles with powdered sugar and ice-cream on them!" (She saw this on TV once.))

And once a week she eats her meal a little later than the rest of us, when it becomes apparent that if she doesn't, waffles (and a waffle iron) will not magically appear.









Maybe once a month, she flat out refuses and doesn't want bread, either.

I think you are perhaps envisioning a scenario in which if a child does not have full control over what she eats at every moment of the day, the child will be deprived somehow. Like, she might NEED CARROT CAKE RIGHT NOW MOMMY NOW MOMMY NOOOOOOOOOWWWWW I NNEEEEEEEEEEEED CAKE! Or perhaps she CAN'T EAT THAT! EWWWW! YUCK! I'M GONNA BARF! NO WAY! and therefore requires an alternative other than wholegrain bread. Namely... what a coincidence... carrot cake... or whatever.

I simply don't view that as a basic human right or a biological need.

I don't judge people who, say, have to prepare separate meals.

I only take issue with those suggesting that I'm controlling, stingy, or lazy when I take a three-meals-a-day approach. Or that somehow, this is something done only to kids.

I don't eat five times a day. I don't get special meals. We all get to make requests. We all can refuse. None of us gets to deny the others their right to eat with the group because they are busy making yet another meal, though, either!


----------



## coffeegirl

Quote:


Originally Posted by **LoveBugMama** 
This.









I just don`t get what people find unhealthy with grazing. Grazing is just eating smaller amounts of food at a time. What might be unhealthy is WHAT people are eating. Not how many times a day they do it.









I don't think there's anything wrong with grazing in itself. But I kind of agree with what the previous poster you were responding to said, about how it would be a problem in their house if a child passed on every set meal and instead only wanted to snack. Especially if you're lucky enough to have family meals, at least some of the time. Family breakfast/brunch on the weekends, family dinner at night, etc. I know not everyone can do this. But I think it's a great tradition. And having a completely unstructured, individualized eating plan for each person would seem (to me) to kind of work against the family meal concept.

That's the main reason I'm more in favor of structured meals and snacks, although I'm by no means militant about it. Exceptions are made on occasion.


----------



## meemee

what about changing food patterns.

for instance my once v. good eater is no longer hot on vegetables. she avoids veggies as much as possible at 7. this is a new thing for her.

i also dont bring in the house what i dont want dd to eat. however she is allowed a treat with adults whenever she is around my friends and its no holds bar at that time. so she had skittles and starburst for snack yesterday.

but no. dd has never gone to bed hungry. its just the two of us and rarely does dd refuse the food.

i have also seen her taste buds change.

what she refused when she was little she totally and happily eats now.


----------



## Super~Single~Mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie* 
I must have very abnormal children, then. Given free access to food, they are like goldfish. They will just eat and eat and eat and eat until the food is gone. For ten years we had an open pantry policy. We simply can no longer afford it. And after being married for 15 years and mothering for 11, I know my way around a budget, a coupon organizer, and a surplus outlet. It's not a matter of me being better organized, it's a matter of them eating the food until it's gone. And I'm not willing to say "Tough crap, then, I guess we're out of snacks." That seems crueler to me than structured mealtimes and snacktimes with steady alternatives available.

ETA: I don't think there's a one size fits all method for this. There are many contributing factors-- our past experiences with food, family size, budget, family culture, health needs, etc. I think there are many different choices along the continuum that could be done with love and gentleness, and I don't think one is right and one is wrong. I think it's a matter of finding what works for everyone in your family. As long as you are not using food as a punishment (You didn't do what I want so now I won't let you eat), I think it's fine.

My brothers are like this still. At 26 and 23 its the family joke that they will eat you out of house and home - and with my older brother anyway its just about true!


----------



## User101

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thyra* 
My brothers are like this still. At 26 and 23 its the family joke that they will eat you out of house and home - and with my older brother anyway its just about true!

Well, I do have 3 boys. Although the girl child can put it away too.









Seriously, I think it probably has to do with metabolism as well. My kids can eat like a horse and burn it off quickly. Left to self-regulate their food, my food budget would have to be way higher than it is now. By having three steady meals and three steady snack times a day, they have the energy they need to keep them growing and their bellies are never empty. Like I said before, if a kid every came and said "Mama, I'm hungry," my mama heart wouldn't allow me to turn them away. But I would also feel comfortable saying "Have yogurt. Have a cheese stick. Have honey bread." And if they're not hungry enough to eat that, they're not that hungry. I don't cater to my whims and go out get stuff just because I have a craving for it either. Well, I do right now, but I'm pregnant with twins.







All bets are off.


----------



## kittywitty

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie* 
Well, I do have 3 boys. Although the girl child can put it away too.









Seriously, I think it probably has to do with metabolism as well. My kids can eat like a horse and burn it off quickly. Left to self-regulate their food, my food budget would have to be way higher than it is now. By having three steady meals and three steady snack times a day, they have the energy they need to keep them growing and their bellies are never empty. Like I said before, if a kid every came and said "Mama, I'm hungry," my mama heart wouldn't allow me to turn them away. But I would also feel comfortable saying "Have yogurt. Have a cheese stick. Have honey bread." And if they're not hungry enough to eat that, they're not that hungry. I don't cater to my whims and go out get stuff just because I have a craving for it either. Well, I do right now, but I'm pregnant with twins.







All bets are off.

Us, too.









My kids can really pack it away, and dh is even worse. I don't try to limit food if there is extra, but I'll make smaller portions, and when it's done, it's done. It's also something I learned to do for myself to keep myself from overeating after I had weight issues about 5-6 years ago. But I talk to the kids about these things and nutrition-they know all about vitamins and healthy fats and whole foods-probably more than your average kid out there. But I certainly don't let them free range the fridge anymore. That turned sour when we were spending over $1000 a month on food and still not having enough for meals.

After growing more food, though, I let them freerange anything we grow, provided they share (i.e. if there are strawberries, split them, don't shove them all in your mouth when you see your siblings approach!). They love this tactic, but it's not always been possible. We have a yard for the first time in like 5-6 years! Honestly I look at what a lot of people say about letting their kids eat whatever they have and how wonderful it works for them, and good for them. But that is NOT reality for every family and every child. I doubt any of us here want our children to go hungry as punishment.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EdnaMarie* 
But most kids who live in families that eat regular meals as a family almost never are hungry or have to wait for meals. They get meals three times a day, nutritious meals, and healthy snacks.

Not being the sole decider of what kind of food you eat and when does not mean you must be hungry often. It might happen occasionally, but then you learn to suck it up and just eat what everyone is eating. If that sounds harsh, that is how like, 99% of the world lives, and it's not only out of deprivation.

FWIW, my child is 60th % weight for height right now. So I guess she's getting what she needs!

I agree. Growing up, I ate when food was offered, but we were also really poor and so I was thankful to even have food. I still have a lot of food insecurity and don't let a single drop of food go to waste anymore. I wasn't offered free range anything as a kid except my grandma's grape vines and I ate at family meals and a few snacks we ate together until I was old enough that I did all the food stuff in the family (long story). I do know what hunger is like having had many times in my life where a can of ravioli a day was shared and all we had. I would never let my kids go through that. It also doesn't mean I need to feel bad for not letting them have free access at all hours to all of the food.


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EdnaMarie* 
My kids can eat when they're hungry.

They can eat what we have. We have bread or a meal for the family.

They can't eat, let me remember what the more recent demands were... Nutella sandwich (recalled from months prior), ice cream and blueberry pancakes (and no we don't stock these in the fridge, sorry everyone







), chickpeas (we didn't have any), almonds (didn't have any), waffles (she was offered pancakes, and we don't have a waffle iron).

They eat what we have. That is the SAME as for my husband and I. I don't waste my time cooking myself special food if my husband asked for pilaf, or if my daughter wanted macaroni and (you guessed it) chickpeas. I just eat it.

My children don't refuse once or twice a week. I'd say it's once a month at most that my child will refuse the whole meal. Once a week she tests the rule, ("Let's just see, maybe TONIGHT she'll make me waffles with powdered sugar and ice-cream on them!" (She saw this on TV once.))

And once a week she eats her meal a little later than the rest of us, when it becomes apparent that if she doesn't, waffles (and a waffle iron) will not magically appear.









Maybe once a month, she flat out refuses and doesn't want bread, either.

I think you are perhaps envisioning a scenario in which if a child does not have full control over what she eats at every moment of the day, the child will be deprived somehow. Like, she might NEED CARROT CAKE RIGHT NOW MOMMY NOW MOMMY NOOOOOOOOOWWWWW I NNEEEEEEEEEEEED CAKE! Or perhaps she CAN'T EAT THAT! EWWWW! YUCK! I'M GONNA BARF! NO WAY! and therefore requires an alternative other than wholegrain bread. Namely... what a coincidence... carrot cake... or whatever.

I simply don't view that as a basic human right or a biological need.

I don't judge people who, say, have to prepare separate meals.

I only take issue with those suggesting that I'm controlling, stingy, or lazy when I take a three-meals-a-day approach. Or that somehow, this is something done only to kids.

I don't eat five times a day. I don't get special meals. We all get to make requests. We all can refuse. None of us gets to deny the others their right to eat with the group because they are busy making yet another meal, though, either!

First, I think you are ignoring the fact that my post about metabolism was responding to a post (I don't think by you) that specifically mentioned "once or twice a week".

Second, I do consider _food_ to be a basic human necessity. No matter how you try and twist it around, if there is food _in the house at that moment_ there is no reason for anyone in that house to go hungry. Even a two year old (as someone previously stated theirs does, I believe) is capable of getting their own snack when things are set up right.

You don't have to give your kids free range on everything in the house, make huge meals every time they feel hungry, or go out and buy junk when they ask for it in order to avoid them going hungry. All you have to do is have some ready made snacks in a place where either they can access it themselves, or you can just put some on a plate and give it to them. DS has his own collection of safe, healthy, snacking food that is easily accessible to him. He's not even 2 yet and doesn't need to ask me for a snack unless it's something a bit more specialized.

BTW: grains generally only fill you up for a short period of time. They are too easily digested to stave off hunger for more than an hour.


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


Originally Posted by *coffeegirl* 
I don't think there's anything wrong with grazing in itself. But I kind of agree with what the previous poster you were responding to said, about how it would be a problem in their house if a child passed on every set meal and instead only wanted to snack. Especially if you're lucky enough to have family meals, at least some of the time. Family breakfast/brunch on the weekends, family dinner at night, etc. I know not everyone can do this. But I think it's a great tradition. And having a completely unstructured, individualized eating plan for each person would seem (to me) to kind of work against the family meal concept.

That's the main reason I'm more in favor of structured meals and snacks, although I'm by no means militant about it. Exceptions are made on occasion.









You could have snacks with the family. Everyday after school, during the school year DD, ds and I usually sit down and have a snack together. Big meals aren't the only time eating can be a social activity.


----------



## kittywitty

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MusicianDad* 
You could have snacks with the family. Everyday after school, during the school year DD, ds and I usually sit down and have a snack together. Big meals aren't the only time eating can be a social activity.

We homeschool, but this is what we do. We keep things like dry fruit, pretzels, etc. for snack time between lunch and dinner and before bed. We eat snack together usually unless it's been a busy day and someone is hungry.


----------



## ssh

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EdnaMarie* 
I don't eat five times a day. I don't get special meals. We all get to make requests. We all can refuse. None of us gets to deny the others their right to eat with the group because they are busy making yet another meal, though, either!

You _should_ eat small quantities of food 5 or 6 times a day. It's much healthier than 3 big meals. Becoming really hungry makes people overeat, that with a lowered metabolism from not eating often enough can cause obesity. I've never recommended special meals, just access to food whenever a child is hungry. Also when food has never been treated as a behavior issue you don't usually have bad behavior about food.


----------



## prothyraia

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EdnaMarie* 
But if the 3.5 doesn't eat, too bad. Sometimes, this results in her going to the park or to bed on an empty or near-empty stomach.

Is that like, super harsh? .....
Now, I KNOW that the child may go somewhat hungry for up to three days. My feeling is, that if this child is otherwise typical, they WILL eat other foods when they are really hungry.

Is that like, really harsh?

Honestly, yes, I think it is.
I don't think parents are under any obligation to be short order cooks, or provide an unlimited variety of foods. But saying "it's after dinner, you may only have bread" when there are other foods in the house that don't require preparation (cheese, nuts, fruit, yogurt, leftovers, etc.) is overly controlling, imo. (you did ask)

What if the child is going through a growth spurt, and is craving extra fat, protein, calcium, vitamin C, or some other nutrient that doesn't happen to be in bread? Why does a parent's arbitrary decision of what is an appropriate snack override a child asking for a different healthy option?

Is it the end of the world to not have immediate access to something your body is legitimately demanding at that moment? No. Is a three year old capable of thinking ahead and deciding to eat extra chicken at dinner because she's really hungry for protein today because she's putting on extra muscle mass but can only have bread later? No. Does this set up a situation where children are encouraged to eat even if they're not hungry, because there won't be anything appropriate later? Yes. Is that particularly healthy? No.


----------



## EdnaMarie

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ssh* 
You _should_ eat small quantities of food 5 or 6 times a day. It's much healthier than 3 big meals. Becoming really hungry makes people overeat, that with a lowered metabolism from not eating often enough can cause obesity. I've never recommended special meals, just access to food whenever a child is hungry. Also when food has never been treated as a behavior issue you don't usually have bad behavior about food.

See, I've never seen any large study that says that. And besides, three meals and two snacks is five...

And since my children choose their snacktimes, they always do have access to snacks when they're hungry.

I'm going to be honest- I really get annoyed at the suggestion that all behavior issues are caused by the parent. Sometimes, a child just picks a random thing to get into a power struggle over. However, we don't have issues with food.

My purpose in starting this thread was to find out whether allowing my child to experience this (rare, somewhat painful but certainly not unbearable) natural consequence of not eating with the family was too much.

Kind of like when people ask whether it's too much to ask a toddler to endure the real natural consequence of walking up the slide. I mean, if it's a small slide, they're not really going to break their neck. But it might hurt.

Do you let them, or not?

However that is not how it's panning out.









Quote:

What if the child is going through a growth spurt, and is craving extra fat, protein, calcium, vitamin C, or some other nutrient that doesn't happen to be in bread?
She can eat her dinner!


----------



## prothyraia

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EdnaMarie* 
She can eat her dinner!

Well of course!








But if she's hungry again two hours later, I don't think she should be limited to just bread. The same if she isn't hungry and doesn't eat much at dinner and then realizes later that wow, that chicken actually would be really awesome right now.

I don't think only having bread, or going to bed hungry, is really a natural consequence of not eating dinner. It's a parent imposed consequence, because the parent is the one preventing them from going into the pantry and getting out the nuts/raisens/whatever (either by making them inaccessible or just saying no).

If I'm not hungry at dinner time, I don't force myself to eat the whole thing just because there won't be any food later. I listen to my body and eat a little, and then if I'm hungry later I help myself to some other food that's in the house. I expect my kids to do the same. It doesn't involve any more work on my part, so why do I care if they eat almonds or cheese or bread?


----------



## MusicianDad

I don't think children just pick random things to get into a power struggle with. I think kids, like all humans, have a natural inclination to not agree with every single thing any given adult believes. It becomes a power struggle when the adult tries to push their opinions on a child, who's only means of arguing in their favour is to refuse to comply.

In a power struggle between an adult and a child, you can't expect a child to behave like and adult, you can expect an adult to behave like and adult though. When it comes to food, the adult thing to do is understand that you 1) have no control over another persons eating 2) you shouldn't have complete control over another persons eating and 3) no matter how old, other people have a right to access food _when they are hungry_ whether "they should have eaten dinner" or not.

As for "she can eat her dinner", the dinner may not have what she needs or is craving at that given time. Add to that, the fact that growth spurts require _more_ of these things than the rest of a persons life. I mean that to the extreme too. DD for the most part is not a huge eater, but when it comes time to grow she can (and occasionally will) eat more that DH and I combined without gaining an ounce!


----------



## bluebirdiemama

My kids are pretty good eaters, and picky at the same time. I very rarely make an "alternative" meal, but I do try to include at least one thing they really like in each meal. If they eat just the one thing, fine. If they want more of the one thing (mainly this rule is for my 3 yo), they must eat a little more of the other things on their plate. I am lenient on this rule though. If I can see that he is still hungry, but will not touch the other things on his plate tonight, I will just give him more of the prefered item. It is more of a strong suggestion.
It sounds like you offer a good variety, and include their favorites often. I don't think that sounds too harsh...
there have been a couple times when my ds has gone to bed with an empty tummy, because, while he liked the things on his plate, wouldn't eat them. (maybe because he was holding out for dessert, or w/e). In that case, sorry.
But if I am making tacos (something my ds will not touch), I will make an alternative for him.


----------



## ssh

Eating isn't a behavior issue it's how we get fuel to be able to stay alive and function. Regular nutrition classes teach that 5 or 6 small meals instead of 3 large ones are healthier. It's not new or controversial opinion just basic human nutrition. A class would also go into how much carbs., protein, specific nutrients you need at different ages and each day. Little kids have very small stomachs and rather high metabolisms so they need food often.

You did ask if it was too harsh letting a 3 year old go to bed hungry and several of us said yes it is ..... or yes it is unhealthy. I've given my reasons from a health based approach instead of saying it's disrespectful, mean or controlling. But, hey, it's also not nice to withhold food from a hungry person. I assumed since you asked you might not be sure if it was or not, so i gave you reasons why I thought it was unhealthy.

In your last post you said "And since my children choose their snacktimes, they always do have access to snacks when they're hungry." . This contradicts your earlier posts where you said your DC wasn't allowed to snack after dinner. And would also mean your 3 year old could snack instead of going to bed hungry. You say in your last post that you don't have issues with food. Well your 3 year old might disagree on those one or two nights a week she's going to bed or the park hungry.

I'm going to assume you understand what I've been saying in response to your questions and that you just don't like my answers.


----------



## Thalia

Quote:


Originally Posted by **LoveBugMama** 
This.









I just don`t get what people find unhealthy with grazing. Grazing is just eating smaller amounts of food at a time. What might be unhealthy is WHAT people are eating. Not how many times a day they do it.









It _can_ be unhealthy if you have an eating disorder like compulsive overeating, like I do, because the amounts are not likely to be small, but they will be frequent, and unlike most people, you can't rely on your body to tell you when you're full or satisfied, because it is not just about the food. It's like telling an alcoholic to self-regulate with alcohol. In those cases, having some structure (when to eat, how much to eat) can be very helpful.

I don't know if my daughter has the same food issues I do. Mine, as far as I can tell, are genetic and not due to the way my parents parented me. They started very early. There are some indications that DD may have the same abnormal reaction to sugar that I do. But I don't think it's possible to tell this early on.

However, because it is a possibility, the issue of how much to eat and when to eat and what is true hunger vs. emotional eating is very very tricky for me. I choose to err on the side of offering healthy foods that my daughter likes at three meals a day, plus a limited set of healthy snacks during the day when she asks for them, rather than a grazing approach.

There are some foods I won't let her eat, and there are times when I do ask her to wait to eat, depending on the context. If she is about to go to bed, and is in her pajamas and has already brushed her teeth, for example, I do ask her to wait until the morning, because a snack at that point would push her bedtime back by 30 minutes, and she needs sleep as much as she needs food. Usually she goes to bed within an hour after eating, and I don't limit how much she eats at meals, so this is rarely an issue but it does happen sometimes.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie* 
ETA: I don't think there's a one size fits all method for this. There are many contributing factors-- our past experiences with food, family size, budget, family culture, health needs, etc. I think there are many different choices along the continuum that could be done with love and gentleness, and I don't think one is right and one is wrong. I think it's a matter of finding what works for everyone in your family. As long as you are not using food as a punishment (You didn't do what I want so now I won't let you eat), I think it's fine.

I couldn't agree more.


----------



## EdnaMarie

Quote:

Eating isn't a behavior issue it's how we get fuel to be able to stay alive and function. Regular nutrition classes teach that 5 or 6 small meals instead of 3 large ones are healthier.
I totally agree with the first part. The second part, I have never heard referenced to a proper study. I've seen it in random "nutrition" websites but I don't know anyone who actually does that who does not have a weight problem.

Quote:

It's not new or controversial opinion just basic human nutrition. A class would also go into how much carbs., protein, specific nutrients you need at different ages and each day. Little kids have very small stomachs and rather high metabolisms so they need food often.
Most of that's based on the food pyramid which was designed by the farming industry. I completely disagree it's basic human nutrition. People around the world tend to eat three or four meals per day.

Quote:

In your last post you said "And since my children choose their snacktimes, they always do have access to snacks when they're hungry." . This contradicts your earlier posts where you said your DC wasn't allowed to snack after dinner.
THat is a good point. I guess it comes down to a very specific idea I have about what constitutes a meal or a snack.

Quote:

Well your 3 year old might disagree on those one or two nights a week she's going to bed or the park hungry.
I'm sorry, but I thought that I said that she almost never goes to bed hungry- perhaps once a month? Because she eats what we all eat, when we all eat it.

Quote:

I'm going to assume you understand what I've been saying in response to your questions and that you just don't like my answers.
I have been reading posts fast so some of it I've missed, but some of it I genuinely disagree with. I don't find "it's just a fact" convincing evidence of anything, much less a uniquely American eating plan that is supposed to make us healthier.

Quote:

no matter how old, other people have a right to access food when they are hungry whether "they should have eaten dinner" or not.

As for "she can eat her dinner", the dinner may not have what she needs or is craving at that given time. Add to that, the fact that growth spurts require more of these things than the rest of a persons life.
I don't agree that people who refuse, for example, four or five foods served to them (and since meals consist of a grain, a protein, fruits and veggies, plus bread, or maybe even a sauce, that's a lot to choose from), should be allowed to use hunger as a lever to get a preferred luxury food, so I guess I disagree with the first part. If a child doesn't eat dinner when we eat it, in principle she could eat it later. She has done that, in fact.

As for cravings, I guess we will cross that bridge when we come to it. So far, she has only ever craved sugar, LOL. When she wants something, she eats a lot of it when it's served. So then she doesn't have a craving for it later when it's not there. I do try hard to balance our meals.


----------



## mistymama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EdnaMarie* 
She can eat her dinner!

But what if she's eaten her dinner and gets hungry again at bedtime? Would you let her eat again, or assume she just didn't eat enough when she was supposed to?

My son is 7 and seems to be going through a huge growth spurt - some days he is eating breakfast at 7am and another one at 9am - then like last night, he ate some dinner, but was hungry again right before bed. I made him a sandwich and sliced some apples.

I can't quite get the idea of sending your child to bed hungry or without food they ask for simply because they did not eat at the "correct" time. I know I don't always get hungry at the same time as my husband - often I'll sit with him while he eats dinner but not eat myself until an hour or two later.

I don't feel food should be a battle - and I think being overly controlling does just that. I trust that my child knows his body and will eat when he is hungry, and only what his body needs, not more. Obesity runs in my family and I certainly don't want to encourage anything other than him listening to his hunger cues and following them. No eating just because it's time, or because he wont get any later. No way.

I don't understand why it's a big deal to let your toddler have a few healthy snacks if she's hungry before bed. I'm pregnant right now and I can tell you, I need a snack before bed - dinner does NOT hold me over. I also don't tend to eat large amounts at any one sitting which I don't have time to link to research, but studies HAVE found that to be healthier for your metabolism than large meals without snacking.


----------



## Drummer's Wife

I think what people are imagining is a 3 yo who asks for something to eat a couple hours after dinner and is told: no, sorry, you should have ate more at dinner. You can eat again at breakfast.

That does seem harsh, to me, as a mother of a 3 yo. He often will eat his dinner (or eat a good portion of it) and then tell me his 'tummy is hungry' later on. He might eat a bowl of oatmeal and a piece of fruit at that point. From what I can tell, he's listening to his body - which is healthy. Sometimes he's not really hungry when dinner is ready, so he picks a it and drinks his milk. I don't see any point in having any kind of natural or imposed consequence and telling him an hour later that it's too bad he's now hungry, he should have ate when he had access to food (hungry or interested or not). Kids, especially little kids, don't really have to do that, yk? Not in a home where there is at least something available to offer them to eat.


----------



## ivymae

If they don't eat because they honestly don't like the food, after they've tried a bite I am willing to make them a quick sandwich, or let them choose from the leftovers in the fridge. I'll probably make this dinner again, and they will probably have to try a bite again, because more often then not, after it's one of the regular meals, they will magically start liking it.

If my kids don't eat dinner because they are playing the power struggle (I know they like it, they just want treats), I'll ask them to sit with us while we eat, and then closer to bedtime i will offer then cheese and apples, or something equally nutritious. Mine are 2 and 4, so they don't really connect missing dinner and then eating a snack later - they just know they throwing a fit at dinner didn't get them what they wanted, and (unrelatedly) they had a snack later because their bellies hurt. If they don't eat they are cranky mean kids, and that just sucks for everyone.

older kids are harder, but maybe just have opportunities after dinner for them to eat, without it being a big to-do. I used to make my dad's lunch with my mom each night, and would catch myself snacking on lunch meat and fruit while we stood in the kitchen and talked.


----------



## a-sorta-fairytale

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MusicianDad* 
As for "she can eat her dinner", the dinner may not have what she needs or is craving at that given time. Add to that, the fact that growth spurts require _more_ of these things than the rest of a persons life. I mean that to the extreme too. *DD for the most part is not a huge eater, but when it comes time to grow she can (and occasionally will) eat more that DH and I combined without gaining an ounce*!

Oh i so see the growth spurt thing in our house. DD(6) is much more picky then ds(2) and she is also a much lighter eater then he is. We usually serve him twice as much as we do her. But if she is hitting a growth spurt or has done a ton of physical training (this week she has volleyball camp and karate EVERY DAY - totaling 4-5 hours of heavy physical work each day) she will eat way more then i can at 9 months pregnant.

