# Kids playing with and wasting food + Meal and snack scheduling discussion



## MPJJJ (Oct 24, 2003)

I don't know what to do about this anymore. I'm at my witts end.

My kids, ages almost 6, almost 4, and almost 2, won't stay out of the kitchen. I have told them over and over again that if they want something to ask me first, and I'll get it for them. But they don't listen, unless it's to ask me for something they know they won't get, like the 3rd popsicle in a row.

I have even tried putting a latch at the top of the kitchen door, but they just push a chair over, stand on it, and unlatch the kitchen door.

Unless they are engrossed in a movie or their v-smile, they do this every time I am out of the room. For instance, yesterday while I was in the shower, they got into the kitchen, took the bucket of icecream out, and sat on the floor eating it wiht their hands. This was just after I had gave them lunch AND made them their own bowls of icecream!

They got into my blueberries while I was in the bathroom and threw them at each other then squashed them into the floor.

This morning as i was vacuuming they got into the burrito's AFTER I had given them bowls of cereal. They put the whole wrappers into the microwave. I assumed they must be hungry, so I finished cooking them and gave them to the boys. The boys said they were'nt hungry and when I wasn;t looking they (the 4 year old, my 6 year old said he didnt do it) smeared them into the table.

They very often get boxes of cereal or bags if chips, take them to their room, and proceed to throw them at each other.

They get cartons of milk out and just leave them on the floor. My 4 year old poured my entire container of sugar AND coffee out onto the floor last week.

It is a never ending struggle, and since money is tight and I NEED this food to last, the fact that they are continuing to waste it is infuriating me. I feel as though I have to watch them every second they are awake.

I have esplained to them that Daddy works very hard for that food, and when they waste it, that makes us sad. But they dont care.

What can I do? Is this even normal? No one else with kids has to lock up their kitchen, I feel as though I am the only one.


----------



## lilsishomemade (Feb 12, 2005)

My almost 3 yr old is like this, always getting into the food in the kitchen. A lot of times, it results in the cereal being taken to his room and him throwing it all over. I have been thinking of getting locks put on the fridge and the pantry. For the pantry, specifically those magnetic key lock thingy's (sorry, don't remember exactly what they're called). Good luck!!


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Have you tried the cabinet locks that actually need a magnetic "key" that you can keep in your pocket to open them.
I imagine your 6 year old could figure out a fridge lock. But if you have a side by side you could find some way to bike lock the handles to gether.
I feel for you.
My kids are much younger (22months, 22 months and 3) and I also feel it necessary to keep them out of the kitchen. Right now a gate on each side (it is a galley kitchen) is doing the trick. But your situation would drive me nuts too.
JOline


----------



## mamaduck (Mar 6, 2002)

Call me crazy, but I personally would try to find ways to include them in the daily operation of the kitchen, and give them as much autonomy in the kitchen as reasonably possible. Starting with including them in making the grocery list and putting the food away. Giving them little tasks and talking the whole time about what foods they can get for themselves to snack on whenever they want, and how to put it away again. Teach them to fix simple snacks and teach them how to clean up again. Involve everyone in preparing meals. Supervise them at first, but put on a good show of faith -- let them know you believe they can use the kitchen responsibly. Teach the oldest to help the youngest with doing things correctly.

I think they need to feel some control over the food in the kitchen. The best way (IMHO) to acheive this is to include them in managing the kitchen and giving them a sense of ownership and pride in what they do.

But feel free to blow me off and call me nuts, because I know this sounds like a really risky proposition!!!


----------



## abac (Mar 10, 2005)

Could they maybe have one cupboard that they can go in? Stock it with healthy snacks and let them have free access to that cupboard while keeping the others off limits?


----------



## momto l&a (Jul 31, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamaduck*
Call me crazy, but I personally would try to find ways to include them in the daily operation of the kitchen, and give them as much autonomy in the kitchen as reasonably possible. Starting with including them in making the grocery list and putting the food away. Giving them little tasks and talking the whole time about what foods they can get for themselves to snack on whenever they want, and how to put it away again. Teach them to fix simple snacks and teach them how to clean up again. Involve everyone in preparing meals. Supervise them at first, but put on a good show of faith -- let them know you believe they can use the kitchen responsibly. Teach the oldest to help the youngest with doing things correctly.

I think they need to feel some control over the food in the kitchen. The best way (IMHO) to acheive this is to include them in managing the kitchen and giving them a sense of ownership and pride in what they do.

But feel free to blow me off and call me nuts, because I know this sounds like a really risky proposition!!!

Amen to the above.

By denying them the kitchen it will just matters worse.

My girls have free access to our kitchen and help themselves to food when they are hungry, Yeah sometimes they waste food but you know it all part of learning to take just what they can eat.

We are on a very tight budget so I know about the $ issue.

It really seems to me that denying your kid's access to the kitchen it setting them up for food issues. I mean locking up the cabinets seems WOW I mean that seems abuse







:

Use this opportunity to teach your children responsibility and respect. Sound to me like they can use some discipline.


----------



## MPJJJ (Oct 24, 2003)

Sounds like abuse?







Okay, I'm not denying them food. I'm not locking them IN the cabinet. What part of that sounds like abuse? This isn't about them being hungry, this is about them getting food out when they are NOT hungry and throwing it everywhere. Dumping a whole box of cheerios on the floor and stomping it is beyond wasting a little food. The only food that they ever get out and actually eat is things like icecream and popsicles. And I'm not up to not keeping icecream in the house because Dh and I like to eat these things too. I've thought about letting them have a cabinet in the kitchen for their snacks, but then I'm back at the beginning. I'm not against them getting food to eat and putting it back, or even forgetting to put it back sometimes. It's the fact that they keep getting out food to play with.

What are these magnet locks you keep talking about?


----------



## meowee (Jul 8, 2004)

My kids are not allowed in the kitchen most of the time-- and then only the 6 and 8 yr olds (not the 3 or 2 yr olds), and then only briefly to get what they want. This is for my own sanity (it is the ONLY place I can have space from them), because there are unsafe electrical conditions in there, and also DH has his business inventory in there which they could easily destroy.

However, I do think kids should have easy access to food as much as they want. I usually leave some "all you can eat" items out on the table or the kitchen counter (which the big kids can get for the little kids). I am always asking them if they are hungry, if they want something to eat. I never make them wait for meals. They eat when they want to.

It is NOT abusive to want your kids out of the kitchen, especially the young ones (can't believe that was said!). It is abusive to keep them from food when they want it, but clearly that's not what's going on.

MPJJJ, I have a baby gate up which keeps out the baby. My suggestion would be to leave out certain items they can have as much as they want of, in some place other than the kitchen. I also for safety reasons would only allow yout 6 yr old in the kitchen. Obviously I don't know the set up of your house or what your kitchen is like, but a 2 yr old roaming around a kitchen could be dangerous.


----------



## meowee (Jul 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *momto l&a*
It really seems to me that denying your kid's access to the kitchen it setting them up for food issues. I mean locking up the cabinets seems WOW I mean that seems abuse







:

Use this opportunity to teach your children responsibility and respect. Sound to me like they can use some discipline.

Please be more careful about using the term "abuse." If you read MPJJJ's post carefully this is clearly not an abusive situation. Even though this is just an anonymous message board, it would absolutely kill me if someone suggested this about me, especially when it is so unwarranted. I just wanted to speak up for MPJJJ here. She clearly stated she fed her kids lunch and gave them icecream. "Abuse" is not a word to throw out easily.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *momto l&a*
I mean locking up the cabinets seems WOW I mean that seems abuse







:


































You're kidding me, right?

Please say you're kidding!

It sounds like abuse not to let kids use food as a plaything, and a plaything they don't seem to particularly care about, at that? It sounds like abuse not to let kids take food to their rooms and throw it at each other??

What, exactly, do you think the word "abuse" means?

That word is thrown around in what I consider to be much too casual of a way here at MDC, but this really is over the top.

To the OP, I think that creating a space in the house that has snacks for the kids that is not in the kitchen might be a start. Perhaps an old milk crate in the family room stocked with crackers, apples, raisins, etc. would help? Have you sat down with your oldest child (who is getting of the age where he is old enough to reason with) and explained the the kitchen is off limits? Do you have a consequence to disrespecting your wishes? If I had a latch on my door and my child knew that it was to keep him/her out and he/she deliberately and repeatedly removed the latch and went in anyway, there would be a meaningful consequence for that.

Might it also help to establish snack times throughout the day with the understanding that there was no eating at other times? I used to let the kids snack whenever they wanted, but it got to the point where (since my kids can't really make their own snacks, or at least not in the variety I think they need for a healthy diet) either an entire box of crackers would be consumed in one day (if they got their own snacks) or I was going into the kitchen 8-10 times a day, besides meals, to make snacks that would often be only half-eaten. Now the kids know there are three snack times a day, and since I know that they are having adequate amounts to eat, I don't really entertain requests for extra snacks. They can get crackers from their shelf if they really feel the need, but I have noticed that if they are limited to crackers they suddenly aren't so hungry anymore. :LOL

While I agree that kids should be able to eat when they are hungry, I think that it's reasonable to expect that kids don't have one hand in the proverbial cookie jar all day long. I want my kids to appreciate that they have ample food and not view it as a boredom reliever, etc. My views on food have been shaped a lot by what I witnessed in Ethiopia.

Namaste!


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Oh, I see I am not the only person who is a bit tweaked by the use of the word "abuse."









namaste!


----------



## Mere (Oct 1, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meowee*
"Abuse" is not a word to throw out easily.









I agree. Yikes.

Back to the OP, it seems to me that there's an underlying issue here of why the kids are not respecting the sense of order you are trying to implement in your household. I don't know what to suggest, but IMO finding a way to lock up the kitchen is only going to serve a very short-term problem.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Short term solutions are still good first steps until you reach the long term solution.
www.onestepahead.com I believe has the magnetic locks.

And I am another to agree that the word "abuse" is thrown around an awful lot on these boards. Usually just to indicate something the other mom wouldnt choose to do.
It is actually kinda getting me down.
Joline


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

http://www.onestepahead.com/product/27181/119/117.html


----------



## MPJJJ (Oct 24, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
:

Do you have a consequence to disrespecting your wishes? If I had a latch on my door and my child knew that it was to keep him/her out and he/she deliberately and repeatedly removed the latch and went in anyway, there would be a meaningful consequence for that.


I agree, but I am lost on an appropriate consequence for removing the latch to get into the kitchen. If they asked, I'd gladly get them what they wanted within reason. But they are not asking, they are sneaking into the kitchen and disrespecting me and Dh and our food. What do you think would be an appropriate consequence for this?


----------



## MPJJJ (Oct 24, 2003)

Thanks, those look great, but our's are metal cabinets. How would one with metal cabinets and no handles keep the cabinets locked?


----------



## katebleu (Feb 4, 2005)

ok, umm, why can't your boys go into the kitchen? because by not allowing them into the kitchen you've created a situation where the kitchen has this great mystique. it's the best place in the house now.

i agree with mamaduck that including your boys in cooking and shopping and teach them how a kitchen works. they don't appear to understand the kitchen. and i personally don't think that locking up the food will every teach them that cereal isn't a toy.


----------



## Evan&Anna's_Mom (Jun 12, 2003)

I agree that, at least the older children, are old enough for there to be consequences for this behaviour. First and foremost I would have them clean up anything that made a mess. They are old enough to vacuum, to sweep, to use a rag and (safe) cleaner, to run the washer and dryer... You will probably have to stand over them at first and/or help them (depending on age and ability) but I would definitely start that for sure. In our house, if we need that kind of action, nothing else happens until its done. I will help if asked, but I won't do it all.

My next suggestion may need a bit of tweaking depending on your situation and approach to the world. I would definitely start including oldest child, at least, in the process of budgeting, household management and money education. Then, I would stick to a schedule for grocery shopping. Their favorite cereal gets dumped? Well, there will be more next Monday. Until then, here are the other choices. They ate all of the ice cream (or left it out)? That's it until Monday. I do big grocery trips on payday (every two weeks). Even my 2 YO has learned that if she eats all the fruit rolls on day 1, she has to wait a long time before there are any more.

If that doesn't work, the next level would be making them responsible for purchasing replacement items from money they have earned. Obviously, at their ages, you will need to give them jobs and the money. But I would think it should be real cash and then take them to the store and have them purchase the replacement box with it. Its a pretty graphic way to show how hard one has to work to earn the money to buy the item they just wasted.

I would definitely make at least some things impossible for them to get. My kids have free access to the pantry cupboard and the fridge and free access to snacks at any time. But the really precious stuff (or the stuff I really can't handle having them eat before breakfast) are in high cupboards that even I can't reach without the step ladder.

Finally, all of the things you mentioned seem to be very "sensory" play items. Lots of things that crunch or smoosh or ooze. Maybe take a look at their toys and see if you can introduce some more acceptable items with the same satisfaction. Playdough? I hate it, but it would be better than burrito filling on the floor. Or get them involved with food preparation with some of these ingredients -- bread making? Coating chicken with cracker crumbs? Something like that?