She normally doesnt eat much meat either but when she is growing (or like this week - with the camps) she will eat a ton more. She asked for steak monday and ribs yesterday. She ate more of each then dh who is 6ft4 and very muscled.
Neither was in the plan or budget but we try to listen to all of our bodies when it comes to specific nutrient cravings. It is hard for both me and dd to get enough protein so if we are craving meat or beans dh is very happy to oblige.


----------



## peaceful_mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A&A* 

Moreover, when I send my kids to bed hungry, and I have a houseful of food, it feels disrespectful to the universe and ungrateful for what I have. I think of mothers around the world who would kill for the food supplies I have. I say a silent prayer of thanks, set aside what else I was doing, and feed my kids.

Oh.....this just seriously made me tear up....(I'm 17 weeks pg, it doesn't take much








) I, too, will set aside whatever I am doing and feed my kids...

Like many on this thread (so far) I have a DH who buys quite a bit of junk and some frustration with them not eating meals and wanting that. (which they don't really do that often, but sometimes yes.)

I am going to start offering healthier ideas more often, rather than just denying the junk. (sometimes I do, other times I'm just ticked about them walking away from a table having barely eaten and whining for food 10 minutes later.)

Is it any different than me not really wanting whatever DH made but eating a little of it and then later, after he goes to work, making myself/us a snack or early dinner of my preferred food of the day? Um. no. (DH works odd hours, we eat lunch together usually as the family meal.)

If i have a right to do that, or my mom (who lives here too) has the right to make herself a bologna sandwich if she doesn't like our dinner...why can't my kid have some cheese and crackers, yogurt and berries, or a sandwich?
I think I could probably find a way to make it easier for them to serve themselves and help the oldest learn to make some things. That would help me a lot actually.

In answer to the original question, though, no, my kids don't go to bed hungry unless it's been their own choice not to eat. (I.E. they chose to eat little/no dinner--which is typically a fruit, veg, carb, and it's always something I'm pretty sure they'll eat--I make some of their favorites that aren't necessarily DH faves since he's not here, and they didn't want an alternative to eating a sweet dessert junk item or chip-type snack.) I *don't* hand out the Cheeto-junk after a refused meal.


----------



## coffeegirl

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MusicianDad* 
You could have snacks with the family. Everyday after school, during the school year DD, ds and I usually sit down and have a snack together. Big meals aren't the only time eating can be a social activity.

Snacking together is great, too.







But I'm talking more about the problem being with individualized eating habits overall, rather than just the question of is it a meal or a snack, you know what I mean?

Many people have brought up in this thread that they have no or very little structure to eating and food in their house-- whenever anyone is hungry, they eat, and it doesn't have to be at breakfasttime, lunchtime, dinnertime, a pre-set snack time, etc. Now unless everyone in the house just happens to get hungry randomly at the same times, I don't see how this approach would be condusive to sitting down to regular family meals (or snacks) together.

But if some of yall have found a way to make it work and if everyone in the family is able to synchronize their grazing to some extent, then more power to ya. In my family, it doesn't seem to work that way when we're all in the habit of "grazing" rather than having scheduled meals. Instead, we tend to just grab something from the kitchen and go off on our own. That's why personally I'd like to get back to the more scheduled way of doing things and restore the family meal tradition at least to _some_ extent in my own family.


----------



## MusicianDad

I don't really see how we can expect children to not have individualized eating habits. Every person is different.

We allow grazing all day. We also have 1 set snack time every week day and we sit down to a family meal 6 nights a week. It's not impossible to have that without controlling your child's food so much that they would go to bed hungry.


----------



## greenmamapagan

Guilty of not having read the whole thread but

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MusicianDad* 
That being said, my own kids, would not be able to survive off of three meals a day a two-three snacks. They just need more food than that.

ITA with this







My four year old has her picky days, in fact she only ate a banana for dinner tonight but even on those she eats at least as much as you described. On her "hungry" days she eats an awful lot more. The last thing I would ever do is restrict protein snacks, she can have those whenever she likes!
As for going to bed hungry - see my banana comment. I'm sure she'll tell me if she's hungry but otherwise, that's it for dinner.


----------



## greenmamapagan

Working my way through the thread now

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ssh* 
The real issue isn't what foods you have access to. It's giving your DC control over when and what they eat, of what's available.











Quote:


Originally Posted by *prothyraia* 
Well of course!








But if she's hungry again two hours later, I don't think she should be limited to just bread. The same if she isn't hungry and doesn't eat much at dinner and then realizes later that wow, that chicken actually would be really awesome right now.









and as per my previous post about the banana, my four year old _did_ admit to being a little hungry at bedtime so we grabbed her dinner which I'd left on the plate just in case and she ate a few bites before she went to sleep








If she'd asked for something else (waffles for example - we don't have a waffle iron either but she's seen waffles elsewhere & finds them fascinating) we would have negotiated about what was available and what I actually had the energy to prepare since I'm tired too & I'd already done all the dinner clean up apart from her plate, but she didn't.


----------



## mamaofthree

i am not getting why it is a big deal for them to ask for stuff you don't have. it's a bummer for sure to really want something like waffles and not get them, and yes a little 3 year old might cry, i mean i get bummed if i am really hungry for something and it isn't available... but i don't get what the issue is. if the food isn't there it isn't there. so you gently explain and explain again if you have too and offer something else... like if there is a pancake in the fridge that is left over or maybe some yummy toast with butter and honey or fruit spread.
and for those with dhs (or yourself for that matter) who have forbidden snack foods in the house... hide them! dh loves pringles... so he hides them in the closet. i have many many other things the kids can have to eat.

yes my own experiences as a child have lead me to make the food choices i have for my family. and honestly as much as it sucked eggs living thru i have to say it made me realize that food shouldn't be an issue. that i can't control other peoples hungry times and why would i want to?

h


----------



## Drummer's Wife

coffeegirl - we eat dinner together every night, and breakfast and lunch are almost always me and the kids (Dh works). Snacks - with four kids, they often do decide they are hungry at the same time (as in, DD will prepare something, and at least 1-2 of her little brothers wants something then, too) - so everyone grabbing their own thing and taking off doesn't occur. We have a big open kitchen (that is visible and connected to other areas to the house) and for the most part it's where food is consumed. No one grabs a snack and then heads up to their bedroom, for example. So, in my experience, you can allow independence in eating, and still have meals and snacks together.


----------



## Anastasiya

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MusicianDad* 
All you have to do is have some ready made snacks in a place where either they can access it themselves, or you can just put some on a plate and give it to them. DS has his own collection of safe, healthy, snacking food that is easily accessible to him. He's not even 2

I think you're missing what EdnaMarie is saying. She does have snacks, but those few times when her child went to bed hungry the almonds were gone, the chickpeas were gone, there was no option for waffles, and cake and ice cream were a no. The child had the option of bread. The same thing she probably eats multiple times a day and loves, but that particular day it was a power struggle because her child wanted cake and ice cream. So she chose to say no to the bread (a truly hungry child would have eaten the bread), and she went to bed hungry.

Hardly sounds like that's EdnaMarie's fault.

There are times in this house too where the snacks are gone. Just plain gone. And if a child turns up his nose at dinner and then also refuses the PB sandwich he/she would normally eat in place of dinner, then what else can you do? At that point Child is making the decision to be hungry. It is not being forced upon them.


----------



## ssh

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EdnaMarie* 

We have one meal for our whole family at each mealtime. In "addition", each meal is served with whole-grain, homemade bread. At breakfast, that's bread with butter. Bread is unlimited. The 3.5 yo gets milk at breakfast and lunch. They get a fruit snack once a day and a protein snack once a day, or a combo. They may have ketchup or yoghurt on their meal if they want, if they think it will make it better, but in moderation.

Now, the baby is still nursing more or less on demand so if she doesn't eat, I suffer at night.

But if the 3.5 doesn't eat, too bad. Sometimes, this results in her going to the park or to bed on an empty or near-empty stomach.

Is that like, super harsh? I mean, I cook a very varied diet, we have grains at each meal, they like them, and I cook their favorite foods (chickpeas, broccoli, whole-wheat spaghetti, rice, beans, baked potato "fries" with fried salmon) often enough so this only happens once or twice a week. We definitely have treats a couple times a week.

Now, I KNOW that the child may go somewhat hungry for up to three days. My feeling is, that if this child is otherwise typical, they WILL eat other foods when they are really hungry.

Is that like, really harsh?


This says if the 3 year old doesn't eat the meal, she goes to bed or to the park hungry. She gets two snacks a day, not she can have bread before bed or left over dinner. And it happens once or twice a week. Also the child may be somewhat hungry for up to three days.


----------



## Anastasiya

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ssh* 
This says if the 3 year old doesn't eat the meal, she goes to bed or to the park hungry. She gets two snacks a day, not she can have bread before bed or left over dinner. And it happens once or twice a week. Also the child may be somewhat hungry for up to three days.

The child has unlimited access to bread at mealtimes. If she doesn't want what is served, she can have as much bread as she wants. So if she eats her bread, which she likes and eats every other day as much as is desired, then she won't be going to the park or to bed hungry.

But if she is pouting and protesting because she is demanding something not possible (like cake or ice cream or foods that are not in stock), then she's choosing for herself to be hungry.

I personally find this whole thread somewhat amazing and I'm one to let my kids snack all day, for the most part, so long as the foods are healthy. But seriously, SOME PEOPLE DON'T HAVE THE $$$ to allow this. Their kids are no worse for the wear if they are given only three well balanced meals a day. Almonds, fruits (well, I guess almonds are technically a fruit, too), cheese, veggies, yogurt, etc.... these things are expensive! Whether or not it's healthier to graze all day, I can guarantee that for some people it'll break the bank. You get a lot more bang for your buck when you serve *meals*, not *snacks*.

And I think of the children in other parts of the world who have rice for breakfast, rice for lunch and rice for dinner with maybe a banana, and who can't afford to be picky. Yet here we cater to our children's every food whim and desire at times.

Sorry, but if my kids don't want the meal they are served, and they don't want the PB sandwich I'm offering as a replacement, then they really aren't as hungry as they think they are. As for their body craving something else, well, if they'd eat their meals then the cravings would likely be satisfied.


----------



## MusicianDad

Sorry, but as much as I like bread, some days I just don't want to eat it.

As for $$$, yeah that can be an issue but that's what budgets are for. All you have to do to let you child snack is set aside some foods for that exact purpose. Heck even leftovers can (and often are in this house) snacks. That way you don't end up wasting food because you decided that you child can only have two snacks a day.

And no, if they eat their meal their cravings won't always be satisfied. If they need calcium, or protein, or vitamin C and all you are offering only has those in limited quantities their cravings won't be satisfied by eating what is offered. Not all food is the same.

And what happens if they just aren't hungry at dinner? Well they can have bread right? Sorry but the last thing you need to hold you over is carbs. You'll be hungry again in an hour.

As for the "they aren't as hungry as they think they are"? I hate that line. I truly, honestly do. Just because someone is hungry doesn't mean they will eat anything presented to them. Allergies, intolerance, of even just plain dislike are all reasons someone who is starving won't eat something presented. Besides, the line gives me the same shivers as over hearing a parent tell their child what they do and don't like based on no other information that the parents preferences.


----------



## Honey693

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MusicianDad* 

As for the "they aren't as hungry as they think they are"? I hate that line. I truly, honestly do. Just because someone is hungry doesn't mean they will eat anything presented to them. Allergies, intolerance, of even just plain dislike are all reasons someone who is starving won't eat something presented. Besides, the line gives me the same shivers as over hearing a parent tell their child what they do and don't like based on no other information that the parents preferences.

I hate that line too. I will go days without eating before I touch certain things, like shrimp, brussel sprouts or scallops. Just the thought of them makes me feel sick.


----------



## Anastasiya

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MusicianDad* 
Sorry, but as much as I like bread, some days I just don't want to eat it.

There are some days DH and I don't want chicken for dinner but that's the only meat in the house. There are some days I don't want to be eating this whole foods diet thing but I know it's healthier to do so. There are some days I'm sick and tired of salads but I'm a guest in a friend's home and guess what's on the menu? Salad.

You don't always get to eat what you want, when you want, even as an adult.

Quote:

As for $$$, yeah that can be an issue but that's what budgets are for.
And some people have very tight budgets and the things I listed: almonds, yogurts, cheeses, crackers, veggies, fruits, dried fruits are TOO expensive to keep in stock. Esp when you have more than one or two children. Keeping snacks like that on hand AND coming up with meal plans is not always doable. So you stretch your buck and make good, hearty, well balanced MEALS that cost less in the end, and if kiddo's hungry later, hey, there's leftovers.

Quote:

All you have to do to let you child snack is set aside some foods for that exact purpose.
And even then, there comes a time when the snacks run out and like EdnaMarie, the only option left is bread.

Quote:

And no, if they eat their meal their cravings won't always be satisfied. If they need calcium, or protein, or vitamin C and all you are offering only has those in limited quantities their cravings won't be satisfied by eating what is offered.
If they eat a good, well balanced diet, through the course of one day or even a week, yes, their needs will be met. Obviously not if you're serving cereal for breakfast and pasta for lunch and rice for dinner. But a balanced diet, in which they get everything they need. Eating their meals then, will give them what they need. (Besides, I don't know about other people here but my kids' cravings are usually for junk. Muffins, pancakes, french toast, cereal, crackers, ice cream....I rarely get a kid craving green beans or spinach salads or black beans. Then again, they eat their meals so they're getting what they need, anyway.)

Quote:

As for the "they aren't as hungry as they think they are"? I hate that line. I truly, honestly do. Just because someone is hungry doesn't mean they will eat anything presented to them.
I never said that a hungry child would eat anything given to them. I said it in conjunction with *foods parents already know their kids love*, not foods they might be allergic to or have intolerances to.







My kids LOVE PB sandwiches. They'd eat them daily and for every meal, if they could. That's why, if they reject a meal, that's their other option. If they don't want that, then it's not so much that they are hungry, but they are ticked they aren't getting the pancakes or french toast they wanted.

And like I said, at that point it becomes their issue, not mine. The food is there.


----------



## Bellabaz

Yes. I don't mean throwing a fir hungry. But we cook good food here. Dd can always have fruit or raw veggies no matter what. We also ask dd1 for input for meals.

For meals, we do our best to include ingredients she likes. But this is not a restaurant. If I made pasta with peas and you like those things but you decided you don't want to eat then hey no prob, don't eat.

Now if I have made something that is a possible "not like" on her list or a new food, the deal is she needs to try one fork/spoonful. If she doesn't like it and there is truely nothing else on the table that she would eat, then she may have a yogurt or pb sandwich. But otherwise what you see is what you get.


----------



## Anastasiya

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Bellabaz* 
Now if I have made something that is a possible "not like" on her list or a new food, the deal is she needs to try one fork/spoonful. If she doesn't like it and there is truely nothing else on the table that she would eat, then she may have a yogurt or pb sandwich. But otherwise what you see is what you get.

We also make the kids try one bite of everything new or previously disliked. No exceptions. That's the only way two of them would ever develop any new tastes, and they are _always_ surprised they actually DO like the foods, or start to like them if they didn't before!


----------



## mamaofthree

it is very easy for adults to say "suck it up" then it is for kids to live it. yes, as an adult i will gag down all sorts of stuff to fill my belly, but that is harder for kids to do and understand.

i totally get the money issue,but i don't know a store that doesn't have some sort of fruit and veg on sale (apples come to mind and carrots).

and i hate the line about kids around the world going without. that reminds of the stuff my mom use to say... didn't make the food taste better. and i agree with a pp that it seems almost sinful to make a child go to bed hungry when so many parents have to, but would choose otherwise.

h


----------



## EdnaMarie

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ssh* 
This says if the 3 year old doesn't eat the meal, she goes to bed or to the park hungry. She gets two snacks a day, not she can have bread before bed or left over dinner. And it happens once or twice a week. Also the child may be somewhat hungry for up to three days.

She might go to the PARK without a snack. MIGHT. It doesn't mean she does.

And for the point about hunger, I am saying that a child involved in a power struggle could hold out for several days without eating the food she or he did not want to eat. Not that my child actually does.

Musician Dad, your child is not yet two? I assume that neither you nor your DH is nursing and that your child is off the bottle. I am also assuming that in this case, since most babies, if given the chance, will nurse until around two or even later, snacking in your baby's case is providing the intermittent nutrition nursing otherwise would.

Just like I nurse my own baby frequently and at night when she's hungry.

My question is directed at parents of children that are mostly on solids, that are children, who are allowed to experience at times natural consequences. A baby not even two years old would in my opinion not be exposed to many natural consequences at all. So I can see your point for your child. But wait until your baby gets older, and maybe you will be able to sympathise with the position of having just sat down to dinner (on your feet all day, of course, cooking) and having someone say,

"But... I didn't want CARROTS in my soup! Can I have rice?"
"But we always have carrots in our chicken soup. You said you wanted chicken soup."
"Not with carrots!"
"I'll take the carrots out if you want-"
"I want rice."










Quote:

Allergies, intolerance, of even just plain dislike are all reasons someone who is starving won't eat something presented.
I'm not sure you've ever seen a truly starving person. I've worked with children who haven't eaten in days. Well, that is an exaggeration. I worked on programs helping them and I just monitored them. Their parents had to dig dirt out of their pockets, grass out of their pockets, because they would eat it. They would eat paper. They would eat plenty of things that would make them sick, so strong was the instinct to get any nutrition.










Luckily, none of our children are facing that.

You suggest we don't budget. Our entire income is budgeted to the last dollar, every single penny. We save every grocery receipt. That is how we are managing to spend so much on food. It just so happens that we have other expenses--work related (like the Internet) which will be reimbursed later, clothing, transport, etc. etc. We COULD spend more on food, sure. I mean, who needs retirement or life insurance, really?

But why would we give up, say, our ability to have the kids in activities merely so that they could eat nothing but bananas all day, if they wanted to?!?! What would that achieve for the child? Besides, as we all know, once the bananas are bought, suddenly the child wants something else.

Must be nice to be in a city or sector not affected by the economic downturn and to have never been hungry.


----------



## Anastasiya

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamaofthree* 
it is very easy for adults to say "suck it up" then it is for kids to live it. yes, as an adult i will gag down all sorts of stuff to fill my belly, but that is harder for kids to do and understand.

Again, no one mentioned gagging anything down. The kids _like_ the food they are refusing. I would never force my kids to eat something they didn't like in order to fill their bellies. THAT would be a power struggle and create food issues. Asking them to eat something they already like, if there is nothing else in the house and I refuse to make junk, is not asking too much.

Quote:

i totally get the money issue,but i don't know a store that doesn't have some sort of fruit and veg on sale (apples come to mind and carrots).
And again, you have three or four or five kids and money's tight, a couple bags of apples isn't going to last through the next paycheck.

Quote:

and i hate the line about kids around the world going without.
If you mean my rice comment, I was actually thinking of kids in Asia who eat rice at every single meal. They are healthy and they are well fed. The banana I just threw in as a random dessert/snack because it seemed universal.

I also don't like the third world similarities because I don't aim to feed my children like they do, but I do aim to feed them so that they learn to appreciate a good meal and don't grow up picky.


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Anastasiya* 

And like I said, at that point it becomes their issue, not mine. The food is there.

Um, no. The food isn't the kid's issue. When there is food available and the child goes to bed hungry because mom or dad says "well you didn't eat your dinner", the food is the parents issues. The kid's issue is that they are trying to have some semblance of control over their own body and bodily processes but are being denied by the parent who thinks their child should eat what is put in front of them or go hungry.

So your kid doesn't eat dinner. Wrap it up and put it in the fridge. It keeps, food isn't ruined just because it's all ready been served once. Offer it up later as a possibility. If it is truly something your child likes to eat then chances are they _will_ eat it before it goes bad.

As for balanced meals, sorry but what a parent cooks, even if it's healthy, doesn't always meet the needs of the child. As I stated earlier in the thread, DD is not generally a huge eater, but there are times she can eat more than myself and my DH combined because her body _needs_ it. Since she is the only one who knows what her body is saying, she's the only one that can tell us what her body needs. It would be pretty selfish of me to say "No, you eat three balanced meals a day so you don't really need that."

As for $$$, that's what sales, and coupons and friends with gardens are for. There is more than one way to get food besides going to the store and paying a butt load of cash for a few fruits or veggies.


----------



## EdnaMarie

Quote:

Again, no one mentioned gagging anything down. The kids like the food they are refusing. I would never force my kids to eat something they didn't like in order to fill their bellies. THAT would be a power struggle and create food issues. Asking them to eat something they already like, if there is nothing else in the house and I refuse to make junk, is not asking too much.
And I think most of us don't even ask our kids to taste food. My children will never have to gag down anything. If they don't like it, they can eat their alternative--bread. Or another dish. I mean really. Since when is it necessary for the child to determine the menu?

Does this mean that 99.99% of the world's children that live in households in which food is limited but sufficient, in which adults determine the menu, are somehow "gagging" things down?

I just don't think it happens that way.

Quote:

i totally get the money issue,but i don't know a store that doesn't have some sort of fruit and veg on sale (apples come to mind and carrots).
But sometimes they don't want apples or carrots. The other day I had six bananas nobody wanted. It was all about apples. Today I had an apple left, and she asked for a mango. I let her check the fridge herself, and she picked the apple.

No drama. No gagging. No starvation. No power struggle. In fact, it was pretty simple.


----------



## mamaofthree

i do have 5 children of all sorts of ages and stages and i guess after 16 years of raising kids i choose not to fight with them about food. they know when they are hungry, just as i know when i am hungry... they know what they like (and that can change day today with little ones just trying everything out) i have yet to read anyone here say feed them cake make them junk to eat if they won't eat dinner.
i do have an issue with this being on the GD board as it doesn't seem gentle at all. i was under the impression that GD started with compassion and understanding...

h


----------



## Anastasiya

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MusicianDad* 
Um, no. The food isn't the kid's issue. When there is food available and the child goes to bed hungry because mom or dad says "well you didn't eat your dinner", the food is the parents issues.

Who said this??? I certainly didn't. Are you even reading what I'm writing or just responding to what you THINK I'm saying?

IF my kids don't like dinner, they do NOT go to bed hungry. They have NEVER gone to bed hungry.

They have an option: A peanut butter sandwich, which they always choose if dinner's a no-go.

What I'm saying that if they even refuse THAT OPTION (which they love) because they want pancakes or french toast or ice cream or pickled chicken wings with grape jelly and I don't have them or won't make them, then yes, my child is CHOOSING to go to bed hungry.

Which, like I said, has never happened.

Quote:

The kid's issue is that they are trying to have some semblance of control over their own body and bodily processes but are being denied by the parent who thinks their child should eat what is put in front of them or go hungry.
I think it's totally reasonable for a child to be given a few options, and they can choose from those options. I am not going to cater to every whim all of my 4 kids have.

Quote:

So your kid doesn't eat dinner. Wrap it up and put it in the fridge. It keeps, food isn't ruined just because it's all ready been served once. Offer it up later as a possibility. If it is truly something your child likes to eat then chances are they _will_ eat it before it goes bad.
We do that.

Quote:

As for balanced meals, sorry but what a parent cooks, even if it's healthy, doesn't always meet the needs of the child. As I stated earlier in the thread, DD is not generally a huge eater, but there are times she can eat more than myself and my DH combined because her body _needs_ it. Since she is the only one who knows what her body is saying, she's the only one that can tell us what her body needs. It would be pretty selfish of me to say "No, you eat three balanced meals a day so you don't really need that."
*Over the course of a week*, if a parent is cooking balanced meals, yes, a child will get what they need. Usually by eating more or less of those meals as needed. My kids have gone through lots of growth spurts, and the snacking has never really changed because they just spend more time eating their meals.

And it's not _selfish_ of a parent to tell a child they cannot have a snack if the parent cannot afford snacks, in the first place. I feel like you're totally slamming all the parents here who have more than one or two kids and don't have the $$$ to do what you do.

As for myself, this house is always stocked full of snacks. We have fruit and veggies everywhere. We have cheese all the time. Crackers in the pantries. We even have the expensive cherries that so many covet. Still, I am in no position to TELL another mother that she's being selfish by wanting her kids to fill up on _meals_ rather than _snacks_.

Quote:

As for $$$, that's what sales, and coupons and friends with gardens are for. There is more than one way to get food besides going to the store and paying a butt load of cash for a few fruits or veggies.
And these options are not always accessible to everyone.


----------



## mamaofthree

ok apperently my "gagging" statement is what you want to hook on... what i was meaning was, i will eat something i am not in the mood for because i need to eat. so even if i love XYZ i may not be in the mood for it right now BUT because it is there i will eat that. but then i have 37 years of life experience to know that it is ok, 3 year old doesn't.
i have a 3 year old i have a hard time getting him to understand the toilet, how am i suppose to get him to understand that what i place in front of him right now has to last him all night and if he isn't in the mood well you can have bread and deal.

h


----------



## Anastasiya

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamaofthree* 
ok apperently my "gagging" statement is what you want to hook on... what i was meaning was, i will eat something i am not in the mood for because i need to eat. so even if i love XYZ i may not be in the mood for it right now BUT because it is there i will eat that. but then i have 37 years of life experience to know that it is ok, 3 year old doesn't.
i have a 3 year old i have a hard time getting him to understand the toilet, how am i suppose to get him to understand that what i place in front of him right now has to last him all night and if he isn't in the mood well you can have bread and deal.

h

I don't know how to answer that because I have never had a problem with it.

A 3 year old also doesn't understand why Mommy won't fix ice cream with chocolate syrup at every meal. Or french toast before bedtime. Or brownies for lunch. These are things my kids used to ask for. They got told No. They didn't always understand WHY, even when I explained why, but I'm not going to give them what they wanted just because they don't "get" it. So yeah, they've got to "deal" with Mommy not making junk.


----------



## heartmama

This thread is starting to teeter on members taking direct issue with each other, which is a violation of the user agreement at MDC. If you disagree, focus on the objective points you want to discuss. Not everyone is going to agree. Debate is fine, open frustration towards another member is not. The thread will have to be shut down or edited if it becomes personal.


----------



## mamaofthree

why oh why does the feed them junk statement keep coming up? no one here has said to feed them junk. not a single person. what has been said is to let them regulate their own food intake, and to offer them food when they are hungry.
my issue has been the attitude of "let them deal" and they can choose dinner (which they apparently love but are trying to make mom's life heck by not eating) or eat bread (sometimes with PB other times without). not really a choice. but whatever. i guess i have an issue with that sort of thinking when it comes to little kids. having raise 5 kids who have all reached three i think that is an issue that they have a hard time with.

so maybe my best choice would be to stop posting on this topic.

h


----------



## Anastasiya

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamaofthree* 
why oh why does the feed them junk statement keep coming up? no one here has said to feed them junk. not a single person.

Yes, at least two people. Because the OP and myself (and maybe some others?) have said that that's what OUR kids sometimes want. Junk.

She listed a bunch herself - her child wanted pancakes. Cake. Ice cream.
Etc....

Quote:

what has been said is to let them regulate their own food intake, and to offer them food when they are hungry.
Which I agree with, and which I myself DO, but not to the tune of belittling other parents (by calling them selfish or what have you) who literally cannot _afford_ to do so, as it seems to be the OP's case right now.

Quote:

not really a choice. but whatever.
If I make a good meal of pasta (which they love), chicken breasts (which they love), broccoli (which they love), a whole wheat dinner roll with honey butter (which they love) and a yummy sun dried tomato sauce (which they love), and offer a dessert plate of strawberries and blueberries and cherries with a dollop of whipped cream (all which they love), and if they still refuse they can have the old standby of a peanut butter sandwich (which they love), then I fail to see how they don't have many choices. There are tons of options right there. They can eat pasta to their heart's content, or just chicken, or just berries, whatever. And if we run out of the dinner, then I make more of the same thing just so they can eat enough of it, but I won't make something entirely new.

That's a whole *lot* of options. And if they look at all that (which they love) and tell me they really wanted blueberry pancakes with cottage cheese on the side, then yeah, the answer's gonna be no. Maybe tomorrow.

And no one here seems to take issue with that.


----------



## Calm

I had this problem, then I went raw and discovered the kids preferred it. They were rejecting my cooked foods. I haven't read the whole thread but just in case it hasn't been mentioned I thought I'd say it.

We were originally designed to eat raw plant foods, over time we moved from indigenous grazers on the land to agricultured and living in tight groups and started to use fire to heat and cook food - destorying the nutrients in the food, so in combination with our altered living conditions causing diseases of "affluence", the diet also added less protection and more toxins. Moving from raw indigenous living was the beginning of the end of our health and joy.

Children are still in a pristine state, the younger the child, the more likely they will be picky, esp if it isn't organic. They can actually taste the residue of pesticides.

I learned all this a few years ago and it all made sense so I put it to the test. Sure enough, organic cooked food was more likely to go down, and raw food always does (but not if it is in competition with msg or sugared foods, which act like a drug). I am moving towards being fully raw myself so I have since learned more about that and find other kids respond to this also, not just mine.

Although, I notice that the children who are most resistant to dietary simplicity are those who have been introduced to the most dietary complexity... fakely sweet foods (sugar added), meats, msg, etc... these things corrupt the palette and take a while to reverse. However, once reversed, they seem to almost unanimously prefer raw foods.

I know that seems odd, esp when struggling with a child who won't eat a salad to save their life. But it isn't an issue in indigenous cultures, and that is for a reason. We corrupt their palettes, and to go back to a simple diet means struggling through until their palettes are clear again (same for adults). Our culture's foods are overwhelming to babies and toddlers, just like our gadgets and noises... we generally live contrary to our design, and we certainly eat contrary to our design. We instinctively know this and resonate with it when we hear it, but living it is not so easy initially. However, I find I solve my kid's eating issues when there is only raw fruit and veg available in the house, and I also solve any health issues at the same time









An alternative to think about.


----------



## Joyster

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
I had this problem, then I went raw and discovered the kids preferred it. They were rejecting my cooked foods. I haven't read the whole thread but just in case it hasn't been mentioned I thought I'd say it....
An alternative to think about.

I think it's a good one. You just made something click in me actually.







My kids will seldom touch cooked veggies, if it's "soggy" (I don't make soggy veggies, but they don't like the slightly softer texture) it doesn't pass. So most of the kids veggies are served raw. We will usually partake in some too, in addition to our cooked veggies.

My guys don't go to bed hungry as sometimes frustrating as it is. We almost always have some apples and bananas which are the cheapest fruit in our area. Yogurt, whole grain crackers, cheese, etc. However, I do make even the 2.5 year old prepare the snack if they won't eat their meal. Usually daddy does this though, just to reinforce the message that mommy is not making two meals.

My oldest (soon to be 5) is picky. I love to cook elaborate (and gorgeous if I do say so myself) meals so it's a clash of two worlds. But there are some staples he will eat and are healthy, thankfully fruits and veggies are on the list.

I grew up going to bed hungry simply because there wasn't enough food and I guess it's just stuck with me. I cannot send them anywhere if I know they are hungry. I will often bag up some snacks in a baggie to throw in the car.

Other times when we were living with my father, there were intense power struggles over food and I refused to try different things up until very recently. I still cannot stomach some foods unless pureed, although I know I like their tastes, but it's just a mental thing, so I'm a bit sensitive to creating food issues.


----------



## Calm

I came back to add a few things in case anyone was interested in the raw food angle.

Two things worked wonderfully for us and one was to go in the backyard and eat the greens. There are sites, like this one, that help you identify wild greens - kids LOVE hunting wild greens and you may be surprised at the fussy eaters when they chew on some greens out there. We have chickweed, nasturtiums, dandelion, clovers, etc... and my son (2yo) in particular loves picking from the lawn and eating, he does it all day.

My daughter enjoys it but is more likely to grab something from inside, so I have to make sure there is a platter always going for her to pick at. Neither of my kids like "meal times" so that didn't work for us, I notice it is a common problem. I still have meal time, but I might just add chinese pancakes to the plate to wrap things in. My son picks at food all day and has weird eating times, as my daughter did. She is at school so tows the line there, but my son still marches to the beat of his own drum so having veggies like cabbage, beans, carrots and tomatoes on the table keeps him happy and fed.. he prefers them to be whole, not cut, but that bugs me as he doesn't finish anything... half eaten carrots laying around isn't appealing so I'm still figuring that out.

Children are drawn to sugar... however, that was naturally designed, as all things have a purpose even if science hasn't figured them out yet. The sugar craving was for the brain growth, however in nature, children are drawn to fruit. Fruit sugars are _*perfect*_ for brains, which run on glucose. Children pretty much live on fruit (sugar), however, if left to modern design, will fill this need with candy. The glucose in candy isn't molecularly the same, and problems arise, as we all know.

So don't restrict fruit, ignore the food pyramid (that thing is a joke), as fruit is the mainstay for kids, as are fats (young green coconuts, olives, avocadoes). My son loves nuts so I make sure there are always some soaked or some seeds sprouted for him. Unsoaked nuts have nutrient inhibitors in them. Nature designed humans to eat nuts after they started germinating, hence why we can't enter the shell without a "tool" - we weren't meant to. Modern kitchens can replicate this by soaking nuts.

I hope that helps. Basically, wild greens helps cleanse and release the palatte and connect the babes to the earth; a platter going all day appeases the toddlers. Chocolate (raw, of course) is perfect for kids. Raw cacao nibs are a favourite around here, and are full of magnesium and antioxidents and things that make them giddy with joy without the come down of milk and sugar laden cooked chocolate. Berries, kids love berries.

Concerned about protein? Don't be. Breast milk is only 2 to 7% protein, which is how much our diet should be, and a raw green diet supplies more amino acids than that! Too much protein is killing us all.

In love and good health.







:


----------



## mistymama

Calm, I find that very interesting. My son who is a very picky eater (more than most are talking about here - he's got Aspergers and sensory issues and didn't eat much real food until age 5!!!) - prefers raw food.

I might be slicing mushrooms to cook into our dinner, and he'll prefer to eat them raw. Same with most fruits and veggies - broccoli is one of the few he'll eat cooked, everything else he much prefers to snack on raw. The kid lives off raw fresh fruit, veggies and the occasional scrambled egg.


----------



## hakeber

I think kids can go through phases where they need less food than we think. There are times when I think DS MUST be going to bed hungry because there simply wasn't anything he wanted to eat in the entire pantry or fridge, but he falls asleep happy as can be and wakes up feeling refreshed and well slept.

Other times he eats almost constantly and I think "NO WAY could he still be hungry!" but he will eat all the snacks in the healthy snacking stash, and then go on to eat a dinner I didn't really think he'd try let alone devour, and ask for a sandwich an hour after that.

Then two days later the only thing that appeals to him are Oreos or he'd rather not eat.

I always say if you don't like what's for dinner, there's the kitchen. If I have some ingredient special that I don't want touched because I am making something fancy or I want to ration it for whatever reason, I will simply say that's off limits.


----------



## ssh

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hakeber* 
I think kids can go through phases where they need less food than we think. There are times when I think DS MUST be going to bed hungry because there simply wasn't anything he wanted to eat in the entire pantry or fridge, but he falls asleep happy as can be and wakes up feeling refreshed and well slept.

Other times he eats almost constantly and I think "NO WAY could he still be hungry!" but he will eat all the snacks in the healthy snacking stash, and then go on to eat a dinner I didn't really think he'd try let alone devour, and ask for a sandwich an hour after that.

Then two days later the only thing that appeals to him are Oreos or he'd rather not eat.

I always say if you don't like what's for dinner, there's the kitchen. If I have some ingredient special that I don't want touched because I am making something fancy or I want to ration it for whatever reason, I will simply say that's off limits.

My 4.5 year old DD does the same thing. I never know if she's going to be hungry or not. For example on Tuesday she had a glass of milk, 5 glasses of veggie juices and some grapes, everything else was just a nibble. And then yesterday was brown rice then meat then eggs and then chicken, whole grain tortilla and corn for dinner and then left over cold chicken for bedtime snack. Hey, I guess it was protein day. Usually it's more balanced, but the amount of food isn't predictable.


----------



## mamakaikai

Absolutely not. It's a basic right to be fed.


----------



## mamazee

It seems like there are a couple of issues that seem independant and not really related to me, but it sounds like other people see them as being related? I guess I'm interested in how the following two issues are related if you see them as related. That could clear this whole issue up for me.

1. If your kids don't want what you have for dinner, is there another option? We have a small number of other things on hand available to eat if someone doesn't like dinner, but none are terribly exciting. PB&J, we usually have a few hard boiled eggs on hand, carrot sticks, maybe apples, maybe some kind of nuts, cheese, other fruit or veggies if they're in season. Oh, and we sometimes have leftovers, which are always available if they're there and someone is hungry, and which are popular in my house. I know we are lucky financially and cheese and nuts (and sometimes apples) are expensive, but it seems like I'd just get less expensive options otherwise. I don't know. But I certainly wouldn't make waffles and ice cream for dinner. Partially just because I'm not that hard a worker, honestly. LOL. Has anyone said that's an option in their home?

2. If your children are hungry at some time other than dinner or pre-planned snack times, do they get a snack whenever they are hungry? This seems like a completely separate issue to me. In my house, the snack options are the same as the alternative-to-dinner options, so I don't personally see a difference if they eat it during dinner or an hour later. If they eat it an hour later, they're just having dinner an hour later. Although this hasn't been an issue in my house so maybe I'm not understanding all the implications?

The biggest issue I have with limiting snacks is that my kids are sometimes not that hungry, and then go through growth spurts where they eat maybe even twice as much food or more, and get hungry much more often. I would feel funny withholding a snack if a child were hungry and there were a growth spurt going on, and I have no way of feeling what she's feeling so I take her word for it if she says she's hungry. I can see that if there had been problems at some point, like serious overeating or something, I'd have to rethink that, though. Although even then I think I'd try to have healthier yet options and try to encourage more outside physical play rather than limit snacking, but as this hasn't been an issue for us I can't say that for sure. So, if you limit snacking, or food in general, how do you handle these periods of growth where they eat so much more? How can you tell that they aren't honestly hungry and just need more food due to a growth spurt? That's the part that I can't wrap my head around. If they ate well at dinner so you could tell they were really just very hungry that day, THEN would they get an extra snack if they wanted? Do they get as much snack as they're hungry for when it is snack time? Not anything they can think of that sounds good, but whatever is on hand for snack.


----------



## coffeegirl

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MusicianDad* 
I don't really see how we can expect children to not have individualized eating habits. Every person is different.

We allow grazing all day. We also have 1 set snack time every week day and *we sit down to a family meal 6 nights a week*. It's not impossible to have that without controlling your child's food so much that they would go to bed hungry.

See bolded quote above. If that's the case, then your family's eating habits and times are not as individualized as what I was talking about.


----------



## hakeber

I can't speak for anyone else, but sometimes I say no to a snack because it's just _ridiculous_ how much he has been eating and I ask him to have a glass of water and if he is still hungry _then_ he can have XYZ. Just because sometimes he will come home from school and plow through half the fruit bowl, and then start reaching for a fourth apple and I'm like; DUDE! Try something else, please. Those six apples were meant to last at least four days...now we have three left for the week and three people who like apples in the house. BTW apples are pretty pricey here in Costa Rica. I have no real problem when he plows through mangos and bananas apart from fears of intestinal issues since too much fruit can make him sick.

For me, my only other concern, apart from too much fruit, is when he doesn't get enough protein, or enough whole grains, he gets truly cranky and is such a PITA. I KNOW if he ate an egg or had a handful of peanuts he'd feel better and be happier but he just won't even discuss the matter. That is when I get truly frustrated, Ya know?


----------



## leighi123

Here everyone gets the same meal, but sometimes ds will get a modification of it b/c of his allergies (i.e. rice cheese instead of regular on his portion of something).

Breakfast is usually fruit/coconut yogart. Sometimes something different but not often.

Lunch is usually leftovers from the night before, or some sort of salad or sandwitch.

Ds usually helps cook and can seat a little of his meal while we do that (I usually let him snack on whatever veggies are going into the meal). Food goes out when its ready and we eat it.

If ds doesnt want something he takes a 'no thank you bite' (which sometimes leads to him liking whatever it is and eating it all!). If he doesnt eat, we put his food away when dinner is over. If he complains he is hungry, he can have the rest of his dinner OR any veggie he wants.

Durring the day he has access to his cupboard which has all of his dishes/untensils and healthy snacks (or pictures of snacks he can have but need to stay in the fridge).

So no, he doesnt go to bed hungry unless he chooses to. He is welcome to have his dinner at any point up until its time to brush his teeth and get in bed.


----------



## Dandelionkid

No my kids don't go to bed hungry.

My favorite food "tricks" are a veggie tray before supper- they really chow down on the veggies at this time and giving them a veggie for a bedtime snack (they think food in the bed is really fun so they welcome whatever it may be)


----------



## Katie T

That is what I do with my 3 1/2yo. He will refuse to eat saying he isn't hungry and so he knows that once I clear the table that is that till the next meal/morning. He will still do it at times but it just depends on his mood. I think he is old enough and smart enough and he totally understands what I mean and that I will follow through. So no I don't think that is harsh, I am not a all night diner.


----------



## coffeegirl

Going back to what (I think) was the main point of the OP and a few other poster....From how I'm reading the OP, she is talking more about a behavior issue than a food issue, since there is no talk of there not being enough food in the house or of the child not ever getting to eat what she likes. (Food actually is a part of this discussion, of course, but most of the thread is already dealing with that.







)

Consider this scenario: You have a 3-year old daughter. You sit down to dinner one night and your child decides that she doesn't want what you've prepared. She says she wants a bowl of cherries instead. But...you're out of cherries. There are none in the house. There are lots of things on the table, but she resists each one. You offer some alternatives (pb&j sandwich, any other fruit that you _do_ have available in the fridge, basically any other food you have available _period_) and she says no to every one. Well, you can't force her to eat, right? Bedtime comes, and she's still refused to eat anything- meal or snack- all night. In addition to being tired, at this point she will probably be cranky and tantrum-y about it the food issue as well. This whole time you're still making it clear that there is other food available if she wants it. She _only_ wants the cherries. (Before anyone says this kind of holding out is unrealistic-- it's not, I've seen it.)

So, how do you handle this? Do you go out to the all-night grocery store and buy some cherries for her? Or do you let her go to bed "hungry", so to speak?


----------



## ehunter27

I don't think it is harsh to expect that what is served will be what dinner is...
In our home, breakfast adn lunch tend to be fairly kid centered. Snacks are fruit, cheese, veggies, hummus, crackers, granola bars, etc.
However, at dinner, I do try to make sure there is one thing the children will eat, and they are always given a glass of milk and then water if they want that. If they say they are hungry later, they can have apples or carrots. If I notice the kids havne't eaten anything, I will often impromptu decided that we're having bananas or yogurt or something for dessert.

Most children truly will not eat what they fear/dislike/don't want to. I try to avoid the power struggle...make sure there is something they like and can fill up a little on.


----------



## peaceful_mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamaofthree* 

and i hate the line about kids around the world going without. that reminds of the stuff my mom use to say... didn't make the food taste better. and i agree with a pp that it seems almost sinful to make a child go to bed hungry when so many parents have to, but would choose otherwise.

h

I actually *remember* finishing food when I was full *because of* that line. Needless to say, it is NOT one I use on my children today, as I battle weight issues likely induced by growing up with that line, nearly *all* processed foods, really *no* restrictions on junk and no family home-cooked meals (eat at home was typically eat frozen pizza or TV dinner---not to rag on my mom, she had *one* child, which makes you less motivated (ETA here--less motivated to do what I do with three children and insist on one meal!) , and she worked all day and then came home to my dad--who was HOME--saying "what's for supper?"

And yes, whoever originally brought up parents who DON'T want to send children to bed hungry but have no other option because there is NOTHING--that gave me a whole different perspective on offering/giving HEALTHY snacks--in general--but especially at bedtime.

It's a pet peeve of mine when they come begging after leaving the table without eating much. Now, I'll *try* probably not always succeed but *try anyway* to remember to be thankful that I DO have *something* to offer them and do it.


----------



## peaceful_mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *coffeegirl* 
Going back to what (I think) was the main point of the OP and a few other poster....From how I'm reading the OP, she is talking more about a behavior issue than a food issue, since there is no talk of there not being enough food in the house or of the child not ever getting to eat what she likes. (Food actually is a part of this discussion, of course, but most of the thread is already dealing with that.







)

Consider this scenario: You have a 3-year old daughter. You sit down to dinner one night and your child decides that she doesn't want what you've prepared. She says she wants a bowl of cherries instead. But...you're out of cherries. There are none in the house. There are lots of things on the table, but she resists each one. You offer some alternatives (pb&j sandwich, any other fruit that you _do_ have available in the fridge, basically any other food you have available _period_) and she says no to every one. Well, you can't force her to eat, right? Bedtime comes, and she's still refused to eat anything- meal or snack- all night. In addition to being tired, at this point she will probably be cranky and tantrum-y about it the food issue as well. This whole time you're still making it clear that there is other food available if she wants it. She _only_ wants the cherries. (Before anyone says this kind of holding out is unrealistic-- it's not, I've seen it.)

So, how do you handle this? Do you go out to the all-night grocery store and buy some cherries for her? Or do you let her go to bed "hungry", so to speak?


"Hungry"...In my mind, a child who is truly "hungry" and is offered something that they usually like, even if it is not the food item they are requesting, will--begrudingly--accept an alternative.

The child who is holding out for the cherries wants to see if you will give in and will, in my house, go to bed without cherries. (though in my house, the truly hungry child would then realize I was absolutely serious and ask to get out of bed to accept another option...which I would most likely honor.)


----------



## prothyraia

Quote:


Originally Posted by *coffeegirl* 
So, how do you handle this? Do you go out to the all-night grocery store and buy some cherries for her? Or do you let her go to bed "hungry", so to speak?

In that situation, there is absolutely no way I'd be driving anywhere specifically to get a particular food. If we don't have something, we just don't have it. If there isn't anything prepared, I'm not going to go out of my way to prepare it. Also, we only have a limited amount of 'junk'; after it's all eaten, well, then it's gone and there won't be anymore for awhile.









What I disagree with is artificially limiting or controlling what and when my kids eat. "It's after dinner, you may only eat x", or "you already had cheese today, you may not have any more", or "you already had one apple, eat a pear instead", or "you just had breakfast, snacktime isn't for another two hours", etc. etc. I just can't imagine (assuming that we can afford cheese or got some from WIC) saying to my three year old "No honey, you can't have any cheese, it's after 7pm. It's bread or nothing."


----------



## happysmileylady

Quote:


Originally Posted by *coffeegirl* 
Going back to what (I think) was the main point of the OP and a few other poster....From how I'm reading the OP, she is talking more about a behavior issue than a food issue, since there is no talk of there not being enough food in the house or of the child not ever getting to eat what she likes. (Food actually is a part of this discussion, of course, but most of the thread is already dealing with that.







)

Consider this scenario: You have a 3-year old daughter. You sit down to dinner one night and your child decides that she doesn't want what you've prepared. She says she wants a bowl of cherries instead. But...you're out of cherries. There are none in the house. There are lots of things on the table, but she resists each one. You offer some alternatives (pb&j sandwich, any other fruit that you _do_ have available in the fridge, basically any other food you have available _period_) and she says no to every one. Well, you can't force her to eat, right? Bedtime comes, and she's still refused to eat anything- meal or snack- all night. In addition to being tired, at this point she will probably be cranky and tantrum-y about it the food issue as well. This whole time you're still making it clear that there is other food available if she wants it. She _only_ wants the cherries. (Before anyone says this kind of holding out is unrealistic-- it's not, I've seen it.)

So, how do you handle this? Do you go out to the all-night grocery store and buy some cherries for her? Or do you let her go to bed "hungry", so to speak?

This would be the type of situation that my oldest had occasionally gone to bed hungry. There was always plenty of stuff available for her to choose from-fruit, cheese, yogurt, bread, pb&j, cereal,e tc etc. The basic premise was if you didn't want what I had prepared (and yes, usually prepared with her wants and mine in mind, I never made something she absolutely hated and as she grew older and I planned meals more in advance, often asked for her input) then you can prepare something yourself. Everything available is able to be prepared by the child or requires no prep. And yeah, I know that type of holding out is realisitc because she did do it a few times.

And honestly, it didn't take long before it stopped happening really. There were times that she genuinely didn't want what was prepared, and she munched on fruit all night.


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Anastasiya* 
Who said this??? I certainly didn't. Are you even reading what I'm writing or just responding to what you THINK I'm saying?

IF my kids don't like dinner, they do NOT go to bed hungry. They have NEVER gone to bed hungry.

Since it's late, this is all I'm responding too tonight at least. But if you read back through the thread you will see that there are people in this thread, including the OP who think it is perfectly fine for a child to go to bed hungry if don't want what is served for dinner. And yes, I do have a problem with the idea that a child, who is in a home with food in the cupboard would go to bed hungry at all.


----------



## velochic

I tried to read the whole thread before replying, but that just ISN'T going to happen.

I have to say that am astounded at the number of people saying that if their kids don't want to eat a meal, they are welcome to eat pb&j or yogurt. I consider those to be EXTREMELY unhealthy foods and yogurt is considered a dessert here. Even the organic yogurts that dd eats are chock-full of sugar. If they're not organic, they are full of artificial colors, flavors and HFCS, too. Same goes for peanut butter. It's full of sugar and partially hydrogenated oils, again unless organic. Even my homemade jam has more sugar than I'm going to give her of an evening. No way in hell would I let her pass up a healthy meal for those alternatives. She would go to bed hungry if those were the only things she'd choose instead.

Luckily, though, food has never been a struggle with her. She doesn't eat processed or fast food. Her taste buds are not accustomed to the high sugar, high fat, high salt, processed chemical taste (which I believe to be addictive) so eating real food *is* what she wants. Only in the US (and I've traveled and lived all over the world) have I seen parents cater to their children around food. Most of the world can't afford variety and processed crap and the rest don't have access to it. If all a kid will eat is chicken nuggets (or spaghetti-o's) or go hungry (and they don't have a special need), then it's the parents' fault.


----------



## mistymama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *coffeegirl* 
See bolded quote above. If that's the case, then your family's eating habits and times are not as individualized as what I was talking about.

Well we sit down to a "family dinner" around 6 nights a week - BUT often it's not all of us eating.







Sometimes it's all of us, sometimes we all are eating the same thing, other times, we all have different stuff.







Regardless of who is eating what, we all sit down and chat together, and call it "family dinner". It's an enjoyable time but has nothing to do with us all eating the same thing at the same time.


----------



## mistymama

Velochic I think *most* people around MDC are food saavy enough that when they talk about pb&j they are NOT talking about Skippy PB on white bread with jam.

Pb&j is an acceptable dinner option for my child - that is on homemade ww bread (no sugar - sometimes a little honey in it), fresh ground pb (again, no sugar) and 100% fruit organic jam or local honey. That's not a bad option with a fruit or veggie on the side and I'm pretty sure that's what most of us are talking about around here.


----------



## velochic

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mistymama* 
Velochic I think *most* people around MDC are food saavy enough that when they talk about pb&j they are NOT talking about Skippy PB on white bread with jam.

Pb&j is an acceptable dinner option for my child - that is on homemade ww bread (no sugar - sometimes a little honey in it), fresh ground pb (again, no sugar) and 100% fruit organic jam or local honey. That's not a bad option with a fruit or veggie on the side and I'm pretty sure that's what most of us are talking about around here.

Great, if so. I'm getting the distinct impression that if a child is passing up something like grilled chicken, beans and vegetables that they are not going to opt for something like saltless/sugarless pb and sugarless jam, so I *am* making the assumption that a lot of what is being referred to is skippy and yoplait. Even in homemade, there is still more sugar than I would personally accept as an alternative to a healthy meal. I make my own pb, too, but it's still not a healthy alternative to a well-balanced meal, IME. Particularly not day-in and day-out. Likewise, we consume a lot of plain organic yogurt, but we drink it (we call it Ayran, but in Indian cuisine it's called salty lassi - yogurt, dash of salt, and water). The homemade yogurt we eat for a treat still has sugar in it from the homecanned jam that is mixed in. My point is that I don't consider even homemade yogurt and pb&j healthy alternatives to well-balanced hot meals (or cold meals) that include vegetables and other whole foods.