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Oh gosh I am sure you are right. I cannot imagine they could work on metal cabinets.
But you say your kitchen is a separate room with a door.
So I guess my next step would be to put a key lock on the door and not just a latch.
Short term solution? You bet.
Long term. You could have your children join you while preparing food, and help them earn the privilege of going in themselves and getting a snack while following the rules.
Joline


----------



## mamaduck (Mar 6, 2002)

I agree that abuse is a very strong word and not appropriate to this scenerio. However, I am also uncomfortable with the whole concept of locking away food or keeping the kitchen as an out of bounds area. I'm picturing how I would feel if this were done to me in my own home -- if I were told that since I am irresponsible with certain food items, I may not have access without permission. I would feel controlled and overpowered, I wouldn't like it, and I would find ways to rebel.


----------



## Teensy (Feb 22, 2002)

Arrrrggghhhhh - I feel your frustration. My boys do the same sort of thing. They love to play with the food in the kitchen. They especially like making "soup" - mixing miscellaneous things together in a bowl with water (coffee, sugar, soap, etc.). It has nothing to do with being hungry. It's more akin to making mudpies indoors. It's messy, wasteful, and frustrating. They also act similarly in the bathroom, emptying entire bottles of shampoo, soap, and toothpaste or putting whole rolls of toilet paper in a sink filled with water.

I don't have the magic solution yet. But yesterday after finding yet another mess and roaring some terrible roars, I made my 5 year old clean up messes around the house for about 45 minutes (any sort of chore he was capable of - carrying trash bags to the trash can, putting clothes in the washer and dryer, picking up toys, putting dishes in the sink, scooping the cat litter box). Then when he made another mess today, I did the same thing. I plan to continue doing this everytime I discover yet another non-toy no-permission-given mess (I do often permit very messy activities upon request, plus they can almost always go outside to play in our yard).

Also, I don't have then in my kitchen (yet!) but I recently bought some alarms at Walmart - they were 4 for $5 - that go on doors - when the door is open either a chime or alarm can go off (or you can turn the switch to off). I hesitate to put them in the kitchen since the baby often sleeps nearby, but I did put them on a closet upstairs after finding the eleventy-billionth roll of wrapping paper destroyed.

Good luck and let's hope this is a very short phase our boys are going through.


----------



## Marsupialmom (Sep 28, 2003)

I would find a way to lock up the cabinets while you work on exactly why they are doing this.

I think some of this is the problem with abundance. They have so much food about the house they don't realize the value/expense in it. So I would have them help you pick out food, find bargains, cut coupons, et like the OP suggested. Help them tally up the cost. Also, would buy less food. I did this with my children. I had Popsicle monsters. We bought a 12 count box and they each got 4 Popsicles. When those were gone, those were gone until the next shopping day. We did have an issue with my oldest dd coning the youngest out of Popsicles but I would look at youngest and explain that she gave her popcicle/s to her sister. That when you share some times it means less. This helped an underlying issue we had at our house of the older children manipulated her. After a few weeks they caught on about moderation. That one treat a day meant they could have it each day instead all in one day. For us focusing on the one treat and running out really help them from "wasting" food. If they do not have chips to throw around then they won't be tempted. Letting them live "without" without being hungry is not going to hurt them. Them having only a snack of popcorn for three because they ate all the blueberries in one day can help them learn moderation if you help them.

Another thing that has helped us greatly is "balancing" out food. Managing carbs, proteins, and fats. If they have an apple offering cheese. They were not constantly craving for sugar/carbs to fuel their bodies. This takes some practice and learning. This is a skill I wish I had learned as a child. Some of the foods you are describing are high bad carb foods. Also a little "scheduling" can help you control the waste. I know some people here don't like that term or idea about foods but your children are not infants. I have been so poor/broke that I know that eating when your hungry is not always possible. Also, if they are like I was I would make poorer high carb choices then have to eat shortly after. So I would spent more money on food.

One other issues is boredom. And I do think this is a big part of their behavior. I think you need to help them learn ways to keep their idle hands and minds busy. Having the cabinets locked will force them to get creative with other things. I want to warn you about this. LOL If you cannot lock things up can you put things on the shelves for them to play with? Cars? Legos? Pretend cooking set? When you go to the shower give your kids a task, maybe read a book and then tell them to work on a play while you are in the shower. If they still do it maybe make them sit in the bathroom while you are cleaning up. Or maybe take the stratagy of getting up 15 minutes earlier than them to shower up so they are not out of your eyesight. Also do they have a pretend kitchen and food?

If they are not helping you clean up, they should be.


----------



## UnschoolnMa (Jun 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamaduck*
Call me crazy, but I personally would try to find ways to include them in the daily operation of the kitchen, and give them as much autonomy in the kitchen as reasonably possible.









this is the route I would go as well. Forbidden fruit (rooms, items whatever) is a mighty tempting and beautiful thing lol


----------



## OakBerry (May 24, 2005)

My ds can enter the kitchen (and any room in the house) freely, and certain cabinets or doors are locked. The food cabinet is not, but he doesn't try to open it unless we are getting out a snack. If he was going in there and wasting/throwing food, I'd lock it. Same with the fridge. I don't think it's abusive to lock your cabinet, I think it's very logical actually.

I think having the kids help clean up the mess is a great idea.


----------



## USAmma (Nov 29, 2001)

If I give my kids things that the can play with (measuring cups, whisk, all those interesting kitchen tools) they will usually leave me to cook. Personally I find it great bonding time to have them in the kitchen with me. My oldest gets simple jobs now, too. She loves washing dishes. Sure it makes a mess but that's how kids learn.

There are some things that are more delicate and take effort to cook, and I try start those recipes at nap time, or even after they go to bed, for dinner the next day.

ETA: We keep a lot of the extra foods in the garage. If I find a sale and stock up, it goes in the garage. If the heat would spoil it, it goes in my bedroom closet on a high shelf. We have locks on the fridge and freezer for the safety of my toddler, and locks on all but one cabinet. The drawers are okay for them to get into. I keep the knives high and out of reach.

We don't waste, either. If Abi gets a food out or asks for it she must eat it before she gets anything else.

I did make a tub of rice available for them to play with like a sandbox. Abi cleans it up with a dust pan and Nitara helps. We don't eat that rice.


----------



## meowee (Jul 8, 2004)

I think MPJJJ's concern is mainly with wasting food and using it as a plaything-- which she should be concerned about. And if this is what the kids are doing, they *should* be restricted from the kitchen until they can learn to be respectful and appreciative of food. It would horrify me if my children dumped cereal on the floor for fun. They are allowed to eat as much of what they want whenever they want, but-- *there is no wasting allowed*. That is the #1 food rule in our house.

Last night my 8 yr old went into the kitchen and for no reason dumped water on the floor (remember I mentioned DH's inventory is in there) and removed about 8 plastic storage bags (which I use SO sparingly) and got those wet too just for fun. On previous occasions he has done things like dump an entire bottle of detergent down the sink. So, I told him that for the time being he was no longer allowed in the kitchen except to quickly get something to eat if he was hungry, because he couldn't trusted not to destroy things.