----------



## mamazee

PB&J here is whole grain bread, natural peanut butter, and low sugar homemade jam, and yogurt is homemade yogurt, probably with a little of the aforementioned jam in it. No HFCS or trans fats.

And she only chooses that over dinner occasionally, and usually would have something like yogurt, some nuts, and some carrot and celery sticks, not just yogurt.


----------



## Just1More

Well, I make supper and that's supper. And my kids eat it.

It seems like this doesn't have to be a long term thing. I mean, my kids know that when we sit down to eat, it's time to eat. The only time we've ever had eating issues is when we've spent extended time with other families where the kids complain about every bite. My kids are BIG eaters, too. (And no...I don't force it. Dh and I are, too. Usually my 1yo are eating adult servings, sometimes two helpings.)

They also have a taste for good food. When we take them out and say, buy ice cream and strawberries, they will eat the strawberries and then start their ice cream. Usually they don't finish it.

Carhootel-15 months is to young to worry about it. My babies snack all the time. They just about always have something in their hands, or are nursing.

Anyway, I just don't see why this has to be such a big issue. If my children don't eat well, I, like a previous pp, have an impromptu snack/dessert later (homemade no sugar applesauce? couple of almonds?). I might throw a bag of raisins in the diaper bag to hand back in the car on the way to the park. I don't want them to be hungry and cranky, but they way that I offer food later is not contingent upon eating. Honestly, I offer food a lot, so they don't see it as strange.

I dunno. I think I am sounding confusing. My kids just eat.


----------



## Honey693

Quote:


Originally Posted by *velochic* 
I tried to read the whole thread before replying, but that just ISN'T going to happen.

I have to say that am astounded at the number of people saying that if their kids don't want to eat a meal, they are welcome to eat pb&j or yogurt. I consider those to be EXTREMELY unhealthy foods and yogurt is considered a dessert here. Even the organic yogurts that dd eats are chock-full of sugar. If they're not organic, they are full of artificial colors, flavors and HFCS, too. Same goes for peanut butter. It's full of sugar and partially hydrogenated oils, again unless organic. Even my homemade jam has more sugar than I'm going to give her of an evening. No way in hell would I let her pass up a healthy meal for those alternatives. She would go to bed hungry if those were the only things she'd choose instead.


We buy organic plain yogurt with no added sugar (DD is free to dump in some unsweetened homemade applesauce or fresh fruit or spices) and our pb only has peanuts and salt so I don't see how those are unhealthy at all. I see those are completely healthy alternatives to a dinner she doesn't' want to eat.

Last night we had quesadillas and salsa for dinner. DD only wanted to eat the salsa and took maybe 2 bites of quesadilla. I told she was going to be hungry later, but she didn't care. An hour later she ate a huge bowl of yogurt and applesauce. I didn't care b/c she'd already had plenty of whole grains today and it doesn't matter to me if she gets dairy/protein in my having the cheese from dinner or yogurt an hour later. All I had to do was put the food in her bowl and she fed and cleaned up herself (she's only 20 months so there was no way I was going to let her spoon out her own yogurt).


----------



## mistymama

Velochic - I guess we are just assuming different things based on our personal experiences. There is no way my son would eat grilled chicken, beans and cooked veggies (and yes, he does have sensory issues that make him more sensitive to textures than most kids) but he WOULD eat raw veggies, fruit and maybe a grilled chicken sandwich (if the meat was shredded or sliced thinly).

And I think people here on MDC are more health aware than you are giving them credit for - JMO, of course.







I make my own breads, jams, etc for the specific reason that I can make them taste good WITHOUT sugar - or with very, very little. We don't do yogurt or really much dairy at all aside from cheese - and I do agree it's not the healthiest option. But I do believe a homemade, sugar free pb&j sandwich with a side of carrots or sliced apples is a perfectly find substitute for a meal. All day, everyday? No, of course not. But as the occasional dinner in an overall day of eating a variety of foods - I think it's just fine.

Guess it's just a difference in experience and opinion!


----------



## velochic

Perhaps what I said could have been taken as a sweeping generalization, and I didn't mean that, however, hanging out in the Nutrition forum, I've seen far too many posts about processed and fast food to over-generalize in the other direction and assume that for all MDC members, "pb" = home ground peanuts only and "j" = sugarless homecanned jam (on homemade ww bread) and "yogurt" = homemade organic yogurt and unsweetened fruit. Even if it did mean that, such a limited diet to be the staples of a child's nutrition is still not healthy. And I'm not saying anyone has said that's *all* their child will eat.


----------



## happysmileylady

Quote:


Originally Posted by *velochic* 
I tried to read the whole thread before replying, but that just ISN'T going to happen.

I have to say that am astounded at the number of people saying that if their kids don't want to eat a meal, they are welcome to eat pb&j or yogurt. I consider those to be EXTREMELY unhealthy foods and yogurt is considered a dessert here. Even the organic yogurts that dd eats are chock-full of sugar. If they're not organic, they are full of artificial colors, flavors and HFCS, too. Same goes for peanut butter. It's full of sugar and partially hydrogenated oils, again unless organic. Even my homemade jam has more sugar than I'm going to give her of an evening. No way in hell would I let her pass up a healthy meal for those alternatives. She would go to bed hungry if those were the only things she'd choose instead.

Luckily, though, food has never been a struggle with her. She doesn't eat processed or fast food. Her taste buds are not accustomed to the high sugar, high fat, high salt, processed chemical taste (which I believe to be addictive) so eating real food *is* what she wants. Only in the US (and I've traveled and lived all over the world) have I seen parents cater to their children around food. Most of the world can't afford variety and processed crap and the rest don't have access to it. If all a kid will eat is chicken nuggets (or spaghetti-o's) or go hungry (and they don't have a special need), then it's the parents' fault.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *velochic* 
Great, if so. I'm getting the distinct impression that if a child is passing up something like grilled chicken, beans and vegetables that they are not going to opt for something like saltless/sugarless pb and sugarless jam, so I *am* making the assumption that a lot of what is being referred to is skippy and yoplait. Even in homemade, there is still more sugar than I would personally accept as an alternative to a healthy meal. I make my own pb, too, but it's still not a healthy alternative to a well-balanced meal, IME. Particularly not day-in and day-out. Likewise, we consume a lot of plain organic yogurt, but we drink it (we call it Ayran, but in Indian cuisine it's called salty lassi - yogurt, dash of salt, and water). The homemade yogurt we eat for a treat still has sugar in it from the homecanned jam that is mixed in. My point is that I don't consider even homemade yogurt and pb&j healthy alternatives to well-balanced hot meals (or cold meals) that include vegetables and other whole foods.

The thing is though, if that's what you consider junk, then that wouldn't be an option for your "healthy snack drawer/shelf." To me, it wasn't so much about WHAT else they ate, it was about having other options available. It wasn't as if I only provided yogurt and pb&j (and I am not going to try to attempt to justify what I consider healthy to someone else's standards) all the time and those were her only other options. Yeah, if she decided she didn't want fried chicken and green beans when I made that, she could make a pb&j, or a turkey sandwich, or an apple and a banana, or cheese cubes and the green beans or really whatever else I had available. Various things were available at various times, depending on what was on sale, on what I felt like buying that week at the store, on what we hadn't run out of yet.

It was about saying to her, here are all of your acceptable options in this house, here's what I have prepared, if you don't want what I prepared, you have other options. If NONE of those options are acceptable to you (the child), despite the variety available, well too bad, that becomes your problem.


----------



## mistymama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *happysmileylady* 
It was about saying to her, here are all of your acceptable options in this house, here's what I have prepared, if you don't want what I prepared, you have other options. If NONE of those options are acceptable to you (the child), despite the variety available, well too bad, that becomes your problem.

This is exactly what we do. You just said it much better than I could!


----------



## puffingirl

Quote:


Originally Posted by *coffeegirl* 

Consider this scenario: You have a 3-year old daughter. You sit down to dinner one night and your child decides that she doesn't want what you've prepared. She says she wants a bowl of cherries instead. But...you're out of cherries. There are none in the house. There are lots of things on the table, but she resists each one. You offer some alternatives (pb&j sandwich, any other fruit that you _do_ have available in the fridge, basically any other food you have available _period_) and she says no to every one. Well, you can't force her to eat, right? Bedtime comes, and she's still refused to eat anything- meal or snack- all night. In addition to being tired, at this point she will probably be cranky and tantrum-y about it the food issue as well. This whole time you're still making it clear that there is other food available if she wants it. She _only_ wants the cherries. (Before anyone says this kind of holding out is unrealistic-- it's not, I've seen it.)

So, how do you handle this? Do you go out to the all-night grocery store and buy some cherries for her? Or do you let her go to bed "hungry", so to speak?

In this case, my DD would be going to bed "hungry". Dinner at our house is take-it-or-leave-it. There is always something that everyone likes and I see it as her job to pick out which parts she wants and how much. If she doesn't want it, that's fine. There is always fresh fruit for snack before bed--she can have whatever fruit is in the house (except she has a 1 banana per day limit due to digestion issues). Last night she had about 3 bites of her salmon burger, ate her piece of GF bread and about 3 bites of sauteed spinach. She declared she was done and wanted other snacks (crackers, etc). We don't let her have those for dinner, but she ate a plum and a nectarine before bed and wasn't hungry when she went to bed--just full of fruit. But there is no way that I'd be heading to the store for anything in particular at that time just because she wanted that one thing. It can go on the list for the next time we go shopping.


----------



## velochic

ack! double-post!


----------



## velochic

happysmileylady - I wasn't talking about anyone in particular nor did I suggest that anyone need to justify "healthy" to others. I'm sorry if you took it that way.


----------



## happysmileylady

Quote:


Originally Posted by *velochic* 
happysmileylady - I wasn't talking about anyone in particular nor did I suggest that anyone need to justify "healthy" to others. I'm sorry if you took it that way.

Oh I know







it was just that lots of people were responding with how they make their own jam or only buy the organic plain yogurt with no sugar added and so on, I just was trying to point out that that wasn't really the point. No worries


----------



## hakeber

Quote:


Originally Posted by *happysmileylady* 

It was about saying to her, here are all of your acceptable options in this house, here's what I have prepared, if you don't want what I prepared, you have other options. If NONE of those options are acceptable to you (the child), despite the variety available, well too bad, that becomes your problem.

The funny thing is I _think_ this is what _everyone_ here is saying ultimately (and this is how these food threads in GD often go), just that some people here may have budget constraints, or population issues that do not allow unlimited amounts of certain foods to be eaten in a given day, and other people had major control issues with food _growing up_ and perhaps rile against any idea of any control whatsoever, but upon closer inspection, likely also would not allow their child to poison themselves with fruit for example or eat nothing but string cheese for three weeks.


----------



## VisionaryMom

I only make one meal. There are options in the fridge and cabinets for anyone who wants a snack. My biggest snacker is DS, who is 5. He's a super-skinny kid - high metabolism, constantly moving. People frequently comment on how much he eats because, yes, sometimes I think he's going to get sick from eating so much. He eats at meals, but he definitely does better with more frequent snacks rather than a huge meal.

I also will make some of the accommodations others have mentioned - not adding chicken in with the spaghetti sauce, for instance, because sometimes he prefers noodles w/Parmesan on top & chicken on the side rather than the whole thing together. I don't consider that a huge imposition.

I do sometimes want things no one else really enjoys, and so usually 1-2 times per month, we have a "smorgasbord" night when you can have leftovers or ask for something specific. DC often ask for quesadillas. I do usually give choices just because I need the ingredients on hand, but DS also will "create" his own dishes. That allows for some fun associated with family meals, which I think is important, too.

I'm in the group of people who always makes sure there's something everyone likes in the meal. DD has eaten entire meals of broccoli, and that's okay with me. I still work with DH on it because his mother has serious food issues and made it a major issue in their family. Her self-esteem was tied into how much everyone ate for meals. (I'm not kidding. She's still this way.) So, the end result was that the kids as small children were forced to eat everything. As older kids/teens, they were guilted into it because she would cry if people didn't like whatever dish she'd whipped up. She served a lot of foods that *no one* liked, but it doesn't seem to matter.

It's like when I go over, and she serves stuffed cabbage, which makes me gag. I do not like large cabbage leaves. She knows this, will comment on how we're having something I won't like, and still gets misty-eyed when I don't eat it. She's said how she thinks it's great that I cook things I don't love because DH or one of the kids loves it because she'd never do that. It's weird, weird, weird to me to be that way about food, so I try to be more reasonable.


----------



## Drummer's Wife

Quote:


Originally Posted by *velochic* 
I tried to read the whole thread before replying, but that just ISN'T going to happen.

I have to say that am astounded at the number of people saying that if their kids don't want to eat a meal, they are welcome to eat pb&j or yogurt. I consider those to be EXTREMELY unhealthy foods and yogurt is considered a dessert here. Even the organic yogurts that dd eats are chock-full of sugar. If they're not organic, they are full of artificial colors, flavors and HFCS, too. Same goes for peanut butter. It's full of sugar and partially hydrogenated oils, again unless organic. Even my homemade jam has more sugar than I'm going to give her of an evening. No way in hell would I let her pass up a healthy meal for those alternatives. She would go to bed hungry if those were the only things she'd choose instead.

Luckily, though, food has never been a struggle with her. She doesn't eat processed or fast food. Her taste buds are not accustomed to the high sugar, high fat, high salt, processed chemical taste (which I believe to be addictive) so eating real food *is* what she wants. Only in the US (and I've traveled and lived all over the world) have I seen parents cater to their children around food. Most of the world can't afford variety and processed crap and the rest don't have access to it. If all a kid will eat is chicken nuggets (or spaghetti-o's) or go hungry (and they don't have a special need), then it's the parents' fault.

I wasn't one that said my kids would eat a PBJ or yogurt instead of dinner - though, they certainly could if they wanted to - b/c my kids are more likely to eat additional foods/snacks after dinner - BUT, we buy Greek yogurt (plain) which has 9 grams of sugar. An apple has like 20 grams of sugar, so naturally occurring sugar doesn't bother me. We don't buy the fake, colored/flavored yogurt, and I assume the majority of people here don't, either. Same for peanut butter - ours is natural, and doesn't contain any hydrogenated oils or HFCS or sugar. It's basically ground up peanuts and a little bit of salt. Our jelly is also real jam - nothing fake at all in it and no added sugar.

Just had to clarify, that I think those who are talking about allowing these alternatives for a meal generally mean healthy, whole food versions.









ETA: sorry, didn't read past your post to see others addressed this and you already responded. sorry







My kids, however, would gladly pick baked chicken over a cold sandwich, any day, but I do think as long as they are getting the protein and nutrients they need to grow (say, looking at a week of their diet at a time) then it doesn't really matter if they are eating what we would prefer they eat, yk? I don't have picky kids, but if I did, that would be my bottom line.


----------



## Paeta16

I definitely only make one meal, however, I know DD prefers raw veggies over steamed veggies so I'll leave some raw so that she can eat them that way. If she is hungry an hour after dinner then I let her choose a healthy snack b/f bed. My 3 y.o. seems to eat all.day.long and I honestly have zero problem with that as long as she eats a well-balanced diet. She is quite aware that if I say no, you can't eat that particular food right now, that I am not going to change my mind so she normally will choose one of the healthy options I've offered.

I think I am lucky, however, b/c a lot of my friends seem to have difficulties with their kids and food. I don't make food a battle ground but I do have healthy eating boundaries that she is quite aware of even at 3. If she chooses not to eat for whatever reason I trust her to know her own body better than I do.


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


Originally Posted by *coffeegirl* 
See bolded quote above. If that's the case, then your family's eating habits and times are not as individualized as what I was talking about.

Just because you sit down with the rest of the family at a meal, doesn't mean you eat. It just means you are sitting down with your family while at least one person eats.


----------



## prothyraia

Quote:


Originally Posted by *velochic* 
Even the organic yogurts that dd eats are chock-full of sugar. If they're not organic, they are full of artificial colors, flavors and HFCS, too. Same goes for peanut butter. It's full of sugar and partially hydrogenated oils, again unless organic.

I know this has already been addressed, but our peanut/almond/other nut butters don't have any added sugar, and neither does our yogurt. Sometimes we add a bit of maple syrup to to the yogurt to sweeten it, if we want. It's not exactly hard to find this stuff, I mean, when we were on WIC they were able to bring us plain old unsweetened (but not organic) peanut butter.









I don't think the point for me is so much exactly *what* the snack or alternative is so much as that it's inappropriate to select one particular item and say 'this is all you can have right now, all the other food in the house is off limits'.

I guess I limit my control of my kids' diet to controlling what I bring into the house. They're never going to eat only chicken nuggets or mac and cheese because I'm never going to fill my fridge with those things. But once I have purchased a variety of healthy foods (and some few treats), then it's largely up to them what/when they eat, provided they sit down with us at dinner time and they don't expect me to do any extra work.

I'm not okay with micromanaging their food consumption; my husband and I already have completely control over what foods they have access to because we do all the grocery shopping and meal preperation. It feels really disrespectful to me to, on top of all that, tell them they can only eat x food and y time, regardless of when they're hungry or what they're hungry for, when it doesn't directly impact me in any way.


----------



## Calm

I wouldn't feed peanut butter to a child, organic or not, it is full of aflatoxins. (fungal byproducts)
http://www.ehso.com/ehshome/aflatoxin.php

Corn is also. Not coincidentally, they are two of the biggest allergens on the planet, as is dairy. Mycotoxins (fungal toxins) are the reason for allergies and modern chronic disease, and what I've seen in my clinic is evidence of this.

Dairy is another thing that has never passed my lips in three years since getting pregnant with DS, and he won't be getting any as long as I can help it, not even through my breast milk: The Case Against Dairy

I see most people find it shocking to have a child go to bed hungry, however, I think it is more shocking to feed them some of the stuff considered a viable food option here. My children would be better off hungry.

I perhaps have an advantage, being a naturopath I research for hours a day on subjects like food and health, however this advantage means I really struggle to offer my children drugs or toxins instead of dinner. How would _any_ parent offer their child that, if they knew that's what it was? Would you feed your child a known cancer causing substance? Of course not - and I know peanuts contain a cancer causing substance. Now you do, too. Ignorance is bliss, but only for us, not for the kids.

Casein (in dairy) has been repeatedly shown to be the trigger for chronic disease and cancer when aflatoxin is consumed. Casein is not in human milk - and that is because cow milk is for calves, not humans. No mammal imbibes milk past weaning age, except humans.

I believe all parents are doing the best they can with the info and finances they have, however the food industries have really messed with their ability to choose well, spreading outright lies or suppressing food truths. And it is the children who suffer - esp with the most sickening lie of all: that children should have lots of dairy!

Hybrid foods are weak, and more subject to fungal attack. You can prove it to yourself by putting a hybrid fruit such as citrus next to a wild or heirloom citrus on the grass and see the hybrid one get attacked and rot much faster. Corn is a hybrid food, it won't grow without massive human support; it won't grow wild, and it is a fungal mess. Fruits without seeds are hybrids, and much higher in sugars and altered, I'd avoid them where possible, such as the new craze for seedless watermelon.


----------



## Calm

Not that that is totally on topic, forgive me for that.







But I do think it is relevant to mention what we are accepting as viable alternatives, because the link between them wanting it and the addictive/palatte corrupting nature of the food is stronger than most think, therefore we could be approaching the problem from the wrong angle.

There are degrees, of course, and what is junk to one person is a healthy meal to another - a vegan will probably think feeding a child a chicken breast is a bad choice but to the omnivorous mama, she believes she is doing the best thing when she can afford good organic chicken.

So it possibly it isn't about one's food beliefs or path, but about toxins - that is a different matter. If a food is a serious health hazard, should we be offering it as a meal alternative? Could they be choosing such things because of the toxic addiction already building in their youth? Personally, I found breaking the connection to processed food and increasing the connection to earth changed things. My daughter holds a processed food in her hand, like chips, and asks "would I find this in nature?" and then holds a paw paw and asks the same question.

Kids make these crappy choices because they can, they are in a culture of afluence, even those stricken by poverty in our cultures are still better off than a huge percentage of the rest of the world. If they grew up in Japan, they'd eat raw fish and seaweed; in India they'd eat hot curries and like it... food aversions are a choice, a psychological one, but still a choice. If they were thrown into a tribe in the jungle, they'd manage to eat cassava and greens and berries and probably thrive. If they don't like what you've prepared and can have whatever they like instead, then only have what you'd want them to eat on offer. Have only things that resemble natural food in the cupboard and fridge, and you'll find your dinner suddenly looks like a treat.

I've made things my daughter doesn't want - quite a lot - so I say go find something else, knowing there are only veggies in the fridge... and I turn around and she's nibbling on a whole cabbage, leaf by leaf and really enjoying herself. So I guess she REALLY didn't want what I made.


----------



## happysmileylady

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
Not that that is totally on topic, forgive me for that.







But I do think it is relevant to mention what we are accepting as viable alternatives, because the link between them wanting it and the addictive/palatte corrupting nature of the food is stronger than most think, therefore we could be approaching the problem from the wrong angle.

There are degrees, of course, and what is junk to one person is a healthy meal to another - a vegan will probably think feeding a child a chicken breast is a bad choice but to the omnivorous mama, she believes she is doing the best thing when she can afford good organic chicken.

So it possibly it isn't about one's food beliefs or path, but about toxins - that is a different matter. If a food is a serious health hazard, should we be offering it as a meal alternative? Could they be choosing such things because of the toxic addiction already building in their youth? Personally, I found breaking the connection to processed food and increasing the connection to earth changed things. My daughter holds a processed food in her hand, like chips, and asks "would I find this in nature?" and then holds a paw paw and asks the same question.

Kids make these crappy choices because they can, they are in a culture of afluence, even those stricken by poverty in our cultures are still better off than a huge percentage of the rest of the world. If they grew up in Japan, they'd eat raw fish and seaweed; in India they'd eat hot curries and like it... food aversions are a choice, a psychological one, but still a choice. If they were thrown into a tribe in the jungle, they'd manage to eat cassava and greens and berries and probably thrive. If they don't like what you've prepared and can have whatever they like instead, then only have what you'd want them to eat on offer. Have only things that resemble natural food in the cupboard and fridge, and you'll find your dinner suddenly looks like a treat.

I've made things my daughter doesn't want - quite a lot - so I say go find something else, knowing there are only veggies in the fridge... and I turn around and she's nibbling on a whole cabbage, leaf by leaf and really enjoying herself. So I guess she REALLY didn't want what I made.









But the thing is, none of us are talking about opening up a halloween candy stash as a viable alterative. No one is talking about popping open a bag of potato chips or Doritos or Cheetos as the alternative. No one is talking about handing a kid a twinkie and a can of coke as a viable alternative. We are talking about alternatives being cheese cubes and yogurt and peaches and apples and stuff like that being the alternatives. And yet some folks feel the need to impose upon everyone their beliefs about how they would NEVER feed their child something so awful as what is being suggested. As if the HFCS in the 2 slices of white bread in a PB&J sandwich is as toxic for the child as eating lead or something. As if the amount of salt in the tablespoon of peanut butter is as bad as giving the kid a can of coke. Yes, every food has degrees of nutrition. And there are absolutely things that obviously junk food. And if you (general) are gluten free and peanut free and dairy free and sugar free and whatever else free and don't consider those things healthy for your family, then thats fine. Neither of my two kids are overweight, my teen does not have high blood pressure or diabetes or anything else that unhealthy eating habits lead to so I am going to continue to feed my family according to what I have learned about health and nutrition. If you (general) have learned something different, then that's fine for you, and neither of us are offering alternatives that we both learned are total junk, like Twinkies, so it's all good.

I believe that teaching my child that others aren't going to go out of their way to make sure her wants and desires are satisfied all the time is more important than whether or not the alternatives I offer for her to get herself meet someone else's standards of the most nutritious foods.

I think it's kinda funny that so many others need to justify the choice of yogurt or pb&j by saying that they bake their own organic whole wheat bread and only buy plain yogurt with no extra sugar added etc etc.


----------



## coffeegirl

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MusicianDad* 
Just because you sit down with the rest of the family at a meal, doesn't mean you eat. It just means you are sitting down with your family while at least one person eats.

Ah, ok. Then yeah, we define having a family meal together differently lol.









Quote:


Originally Posted by *MusicianDad* 
Since it's late, this is all I'm responding too tonight at least. But if you read back through the thread you will see that there are people in this thread, including the OP who think it is perfectly fine for a child to go to bed hungry if don't want what is served for dinner. And yes, I do have a problem with the idea that a child, who is in a home with food in the cupboard would go to bed hungry at all.

Except what if they refused to eat anything in the cupboard?


----------



## velochic

Quote:


Originally Posted by *happysmileylady* 
I think it's kinda funny that so many others need to justify the choice of yogurt or pb&j by saying that they bake their own organic whole wheat bread and only buy plain yogurt with no extra sugar added etc etc.

Nobody needed to, but some offered to. And I think that's good because there *are* people who think that Skippy and Smuckers is a healthy alternative to meat, veg, and grain. Explaining what PB&J means in a whole foods, all-natural, mostly or all organic family is helpful to all - reinforcing to those who do so as well, and informational to those who don't. It might make one person pause to think that maybe going to bed hungry *is* the healthy alternative.


----------



## Honey693

Quote:


Originally Posted by *happysmileylady* 

I believe that teaching my child that others aren't going to go out of their way to make sure her wants and desires are satisfied all the time is more important than whether or not the alternatives I offer for her to get herself meet someone else's standards of the most nutritious foods.



But what if you don't have to go out of your way? A lot of people here are saying that if their kid can go grab something on their own, that requires no parent prep what's the issue?


----------



## happysmileylady

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Honey693* 
But what if you don't have to go out of your way? A lot of people here are saying that if their kid can go grab something on their own, that requires no parent prep what's the issue?

Oh, no, that's exactly what I am saying. I am sorry to be confusing. My point in the post that you quoted was that what the child gets as an alternative is not nearly as important as what she learns by me not make the alternative for her. I am sorry, I totally agree that yes, the kid grabs something else available, no parent prep, totally acceptable.

Of course, there was a few occasions that my dd wasn't happy with ANYTHING available as an alternative (including heating up the dinner she abandoned an hour before) and those are the times she went to bed hungry. At that point, that's her choice. I think that's a perfectly natural consequence of not accepting what someone else has done for you and of being too lazy to fix it yourself.


----------



## Calm

Happysmiley, if you read my posts again, you'll see I'm offering information, not judgment. Peanut butter has aflatoxin in it, and as I specifically said, it isn't about beliefs or whether yoghurt is better organic or not, it is about feeding toxins to our kids. What if a food _*was*_ comparable to lead... could I mention it then? Because I believe it is. Aflatoxin is some nasty stuff, and people don't know this, and their kids are eating it _every single day_. Perhaps you don't care, or would rather you didn't know, in which case my information is of no use to you - no worries. However, other parents may find it of use.

Knowledge is power. I'm grateful someone cared enough to bother to tell me, and I am giving this thread that courtesy. Knowledge should move around. Perhaps your reaction is based in feeling judged, in which case perhaps your biggest critic is yourself. And a reminder that judging the input of another is still judgment.

It doesn't affect me personally what people feed their kids, I'm not judging anyone for it... stick 'em with poptarts, whatever, go for it. I give info, do with it what you like.









My overall point is that often these cycles with kids are caused by giving them food with particular chemicals in them, they alter the palette and kids can no longer eat plain veggies as they were designed to. If that was the case, it would be a massive influence to the problem the OP has, and so many other parents.

Quote:

At that point, that's her choice. I think that's a perfectly natural consequence of not accepting what someone else has done for you and of being too lazy to fix it yourself.
I agree with this. I don't think forcing our kids to eat because we think they should eat a particular amount of food at a particular time is very respectful. Not that anyone is forcing their kids to eat, I assume, but it is empowering to the child to allow them to decide if they will eat or not.


----------



## EdnaMarie

Quote:


Originally Posted by *coffeegirl* 
Ah, ok. Then yeah, we define having a family meal together differently lol.









Except what if they refused to eat anything in the cupboard?

FTR, Musician Dad has correctly understood that I'm NOT going to make something else from the cupboard, or let my kids eat leftovers that are planned for another meal (like tomorrow's lunch).

However, I think it's been overlooked that children who have a say in what gets made for meals (much of the time, at least half the time), and who are eating a well-rounded diet, and who have at least two or three foods to choose from at each meal (the main dish, the side dish or meat, and bread), can hardly be described as deprived.

And I'd like to bring up one more example because MD was saying you'd never treat an adult like that. Well I think all adults are expected to eat like that. Suppose you and friends are going out to dinner. There's like six of you and four ethnic restaurants in your price range to choose from.

Are you really going to be the one to refuse to compromise? Can adults not deal with eating food that is not their preference? I mean this happens all the time and I do know people who can't compromise--it HAS to be Thai, they feel like Thai, blah blah--and they don't get called up often after that. Like, if I don't want Thai, I'm not going out with that friend.

If you don't have friends like that, it's probably because you don't enjoy the company of people who can't compromise, so why raise your kid like that? Just eat with the group and deal.

Now, MD's child is way too young to fully absorb a lesson on compromise like that. But a three-year-old isn't. And I'm talking about KIDS, not babies.


----------



## prothyraia

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EdnaMarie* 
And I'd like to bring up one more example because MD was saying you'd never treat an adult like that. Well I think all adults are expected to eat like that. Suppose you and friends are going out to dinner. There's like six of you and four ethnic restaurants in your price range to choose from.

Are you really going to be the one to refuse to compromise? Can adults not deal with eating food that is not their preference?

Compromises voluntarily entered into so that everyone can enjoy themselves are a far cry from arbitrary rules enforced by someone else. I mean, if my husband told me that I couldn't eat the almonds out of the pantry because it was after dinner and only bread was allowed, that would be...ridiculous. I think it's equally ridiculous for children. It's not about sometimes eating food that's not your favorite (that's just life), it's about artificially limiting their food choices.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EdnaMarie* 
However, I think it's been overlooked that children who have a say in what gets made for meals (much of the time, at least half the time), and who are eating a well-rounded diet, and who have at least two or three foods to choose from at each meal (the main dish, the side dish or meat, and bread), can hardly be described as deprived.

I can see that you're happy with the way you're doing things (which, hey, great!)- I'm just not sure why you asked if your food policies were harsh if you're completely convinced that they're fine.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

So I dunno, I guess I wonder how can a person develop a fixation on spaghettios if you don't ever have spaghettios? Or whatever the thing is.
Bingo.

I've noticed people saying that eating grains and meats and so on are cheaper, this isn't entirely true. Per pound, most veggies are cheaper than meat and you get much more bang for your buck insofar as nutrients, and _quality_ protein, esp in greens and superfoods like cacao (kids LOVE chocolate!). Although processed grain foods like pasta are cheaper, true.

If any of us here were asked, "What is healthier, a cup of carrot or a cup of chicken?" we'd answer the carrot, in a heart beat, right? Regardless of whether we are vegetarian or a meat eaters, we all agree that the healthiest food is in fact fruit and vegetables and all things that grow on trees. We do the heavy protein thing because we bought into the bullsh*t from mega industry that tells us we need that much protein. As I mentioned, babies need more protein than adults.. yet breast milk is an average of 5% protein. Gorillas are strong and muscley, yet they don't eat heavy proteins, they eat greens.

I'm not pushing veganism here, I'm simply trying to alleviate the idea that we need to fill our kids up with protein. Relax and trust their food choices, there is eons of wisdom in them. Although, this trust will backfire if the house is full of choices you'd rather they didn't make.

They want sugar, and will take it in candy form if it is there however the craving for sugar IS genuine, and was naturally designed to be met by _fruit_. We were once indigenous, all of us, and our bodies were designed to assimilate nutrition from the trees... it is easier to sneak up on an apple than a rabbit, and much more appetising to bite into.

Think of kids covered in mulberry stains, running in rotting apples in an orchard... you get the idea... it is the fabric of life, children and fruit are married... our culture is trying to cleave them apart in favour of dead things because some professionals told them so. I recall it was a professional that told us to leave babies to cry it out, too. Something to think about.

This is worth scrolling through, to ease the protein fear based on myths. Greens have more than enough protein, because we don't *need* protein... we need amino acids. The body has to cleave the amino acids apart when we eat complex proteins, which taxes the system, esp the enzymes, and we make a finite amount of enzymes in a lifetime. Kids are drawn to fruit for a reason, fruit sugars are exactly what our brains use for fuel, PLUS they come with their own enzymes...

Nature doesn't make mistakes, we do.


----------



## EdnaMarie

Quote:


Originally Posted by *prothyraia* 

I can see that you're happy with the way you're doing things (which, hey, great!)- I'm just not sure why you asked if your food policies were harsh if you're completely convinced that they're fine.









I just wanted to know what other people thought, not whether I should do something else. See, my thought was, _How could a child possibly be eating only x, y, and z, provided that x, y, and z show that the child in principle can tolerate several different textures and flavors? Or only one food? If you just say "no, tough luck, I'm not cooking it", then HOW can they develop the attitude that that is all they'll eat?_

And then it occurred to me. Perhaps said parents felt that going to bed without dinner was NOT a viable alternative. Without that alternative, yes, you are pretty much stuck. You can try to compromise, or offer another alternative, but in the end, if you refuse to let them go to bed hungry, you have to give them what they want.

I imagine that would lead to an exhausting power struggle nightly. I'm just not up for that.


----------



## OkiMom

In our family we eat meals and snacks together. We have 3 meals and then 3-5 snacks depending on our day and the level of activity we are in. More active we are being the more we eat. Meals are usually a starch, a meat/protein, a dairy and 2-3 fruit/veggies and snacks are either a grain or a fruit/veggie (like right now we have oranges, celery sticks and carrot sticks). We sit down as a family and make a meal plan every other week. Occasionally when Im cooking my daughter will tell me she wants this or that instead and Ill write it down and tell her Ill work it in the meal plan (I do the same for DH and myself if there is a meal we really want). So, when we sit down to meal plan everyone gets at least 1-3 meals that they really want in any given 14 days.

I'm lucky that my girls don't really struggle with what I serve them. I serve what I have planned and that is what they get to eat. There is always something that they like and I try to serve it in components instead of a big dish. For example, instead of serving tacos as one thing we will have all the ingredients laid out so if someone doesn't want something (like the other day when on a whim my 3 year old decided she didn't like beef) then they leave it out. Also with every meal there is something that someone likes, if that means that they eat just green beans for dinner than so be it. If they decide that they don't want anything then I'm sorry I'm not making another meal for you. Eat whats on the table. We don't' have the money to be making 4 different meals 3 times a day. Its just not feasible on our budget. If I know its something that they REALLY don't like (like I can't stand oatmeal, my husband can't stand green beans, my oldest can't stand spicy food, my youngest doesn't care yet what we eat) then Ill do something around it. For example, with the oatmeal Ill make myself a different starch, with the green beans Ill include another veggie on the table, with spicy food I make hers mild first and then add some spice for the rest of us. TO me its not making different meals, we all eat the same meal, its just making allowances for different food tastes. I understand that certain things illicit different responses in different people, its not hard to accommodate one meal into different peoples tastes. Another example for us is spaghetti, my oldest doesn't like a lot of sauce, my hubby likes a ton of sauce just not mixed in (he eats it with his sauce on top) and I like a moderate amount of sauce mixed in. So I serve the sauce separately from the noodles, give less sauce to my oldest, more sauce to my DH and mix my sauce in with my noodles on my plate. Everyone is happy and I only have to cook one meal.
As for snacks, if they are hungry directly after a meal (usually within 30 minutes of dinner) Ill offer them leftovers if they don't want that they can wait until after I'm done with cleanup. Occasionally we eat all of the dinner (this is a very rare thing, like tonight we did) they can have a snack (like tonight the girls shared a banana and string cheese). If its later (an hour or more after a meal) Ill offer them a snack. Usually if they have snacks it would be when they wake up, about 2 hours after breakfest, after they get home from the park (which is usually an hour before lunch), about 2 hours after lunch, an hour to 1 1/2 hours before dinner and right before bed. I don't think my daughter has ever gone to bed hungry. If shes truly hungry she will either finish her dinner or have a snack right before bed.

I don't give into food demands and luckily my oldest (my youngest is to young to talk) rarely makes them. Sometimes when she does Ill tell her sorry these are your alternatives. Im blessed, shes never turned down my alternatives except once and it wasn't a big deal. If she would turn down all the alternatives then Im sorry Im not making a special meal/trip or using something earmarked for another meal. Like I said, we live on a strict budget and cant really afford to re-buy the ingredients for different meals.

Personally, I think most of the people on the thread are trying to say the same or similar things but no one is really listening. Everyone is jumping to conclusions. I don't think anyone here is starving their child or abusing them we just all have different (but similar) ways of doing things.


----------



## Anastasiya

Quote:


Originally Posted by *prothyraia* 
Compromises voluntarily entered into so that everyone can enjoy themselves are a far cry from arbitrary rules enforced by someone else. I mean, if my husband told me that I couldn't eat the almonds out of the pantry because it was after dinner and only bread was allowed, that would be...ridiculous.

The OP's rules aside, this does sometimes happen in real life. Numerous times my husband has wanted to snack on something or open something which I wouldn't let him eat. "Oh, please don't eat that! I was going to use it in our dinner tomorrow," or "If there's only three left would you mind not eating one so I don't have to deal with fighting kids tomorrow when they see there's not enough to go around?"

And he always complies. Unless he's really REALLY hungry for it, and then later that night he'll go out and buy me a replacement. My kids, of course, aren't old enough to replace items in my pantry yet.

Quote:

I think it's equally ridiculous for children. It's not about sometimes eating food that's not your favorite (that's just life), it's about artificially limiting their food choices.
See, I don't view it as artificially limiting food choices. I view it as assisting my children in making their food selections, because what they eat not only impacts them, but the whole family.

When I go shopping, I have a list of things I NEED to buy for meals. If my kids wanted to eat those things, then there isn't enough for the meals. Sure, I buy tons of snacks, too, but sometimes even the snacks aren't good enough. So helping themselves to whatever they want does not work for us, because it means I've just gotten my meal planning all messed up.

Also, there are many, many times when my kids will ask for a bowl of cereal. Sometimes I tell them no, they've had too much cereal in the past few days. Sometimes they want a third piece of cheese and I tell them no, you've already had too much and you always get constipated with dairy. Sometimes they want to eat a second fruit bar and I tell them no, you've already eaten your share and your siblings would like their share later.

Kids don't always make the best or wisest decisions regarding their food intake, which is why I help them decide and place rules and limits on things, after all, I know more about nutrition than they do.

That is not arbitrary or artificial. It's just life and part of belonging to a family.


----------



## ssh

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EdnaMarie* 
Now, MD's child is way too young to fully absorb a lesson on compromise like that. But a three-year-old isn't. And I'm talking about KIDS, not babies.

He has one 2 year old DS, but his 11 year old DD is certainly not a baby.


----------



## EdnaMarie

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ssh* 
He has one 2 year old DS, but his 11 year old DD is certainly not a baby.









Did not remember his 11-y-o DD, though now that you mention her I remember her. Ooops.

In that case, hrnh?

Quote:

See, I don't view it as artificially limiting food choices. I view it as assisting my children in making their food selections, because what they eat not only impacts them, but the whole family.

When I go shopping, I have a list of things I NEED to buy for meals. If my kids wanted to eat those things, then there isn't enough for the meals. Sure, I buy tons of snacks, too, but sometimes even the snacks aren't good enough. So helping themselves to whatever they want does not work for us, because it means I've just gotten my meal planning all messed up.

Also, there are many, many times when my kids will ask for a bowl of cereal. Sometimes I tell them no, they've had too much cereal in the past few days. Sometimes they want a third piece of cheese and I tell them no, you've already had too much and you always get constipated with dairy. Sometimes they want to eat a second fruit bar and I tell them no, you've already eaten your share and your siblings would like their share later.

Kids don't always make the best or wisest decisions regarding their food intake, which is why I help them decide and place rules and limits on things, after all, I know more about nutrition than they do.

That is not arbitrary or artificial. It's just life and part of belonging to a family.









Not to mention all the times we say YES- Yes, please help yourself to a banana. Yes, we do have enough mango to open another one. Yes, you may have ketchup on your rice (silent gag). Yes, you may have yoghurt in your soup. Yes, you may have another piece of bread. Yes, you may have a plate for the spinach you're picking off your macaroni. Yes, you may have the ragout on the side. Yes, you may be excused. Yes, good idea, you give your sister the yolks and she'll give you her whites. Yes, I have a few beans left... go ahead, baby, eat them, fill your wee tummy. Yes, we do have some of that trail mix left--can you wait until we get home?


----------



## A&A

Quote:


Originally Posted by *happysmileylady* 

I believe that teaching my child that others aren't going to go out of their way to make sure her wants and desires are satisfied all the time is more important than whether or not the alternatives I offer for her to get herself meet someone else's standards of the most nutritious foods.

I'm not sure why you'd consider food a "want" or "desire." It's a need.


----------



## Calm

Ednamarie, I noticed in one of your earlier posts you said you didn't think snacking was a good idea and that fruit was a now and again treat - I hope you've read my posts because our kids really need that fruit, it is the most important thing they eat, next to green leaves.

The funny thing with nutrient dense foods is we end up eating less than we think we would. I've met many starving obese people. They are starving for nutrients by eating the wrong food, and so their bodies keep triggering the hunger button.

So when our kids say they're hungry and we hand them some cheese or something, we are giving them calorie dense foods in an effort to "fill them up", but fill them with what?

Hunger is a trigger for nutrients, not calories... and we can't tell what their bodies need, so when they say they want a fourth orange or a piece of chocolate, we can trust that. The problem becomes when the chocolate is cooked, milked and sugared with refined sugar etc... but cacao itself is full of magnesium and so many other amazing nutrients that our kids are naturally drawn to (as are women once a month







). I find my daughter loves raw cacao nibs or if you are feeling fancy, cacao powder mixed with coconut oil and maple syrup or other natural syrup, perhaps add some maca powder or some flour, rolled into balls, and maybe rolled in nuts or shredded coconut. Great for growing brains. Throw some rum in a couple of them for mama.

My daughter made this raw dairy free chocolate mint walnut icecream.

A close up pic. Mint from the garden, yummo!

As for the hungry bedtime topic, I can understand your stance on it, I can also understand the opposing stance. This is a difficult problem, because kids make these choices based on desire, not aversion... they like chicken, but don't want it _tonight_, they _want_ something else, so they reject dinner. It can make us want to rip our own faces off sometimes. My daughter can be like this. They aren't really hungry though, that's the problem - I've seen hungry kids in Indonesia, and I promise you, they don't behave like that.

My daughter must come to the table ravenous, or I may as well just throw it in the bin. I solved it by experimenting in several ways. The two successful ones were to go more raw, and to make dinner (at least for her) at about 3.30pm - she is ravenous after school, and it turns out so is my son... and so am I. So I make a big platter of raw foods or whatever, maybe sandwiches for late afternoon and the results were like a slap in the face - I felt like an idiot for not thinking of it earlier. And most kids are totally ravenous at that time of day, but they snack and then reject dinner a couple of hours later.

But I do see what others are saying, that the respect we pay adults should be given to children, which is the philosophy of MDC overall, or at least what Peggy has tried to impart with her books and mags. Whether it be sleeping, manners, eating... her philosophy is less "training" kids and more "trusting" them. I think the majority of parents in our culture would resonate with your philosophy, and most MDCers would resonate with the opposite: that children's desires should be respected also... so although you may feel like you have a lot of opposition here, in the real world you would have the most support.

I'm not sure where I stand on the issue yet, because I've found that there is often a big gap between "ideal" and "workable". So if you were interested in other options that aren't going to bed hungry, perhaps you'd like to try more fruit, an earlier dinner (or dinner instead of an afternoon snack), more raw, and only stocking what you'd want them to eat so you can comfortably say "if you can find something else, eat it".

Another tip is: Tart cherries have the most melatonin of all the foods, and as an after dinner snack are perfect for inducing sleep and overall helping mood and balancing behaviour. Carbs also induce sleep as they are precursors to serotonin, particularly bananas.


----------



## A&A

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EdnaMarie* 

I imagine that would lead to an exhausting power struggle nightly. I'm just not up for that.

Actually it's quite the opposite. Trying to get a hungry child to sleep would be the exhausting power struggle, imo.


----------



## A&A

One more thought--sometimes thirst feels like hunger. So we always try water first and then food.


----------



## tbone_kneegrabber

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A&A* 
Actually it's quite the opposite. Trying to get a hungry child to sleep would be the exhausting power struggle, imo.

That's been my thought when skimming this thread. If ds doesn't eat, he can't get to sleep, and then he doesn't sleep well and will wake up in the middle of the night and sometimes need to eat then, or will wake up incredibly early in the morning. So its makes my life a lot easier if ds eats something at night.

Also dp, ds, and myself all show symptoms of hypoglycemia (dp and I were both diagnosed as "borderline" hypoglycemic as kids) so if we don't eat we are not good people, the anger, the fighting, the tantrums, the crying, the refusal of food, the storming out of the house, the throwing things (and I'm talking about the adults!!!







)

so yeah, I try to NEVER let ds go to bed or out in the world hungry. I always have snacks on hand (and when I don't, I usually end up buying something that isn't the best choice after someone has a meltdown).


----------



## pixiepunk

i think it *really* depends on the child. My kids are generally great eaters, and if i am serving something that they have eaten in the past and they don't want to eat it, i don't make them something else. my kids' hunger levels vary dramatically depending on whether they're growing or not, their activity level that day/week, and the season of the year, and sometimes they are just not very hungry. or not hungry enough to eat what is in front of them, though they might eat ice cream or some other thing they are more enticed by. so my kids sometimes go to bed without eating, but i don't think they go to bed hungry. if they were truly hungry they would've eaten what was offered. i know not all kids are like that, but mine are, so i don't sweat it if they skip a meal here and there.

now if i make something that i'm not sure they will like, i make sure there's plenty of other stuff on the table in case someone doesn't like it, and in that case if they tried it and were still hungry (ie it was the protein on the table they didn't like) i would make them something else. but that's really rare, my kids rarely dislike anything.

if they were different kids, my approach might be very different. but i trust my kids to eat what i fix them if they are hungry, and if they're not hungry i don't see the point of fixing them something they fancy to make them eat when they really don't need to. when they need the nourishment they will eat so much it's astounding. other days they eat very small portions or entirely skip a meal. they are healthy, smart, and growing well with no issues whatsoever, so i trust them to trust their bodies. but like i said, if they were different my approach would be different. i think the most important thing is to know your kids and handle mealtimes accordingly.

so i don't see it as a discipline issue. in our case it is simply respecting times when they don't want to eat. i don't think that's 'harsh,' if anything it is teaching them to trust their bodies, to know when they are hungry and when they are not, and to eat accordingly. all i ask is that they try everything. what they do after that is up to them, within reason (i will encourage them to finish something that's been neglected on their plate before getting seconds of something like bread, for example)


----------



## coffeegirl

From reading this entire thread, the nearest conclusion I've come to...as to what _I think_ I would do in any case...is that it completely depends on the situation and the child. If it was a "holding out" issue like with the cherry example, I think I'd be more likely to "let" my child go to bed "hungry". Wheras some of the other situations being described here sound more just like straight-up food and budget issues. So I'd handle them more by looking at that aspect.


----------



## prothyraia

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EdnaMarie* 
You can try to compromise, or offer another alternative, but in the end, if you refuse to let them go to bed hungry, you have to give them what they want.

I imagine that would lead to an exhausting power struggle nightly. I'm just not up for that.


----------



## heartmama

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdnaMarie View Post
You can try to compromise, or offer another alternative, but in the end, if you refuse to let them go to bed hungry, you have to give them what they want.
That is a very clarifying point. And it helped me articulate in my head that what we allow in our house are respectful choices and responsible choices, whether we are talking about food or language or whatever. If I have a food item meant for a birthday surprise for my neighbor, and my child is dead set on eating that or nothing else at 11pm, no I am not giving it to him and I won't feel the least bit bad over it. There are other things to eat and demanding that one item isn't very respectful of my intentions. I'm not a doormat.

I also expect everyone to make financially responsible choices. If a meal for three people needs one ingredient, it is irresponsible to make a snack for one person of that ingredient by eating it all yourself. That isn't responsible and a better choice should be made.

And I honestly have to say that in 14 years my son has had little problem understanding these simple rules. I am one who said up front my son can eat when he is hungry, whatever the time of day, and for the most part he can eat what he likes, since we don't keep junk food in the house. I never ended up with a child demanding a slice of grandmothers birthday cake a day early, or else--perhaps I am just lucky, but I think we are very reasonable and grounded in common sense on this issue, while allowing ds a lot of freedom, and for the most part, he has been reasonable about food in response. The majority of the food here is always available to him, and he has always cooperated with the few limits in place due to finances or future plans for certain items. These few limits have never led to any ongoing problems at all.


----------



## OkiMom

I have to say I just thought of this thread when I was making lunch today and I thought of an exception to you get what everyone is getting. My girls were playing in the hallway and my oldest slipped on a book and went face first into the doorway causing her to almost bite all the way through her lounge. After we mopped up the blood (and both of us stopped crying, gosh tears are so close to the surface with my when Im pregnant it doesn't take much to make me cry) my girls were both hungry. I made sandwiches for lunch but with her tongue swollen my oldest couldn't eat hers, it was to painful. So, I asked what she would like and she wanted the chili Im making for dinner that was a no go. Sorry but its dinner and if I give some to her now dinner is going to be a fight of her wanting something different. However, I had a can of soup in the cupboard I offered her and she said yes to. Yea, I made two different meals but that was because she was injured and couldn't eat what we ate.

I guess I do have an exception to them having to eat what everyone else is eating, if they are injured or sick then I make allowances for that. I figure they know what they can handle better than I can when they don't feel well or are hurting and I'm not going to allow them to be sick/hurt and hungry. To me that would be just wrong, its not them holding out for something they can't have its them hurting/sick and wanting what they know will work for them.


----------



## A&A

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama* 

And I honestly have to say that in 14 years my son has had little problem understanding these simple rules. I am one who said up front my son can eat when he is hungry, whatever the time of day, and for the most part he can eat what he likes, since we don't keep junk food in the house. I never ended up with a child demanding a slice of grandmothers birthday cake a day early, or else--perhaps I am just lucky, but I think we are very reasonable and grounded in common sense on this issue, while allowing ds a lot of freedom, and for the most part, he has been reasonable about food in response. The majority of the food here is always available to him, and he has always cooperated with the few limits in place due to finances or future plans for certain items. These few limits have never led to any ongoing problems at all.


Us, too.


----------



## LiLStar

didn't read all 13 pages. My dd (3) has gone through phases. Just a couple months ago, she would freak out and go into full on tantrum mode at the mere suggestion of eating anything..well.. cooked from scratch. She'd pretty much only willingly eat 1 ingredient foods. Unless its junk, course! lol. So she'd eat a carrot plain by itself. Or beets. Or cherry tomatoes. Nearly any fruit. Yogurt (sometimes) cheese (constantly) a sandwich or toast occasionally. Steamed broccoli is fine, but season it with visible herbs? "NOOO!!! ITS DIRTY! EW!!! YUCKY!!" At best, "No. Its too yucky" in a casual voice. I would try looking for super kid friendly recipes.. like a cheesy chicken casserole with noodles or things like that. Would. Not. Touch. I could give her plain chicken, but roll that same piece of chicken up in a tortilla? I would feel her wrath. One of the only mixed/cooked together foods she would eat was canned soup. Even then.. it had to look right to her.

I wouldn't say we cooked separate meals but we pretty much let her graze whenever. We just decided not to care if she didn't want dinner. If its particularly good..more for dh and I!







but really.. who cares if she eats a banana or hard boiled egg instead of whatever I cooked? Healthy food is healthy food is healthy food.