While getting the kids involved in every aspect of food shopping and kitchen life sounds like a rosy idea, this would never work in our home. Our kitchen is plain old dangerous (extension cords, etc) and the cooking burden on me is huge-- there are many days I have to cook 4 or 5 different things. Turning everything into a fun learning experience for my kids just isn't going to happen. They're just too young yet. I do hope to have them cooking on their own when they are teens, but they'll be completely different people by that point.

MPJJJ, the fact that they wait until you're not around to start playing with food makes me think this is a "let's goof off and do something sneaky" thing, which you do have a right not to allow. I don't know what to tell you regarding locks and stuff-- honestly they just need to learn to respect the boundaries you've set. There are lots of ways to do this, the same way you would use GD for other issues.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MPJJJ*
I agree, but I am lost on an appropriate consequence for removing the latch to get into the kitchen. If they asked, I'd gladly get them what they wanted within reason. But they are not asking, they are sneaking into the kitchen and disrespecting me and Dh and our food. What do you think would be an appropriate consequence for this?

I'm always hesitant to speak on MDC about how I discipline my kids because the subject of discipline always ruffles so many feathers, but if my kids were repeatedly forcing their way into a room I had told them to stay out of, I would confine them to their rooms.

If my kids were disregarding my instructions to not frolic in the food, I would stop buying snack items and put the remaining food where the kids couldn't reach it.

I am an evil, horrible mother who doesn't respect my kids and requires that they follow the rules.









Namaste!

Ps. You have gotten a lot of other good suggestions, too. I think this is a situation that requires a multi-pronged approach: immediate and long-trem strategies.


----------



## momto l&a (Jul 31, 2002)

The reason I said abuse is in the past couple of years there have been parents who have been mentioned in the news who locked their kids out of the kitchen. In THEIR case it was abuse because their children where malnourished. Which according to what MPJJJ posts would not be the case because she states her kids where just served a meal. They are just playing in the food.

But locking them out from accessing food and water just seems abusive and demoralizing to me.

Why can't they be taught to respect food and taught that it's not a play thing, why be locked out?

Its just seems so cold to be locked out of the kitchen by your own mother. I mean kitchens have always been a symbol of warmth and comfort.

Its just very upsetting to me to think about children being locked out


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *momto l&a*

But locking them out from accessing food and water just seems abusive and demoralizing to me.


She is not keeping them from accessing food and water. The kids have plenty of food and, I'm sure, liquids. She is just trying to make sure they don't throw it all over the house. It's NOT THE SAME THING. She is trying to teach the kids to respect food, that it's not a plaything. So far, they haven't learned. Locking the kitchen door is an intermediary step.


----------



## its_our_family (Sep 8, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MPJJJ*
What are these magnet locks you keep talking about?


They are called Tot Locks. They are little metal pieces that you attach to your cabinet. They have little levers that keep the door from opening. Then you have a nagnet that makes the metal move so the cabinet opens. The nice thing is that you can turn off the lock. SO, they don't actvate and you don't need the magnet.

The other nice thing is that the door doesn't move at all. The plastic clips can open enough to slam fingers in. These keep the door from moving at all.

We love them. We have them in the kitchen and the bathroom.

We keep our boys out the the kitchen. They are too little to get their own food and just make huge messes. It is a constant battle. It isn't abuse to not let your kids throw food they have no intention of eating.


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

My kids are about the same ages as yours-almost 6, almost 4 and almost 2. They have always had free access to what they can reach in the kitchen, and for whatever reason they just don't waste or play with food. I won't claim it's entirely because they've always been welcome in the kitchen to play, cook, clean or whatever-but I think it does help. We spend a lot of time in there eating together and cooking and talking about the value of food.

That said, I think you really do have to restrict access somewhat until they learn to respect food more. Despite having an "open kitchen" policy in our home, some things are still off limits. Anything we don't want them to have is up in high cabinets or on top of cabinets where they can't reach. No cabinets are locked, so most lower cabinets contain only pans, bakeware, bowls and kids' dishes-all stuff they can safely play with anytime they want. We keep canned goods and snacks they're allowed to have in one lower lazy-susan cabinet. If they start wasting food or the baby dumps it, up it goes into a high cabinet. At times all we've had in lower cabinets is canned food. For us it's the best of both world's-the kids feel welcome in the kitchen but they can't really get into trouble. (Yes, there have been times my littlest one has pulled chairs up to the counter to climb up and rummage in cabinets. Some of those times I have actually removed chairs from the kitchen because she tried it every time I turned my head.)

The refrigerator is a different problem, though. I have seen refrigerator locks, and I think if your kids are just going into the fridge to dump things out there's no harm in a refrigerator lock.

I also agree with whomever said a little snack shelf is great. With small quanities of snacks, and perhaps some cups with lids that you keep filled with water (or water bottles) for free access to drinks.

And maybe I'm way off base here, but if my kids were doing something like that I'd also suspect that they love the reaction they get from me and look into ways to modify my reaction.


----------



## mojomom (Mar 5, 2003)

My kids have a couple shelves in the pantry with their snacks on it. I allow them to snack on those items any time they like. Sometimes they graze all day soemtimes they hardly snack at all. It does have a latch for when my ds who is now 4 was younger, but that lasted all of 15 minutes before he figured out if he pushed on the folding doors hard enough the latch would come undone.

Also as PP mentioned, when we have "special" snacks if my kids abuse them or get them without asking then they are not allowed those snacks anymore.

My 8 yr old dd always asks first, my 4 yr old ds likes to get his own snakc. I think it is his way of being independent. So I keep good choice foods avaliable for him at his level and access. This really keeps the sneaking food to a minimal.

For me it has been letting him have the ability to just go and get a snack that keeps the food battles down.


----------



## meowee (Jul 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *momto l&a*
The reason I said abuse is in the past couple of years there have been parents who have been mentioned in the news who locked their kids out of the kitchen. In THEIR case it was abuse because their children where malnourished.

That is sort of like saying that there have been cases of homeschooled kids who have been abused, and therefore all kids who are homeschooled must be abused. MPJJJ was clear in her first post that the kids are not doing this out of hunger.









Aristotle was a man but not all men are Aristotle... kwim?


----------



## its_our_family (Sep 8, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *momto l&a*
Why can't they be taught to respect food and taught that it's not a play thing, why be locked out?



Children learn at different rates and ages. My 3yr old isn't ready to respect food he still wants to play with it and I am not willing to waste 40 bucks a month on food he throws so I can feel better about not keeping him out. It is the same with the fridge. We have water and ice int he door. It has a lock feature which we use. WHy? not to deny water but because T will stand at the fridge for an hourletting water run out. It is wasteful. I can explaint o him that is wasting but if he isn't old enough to remember and comprehend I can accept that and take the steps necessary to make sure it doesn't happen.


----------



## its_our_family (Sep 8, 2002)

http://www.onestepahead.com/jump.jsp...00&cm_ite=null

They have them at Toys ans Babies R us for less. We love them. They are easy to use. Actually we have taught Tracy to use them. THat way if he has to get in he can. It hasn't ended up biting us in the butt either. He leaves them alone.

Easy to install too.


----------



## MPJJJ (Oct 24, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *momto l&a*
The reason I said abuse is in the past couple of years there have been parents who have been mentioned in the news who locked their kids out of the kitchen. In THEIR case it was abuse because their children where malnourished. Which according to what MPJJJ posts would not be the case because she states her kids where just served a meal. They are just playing in the food.

But locking them out from accessing food and water just seems abusive and demoralizing to me.

Why can't they be taught to respect food and taught that it's not a play thing, why be locked out?

Its just seems so cold to be locked out of the kitchen by your own mother. I mean kitchens have always been a symbol of warmth and comfort.

Its just very upsetting to me to think about children being locked out

Because if they keep pouring my food out, we won't have anything left to eat! And honestly, I'm not willing to say "oh, you poured out all the cereal, no more until next week" when it is MY favorite cereal they have poured out! Or "You stuck your hands into the icecream, no more until next payday" when DH and I enjoy eating our icecream. Letting them destroy our food does not serve any good purpose, and it is denying us. I do let them play with rice, that only started my 4 year old on dumping out coffee (dirt) and sugar and flour (snow) onto the floor to drive his trucks through. No matter how many times I tell him "No Joey, that is cofee and sugar and flour, we eat these, not play in them", he insists that it is dirt and snow for our cars. I cannot afford to let him keep doing this. I have tried the pan of rice to play with, and guess what... it ended up getting thrown all over the living room! He is a very immature just-turning-4-year-old and he is not no where near ready to go into the kitchen alone. I do allow them to help me cook. Their job is to stir things that need to be stirred, and help me pour things into bowls, and until Joey cut himself on a plastic knife, (who knew it was that sharp) they helped peel potatos and carrots. They are very involved in shopping, cooking, ect. Michael doesn't bother me that much except he tends to leave things out. He's almost 6. Joey on the other hand can destroy my kitchen in under 3 minutes, and just doesn't see the reason for respecting food. He doesn't respect much of anything, shampoo gets poured out, toothpaste, toilet paper gets stuffed into the bathtub, and no matter how much I try to explain it to him, he just doesn't get it. So what am I suposed to do? Other people have said I should spank him for it. I'm not willing to do that. But I'm not willing to let him destory everything we have to eat, for one it's incredibly wasteful, and for two we just do not have the money to keep replacing what he destroys. I asked you AP moms for advice knowing you would tell me not to hit him like others tell me to, but you seem to be saying "let him learn that if he tears up the food he just won't get anymore for a while", but the problem with that is we wont either!


----------



## abac (Mar 10, 2005)

We use the cabinet and door latches found here

They should work well with no handles.

ETA: I just reread. Metal doors make it trickier.


----------



## Evan&Anna's_Mom (Jun 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MPJJJ*
And honestly, I'm not willing to say "oh, you poured out all the cereal, no more until next week" when it is MY favorite cereal they have poured out! Or "You stuck your hands into the icecream, no more until next payday" when DH and I enjoy eating our icecream.

I guess its a matter of priorities and what you are willing to do as a learning tool. Do I think things will be like this forever and that you will be doing without forever? No. But, I would also guess that if you ONLY lock doors or cabinets that they won't learn to respect food, they will only learn that they can't get to it. To ME, this isn't the purpose of discipline. The purpose is to teach and sometimes the only way to teach is to let children experience the consequences of their actions. Not by going hungry (please everyone, don't jump yet), but by realizing that certain treat items don't magically reappear. To me, this would be worth not eating ice cream myself for a month (and it would be good for me at the same time) or buying a favorite kid cereal and something they didn't like as much -- maybe keeping the less interested one in an inaccessible place so you would still actually have food.

All of that being said, the beauty of MDC is that you can ask a large group for advice and take what you like and leave the rest.


----------



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

MPJJJ, do u think ur children need more 'messy activity' time? do u have a backyard where they can play with mud, lotion, shampoo (things from dollar store hopefully) as long as u can get them to understand which ones are play ones and which ones are not.

i understand ur problem. first i feel there is a difference btw boys and girls discipline in general not always. it seems easier to discipline girls easier than boys. i have a dd and i can tell u oh try this. my dd does it why cant urs. but it is not so simple.

in general i find a problem behav. is because of two reasons. one they want to do it but are not allowed. so u involve them in kitchen sometimes which u r already doing. or they are looking for similar kind of activity but cant get it so they create something close to it.

i always feel children love to experiment to play with textures. things like mixing mud and shingles. pouring baby corn bowder on teh porch and sliding on them. making jello mould and hiding gummy bears or such things in there for them squish thru and find. if u dont want them to eat it maybe use small plastic animals.

instead of rice bowl, give him a bean bowl. easier to pick up. then when u r ready to throw the beans out add sugar, or salt or flour to it and let ur 4 year old get all mucky.

do u think this might work? letting them do things they want to do instead of stopping them? not sure how they would differentiate btw actual things or play things. like letting them play with toothpaste, shampoo at a certian time of day?

do they get a lot of time outdoors? silly question i know but that makes such a big difference. i actually find joey pretty creative with the snow and dirt idea. can u keep a jar of navy beans for snow and those cardboard paper squished things for dirt (use as packing materials). maybe increase even more of their outdoor time and see if u see a difference.


----------



## Starflower (Sep 25, 2004)

Good luck. I wish I had some great advice to give you, but I don't.


----------



## Britishmum (Dec 25, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Evan&Anna's_Mom*
I guess its a matter of priorities and what you are willing to do as a learning tool. Do I think things will be like this forever and that you will be doing without forever? No. But, I would also guess that if you ONLY lock doors or cabinets that they won't learn to respect food, they will only learn that they can't get to it. To ME, this isn't the purpose of discipline. The purpose is to teach and sometimes the only way to teach is to let children experience the consequences of their actions. Not by going hungry (please everyone, don't jump yet), but by realizing that certain treat items don't magically reappear. To me, this would be worth not eating ice cream myself for a month (and it would be good for me at the same time) or buying a favorite kid cereal and something they didn't like as much -- maybe keeping the less interested one in an inaccessible place so you would still actually have food..

Yep, I totally agree.

I would very logically explain to them (especially the older ones) that I will buy x ice cream or cereal on Monday, and it has to last until next time we shop. That it's up to everyone to be responsible with it.

Personally, I think you'd save a lot of money avoiding locks etc by being resigned to going without some foods for a bit if they waste them. I would bet that they will only throw the cereal out once before they realise that it's not a good idea.