Miraculously.. within the last several weeks she's gotten more accepting! I remember the meal that seemed to be a kind of turning point. Made a chicken vegetable soup. She saw it and said "no broccoli" and that she wanted cheese in it. I gave her a small bowl that had only chicken and broth in it. then she saw dh and i eating ours and decided she DID want broccoli. Then she saw the asparagus on one of our spoons "whats that?...I want some!" and she ate it. And asked for more. Then ate every piece out of both our bowls and the pot. Then she ate all the broccoli. Then all the carrots. Then I had to go to the fridge to cut up raw veggies to toss into her bowl because she wanted more.

Since then, she's been eating, or at least tasting just about anything we make. Some of the stuff is kinda blowing my mind, really. She's eaten stuff that would have made her scream bloody murder if the serving spoon had dared hover over her plate a couple months ago. And she seems to have a love for asparagus







even stuff she didn't seem crazy about she tasted and ate a few bites of before walking away. And she got to this point all by herself.


----------



## EdnaMarie

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OkiMom* 
I have to say I just thought of this thread when I was making lunch today and I thought of an exception to you get what everyone is getting. My girls were playing in the hallway and my oldest slipped on a book and went face first into the doorway causing her to almost bite all the way through her lounge. After we mopped up the blood (and both of us stopped crying, gosh tears are so close to the surface with my when Im pregnant it doesn't take much to make me cry) my girls were both hungry. I made sandwiches for lunch but with her tongue swollen my oldest couldn't eat hers, it was to painful. So, I asked what she would like and she wanted the chili Im making for dinner that was a no go. Sorry but its dinner and if I give some to her now dinner is going to be a fight of her wanting something different. However, I had a can of soup in the cupboard I offered her and she said yes to. Yea, I made two different meals but that was because she was injured and couldn't eat what we ate.

I guess I do have an exception to them having to eat what everyone else is eating, if they are injured or sick then I make allowances for that. I figure they know what they can handle better than I can when they don't feel well or are hurting and I'm not going to allow them to be sick/hurt and hungry. To me that would be just wrong, its not them holding out for something they can't have its them hurting/sick and wanting what they know will work for them.

I'm so sorry about your daughter! Of course, if someone could not physically eat something, they would get special food. Just like if my child were, say, super-sensitive, to the point of it being a medical issue, we would work around it.


----------



## VisionaryMom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EdnaMarie* 
I mean this happens all the time and I do know people who can't compromise--it HAS to be Thai, they feel like Thai, blah blah--and they don't get called up often after that. Like, if I don't want Thai, I'm not going out with that friend.

LOL. We have a friend like that. We don't go out with her anymore. There are 2 restaurants where she will eat. The thing is that she doesn't understand why she's never invited to lunch anymore.


----------



## hakeber

Calm,

Do you not find that your kids can over do it on the fruit?

I generally let Benjamin graze on fruit all day as he wants it. Mangos, pineapple, bananas, are all very cheap, but now and then he has grazed to the point of giving himself terrible diarreah. I try to keep an eye on that. Have you not seen a problem with fruit overdosing in your house?

I also really find that DS behaves more calmly and focused with higher protein content food, so apart from making sure his grains are all whole grains and he gets a healthy dose of nuts and and seeds, he does much better with eggs and meat. He also scoffs them down greedily as opposed to nuts and seeds which have so far presented very little interest to him. In fact at one point the only thing he would eat for what felt like months was chicken. He wouldn't entertain the notion of anything but chicken and the occassional banana. If kids don't need as much protein as that, why do you think he was craving chicken?


----------



## Knitting Mama

I'm not entirely sure I buy into the less protein thing myself. For one, my own anecdotal experience tells me that I will get very, _very_ ill-- think dizziness, fainting and vomiting-- if I don't eat protein every few hours. I have been like this my entire life. My own family was vegetarian my entire childhood, but they weren't concerned when I ate lots of dairy, cheese, beans, and nuts. They just let me do my thing. When I tried to _not_ eat like that, eating more fruit and ignoring protein, is when I started to get sick.

I trust my body to tell me what I need. I can easily tell when I need protein or when I need veggies, or when I need carbs of some sort. Kids' bodies are the same way, in my experience.

Further, think about the term "hunter/gatherers." Yes, there was a period of time when we didn't eat refined food of any sort and it was much healthier for our bodies-- but ignoring the "hunter" side of that is illogical! Before domestication of crops, humans ate meat, vegetables, and fruits. That seems to me to be the more accurate primitive diet, and unsurprisingly, the diet that makes my body feel best.

I have no issues with vegetarianism, and in fact rarely eat meats other than fish myself. But I do think that the human body was made to handle protein as readily as fruits and vegetables.


----------



## Anastasiya

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hakeber* 
Calm,

Do you not find that your kids can over do it on the fruit?

I generally let Benjamin graze on fruit all day as he wants it. Mangos, pineapple, bananas, are all very cheap, but now and then he has grazed to the point of giving himself terrible diarreah.

Likewise here. We have serious issues with two of ours when they get too much fruit....diarrhea accidents everwhere, and lots of tummy cramping.


----------



## Honey693

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hakeber* 
Calm,

Do you not find that your kids can over do it on the fruit?

I generally let Benjamin graze on fruit all day as he wants it. Mangos, pineapple, bananas, are all very cheap, but now and then he has grazed to the point of giving himself terrible diarreah. I try to keep an eye on that. Have you not seen a problem with fruit overdosing in your house?


My DD eats obscene amounts of fruit, I'm talking 1-2lbs of grapes a day, 2-3 bowls of watermelon and then a random piece or two of whatever else we have. We've never had diarrhea issues. I think it just depends on the kid.


----------



## hakeber

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Honey693* 
My DD eats obscene amounts of fruit, I'm talking 1-2lbs of grapes a day, 2-3 bowls of watermelon and then a random piece or two of whatever else we have. We've never had diarrhea issues. I think it just depends on the kid.

If grapes weren't 7 dollars a pound here, and I didn't ration them like they were belgian chocolates, he would eat that many grapes for _sure_, as it is, he ate three fist sized mangos just the other day from my friend's tree...that's three that I knew of, I am pretty sure he was fibbing on the numbers. Not long after, he was in the toilet for about 30 minutes. Once, I forgot to tell the babysitter that we were having a party the next day and not to let him eat the foods for the party, and she let him have 3 pounds of cherries. He was not yet 3 years old. He was so sick (think Witches of Eastwick all over my kitchen). Luckily they were in season and I had only paid about 3 dollars and could run down to the grocers to get more before the party, but...WOW what a mess. And he was fine once it was all out of his system.

DS has always been a bit of a fruit bat, and I have no problem with that, but for sure it's been known to take its toll. It's worse with certain fruits, like cherries and mangos and peaches. I'm not sure why.


----------



## Lolagirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by coffeegirl

Consider this scenario: You have a 3-year old daughter. You sit down to dinner one night and your child decides that she doesn't want what you've prepared. She says she wants a bowl of cherries instead. But...you're out of cherries. There are none in the house. There are lots of things on the table, but she resists each one. You offer some alternatives (pb&j sandwich, any other fruit that you do have available in the fridge, basically any other food you have available period) and she says no to every one. Well, you can't force her to eat, right? Bedtime comes, and she's still refused to eat anything- meal or snack- all night. In addition to being tired, at this point she will probably be cranky and tantrum-y about it the food issue as well. This whole time you're still making it clear that there is other food available if she wants it. She only wants the cherries. (Before anyone says this kind of holding out is unrealistic-- it's not, I've seen it.)

So, how do you handle this? Do you go out to the all-night grocery store and buy some cherries for her? Or do you let her go to bed "hungry", so to speak?
I had something like this happen with my older two boys just a few days ago. They suddenly decided they didn't want the meal they had partially requested (noodles with only oil on them) and meatballs for dinner. I offered them an alternative of fruit, but they would only accept apples, and we just happened to be out of apples. After that they only other alternative they would accept for dinner was ice cream. After going back and forth with them for 15 minutes or so I finally told them the discussion was closed, they could either eat the dinner in front of them or have fruit (I believe either grapes or bananas were available.)

The boys dug their heels in and absolutely refused to compromise on anything less than ice cream, and they eventually went to bed without anything else to eat because I refused to give in and let them have ice cream for dinner. They carried on and on tantruming for a good 30 minutes or so but I refused to engage in any further debate with them as to whether or not ice cream was dinner or dessert for special occasions only. Maybe this makes me winner of the Meanest Mommy of the Year Award, but I do think that my kids insistence on ice cream was in no way a reflection of a genuine need on their part for ice cream, and their want of it did not equal an actual need in any way, shape or form. Btw, the whole thing was happily forgotten the next day and they ate their dinner without a quarrel the following night.

As far as I'm concerned, if my kids had genuinely been hungry they would have eaten the food they were offered, including one of the alternatives they were offered. The fact that they were willing to forego dinner altogether if it wasn't ice cream indicated to me that it just wasn't that big of a deal to let them go to dinner without something else to eat. I certainly wasn't going to pack up the whole family and go to the store to buy their other requested item, apples, because it just isn't realistic to expect me to go out of my way like that to meet their wishes (and especially since I had already tried to make them something they requested for dinner and they had subsequently turned their noses up at it.) I don't think it's good to teach my kids that I will jump through any and all hoops they put in front of my to make them happy every time. I also think that I have a responsibility as a parent to teach my kids that eating ice cream for dinner is just not healthy and is therefore not an acceptable alternative to a healthy meal.

YMMV.


----------



## mamazee

It seems like there might be some strawmen being constructed in this thread. Has anyone said they'd feed their kids ice cream for dinner or go to the store to get something if the kids didn't like any alternatives in the home? I thought the two sides were a) what I serve for dinner or nothing; or b) what I serve for dinner or one or one of a few healthy (though apparently there's debate on that point) alternatives that are already on hand. Have I misread this thread or is someone suggesting going to the store to get something else if the child doesn't like what's in the house? Or feeding just dessert in lieu of dinner? I'm wondering if we're all doing the same thing and just focusing on different aspects of what we're doing.


----------



## Drummer's Wife

My kids wouldn't refuse to eat anything other than ice cream b/c it's a rare occasion that we even buy any. Same for junk foods, which of course I wouldn't want them eating in place of dinner. Maybe that's part of the difference - whatever comes into the house, they are welcome to eat - whenever (for the most part, I won't let them have any beer







).

I love Nina Planck's view on food and children (she wrote Real Food, and Real Food for mother and baby) because she talks about our job as adults is to supply healthy, nutritious foods, and to trust that our children will take what they need to grow.


----------



## hakeber

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee* 
I'm wondering if we're all doing the same thing and just focusing on different aspects of what we're doing.

me too.


----------



## ssh

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee* 
It seems like there might be some strawmen being constructed in this thread. Has anyone said they'd feed their kids ice cream for dinner or go to the store to get something if the kids didn't like any alternatives in the home? I thought the two sides were a) what I serve for dinner or nothing; or b) what I serve for dinner or one or one of a few healthy (though apparently there's debate on that point) alternatives that are already on hand. Have I misread this thread or is someone suggesting going to the store to get something else if the child doesn't like what's in the house? Or feeding just dessert in lieu of dinner?

Yeah, it seems the only people talking about kids screaming for ice cream and being demanding are the ones whose children aren't free to eat what and when they want. My DD self regulates her food intake and she usually eats dinner and we've _never_ had any unpleasant behavior about food at all. Most of the people who let their children eat whenever they are hungry have said they don't have any conflicts or issues about food.


----------



## ssh

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Drummer's Wife* 
My kids wouldn't refuse to eat anything other than ice cream b/c it's a rare occasion that we even buy any. Same for junk foods, which of course I wouldn't want them eating in place of dinner. Maybe that's part of the difference - whatever comes into the house, they are welcome to eat - whenever (for the most part, I won't let them have any beer







).

I love Nina Planck's view on food and children (she wrote Real Food, and Real Food for mother and baby) because she talks about our job as adults is to supply healthy, nutritious foods, and to trust that our children will take what they need to grow.

I agree with this too.


----------



## mistymama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ssh* 
Yeah, it seems the only people talking about kids screaming for ice cream and being demanding are the ones whose children aren't free to eat what and when they want. My DD self regulates her food intake and she usually eats dinner and we've _never_ had any unpleasant behavior about food at all. Most of the people who let their children eat whenever they are hungry have said they don't have any conflicts or issues about food.

Exactly. I think it appears everyone is happy with what they are doing and it's working for them - so great! I could care less how anyone else feeds their child, I just do what works well for us. In all of my 7 going on 8 years with an extremely picky eater with sensory issues (who loves ice cream!) we've never once had a battle over food, or demands for ice cream for dinner. If that was the case, we'd be changing something - fast!









Drummer - thanks for the link to Real Food - I'm going to pick up a copy & read it. It's always been my belief that it's our job to provide healthy food, and our child's job to listen to their body and eat what they need, when they need it. Sounds like a good read. Thanks!


----------



## EdnaMarie

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ssh* 
Yeah, it seems the only people talking about kids screaming for ice cream and being demanding are the ones whose children aren't free to eat what and when they want. My DD self regulates her food intake and she usually eats dinner and we've _never_ had any unpleasant behavior about food at all. Most of the people who let their children eat whenever they are hungry have said they don't have any conflicts or issues about food.


Quote:

It seems like there might be some strawmen being constructed in this thread. Has anyone said they'd feed their kids ice cream for dinner or go to the store to get something if the kids didn't like any alternatives in the home?
I started this thread because I *do* know children who throw fits over dessert and junk foods.

They aren't mine.


----------



## Lolagirl

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ssh* 
Yeah, it seems the only people talking about kids screaming for ice cream and being demanding are the ones whose children aren't free to eat what and when they want. My DD self regulates her food intake and she usually eats dinner and we've _never_ had any unpleasant behavior about food at all. Most of the people who let their children eat whenever they are hungry have said they don't have any conflicts or issues about food.

I think what some of us here on this thread are trying to point out is that sometimes kids (especially those who are hitting pre-adolescence) will engage in power struggles with their parents simply for the sake of having a power struggle. I don't actually think the whole confrontation I had my with my kids as explained above had anything to do with food at all, they wanted to see how hard they could push me in order to get me to cave in to their demands. That's the whole point, while one's child may dig in her heels and throw a fit over food, that fit is actually about testing their parent's boundaries. I think this even more likely to be true of more high spirited, high energy kids like mine, even if you do everything right and are as GD as one can be our kids may still engage in boundary testing from time to time.

I simply chimed in here because the whole side discussion about the cherry scenario was being discounted as a strawman. I'm pointing that it isn't that easy.


----------



## ssh

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jaccord* 
Children should not drink more than 4-6 ounces of juice per day. If they do drink more juice, this fills them up without giving them the variety of nutrients that they need. And juice does not include the full spectrum of nutrients that you will find if you feed them fresh fruit.

Water is as important for your children as it is for you. If they don't like the taste of water, and don't acquire a taste in a matter of days with water as their main option when thirsty, you probably need a water purifier. This will improve the taste and make it easier to persuade your children to drink water.

I assume you are talking about fruit juice not veggie juice. Veggie juices are low in sugars and very high in nutrients. My DD is more likely to drink spinach if it's mixed with tomato and carrot in a juice than eat it at all. Also she likes water much better if it has ice in it.


----------



## ssh

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Lolagirl* 
I think what some of us here on this thread are trying to point out is that sometimes kids (especially those who are hitting pre-adolescence) will engage in power struggles with their parents simply for the sake of having a power struggle. I don't actually think the whole confrontation I had my with my kids as explained above had anything to do with food at all, they wanted to see how hard they could push me in order to get me to cave in to their demands. That's the whole point, while one's child may dig in her heels and throw a fit over food, that fit is actually about testing their parent's boundaries. I think this even more likely to be true of more high spirited, high energy kids like mine, even if you do everything right and are as GD as one can be our kids may still engage in boundary testing from time to time.

I simply chimed in here because the whole side discussion about the cherry scenario was being discounted as a strawman. I'm pointing that it isn't that easy.


Well that would explain why those people whose children can eat when and what they want have no behavior over food. You can't have a power struggle with someone who's saying yes. We also don't have much "digging in her heals about something to test a boundary" because our boundaries involve avoiding danger and treating each other with respect. Our rules for our DDs behavior are family rules that we follow also. Maybe seeing the adults following the same rule makes it less tempting to test. I'm not saying that my 4.5 year old doesn't have her rude moments but a calm reminder of the polite behavior doesn't make her "dig her heals in".


----------



## Drummer's Wife

My oldest is 9, and I definitely have many a power struggle with that girl. However, none of it involves food - and she does like to eat, and sweets/junk at that! We can go rounds over all sorts of other things (even silly things, that make me







) but eating is not one of them. It's just food...what she needs for her growing body (apparently a lot as she is about to start puberty and has had several growth spurts recently). If she wants to open a can of tuna at 11 pm after she's already had dinner and two other snacks, who am I to say no?


----------



## coffeegirl

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ssh* 
Well that would explain why those people whose children can eat when and what they want have no behavior over food. You can't have a power struggle with someone who's saying yes. We also don't have much "digging in her heals about something to test a boundary" because our boundaries involve avoiding danger and treating each other with respect. Our rules for our DDs behavior are family rules that we follow also. Maybe seeing the adults following the same rule makes it less tempting to test. I'm not saying that my 4.5 year old doesn't have her rude moments but a calm reminder of the polite behavior doesn't make her "dig her heals in".

I don't know if this is always true. There's a child in my family who doesn't have any restrictions on when/what he can eat (beyond eating limitless sweets), but he's the one I was thinking of when I posted the cherry example earlier. Sometimes they're still gonna engage in the same power struggles.


----------



## Drummer's Wife

After reading my reply about not buying ice cream regularly and something velochic said way upthread, I feel like I should mention that my family doesn't eat 100% healthy all the time. No way. We aren't super strict regarding nutrition, except that I am careful about what I grocery shop for. We eat out 1-2 times a week, on average, and my kids are free to order whatever they want - including soda. Sometimes it's a local restaurant that cooks from scratch, sometimes it's a chain restaurant, often it's a fast food joint. My kids can also eat as much birthday cake as they want at parties, and when we travel I might even take them inside the gas station to pick out junk for the road trip. We order pizza more than the average public - so surely much more frequently than your average MDC family.

I guess my point is that my kids aren't deprived of junk food - and our diet it no where near perfect. But we don't have power struggles over food. When we eat out or unhealthy - it's a choice we are making as a family. The kids don't refuse to eat my roasted chicken at home whining for McDonald's, or anything. They know when we go it's like a special treat - as frequent as it may be compared to many people here who go out to eat once a month or once a year and avoid fast food like the plague. I'm not saying I'm proud of allowing them to have sugar or crappy hamburger meat at times (it's something we need to work on), but that by not including this stuff as a staple in our home, there is no battle at mealtimes or snack times. If they want something to eat, they are welcome to it.


----------



## ssh

Quote:


Originally Posted by *coffeegirl* 
I don't know if this is always true. There's a child in my family who doesn't have any restrictions on when/what he can eat (beyond eating limitless sweets), but he's the one I was thinking of when I posted the cherry example earlier. Sometimes they're still gonna engage in the same power struggles.

You can't have a power struggle or even a conflict if one side is saying yes. It takes opposition on at least two sides for a power struggle.


----------



## Drummer's Wife

I don't know that there are a lot of kids that would throw a fit or refuse to eat something besides cherries that are not available. At least my kids wouldn't. They probably know I have a hard enough time getting DH to go out and get Krispy Kreme when I'm pregnant







, so demanding something from the store late at night wouldn't even be on their radar.

I guess it totally depends on the kid, though.


----------



## ssh

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Drummer's Wife* 
I don't know that there are a lot of kids that would throw a fit or refuse to eat something besides cherries that are not available. At least my kids wouldn't. They probably know I have a hard enough time getting DH to go out and get Krispy Kreme when I'm pregnant







, so demanding something from the store late at night wouldn't even be on their radar.

I guess it totally depends on the kid, though.

I didn't mean we make special trips to the store when my DD wants something. "We don't have any right now." has always satisfied her. Pregnant people or sick people needing special food are the only 'real life' times I've known people to make special trips for food.


----------



## Drummer's Wife

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ssh* 
I didn't mean we make special trips to the store when my DD wants something. "We don't have any right now." has always satisfied her. Pregnant people or sick people needing special food are the only 'real life' times I've known people to make special trips for food.


oh, I know. Same here. that's why I have a hard time imagining a power struggle over cherries that don't exist just because food is not something that is controlled in your home.


----------



## mamazee

I think I'd probably say something like "I wish we had cherries too. I love cherries." And disengage and let her get what she wanted to eat that we actually had in the house. I wouldn't get into a fight with her about it.


----------



## happysmileylady

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A&A* 
I'm not sure why you'd consider food a "want" or "desire." It's a need.

Food is a need-wanting tacos over pizza, apples, yogurt, cheese cubes, ham sandwich or whatever else we have available is a want or desire. I provide plenty of food to fulfill the need of food in the belly. Their wants and desires determine which of those foods they eat.


----------



## hakeber

I'll tell you what, I never had a peep from my son about food (we were the eat when we're hungry kind of people ourselves and had a balance of junk and healthy foods to pick from) until we went to visit his cousins and he witnessed three girls who were allowed to choose what to eat including the choice of having a jam sandwich (on white bread crusts cut off only acceptable if cut into triangles) instead of what the family was eating. Often they had plain white pasta for dinner and nothing else. Suddenly he was like "Wait, you mean you can order off the menu?"

His cousins get to eat what they want pretty much when they want, and they are the pickiest eaters I have ever met in my life. Apart from the ocassional piece of fruit, they eat utter crap when they are left to choose for themselves.

We spent 6 months living with them during a family crisis. My son is only now, two years later, going back to normal where he desires real food.

These girls have been catered to so much of their lives that they routinely make wild demands for food choices, and will refuse to eat dinner if not given chocolate RIGHT NOW. They have even been known to simply go and get it from the candy stash, by the bag full, and chow down then obviously feel too full for dinner and get sent to bed where they bounce off the walls for an hour before crashing. It's mind boggling that they keep the junk in the house right? But they feel if you never limit or forbid certain food there will never be an unhealthy obsession with it...no limits is not ALWAYS a recipe for easy going kids when it comes to food. That's all I'm saying. It may be working for you, but chances are that's just luck, because clearly it doesn't work for everyone, and we should all probably trust ourselves that we know best for our own kids.

Year two away from the cousins and Benjamin is FINALLY starting to be reasonable about choices in the house and not having temper tantrums about "needing" cookies, right now, but food is very much an issue for us, because I do think it is DANGEROUS to feed a child unhealthy foods...can of tuna? awesome! Whole wheat bread? cool. Crisps and ice cream and candy? Not so much. So I set those limits, and I think most of us here would too, but because a lot of parents DO allow those things, and my kid sees it happening in their homes, we get the "It's not FAAAAIIIIIR." routine.

ETA: FWIW we _don't_ limit food in our house or even refuse to take the chicken out before we add the sauce, or any number of ways we cater to the boy, apart from no treats for dinner, and not so much fruit you're going to be sick.

I'd say count your lucky stars it hasn't happened to you, rather than assume it has anything to do with how we handle food in our house.


----------



## hakeber

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee* 
I think I'd probably say something like "I wish we had cherries too. I love cherries." And disengage and let her get what she wanted to eat that we actually had in the house. I wouldn't get into a fight with her about it.

I've done that...he sems to be catching on to my tactics though. Yesterday when he was super sad about not having anymore bananas, he said







"grrrrr...don't patronize me, mommy!"


----------



## Blessed-Mama

My oldest is still pretty young (2 1/2),but we haven't dealt with any food issues. We are a very plain eating family and he pretty much eats what I cook. He doesn't like chicken to be mixed with bbq sauce or spaghetti sauce so if I do chicken Parmesan or something I just bake him a piece of plain chicken and give him some mashed potatoes and another side. To me that isn't going out of my way if I am baking chicken already. I don't think he goes to bed hungry. We eat breakfast,lunch,and supper with no set time really. He will snack during the day too. When he was younger and didn't want to eat right away. I would sit him in his chair while I or we ate and when he wanted something he would point or sign more. I never really made it an issue,but like I said he pretty much came out wanting to eat haha If we are at someone's house and there is so much going on(lots of kids over) I ask him if he is hungry and if he says no I don't fuss or anything I tell him okay come to me when you are hungry and he does. Once he tells me he is hungry, he has to eat something. I know at his age when he is around other kids food is the last thing on his mind. When I was pregnant with the second one and I ate a lot more than he did, I would eat and if he wasn't hungry yet I told him to come sign more when he was and he did every time.

I don't do 2 different meals. The only thing he doesn't eat that we do is the chicken with some sort of sauce. If we have pork chops,he eats those and so forth. I'm a big bread eater. We have it mostly every meal. I don't think it is harsh that your child goes to bed sometimes hungry if they refuse to eat anything. We had to eat our meal before a snack and my Mother didn't do special things either. She tried to incorporate what we liked in the meal,but there was at least something we could find we liked in each meal. Daniel doesn't get just fruit or veggies in place of a meal,but can have it as a snack after he eats his meal.

Didn't read all the pages,but it's funny to see all the responses.


----------



## Blessed-Mama

My brother's girls are very picky. They live off of junk food and coke. The Grandparents didn't help with that either! I don't mind my child eating a Little Debbie cake or some candy,but it is after a meal is eaten and it is not every day. Coke is never in a sippy cup,he drinks water with some flavored stuff in it. He can have a sip of my husband's coke if he wants,but none of his own.


----------



## Calm

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hakeber*
Have you not seen a problem with fruit overdosing in your house?

No, but I could imagine it happening. If a child eats nothing but fruit, they're going to get upset tummy. If they eat nothing but cheese, same thing. Nothing but bread... same again. It's about balance. Kids need fats, greens (chlorophyll and protein) and sugars. Not enough of any one of that triad and there will be imbalance... it isn't so much that it's "too much" of one as not enough of the others to balance it out.

If my kids did OD on fruit, I'd bring in some soaked nuts, or some coconut and olives (fats), which they love, and make sure they got some greens (they will eat greens wrapped around things, like a burrito). ETA - I don't mean I wrap greens _around_ a burrito.









Quote:

If kids don't need as much protein as that, why do you think he was craving chicken?
I've seen kids crave bread and coke, too, but I don't think it is as easy to identify the bodily need as looking at what they want. For instance, I had pica during both pregnancies - I craved dirt, and I drooled over dirt covered potatoes and could have rammed fistfuls of soil into my mouth when visiting a plant nursery - I loved the smell so much. But I knew it wasn't dirt I was craving but something IN the dirt, I was mineral deficient.

We need to stop looking at protein as "protein" and instead see it as "amino acids" ... all the secrets of protein cravings are revealed when we _understand_ protein.

We cannot assume his bodily need is "chicken" or "protein" any more than we can assume mine was "dirt". You have a sign... a sign of _what_ is the question.

I also know of icecream cravings, pickle cravings... you name it and there is an unhealthy craving that is an unidentified deficiency. I cured my pica by remineralising with quality food minerals. It helps to identify the lacking nutrient. We also know if the nutrient need is not being met by indulging it because our craving doesn't stop... it continues, to the detriment of other nutrients, causing a loop.

Quote:

I'm not entirely sure I buy into the less protein thing myself. For one, my own anecdotal experience tells me that I will get very, very ill-- think dizziness, fainting and vomiting-- if I don't eat protein every few hours. I have been like this my entire life. My own family was vegetarian my entire childhood, but they weren't concerned when I ate lots of dairy, cheese, beans, and nuts. They just let me do my thing. When I tried to not eat like that, eating more fruit and ignoring protein, is when I started to get sick.
I didn't mean to imply "ignore protein". My concern is the fixation on it, and the overconsumption of it. This has been shown to be a major issue in your country (generalising, I realise not all are from America), you eat way too much protein and it starts by using it as a mainstay in childhood meals, the old "meat and three veg" dinners most of us were reared on.

Have you tried eating, pound for pound, the same amount of greens with fats, like olives or green coconuts and covered in flaxseed oil, as you would eat "protein"? It would be a VERY big bowl of salad if you did, and more than enough protein... we under-eat greens, in a serious way, and mistake our amino acid needs as "meat" needs. Perhaps try to identify which amino acid you are quickly deficient in, and eat foods that are high in that.

The planet is covered in what we need... GREEN. Regardless how much meat a person eats, if they're not eating leaves as the dominant food, like a gorilla, as well as fruit, they won't come anywhere near the brilliant pristine state they were designed to.

Quote:

Further, think about the term "hunter/gatherers."
A human being came up with that term. And it FAR from convinces me, as I have looked at the evidence, I really really want to be convinced but it really is lacking, and not just due to the "missing link". Plus it has been disproved by the finding of other human bones, plus it is a guess, like most science that dates back far enough. This is too big a topic, however, if you think about it long enough it becomes clear... when we were first put here, be it by evolution, a creator or whatever the belief, - we had no tools. What we ate before fire and tools was not animals, because we had no way to eat them. We had nothing to hunt _with_. Before fire, we did not eat raw meat and this is evidenced by the almost universal human disgust at the thought of eating raw meat. None of us thinks "oooh, yummy!" a the sight of road kill yet _*all*_ omnivores or carnivores do. Plus our physiology and anatomy are not designed to rip apart a body and digest it, we have a herbivores digestive juices and acids, a herbivores teeth... the list is massive... we are nothing like a carnivore _except_ that we eat meat.

But just because we _can_ do something doesn't mean we _should_.

Fire and tools made that possible - our design however, was not cut out for those changes to our diet. We have only been agricultural for a few thousand years.

Yes, we need protein... but so does a gorilla, so does an elephant...the biggest strongest animals on earth do not eat meat... it is a fallacy that complex (or "complete) protein is necessary to create strong healthy people... on the contrary, it has created weak and chronically ill people who needed to create antibiotics to survive.

I am at risk of getting dragged into a meat vs veg debate here, when my point is to decrease the focus on "protein" and refocus on easily assimilated amino acids, taxing their little systems less.

No doubt some kids are drawn to chicken, aside from the taste which is not to be underestimated, they probably lack particular amino acids. Supplements of tryptophan, leucine and many other amino acids are a huge cash cow in the health industry even though most people eat meat. That is partially because amino acids (protein) are altered and destroyed by cooking.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

Suddenly he was like "Wait, you mean you can order off the menu?"
True. I told my daughter that candies in the store were "toys" (they look like toys to the very young) and never EVER gave her any... so of course she never asked for any, she didn't know what candy was. Dry fruit was her "candy" until she was 4. When she had her first easter with sugary foods, she puked after a few pieces, her system was just not used to it. That negative experience kept her self regulating for another six months or so, and then she slowly started to take in more "junk" and wasn't sick doing it (our systems adjust, they are no longer "pure" and "sensitive").

So I agree it is what they are exposed to, they can't choose an option that they don't know exists. That includes the option to decline dinner in exchange for a jam sanga. I never ate anything other than what was put in front of me and when I think back, it was because I never thought to ask.

I reminds me of a group of orphans I recently read about who aren't vaccinated, never exposed to meat or candy or anything other than fruit and vegetables and studies on these exceptional kids has shown some interestng things, such as they gag at the smell of cooking meat (like many pregnant women do... worth thinking about) and they never get sick nor do they have food issues or struggles. There aren't many "groups" of kids like this to study so it was interesting, usually we can only study isolated cases, which are easy to dismiss as something coincidental or extraodinary... but with these kids, it isn't as easy to dismiss. They want good food because it is all they've ever known.


----------



## EdnaMarie

Quote:

Dry fruit was her "candy" until she was 4
I love how your "location" is the illusion, LOL. Where I lived, people would come up on the street and give my daughter candy as a baby. Literally as a baby, people gave her ice cream, chocolate and candy. It was a cultural thing and EXTREMELY offensive to refuse it. Until one year, I told them "no, doctor's orders" but after that it became more and more difficult as we have a big family and people would share. Allergies are uncommon there. Long story short, kids there love meat though they don't get much of it, and my children have long known what sweets are beyond fruit.

Quote:

You can't have a power struggle or even a conflict if one side is saying yes. It takes opposition on at least two sides for a power struggle.
Shh, meet my daughter. She will actually pretend you refused and continue to pretend to fight. Or, if you say yes, she will demand more, more, more, more desperately seeking that limit, that "no".

Quote:

"I never ate anything other than what was put in front of me and when I think back, it was because I never thought to ask."
There are certain kinds of people who do that. Then there are other kinds of people who ask about alternatives even if you offer them a million dollars. That kind of person includes my daughter and husband, LOL. I swear, if you give that kid a banana split, she'll ask for an extra cherry. Beef stroganoff needs more creamy sauce. Salad needs more walnuts, fewer tomatoes. With the husband, he ALWAYS, without fail, asks what happened to lunch. Like we didn't eat it. He wants the leftovers with dinner. Just because if the table is perfect, he MUST find something to ask about.

Now, I do say "no" right away, and this generally stops the discussion because they know that I'm serious. However, if I were to acquiesce, OMG.

Maybe my family is just insane, so I have to be a food / sleep nazi or something. I cannot imagine the free time I'd have if I didn't have two people negotiating every single freaking thing. And "yes" doesn't cut it with them: they like the negotiation IN AND OF ITSELF, so that only leads to further demands.

I think a lot of people are like that, actually, which is why some houses do have children eating insane diets (as mentioned above) or going to bed hungry once in awhile. Do not assume that kids will "just" accept anything. Some people aren't like that.


----------



## hakeber

OFF TOPIC:

Edna-Marie, your husband and daughter would do really well living in much of south east asia. I recall going to the market for the first time in Ho Chi Minh City and asking the price of something and when I would say no and walk away they would chase me down the alley, shouting other prices, and if I would say yes they would look confused, and become extremely suspicious. I once had a guy start arguing with me as if I HAD said no.

We also had an early introduction to sweets through well meaning neighbors (we lived in Argentina where our friends used to joke that they gave babies dulce de leche IVs in the NICU). I managed to keep most of it at bay by carrying him in a sling/mei-tai the first two years, but his first play-school halloween party I had made whole wheat vegan pumpkin cookies and sent a bottle of fresh orange juice (both of which were returned to me un-eaten) and collected a child who was quite literally in sugar shock. He was stood in the corner with eyes like saucers while the other kids ran circles all around him...this at the age of 20 months. I was like







drop and everyone else was like, haven't you ever let your kid out of the house?

There are a lot of factors at play and a big one is personality.


----------



## hakeber

Off Topic...

Calm,

I am big fan of vegan food. The less animal protein I eat the better *I* feel. But that just isn't true for everyone, I have to think that this DOES have a lot to do with evolution and where your "people" came from. DH and his family are viking decendants. They evolved with little to no fresh vegetables or greens around them and adapted to get getting their protein from animals. My family are descendants of lower Europe, and having a longer though not all year harvest season were likely more omnivorous.

As for having tools, I am not sure I agree, primates like Chimps (our closest DNA relative and _also omnivorous_) have tools, heck even sea otters use tools to get what they need for nutrition. Tools are not unique to ****-erectus, so I find it unlikely that early man did not have tools with which to forage, and indeed _hunt_. Not being able to hibernate and having migrated FAR FAR from the eternal green of the rainforest and the grasslands, man adapated, and they were equipped to do so.

FWIW, with DS I gagged at the smell of flesh, my meat eating husband even had to sleep in another room because I could smell the meat in his skin. However with baby number two I wanted to bathe in gravy and would have died for a room full of meat scented candles. I tried every amino combination I could try and yet I would wake in the night with uncontrollable urges for steak or chicken.

I think our biological make up is far from so simplistic that we can say ALL humans are better off not eating animal proteins.

I am. I know that. DS is slowly starting to gravitate towards vegetarian fare, but DH? I don't know if that's true. And DD...I have my doubts about her. The truth is we didn't stop evolving a million years ago. We are still evolving everyday (if you believe in that sort of thing this must be true, no?), and as a result we are still adapating, some faster than others.

I will try the seeds and nuts...any ideas where I can read about alternative sources for amino accids found in meat? I certainly would like to know for myself at least.


----------



## hakeber

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
No, but I could imagine it happening. If a child eats nothing but fruit, they're going to get upset tummy. If they eat nothing but cheese, same thing. Nothing but bread... same again. It's about balance. Kids need fats, greens (chlorophyll and protein) and sugars. Not enough of any one of that triad and there will be imbalance... it isn't so much that it's "too much" of one as not enough of the others to balance it out.

If my kids did OD on fruit, I'd bring in some soaked nuts, or some coconut and olives (fats), which they love, and make sure they got some greens (they will eat greens wrapped around things, like a burrito). ETA - I don't mean I wrap greens _around_ a burrito.









So what do you do if they refuse the seeds and nuts and ask for more fruit? I agree it's balance, but if your kid refuses to accept your options to help them balance, what would you suggest?

Quote:

I've seen kids crave bread and coke, too, but I don't think it is as easy to identify the bodily need as looking at what they want. For instance, I had pica during both pregnancies - I craved dirt, and I drooled over dirt covered potatoes and could have rammed fistfuls of soil into my mouth when visiting a plant nursery - I loved the smell so much. But I knew it wasn't dirt I was craving but something IN the dirt, I was mineral deficient.

We need to stop looking at protein as "protein" and instead see it as "amino acids" ... all the secrets of protein cravings are revealed when we _understand_ protein.

We cannot assume his bodily need is "chicken" or "protein" any more than we can assume mine was "dirt". You have a sign... a sign of _what_ is the question.

I also know of icecream cravings, pickle cravings... you name it and there is an unhealthy craving that is an unidentified deficiency. I cured my pica by remineralising with quality food minerals. It helps to identify the lacking nutrient. We also know if the nutrient need is not being met by indulging it because our craving doesn't stop... it continues, to the detriment of other nutrients, causing a loop.
That does make sense. It is essentially _easier_ to get him to eat three bites of chicken than it is to get him to eat a bowl of leafy greens with flaxseed oil, but that's pretty lazy on my part. Any tips? Recipes? Links? I am eager to learn.


----------



## EdnaMarie

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hakeber* 
OFF TOPIC:

Edna-Marie, your husband and daughter would do really well living in much of south east asia. I recall going to the market for the first time in Ho Chi Minh City and asking the price of something and when I would say no and walk away they would chase me down the alley, shouting other prices, and if I would say yes they would look confused, and become extremely suspicious. I once had a guy start arguing with me as if I HAD said no..

Lucky for DH, he was raised in Asia, and DD will get to visit often when we get back on our feet financially. It must be genetic. They are Persian traders and yes, I deal with it daily.

I didn't realize how stubborn and independent-minded my kids were until I took the neighbor's baby the other day. Emergency babysitting as mom went to the hospital. I was like... she won't cry? The kid was preternaturally calm and sweet. I was shocked.

Mom just shrugged. "Easy baby." Oh, and guess what was in the diaper bag for "snacks" if necessary:

Ritz crackers
Oreos
Capri Sun
Spaghetti-Os

But I bet she's just the kind of baby to eat whatever you give her anyway... Some people really luck out!


----------



## hakeber

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EdnaMarie* 

Ritz crackers
Oreos
Capri Sun
Spaghetti-Os

ew


----------



## Calm

Quote:

I think our biological make up is far from so simplistic that we can say ALL humans are better off not eating animal proteins.
This is a controversial thing to say but... I no longer think this. I used to, very much. In fact there may be posts on MDC of me saying exactly that because I was all about differences and uniqueness etc... because there is so much evidence of it, what makes one person feel good makes another person sick, allergies... etc.

I changed my mind and if you bear with me I'll try to stumble around to explain why.

I keep running up against the same results with people and animals. (I am starting to stretch my healing work to animals, too) It was after making the realisation with animals that had me noticing it with humans.

For example, dogs. Owners of dogs like to tell you that their dog is particularly unique or has preferences ("he won't eat that brand of dog food" and "he can't sleep without his little blue blanket on"), however when it comes to health, they are _*all identical.*_ Some owners refuse to buy into this, and because it is fairly irrelevant, I leave it alone. But I can bring any dog back to health using the same treatment and if the owner is willing to follow my suggestions, the dog will not get ill again. Essentially, it is raw meaty bones as the diet and MMS and MSM if acutely or chronically ill. No exceptions.

ALL dogs have better health and longer lives with raw meaty bones as the diet. I expect someone might love to argue this right now on this thread even, because of the idea that "all the same" really seems to chap my culture's arse.







However, when thought about from a natural perspective, it makes sense. They don't eat cooked foods in nature, and wild dogs (such as dingos in my country) don't get cancers and sickly and their teeth are cleaned naturally etc.

I start with animals because it is easier to digest the idea that animals of one species would thrive on the same thing than it is to jump straight to humans. Once we see it in other animals, we can get the light bulb come on ... unless we hold too tight to the idea of "uniquely human", which is bred into us as important to "self".

Yes, gorillas in captivity show differences to wild ones, and to each other... as do dogs, and all animals under "odd" circumstances. Gorillas can be easily turned to carnivores by simply being integrated into a human culture for a while as they, like us, mimic. They will seem to be healthy, too, at least for quite a while.

Now onto humans, there _*are*_ "ideal" living conditions and diet for a "human being", not just for particular ones.







In fact, the idea of different ideal conditions for the human being now makes me giggle. I don't claim to know it all, but there are some things that universally cure illnesses and bring vital health to all humans and that is a raw diet, irrespective of meat.

I also know that if I am going to give someone a cleanse, they must go off meat. If I am to kill off their cancer, they must go off meat. I thought to myself... if the ideal conditions to healing are to avoid meat, perhaps the ideal conditions to health are to avoid meat. No brainer really. The way I heal people, no matter what they have, is the same. MS, cancer, AIDS, allergies... it's all the same treatment and the diet that helps a healthy person become vitally charged and brilliantly alive is raw, no exceptions. A vegan can actually get quite ill if they eat cooked foods because they are destroying the only proteins they are getting by heating, and they'll need to supplement b12 and iron, but raw diets have no such problems. This is no coincidence, nature didn't design our food to be cooked, which makes sense when we think of fruits but we still can't see that logic when we think of greens and other veggies.

So while I understand where you are coming from, I challenge the idea we are all that different, and that we each thrive on different conditions and foods. If put in ideal utopic conditions (think Garden of Eden) I doubt you'd find much difference between us, like a pack of wolves or gorillas. Most of us agree that the life we live is very unnatural and as far from ideal as a human body can get... where we disagree is over what _is_ ideal. My experience consistently shows me that the human body is the human body, and if given the ideal conditions, at least insofar as nutrients, each body responds the same. These blood type books and the evolution theory and the many different paths out there really just complicate what is essentially as simple as the dog one, "I don't care how wonderfully unique your chihuahua is, raw meaty bones, no exceptions, shiny coat, happy dog, long life, amen".

For humans, I'd have to say it is "raw foods, mostly greens and fats, don't cook, don't eat meat, don't steal milk from animals" and in an ideal world, that would be enough... but ideal this is not. With pesticides and depleted soils and bodies glommed up with meat residue there would need to be healing first, wipe clean the pineal gland so it is firing on all cylinders again, so joy is our basic state of being.

I'm not religious but I also do not believe in evolution, it is a very weak theory and even Darwin admitted that. I don't _*dis*_believe in evolution, to dismiss it wholesale is as premature as believing it wholesale, however there is much more that needs to be explained that simply isn't with evolution, and it frustrates me because as long as people just _believe_ in something, they don't look elsewhere. While we're stuck in the creation vs evolution charade we won't entertain the possibility of a third, fourth or hundredth other possibility.

When you say chimps use tools, have you seen them? They used a rock to open a nut. This actually turned out to be a problem because they (like us) are not meant to access ungerminated nuts, they are full of enzyme and nutrient inhibitors. In almost all cases of tool use, there is a side effect, either to the planet or to the individual. Look where our tool use has lead us... the ocean is full of oil and the land is a waste dump.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

So what do you do if they refuse the seeds and nuts and ask for more fruit? I agree it's balance, but if your kid refuses to accept your options to help them balance, what would you suggest?
I would do what I did with candy: explain that she might get sick if she eats too much, and then let her eat too much and get sick. I actually hoped she'd get sick because those moments only make me sound like a prophet







, and she then trusts me even more. I warn, then I release the chains and stand back. We don't learn lessons via words, as much as we'd love that to be the case. We learn via experience. Your children will make the synapse eventually, if you have mentioned too much of the same fruit might make them poopy (without harping on it or we can create that reality like brainwashing) you can trust they'll learn eventually.

If it was potentially a very bad thing, like too much meat or dairy (being a bad thing in my opinion, but not necessarily "truth") then I'd want to intervene simply because the consequences aren't soon enough to make the connection and no lesson will be learned. I suppose in that case I'd offer to do something else. I don't offer another food unless I have one that will be enticing enough to compete, I offer another activity. If they were still resistent, I guess in that situation I'd end up putting my foot down. But I've tried to construct the whole circumstance so that isn't necessary. None of these situations exist in a vacuum. If I have to exert some kind of power over them to protect them or to guide them, something has gone haywire in the whole day or process, in my experience.

Quote:

I will try the seeds and nuts...any ideas where I can read about alternative sources for amino accids found in meat? I certainly would like to know for myself at least.
The amino acids in meat are the same as the amino acids in all other foods.

Amino acids ARE protein. They are the building blocks of protein, for the body to access the amino acids, it must cleave proteins apart into individual amino acids. Enzymes are protein, also, they are simply amino acids in a particular order in a chain.

Superfoods are a great place to start, particularly with fussy kids. The beauty of these foods is also that they are so nutrient dense, unlike meat which is basically a source of protein and that's it. These foods contain almost magical properties that help our bodies work beyond simply "functioning".

Raw *cacao* is high in tryptophan, an amino acid and my favourite one because it is so important for serotonin. Anandamide is also in cacao, which is known as "the bliss chemical" because it is released while we are feeling great. Cacao contains enzyme inhibitors that decrease our bodies' ability to breakdown anandamide.

Acai berries have 8 to 13 grams of protein per 100gms. Scroll down that link to the protein comparison to eggs.

Maca, amazing food, put the powder in super smoothies with banana, cacao, almond milk and a dash of vanilla and syrup of choice. Chock full of amino acids, 10 - 15% protein.

I will have to add to the list later, after breakfast.


----------



## Calm

Came back to add after reading... I don't treat those illness I mentioned with diet. It sounds like I do the way I wrote that. I use some special things... but to stave them off, raw is how to do it. That's what I meant.


----------



## lmk1

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
This is a controversial thing to say but... I no longer think this. I used to, very much. In fact there may be posts on MDC of me saying exactly that because I was all about differences and uniqueness etc... because there is so much evidence of it, what makes one person feel good makes another person sick, allergies... etc.

I changed my mind and if you bear with me I'll try to stumble around to explain why.

I keep running up against the same results with people and animals. (I am starting to stretch my healing work to animals, too) It was after making the realisation with animals that had me noticing it with humans.

For example, dogs. Owners of dogs like to tell you that their dog is particularly unique or has preferences ("he won't eat that brand of dog food" and "he can't sleep without his little blue blanket on"), however when it comes to health, they are _*all identical.*_ Some owners refuse to buy into this, and because it is fairly irrelevant, I leave it alone. But I can bring any dog back to health using the same treatment and if the owner is willing to follow my suggestions, the dog will not get ill again. Essentially, it is raw meaty bones as the diet and MMS and MSM if acutely or chronically ill. No exceptions.

ALL dogs have better health and longer lives with raw meaty bones as the diet. I expect someone might love to argue this right now on this thread even, because of the idea that "all the same" really seems to chap my culture's arse.







However, when thought about from a natural perspective, it makes sense. They don't eat cooked foods in nature, and wild dogs (such as dingos in my country) don't get cancers and sickly and their teeth are cleaned naturally etc.

I start with animals because it is easier to digest the idea that animals of one species would thrive on the same thing than it is to jump straight to humans. Once we see it in other animals, we can get the light bulb come on ... unless we hold too tight to the idea of "uniquely human", which is bred into us as important to "self".

Yes, gorillas in captivity show differences to wild ones, and to each other... as do dogs, and all animals under "odd" circumstances. Gorillas can be easily turned to carnivores by simply being integrated into a human culture for a while as they, like us, mimic. They will seem to be healthy, too, at least for quite a while.

Now onto humans, there _*are*_ "ideal" living conditions and diet for a "human being", not just for particular ones.







In fact, the idea of different ideal conditions for the human being now makes me giggle. I don't claim to know it all, but there are some things that universally cure illnesses and bring vital health to all humans and that is a raw diet, irrespective of meat.

I also know that if I am going to give someone a cleanse, they must go off meat. If I am to kill off their cancer, they must go off meat. I thought to myself... if the ideal conditions to healing are to avoid meat, perhaps the ideal conditions to health are to avoid meat. No brainer really. The way I heal people, no matter what they have, is the same. MS, cancer, AIDS, allergies... it's all the same treatment and the diet that helps a healthy person become vitally charged and brilliantly alive is raw, no exceptions. A vegan can actually get quite ill if they eat cooked foods because they are destroying the only proteins they are getting by heating, and they'll need to supplement b12 and iron, but raw diets have no such problems. This is no coincidence, nature didn't design our food to be cooked, which makes sense when we think of fruits but we still can't see that logic when we think of greens and other veggies.

So while I understand where you are coming from, I challenge the idea we are all that different, and that we each thrive on different conditions and foods. If put in ideal utopic conditions (think Garden of Eden) I doubt you'd find much difference between us, like a pack of wolves or gorillas. Most of us agree that the life we live is very unnatural and as far from ideal as a human body can get... where we disagree is over what _is_ ideal. My experience consistently shows me that the human body is the human body, and if given the ideal conditions, at least insofar as nutrients, each body responds the same. These blood type books and the evolution theory and the many different paths out there really just complicate what is essentially as simple as the dog one, "I don't care how wonderfully unique your chihuahua is, raw meaty bones, no exceptions, shiny coat, happy dog, long life, amen".

For humans, I'd have to say it is "raw foods, mostly greens and fats, don't cook, don't eat meat, don't steal milk from animals" and in an ideal world, that would be enough... but ideal this is not. With pesticides and depleted soils and bodies glommed up with meat residue there would need to be healing first, wipe clean the pineal gland so it is firing on all cylinders again, so joy is our basic state of being.

I'm not religious but I also do not believe in evolution, it is a very weak theory and even Darwin admitted that. I don't _*dis*_believe in evolution, to dismiss it wholesale is as premature as believing it wholesale, however there is much more that needs to be explained that simply isn't with evolution, and it frustrates me because as long as people just _believe_ in something, they don't look elsewhere. While we're stuck in the creation vs evolution charade we won't entertain the possibility of a third, fourth or hundredth other possibility.

When you say chimps use tools, have you seen them? They used a rock to open a nut. This actually turned out to be a problem because they (like us) are not meant to access ungerminated nuts, they are full of enzyme and nutrient inhibitors. In almost all cases of tool use, there is a side effect, either to the planet or to the individual. Look where our tool use has lead us... the ocean is full of oil and the land is a waste dump.

If you are interested in an opposing point of view, you may want to read "Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human". I'm not finished reading it myself, but the author's point is that humans are the only animals to cook their foods...and in fact, according to his research there is no culture (apart from modern day raw foodists) that do not cook their food and eat all their food raw. What he says about modern raw foodists is that the variety of foods they have today is much more processed (like nut butters) than was available at any other point of time in human history, so part of the food is still processed rather than right off the tree/bush/etc. Anyhow, it's a pretty interesting book; it definitely has changed some of the ways I view food. Also, he does not have a "this is how you should eat" theme, but merely points out how humans (up to today) have evolved to eat. Of course, we're also at an unusual point in our history, where the overabundance of food and various processing technique are causing a problem for us.