Like a few others, I feel uncomfortable with the idea of locks on food. My instinct is that most kids will find ways to get back at you somehow, maybe now, maybe in later life. It is not something that I'd ever want to do. I'd prefer to teach the children a life lesson, rather than control them. Ultimately I think that this sort of approach will be more productive for all.


----------



## Breathless Wonder (Jan 25, 2004)

You know, many people wouldn't leave a glass knick knack down, when they knew their child might not be respectful of it. They would put it up until their child was more mature, or more able to respect the guidelines surrounding that object.

As long as the kids are eating, I don't see restricting free access to the food pantry as any different.


----------



## Altair (May 1, 2005)

call me paranoid, but my mind often wanders to "what ifs" and worst case scenerios. If you were alone with your children and god forbid something happened to you... having food in the house locked up just scares me. there's just so many emergency scenerios i can imagine where i'd want the kids to have access to food.

i agree with the natural consequences. favorite foods don't get bought as long as they are destroyed. even if that means the parents have to live through a few weeks of no ice cream. the great thing about natural consequences is that they are so absolute they tend to work REALLY quickly.


----------



## Teensy (Feb 22, 2002)

I can't speak for the OP, but if her kids are anything like mine, many of you are missing a large part of the problem. It's not just that the children eat up all the treats, it's that they play with/waste other food/items in the kitchen. For example, my children do not drink coffee. But they have on a few occassions poured out the coffee and played with/ruined it. Same thing with items such as corn starch, flour, etc. They won't suffer at all if I fail to buy more.

The bathroom is as much of a challenge. Do you refuse to buy more toilet paper when the boys repeatedly waste it? I think not. But when you've explained repeatedly that it is only to be used for its primary purpose and not dissolved in the sink, what is the next step?

I don't have the answer. What I've tried in the past hasn't worked. So for now I'm going with the you-will-work-around-the-house-to-pay-for-what-you've-ruined method. I'll let you know in a few months if it has helped.


----------



## LauraSusan (Jul 29, 2005)

I can see both sides here.

I agree that locking children out of a kitchen seems..I don't know...strange. Kitchens have always meant friendly warm love good things...

But I would be very upset at the waste and the lack of respect for your wishes, too.

If your boys want dirt to drive their trucks through, how about getting them some? A bit of dirt on the kitchen floor might be easier to deal with than all your coffee wasted, and coffee is expensive!

If they want something to expand and get all squishy in the bathroom with, how about getting a bunch of household sponges and cutting them into interesting shapes and letting them play in the toilet or bathtub with them?







Fishing a few sponges out of a clean toilet bowl might be easier to deal with than seeing every roll of toilet paper wasted.

It seems like your boys have lots of sensory needs. And they will meet those needs, even if it means seeing mama get very angry and upset. Anything you can do to give them stuff to mush and squish and soak and pile and crush might save your food.

Now the ice cream issue, well I have no advice on that front. I'm guilty myself of eating ice cream right out of the carton while my husband isn't looking.







:

I hope you find a solution that doesn't require such a drastic measure as locking your little ones out of the kitchen.


----------



## MPJJJ (Oct 24, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LauraSusan*
I can see both sides here.

I agree that locking children out of a kitchen seems..I don't know...strange. Kitchens have always meant friendly warm love good things...

But I would be very upset at the waste and the lack of respect for your wishes, too.

If your boys want dirt to drive their trucks through, how about getting them some? A bit of dirt on the kitchen floor might be easier to deal with than all your coffee wasted, and coffee is expensive!

If they want something to expand and get all squishy in the bathroom with, how about getting a bunch of household sponges and cutting them into interesting shapes and letting them play in the toilet or bathtub with them?







Fishing a few sponges out of a clean toilet bowl might be easier to deal with than seeing every roll of toilet paper wasted.

It seems like your boys have lots of sensory needs. And they will meet those needs, even if it means seeing mama get very angry and upset. Anything you can do to give them stuff to mush and squish and soak and pile and crush might save your food.

Now the ice cream issue, well I have no advice on that front. I'm guilty myself of eating ice cream right out of the carton while my husband isn't looking.







:

I hope you find a solution that doesn't require such a drastic measure as locking your little ones out of the kitchen.

Those are all great suggestions, I'll try some! Thanks!


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

it seems like there could be something wrong here...

I have a child who recently turned six.

If she were to get ice cream out of the fridge--which she can do at any time-- she would put it on the table, get a scooper, put it in a bowl and get a spoon.

And many times she has served friends & sibs---but she always gets bowls and spoons, and napkins.

Do your children have much experience in the kitchen? I am not being mean--but why doesn't your 6 yr old know that if she/he is going to serve the younger siblings , sitting on the floor eating ice cream with your hands out of the container is germy & difficult to clean up? Can you teach him what to do?

Are they not allowed to serve themselves and to feel their own hunger? Have you always served them? Perhaps they are more interested in getting at forbidden things -- perhaps they have learned not to listen to their bodies' hunger signals.

i would be more concerned about these issues, and why they are sneaking around. I would think closing them out of the kitchen is the lesser part of the issue. I would think that a 6 yr old should be a little more cognizant of how to serve food??? I have 4 kids and I have not exp any of this...so bear with me.

I am almost inclined to wonder if something is developmentally amiss? i ask this gently...as this doesn't seem like regular 6 yr old behavior??. Maybe. Please don't jump all over me MDC mamas.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

I think there are a lot of great suggestions in this thread. The only thing I woudl add is that, MPJJJ, I see you using a lot of possesive language- "my" food, "our" (you and DH) food. In addition to the other suggestions, it might be helpful to include them in the food activities so it's more of a feeling of it being the family's food. Including them in the grocery shopping, bringing the food in, putting it away, preparing it, cleaning up. My kids are almost the same age as yours- six, four, and almost two- and I would be very upset if they were doing what you describe as well. It sounds very upsetting. But it also sounds like something you want to find a long-term solution to as well as a short-term solution.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Teensy*
Same thing with items such as corn starch, flour, etc. They won't suffer at all if I fail to buy more.

Perhaps I'm overly punitive (and by MDC's standards, I probably am), but the way I see it, if kids can't respect the food we *need* to have to eat healthily, then they don't need to be eating treats. Also, as money is an issue for us, as well, if the kids are wrecking the necessary items, then the money that could have gone to treats must be spent on replacing the necessaries. The OP's younger kids probably wouldn't get this object lesson, but the older one probably could, and his influence could sway the younger kids, too.

I guess I don't see locking the kids out of the kitchen as some sort of denial of love and kitchen coziness because I don't see the need to use the locks as a long-term measure. I mean, heck, we still have locks on some kitchen cupboards mainly because we have been too lazy to take them off, even though our older child can pretty easily defeat them.