----------



## Minxie

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
Raw *cacao* is high in tryptophan, an amino acid and my favourite one because it is so important for serotonin. Anandamide is also in cacao, which is known as "the bliss chemical" because it is released while we are feeling great. Cacao contains enzyme inhibitors that decrease our bodies' ability to breakdown anandamide.

Thanks for the information you have shared, Calm. Have you seen this article WRT cacao? What are your thoughts?

http://www.living-foods.com/articles/toxiccacao.html


----------



## Kindermama

I used to be more uptight about meals having 4 kids, a picky DH and all. I did the 3 main meals and 2 snacks and asked them (not incl. DH! haha) to eat whatever serving I chose based on what I believe each child needed (depended on so many variables and it could change from day to day).

Then, I realized I had so many issues with food! Most of my life, I ate well past the "full signal" my body was giving me! I kind of saw the light in that aspect and no longer expect my kids to eat servings that I choose but rather let them excuse themselves when they felt their own body signal fullness. I do ask they eat 3 "thank-you bites" of everything on their plate. My kids eat VERY healthily and we definitely have treats a few times a week too.

As far as how many meals a day....we eat 3 main meals and they can eat anything in moderation in between---yogurt, fruit, leftovers, veggie sticks, applesauce, cheese, hard-boiled eggs, cottage cheese etc. When the next big meal is within the hour, I typically encourage them to wait. I do have one child who eats ALL day ALL the time but I feel as long as she is within a healthy range, eating healthy foods and moving her body, it's all good!


----------



## Kindermama

Forgot to mention, if they are hungry after dinner/before bed, I usually give them a piece of fruit or cheese, that's it! It doesn't require dishes or anything!


----------



## Calm

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lmk1* 
If you are interested in an opposing point of view, you may want to read "Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human".

I just ordered it from my library. I like to keep a balanced point of view on all my favourite topics. It will be weeks before I can finish it though because I'm currently reading a very large book and don't get much time to read. Actually, it's appropriate for this topic (and all topics really), and I'm really enjoying it: The Book of Not-Knowing.

Quote:

I'm not finished reading it myself, but the author's point is that humans are the only animals to cook their foods...and in fact, according to his research there is no culture (apart from modern day raw foodists) that do not cook their food and eat all their food raw.
This may or may not be true, there are many un-contacted tribes on earth, although we are infiltrating them frequently, unfortunately. However we are the only animals to cook our food, of course.

Quote:

What he says about modern raw foodists is that the variety of foods they have today is much more processed (like nut butters) than was available at any other point of time in human history, so part of the food is still processed rather than right off the tree/bush/etc.
Like vegans, meat eaters and vegetarians, we can't say all of a group is doing any one thing, each one is different. People who choose to eat their food raw are more likely to _not_ eat processed food. Personally, I think the perfect diet for a human is to eat food off the tree, but if some want to grind their almonds into a paste (nut butter), I can't see how that can be classified as processed. If that's the definition, then most tribes are eating processed foods.

Quote:

Anyhow, it's a pretty interesting book; it definitely has changed some of the ways I view food. Also, he does not have a "this is how you should eat" theme, but merely points out how humans (up to today) have evolved to eat. Of course, we're also at an unusual point in our history, where the overabundance of food and various processing technique are causing a problem for us.
I think it is possible to say "this is how a human being best thrives", as opposed to "this is how you should eat". If someone struggles with a particular food, for instance, I'd want to know why. For instance, food reactions are based in a problem, not a personal quirk. Only those unaware of their options would say something like, "When I eat tomatoes I break out in a rash and throw up, but hey, that's just me! Everyone's different!"

From what I can garner the problem with the book for me is that it relies almost entirely on the theory of evolution. As I mentioned, I don't disbelieve in the theory but neither do I believe it. Same goes for religion and other topics that require a belief. Parts of them are very compelling but the more I study these topics the more holes I find. Therefore, if I read a diet book that is based on creation for instance, the conclusions that come out of that are only as meaningful as the foundation... and for an unconditional believer in creation, there will be no problem, but for someone like me, there will be an immediate and irremediable problem. This is the problem with that book for me, he takes for granted that evolution is fact, completely ignoring that it is the _*theory*_ of evolution.

I must add, it is _biological_ evolution I stand with one eyebrow raised against. I recognise we have "evolved" into an agricultural culture and the many other ways we have progressed/evolved. I just see no evidence of a biological evolution, eg, of an organism changing from one species to another.

He states we evolved to eat cooked foods, and this made us smarter, and now we are best suited to eating cooked foods. As a writer and debater, I know how easy it is to put forth a case by cherry picking data not to mention the fact that if there is only one person in a debate (which is the situation in any given book) then you'd have to be a complete moron to not compel your reader to your point of view - you have no opposition; you "win" by default.

I've known people to change their religions after simply watching a well put together youtube video.







When it comes to dietary issues, a much less loaded topic, most people are, understandably, swept along with the current. So I've no doubt he lays out a convincing argument for cooked food. Someone had to take that angle eventually. However, regardless of the foundation issues already mentioned, science is catching up with logic ie, enzymatic and nutritional research into cooked and raw foods.

One thing the author and I agree on is we "evolved" into cooking ... we also evolved into animal imprisonment and torture, earth rape, milk theft... when it comes to dietary matters, I'm not sure our "evolution" is something to be all that proud of.... but like war, there will always be someone willing to run shouting with pride and colours flying, regardless of the consequences.

In my mind, all progression is regression, and unless we get back to our indigenous roots, we will continue to enslave and suffer.

I look forward to reading the book.







I will read with an open mind.


----------



## flower01

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
t

In my mind, all progression is regression, and unless we get back to our indigenous roots, we will continue to enslave and suffer.










fascinating!


----------



## lmk1

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
I just ordered it from my library. I like to keep a balanced point of view on all my favourite topics. It will be weeks before I can finish it though because I'm currently reading a very large book and don't get much time to read. Actually, it's appropriate for this topic (and all topics really), and I'm really enjoying it: The Book of Not-Knowing.

This may or may not be true, there are many un-contacted tribes on earth, although we are infiltrating them frequently, unfortunately. However we are the only animals to cook our food, of course.

This is true, of course...as any scientific theory, it cannot be proved, only disproved. Of the known tribes, all so far cook a large portion of their food. If a previously unknown tribe turns up that eats all its food raw, then his theory that humans cannot live off of raw food off the tree would be disproved.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
Like vegans, meat eaters and vegetarians, we can't say all of a group is doing any one thing, each one is different. People who choose to eat their food raw are more likely to _not_ eat processed food. Personally, I think the perfect diet for a human is to eat food off the tree, but if some want to grind their almonds into a paste (nut butter), I can't see how that can be classified as processed. If that's the definition, then most tribes are eating processed foods.

Yes, according to this book, not only our all tribes eating processed foods, but a specific type of processing (cooking). By modern definition, "processed foods" seems to indicate a bad type of food, such as hot dogs and potato chips. But processing just means changing the food by cooking it, or fermenting it, and not necessarily the new types of processing whereas food is broken down into before impossible parts and manipulated by huge commercial processes that one cannot replicate at home.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
I think it is possible to say "this is how a human being best thrives", as opposed to "this is how you should eat". If someone struggles with a particular food, for instance, I'd want to know why. For instance, food reactions are based in a problem, not a personal quirk. Only those unaware of their options would say something like, "When I eat tomatoes I break out in a rash and throw up, but hey, that's just me! Everyone's different!"

From what I can garner the problem with the book for me is that it relies almost entirely on the theory of evolution. As I mentioned, I don't disbelieve in the theory but neither do I believe it. Same goes for religion and other topics that require a belief. Parts of them are very compelling but the more I study these topics the more holes I find. Therefore, if I read a diet book that is based on creation for instance, the conclusions that come out of that are only as meaningful as the foundation... and for an unconditional believer in creation, there will be no problem, but for someone like me, there will be an immediate and irremediable problem. This is the problem with that book for me, he takes for granted that evolution is fact, completely ignoring that it is the _*theory*_ of evolution.

One could use that argument for anything; how do I know that I'm actually typing this email and not having a dream about typing the email or that someone isn't imagining me typing this email (and therefore I don't exist outside of their imagination). Are there any "hard facts" that you could say are not based on any assumptions whatsoever? The theory of evolution is so far fitting in with the evidence that has been uncovered (from fossils, etc), but obviously if you don't find such evidence compelling then further theories based on evolution will not be compelling either. Out of curiosity, what do you believe? Sorry, if it's too personal...you don't have to answer of course!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 

I must add, it is _biological_ evolution I stand with one eyebrow raised against. I recognise we have "evolved" into an agricultural culture and the many other ways we have progressed/evolved. I just see no evidence of a biological evolution, eg, of an organism changing from one species to another.

He states we evolved to eat cooked foods, and this made us smarter, and now we are best suited to eating cooked foods. As a writer and debater, I know how easy it is to put forth a case by cherry picking data not to mention the fact that if there is only one person in a debate (which is the situation in any given book) then you'd have to be a complete moron to not compel your reader to your point of view - you have no opposition; you "win" by default.

I've known people to change their religions after simply watching a well put together youtube video.







When it comes to dietary issues, a much less loaded topic, most people are, understandably, swept along with the current. So I've no doubt he lays out a convincing argument for cooked food. Someone had to take that angle eventually. However, regardless of the foundation issues already mentioned, science is catching up with logic ie, enzymatic and nutritional research into cooked and raw foods.

One thing the author and I agree on is we "evolved" into cooking ... we also evolved into animal imprisonment and torture, earth rape, milk theft... when it comes to dietary matters, I'm not sure our "evolution" is something to be all that proud of.... but like war, there will always be someone willing to run shouting with pride and colours flying, regardless of the consequences.

In my mind, all progression is regression, and unless we get back to our indigenous roots, we will continue to enslave and suffer.

What do you consider our indigenous roots? I guess this question is somehow connected to religious belief, but do you belief there's a starting point at which humans began to exist (as in Garden of Eden) or...? And do you believe that indigenous tribes were living the "right way" until they became corrupted? And what are some example of indigenous tribes?
Again, sorry, if I'm getting too personal with the questions; we've definitely gotten away from the OP's question









Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm* 
I look forward to reading the book.







I will read with an open mind.


----------



## *LoveBugMama*

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama* 
That is a very clarifying point. And it helped me articulate in my head that what we allow in our house are respectful choices and responsible choices, whether we are talking about food or language or whatever. If I have a food item meant for a birthday surprise for my neighbor, and my child is dead set on eating that or nothing else at 11pm, no I am not giving it to him and I won't feel the least bit bad over it. There are other things to eat and demanding that one item isn't very respectful of my intentions. I'm not a doormat.

I also expect everyone to make financially responsible choices. If a meal for three people needs one ingredient, it is irresponsible to make a snack for one person of that ingredient by eating it all yourself. That isn't responsible and a better choice should be made.

And I honestly have to say that in 14 years my son has had little problem understanding these simple rules. I am one who said up front my son can eat when he is hungry, whatever the time of day, and for the most part he can eat what he likes, since we don't keep junk food in the house. I never ended up with a child demanding a slice of grandmothers birthday cake a day early, or else--perhaps I am just lucky, but I think we are very reasonable and grounded in common sense on this issue, while allowing ds a lot of freedom, and for the most part, he has been reasonable about food in response. The majority of the food here is always available to him, and he has always cooperated with the few limits in place due to finances or future plans for certain items. These few limits have never led to any ongoing problems at all.

I totally agree! Not once have I had a problem with my son refusing to accept that item X is for our special dinner with guests tomorrow or something similar. I absolutely agree with your post on this.


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:


Originally Posted by *coffeegirl* 
I don't think there's anything wrong with grazing in itself. But I kind of agree with what the previous poster you were responding to said, about how it would be a problem in their house if a child passed on every set meal and instead only wanted to snack. Especially if you're lucky enough to have family meals, at least some of the time. Family breakfast/brunch on the weekends, family dinner at night, etc. I know not everyone can do this. But I think it's a great tradition. And having a completely unstructured, individualized eating plan for each person would seem (to me) to kind of work against the family meal concept.

I think it's a great tradition, too...but not if it means my kid forcing down stuff they don't like. DD1 is a very picky eater. She's also a huge grazer, and doesn't really like sit down meals that much (doesn't like to eat a whole meal at once, as far as I can tell). She has to sit with us for dinner. She does have to try a food if it's new, but she doesn't have to eat it. She's not to leave the table. (Nobody leaves the table during dinner, except to get a missing condiment or something like that.) If she's hungry after dinner, she can get a snack, but does have to check what it is with us first, mostly for inventory control. She's part of the social aspect of dinner, but we don't have separate meals on the table.

Admittedly, this is a compromise between me and dh, as we have slightly different priorities. We'd each handle things differently on our own, and in opposite directions. But, it works out okay.


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EdnaMarie* 
I totally agree with the first part. The second part, I have never heard referenced to a proper study. I've seen it in random "nutrition" websites but I don't know anyone who actually does that who does not have a weight problem.

This was re: grazing/5 or 6 small meals a day, just in case that's been lost in the pages of posts since (busy thread!).

I do this, and I have a weight problem. However, most of the people I know who do this, and who have weight problems, started doing this long after they developed weight problems. And, they _all_ developed those weight problems growing up, on a "three square a day and clear your plate" regimen of eating...every one of them.

My own weight problems are due to disordered eating, fostered by a sexually abusive grandfather and an emotionally abusive grandmother (_one_ aspect of that being that she bought our silence about the sexual abuse with candy). However, my brother, who grew up in our house, and without the sexual abuse, has never had even an inkling of a weight problem, and neither has my mom, who is mostly a grazer (she's carrying _maybe_ 10 extra pounds now, at 66, due to an overly sedentary lifestyle, caused by overwork in a white collar capacity). Grazing, when not used as an excuse to free-for-all on junk food, or in the context of bored and/or emotional eating (I do that, unfortunately), doesn't cause weight problems.


----------



## mamazee

Grazing doesn't cause weight problems. Eating three regular full meals and then grazing on top of that will, because you'll take in too many calories. But taking in the same number of calories in 5 or 6 small meals instead of 3 large meals can be healthier, or so I've always read.


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:


Originally Posted by *velochic* 
I have to say that am astounded at the number of people saying that if their kids don't want to eat a meal, they are welcome to eat pb&j or yogurt. I consider those to be EXTREMELY unhealthy foods and yogurt is considered a dessert here. Even the organic yogurts that dd eats are chock-full of sugar. If they're not organic, they are full of artificial colors, flavors and HFCS, too. Same goes for peanut butter. It's full of sugar and partially hydrogenated oils, again unless organic.

I just saw this. I give my kids yogurt with no added sugar. It's easy to find here, both organic and otherwise.

And, I've been eating non-organic, sugar-free, hydrogenated oil free peanut butter since I was about four. It's been around for a long, long time.

I'm not saying this is what I always offer or anything - just that yogurt and peanut butter don't have to equal a bunch of sugar.


----------



## Calm

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lmk1* 
Yes, according to this book, not only our all tribes eating processed foods, but a specific type of processing (cooking). By modern definition, "processed foods" seems to indicate a bad type of food, such as hot dogs and potato chips. But processing just means changing the food by cooking it, or fermenting it, and not necessarily the new types of processing whereas food is broken down into before impossible parts and manipulated by huge commercial processes that one cannot replicate at home.

True. I think of processing as a bad thing but this is only because of what we use it to describe today, the food that barely resembles food anymore. His definition is the truer one.

Quote:

One could use that argument for anything; how do I know that I'm actually typing this email and not having a dream about typing the email or that someone isn't imagining me typing this email (and therefore I don't exist outside of their imagination).
Now we're mixing in some _meta_physics with our physics. I like it!









Quote:

Are there any "hard facts" that you could say are not based on any assumptions whatsoever?
This is a difficult one to answer directly and quickly. Essentially, I guess we'd have to separate "true" from "fact"... and I'm just typing this as it comes to me so it could need some tightening... but "true" to an individual can only be based in one thing and that is authentic direct experience. A "fact" is something the majority holds as true even if they have never had direct authentic experience of the fact.

An example of a _fact_ is that the Earth is a sphere, although I have never had direct _know_ledge of this fact, I would lay my bet on it being a sphere - the alternative would be some unidentified quirk of outer space to make things look like spheres when they aren't... or some coverup where the earth pictures were fakes and every picture drawn or copied since that were based on that were based on a foundational lie. Possible? Of course. Probable? Not at all.

An example of _true_ is that fire is hot. I have direct experience of this, I know this to be true.

When we strip away our conceptions, emotions, judgments, assumptions and projections from any thing or event, what we are left with is much more simple, and the truth of that thing or event is much less than we tend to assume.

Quote:

The theory of evolution is so far fitting in with the evidence that has been uncovered (from fossils, etc), but obviously if you don't find such evidence compelling then further theories based on evolution will not be compelling either. Out of curiosity, what do you believe? Sorry, if it's too personal...you don't have to answer of course!
The evidence they have are different bones, when we add their assumptions to that, then we have the idea that the human form went through the changes that those bones represent.

There are many scientists absolutely opposed to the evolutionary theory, such as Dissent From Darwin and sites that can explain much more than I can here, like Science Against Evolution. People are afraid of this stance, because the alternative is thought to be religious, but it simply isn't. If you aren't religious, it doesn't mean you automatically must believe in evolution, either. There are accounts of fossils being found that creating problems for the theory, too, such as the human fossil found in Chad. The fossil's age dictates it should look like an ape or some Neanderthal but it looks like a modern human. What were _they_ doing there back then? These questions are serious reasons why jumping to conclusions when we find some bones is scientifically dangerous. We have never observed evolution, we have no direct experience of it.

Look deeply, question everything, even lettered folks with white lab coats... they're just people, subject to mistakes like the rest of us only they have the power to alter text books and shape small minds.

Quote:

What do you consider our indigenous roots?
I can't say where, as I don't know (there's that direct experience thing again!), although some geneological research points to all humanity coming out of Africa.

Logic dictates humanity once did not have houses... at some point, we lived completely on the land. An alternative to this is that astronauts from another planet put us here, with instructions on how to build homes and create civilisations - scientology purports something like this, I think. That's not the only alternative but it's an example to show how far stretched we'd have to think if we think life was always like this, only simpler. I can't buy that... again, I'm not closed to it, but it has got to do a better song and dance than that to get my attention as a valid option for the beginnings of humanity.

Until that point, I favour the idea that before the English took over the world - America, Australia, New Zealand, Africa, etc - they were once just like the indigenous they destroyed, only enough generations back that they no longer identified with it. The idea of a "white indigenous" seems whacky because history only shows us with guns and steel and homes and a bad attitude. At some point though, we had to been like the indigenous, living on the land, with the land, eating raw, communing with animals not eating them... and although I'm not religious, I think there are some gold nuggets hidden in religious text, like genesis, that suggest things went haywire after we "ate of the tree of good and evil/knowledge". And being opposed to evolution, I think that is where we should still be. For instance, parenting in a primal way benefits my children and I think most children ... the instinctual indigenous drives are all intact in children.

Quote:

I guess this question is somehow connected to religious belief, but do you belief there's a starting point at which humans began to exist (as in Garden of Eden) or...? And do you believe that indigenous tribes were living the "right way" until they became corrupted? And what are some example of indigenous tribes?
Again, sorry, if I'm getting too personal with the questions; we've definitely gotten away from the OP's question








Buddhists believe in "beginningless time" and I resonate with that, though I don't outright believe it. Time and space as we know it is finite, we can't imagine infinity, it is out of the realms of human conceptual ability. I don't know, and I have learned that is one of the most intelligent things to say.









We can't be sure tribes were primary... perhaps they were an evolution from a more isolated existence. I read a fascinating series of books that goes into all this, touches on all subjects in a way I've never encountered before: The Ringing Cedars. The first book, Anastasia is where you meet Vladimir and he recounts his true account where he met her... she is a Russian woman living alone in the taiga (siberian forest) and she is so pristine and indigenous and amazing that she has amazing abilities and a weird diet (raw, freshly picked, grazes all day) and lifestyle but she says we ALL have these abilities. She has no "structure" or house, just her spot in the forest, and squirrels bring her food, like dried mushrooms and when he was baffled by that she explains, "doesn't your dog bring you the paper?" They have a child together and her babysitters are a wolf and a she-bear. I know, it sounds incredible and could possibly be but it really opens one's mind to possibilities and what we could be missing out on. A gorgeous blonde living indigenously in joy naked in a forest with dolittle qualities is something most of us can't even imagine... for instance, National Geographic couldn't show _her_ boobs on TV, because it would be considered porn.

I have to go again... I've missed a couple of Q's and another person's Q but I'll come back later.


----------



## daniedb

I know this thread has evolved (ha! get it?







), but I wanted to weigh in and say that in our home, in which my children are given quite a bit of say and respect, one is allowed to eat unlimited amounts of (plain, unsweetened, uncolored, often full-fat and organic, sometimes homemade) yogurt, and fruits and raw vegetables as a substitution for a meal if one is particularly offended by said meal.

If kid seems to need protein, I've been known to suggest a (organic, all-natural, sugar-free, peanut-only) PB sandwich with (sugar-free, whole wheat, seeded and often homemade) bread and a touch of local (or storebought semi-local) honey.

What do I care?


----------



## catherinebell

You're definitely stricter than I am, but that doesn't make you too harsh. I probably cater a bit too much to my kid. She's not the best eater, but she eats a variety of things and most of them are healthy. I have sent her to bed without eating though. If I put dinner out and she's too busy playing to eat then she goes to bed hungry.

Huntsville Single Mom


----------



## Calm

Quote:


Originally Posted by *daniedb* 
I know this thread has evolved (ha! get it?







), but I wanted to weigh in and say that in our home, in which my children are given quite a bit of say and respect, one is allowed to eat unlimited amounts of (plain, unsweetened, uncolored, often full-fat and organic, sometimes homemade) yogurt, and fruits and raw vegetables as a substitution for a meal if one is particularly offended by said meal.

If kid seems to need protein, I've been known to suggest a (organic, all-natural, sugar-free, peanut-only) PB sandwich with (sugar-free, whole wheat, seeded and often homemade) bread and a touch of local (or storebought semi-local) honey.

What do I care?

Oh my god, can't you see you are totally off topic?

Heh.









Quote:

Thanks for the information you have shared, Calm. Have you seen this article WRT cacao? What are your thoughts?
Minxie, Jeremy has gone a little over the top, but with hope the end result will be a better understanding of cacao and use in moderation. How his personal research came about was that he had an endless supply of cacao and he and a group of others ate nothing BUT cacao for years... and that is almost literally for some of them. If you do that with anything, even lettuce, eventually that lettuce is going to make you sick. It is a powerful food, it really is, and it shouldn't be eaten as a food staple like that.

The other thing to keep in mind is that he doesn't know why it made him feel bad. Chocolate has made me feel bad, too, but then so have oranges when I overdo it. It was suggested to him that perhaps it was because he over did it but then he retorted with the idea that wheatgrass every day didn't do that to him, but cacao did. This overlooks the important fact that cacao is strong, too strong to be used as a "food".. that is not how superfoods are used. For instance, it contains a 100 000 orac (antioxidant score), where blueberries, a notable antioxidant, tip the scale at 2400. That is a MASSIVE difference, and the constituents of chocolate/cacao are like that all the way through, the magnesium content is huge, the amino acid score... it is serious stuff.

Research is being done on cacao around the world:

Here's one from Japan:

Quote:

In this paper the author review the results related to physiological effects of cacao polyphenols which include an antioxidative effect; arteriosclerosis prevention; depression of ethanol induced gastric mucosa damage; and effects on the immune system.
Recent/Ongoing Dark Cacao Studies

Quote:

Cocoa flavanols, as discussed earlier, limit oxidative stress, and block inflammation, apparently helping improve memory and slowing down the aging process.

Cocoa also demonstrates a significant effect on TNFα (tumor growth factor) which
increases the body's anti-inflammatory ability. Cocoa flavanols also inhibit the formation of other inflammatory chemicals like IL-2 (interleukin)...

A Finnish study recently found that chocolate preference and consumption in elderly men was associated with better health, optimism, and better psychological well-being.

The researchers found that the intake of cocoa definitely suppressed the toxicological effects of dioxins in the body.
My concern with it is that it must be fermented to be eaten. This means that a human would only encounter a small amount of fermented cacao beans in nature. Also, in our culture it is usually eaten with copious amounts of bad sugars and milk.

All foods must be respected and eaten in moderation and balanced with other foods, but I suggest cacao be treated with more respect than other things because it is so dense with power. I think it is a great "treat" for kids because not only does it appeal to them, but it has benefits, too, and it won't do to them what cheese or peanuts will. We can put the powder into their smoothies or make raw choc balls and they can get all the benefit and it isn't handing them a brussels sprout... but if they are eating big gloms of it, raw or not they're going to mess up the balance. I don't think I would call that "toxic" so much as "stupid".

But we each have to study foods for ourselves and reach our own conclusions.

If I'm feeling energetic enough and my daughter rejects my dinner, I would much rather she drank down a huge smoothie full of superfoods and fresh coconut milk and two cups full of spinach blended in with a handful of berries and a banana... I mean sheesh, no dinner I can make can compare to the nutrients she gets out of those smoothies and it tastes like heaven. She's better off rejecting dinner!

Carob has no one fighting against it, and is touted in almost as much a way as chocolate is. If there is concern about cacao, go to carob instead, often kids still love it. I don't particularly like the taste and neither does my daughter.


----------



## Violet2

We try to respond to DD's requests for foods with well, food. But we balance it, frex, if DD didn't eat dinner and wants to eat something later, I will give her a mini meal with protein. If she ate dinner and wants something I'll give her a tiny serving of ice cream or a popcicle or some fruit.

The problem we have is she wants "snack" on the hour every hour from 8am until about 2pm. So there have been times where I've told her she has to wait and that she's had enough to eat for the moment. I don't say she can't eat something, but that she has to wait because I can't cater to her by jumping up and fixing whatever she wants on an hourly basis and get anything else done.

V


----------



## phathui5

At our house, if you don't like what's for dinner, you can have an apple. If you decide not to eat the apple or the dinner and you're hungry, then it's because you didn't eat the apple or the dinner.


----------