As far as the bathroom goes, my friend has a TP waster. She lays out one square of TP at a time. If her son needs more, he has to ask for it. :LOL I actually think that's pretty brilliant. Little kids have a hazy idea of how much is too much. I think a concrete example is a good idea. My own son used to like to spin the TP holder just to see the TP cascade off the role. For a while the TP lived on top of the vanity, where only my husband and I could reach it. When my son got over his cascading TP fixation, the TP resumed its normal dwelling place.

So, I very much think that stop-gap measures can be good ideas for little kids who aren't yet sophisticated enough to reason with. Sometimes they just need time to grow out of it!

Namaste!


----------



## MPJJJ (Oct 24, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UUMom*
it seems like there could be something wrong here...

I have a child who recently turned six.

If she were to get ice cream out of the fridge--which she can do at any time-- she would put it on the table, get a scooper, put it in a bowl and get a spoon.

And many times she has served friends & sibs---but she always gets bowls and spoons, and napkins.

Do your children have much experience in the kitchen? I am not being mean--but why doesn't your 6 yr old know that if she/he is going to serve the younger siblings , sitting on the floor eating ice cream with your hands out of the container is germy & difficult to clean up? Can you teach him what to do?

Are they not allowed to serve themselves and to feel their own hunger? Have you always served them? Perhaps they are more interested in getting at forbidden things -- perhaps they have learned not to listen to their bodies' hunger signals.

i would be more concerned about these issues, and why they are sneaking around. I would think closing them out of the kitchen is the lesser part of the issue. I would think that a 6 yr old should be a little more cognizant of how to serve food??? I have 4 kids and I have not exp any of this...so bear with me.

I am almost inclined to wonder if something is developmentally amiss? i ask this gently...as this doesn't seem like regular 6 yr old behavior??. Maybe. Please don't jump all over me MDC mamas.

Your post, IMO, reeks of judgement. Especially the "something is really wrong here" part. It's really great that your daughter is so mature that she can serve icecream to her friends. Really, I'm not being sarcastic, it's awesome. But your insuation that my child is developmently behind because he tried eating icecream with his hands, with his 3 year old brother, just pisses me off. This is the same little boy who can reprogram my vcr better than I can, who knows how to make eggs and often makes his own peanutbutter and jelly sandwitches, knows how to pop popcorn. I say one thing that he did, only because it upset me that they made such a mess, and you automatically assume that he is mentally retarded. He acted in an age appropritate manner. And no, my 5 year old is not concerned with jerms. Not many 5 year olds are.







:

BTW, thanks a lot for editing your post to read "it seems something may be wrong here." I got your original post in my email box. How would you like it if I judged your DD like that?


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UUMom*
I am almost inclined to wonder if something is developmentally amiss? i ask this gently...as this doesn't seem like regular 6 yr old behavior??.

I don't think it's out of the ordinary for a six year old. Anyway, maybe he can serve food just fine but still thinks it's fun to sneak in and grub around in the food. I sometimes think that in AP circles, kids' behaviors are viewed almost exclusively through the prism of relationship problems rather than through the lens of just normal, goofy, sometimes-quite-unfathomable, sometimes-no-reason-for behavior. I very clearly remember being a kid, knowing I wasn't supposed to do something, and doing it anyway, either because of lack of impulse control or just because the fun of doing it outweighed my parents' disapproval. I think I had a great relationship with my parents, but I don't think that having a great relationship with one's parents insulates kids from doing things they parents don't want them to. Kids are kids. Fun is fun.

Namaste!


----------



## mamawanabe (Nov 12, 2002)

MPJJJ, what do you want with this thread? You seem to be getting frustrated with advice/suggestions. Do you just want to vent? That is fine, but you do know if you complain to a bunch of strangers on a message baord, you are going to get a bunch of advice/suggestions









Anyway, here's my advice







if my 6 and 4 year olds (or 5 and 3) were making these kind of messes, I'd have them clean them up. I'd also sit them down and have the "here's the problem, what can we do about it" conversation, asking for their solutions since they are old enough to problem solve along side you. They very well might have some ideas about fun, messy, "illicite" activities compatable to food play.

And I'd totally not buy the food they make a mess with for a while. Me and dh don't have cheese or raisons in the house because I eat it all







. It is family life, you know; he can't have a block of cheese in the fridge because I have no self control when it comes to cheese. That is one drawback to living with me - fortunatly, there are lots of benefits to living with me







. I would think it is the same for the cereal and ice cream. One of the drawbacks to having kids who are going through a phase of playing with cereal and ice cream is you won't have cereal or ice cream in the house for a couple of months (smooties and/or toast for breakfast). Sure it will be a drawback for you and dh, but there are lots of benefits to having you kids. Family life is a balance of drawbacks and benefits.

Anyway, sorry if it isn't advice you want, but I can't help myself (guess I'm an advice AND a cheese junkie







).


----------



## MPJJJ (Oct 24, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamawanabe*
MPJJJ, what do you want with this thread? You seem to be getting frustrated with advice/suggestions. Do you just want to vent? That is fine, but you do know if you complain to a bunch of strangers on a message baord, you are going to get a bunch of advice/suggestions









Anyway, here's my advice







if my 6 and 4 year olds (or 5 and 3) were making these kind of messes, I'd have them clean them up. I'd also sit them down and have the "here's the problem, what can we do about it" conversation, asking for their solutions since they are old enough to problem solve along side you. They very well might have some ideas about fun, messy, "illicite" activities compatable to food play.

And I'd totally not buy the food they make a mess with for a while. Me and dh don't have cheese or raisons in the house because I eat it all







. It is family life, you know; he can't have a block of cheese in the fridge because I have no self control when it comes to cheese. That is one drawback to living with me - fortunatly, there are lots of benefits to living with me







. I would think it is the same for the cereal and ice cream. One of the drawbacks to having kids who are going through a phase of playing with cereal and ice cream is you won't have cereal or ice cream in the house for a couple of months (smooties and/or toast for breakfast). Sure it will be a drawback for you and dh, but there are lots of benefits to having you kids. Family life is a balance of drawbacks and benefits.

Anyway, sorry if it isn't advice you want, but I can't help myself (guess I'm an advice AND a cheese junkie







).

What I wanted from this thread is what I have gotten, a lot of advice and some personal experiance to let me know that I am not alone in having kids who get into things. I now have a plan on how to deal wiht this and I thank you for that.

What I did not want nor expect was a post suggesting that my child is mental. Especially when it starts out with "there is something really wrong here." What a way to make someone at ease. Editing later doesn't take back what you write, especially when I read it in my email box.


----------



## earthmama369 (Jul 29, 2005)

My mother's idea of natural consequences was that if we were to intentionally destroy something of hers, we lost privileges to something of ours. For example, I thought her teabags made great sailboats once when I was about six and used up an entire box. No skin off my back if we didn't have more teabags for a while. Well, no teabags for her meant no ice cream for me.

I love the idea of natural consequences. But parenting requires flexibility, even with the best of philosophies, because kids are terrifically imaginative and can break any "system," in my experience.

I liked the post suggesting that when they make a mess, they're responsible for cleaning it up. I sometimes needed layered consequences for a point to sink in (i.e. cleaning up the teabags in the immediate, no ice cream in the longer term). I didn't like it, obviously, but it worked and I certainly don't think I was psychologically or emotionally damaged by being required to show respect for my parents' belongings and responsibility for my actions. I figure that the fact that I still remember this incident means there was a lesson in there that I learned.

Anyway, I don't know if this helps, but good luck with your boys!










Sarah, mama to Qualia, 8.5 months


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *earthmama369*
My mother's idea of natural consequences was that if we were to intentionally destroy something of hers, we lost privileges to something of ours. For example, I thought her teabags made great sailboats once when I was about six and used up an entire box. No skin off my back if we didn't have more teabags for a while. Well, no teabags for her meant no ice cream for me.

I love the idea of natural consequences. But parenting requires flexibility, even with the best of philosophies, because kids are terrifically imaginative and can break any "system," in my experience


Off topic, but how is that a natural consequence? I don't even see that as a logical consequence. It seems very punitive to me. "I'm miserable and don't have what I want, so I am not going to make you miserable as well".


----------



## beanma (Jan 6, 2002)

wow. what an interesting thread.







sounds like a mess! i would be distressed if my kids were wasting a bunch of food, too. that can really push my buttons. i do buy cheap flour and salt for playdough making and don't mind if they play with that, but my girls really aren't the tornados you are describing so about all i can offer is sympathy.

really just thought i'd pop in to say if you're looking for more sensory activities to do with them i've been meaning to try making homemade paper. here's a link -- http://www.familyeducation.com/artic...-24166,00.html . they'd get to tear up lots of paper (junk mail, old newspapers, magazines, etc) whirl it around in a blender (mom would help i would think) and then dump it all in a tub of water to make ooey gooey pulp. what could be more fun!?

actually, typing ooey gooey reminded me of this link -- http://www.ooeygooey.com/mary/resources/ . tons of "recipes" for kids there.

hth


----------



## onlyzombiecat (Aug 15, 2004)

We put a lock on our refrigerator for a time. It was actually a gun lock that you needed to use a key to open. We had tried normal child safety locks but dd busted them. The gun lock was much tougher. I know it isn't good to use permanantly but if they do not listen and you can't afford to have your food wasted then I think something like that is fine short term. If you could even keep a portion of your food from being destroyed while you work on the issue you'd probably feel less angry.

My dd was getting into peanut butter and other food and smearing it around. I got frustrated about the mess, the wasted food and the fact that I am quite willing to let her finger paint, etc if she asks and she knows it. I tried to really focus on sensory activities more and that seemed to help. I gave dd shaving cream to smear around on a big tray or in the bathroom sink. I try to do finger painting more often. We made a big batch of playdough. I also made dd clean the mess.

I think having the children clean up is a good idea.
I think not having so many treats in the house is also a good idea until they respect food more- maybe each family member can pick just one item at the store. Maybe divide the food into small baggies or containers and keep out only enough for the day (assuming you find a place you can keep the rest safe).

You could try focusing on positive reinforcement. My dd sometimes needs a motivation to do things- or stop doing things.
Maybe try a chart and each day they do not make a mess and waste food they get a sticker next to their name. At the end of the week or whatever if the child has enough stickers maybe that child gets to pick a new book/video or go to a restaurant or do something special. I would give it a month or two to see if it works.

Good luck.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Well you can be angry--but you post on a public board, so you are going to get a lot of different responses.

I do think 6 yr olds can be taught how to eat ice cream with a spoon and out of a bowl. If that's a judgement, well, ok.

I think my post was full of good advice.







I really do. Teach them how to sit at the table. Teach them how to make a sandwich. Talk to them about germs.

I might close off the dangers of a kitchen for a 2 yr old, but not for normally developing 6 yr old.

Teaching is always better than punishing.

If the children can't be taught not to 'waste food' or make a mess, then go ahead and keep them out for safety reasons. Are you sure the 6 yr old understands what you want? And if he is simply being defiant you might want to find out why. Otherwise you might have to figure out more and more ways to keep him out once he figures out the lock etc. Partnering with him, teaching him, might make your life easier.


----------



## earthmama369 (Jul 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
Off topic, but how is that a natural consequence? I don't even see that as a logical consequence. It seems very punitive to me. "I'm miserable and don't have what I want, so I am not going to make you miserable as well".

The comment was slightly tongue-in-cheek, but when you posted, I started to think about it, and it seems to me that it could be argued that it IS a natural consequence. When you create a victim, i.e. someone who suffers because of something you did, it's a natural consequence to have to deal with that victim and make amends. Justice systems around the world are based on this basic concept: If you wrong someone, you fix it, and what constitutes "fixing it" is usually not based on your preference, but the victim's.

In this case, my mother chose to illustrate the concept of empathy, which was an age-appropriate lesson for me. I didn't empathize with how she might feel if I used all her tea, so she provided me with the opportunity to understand how she might feel in concrete terms (again, age-appropriate and the logical next step, as clearly I hadn't understood it when she tried to explain it to me in words).










Sarah, mama to Qualia, 8.5 months


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *earthmama369*
t seems to me that it could be argued that it IS a natural consequence. When you create a victim, i.e. someone who suffers because of something you did, it's a natural consequence to have to deal with that victim and make amends.

I've always felt that way, too, and that's why I'm kind-of







when I read here about mothers who don't think we should ever get angry and yell at our kids. I mean, the natural consequence of doing something that makes me angry is that I get angry, and usually I show it. I'm not advocating yelling at kids, but I do think that there are times when it's appropriate for a child to know they've angered you, and I think there are times when it's appropriate for a child to have an object lesson in not having what they want to have.

Namaste!


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MPJJJ*
Unless they are engrossed in a movie or their v-smile, they do this every time I am out of the room. For instance, yesterday while I was in the shower, they got into the kitchen, took the bucket of icecream out, and sat on the floor eating it wiht their hands. This was just after I had gave them lunch AND made them their own bowls of icecream!

They got into my blueberries while I was in the bathroom and threw them at each other then squashed them into the floor.

This morning as i was vacuuming they got into the burrito's AFTER I had given them bowls of cereal.

One more thought: do they only/mostly do this when you're busy/out of the room? Could they be looking for some extra attention? Sometimes kids will get it any way they want it. My kids can definitely be like this, going through phases where they're always doing something irritating, and often I think it's because they want some extra attention. And even if I'm not sure it's a bid for attention, I find that doing something to include them in my work around the house or giving them a project when I have to go to the bathroom or shower helps a lot (keeps them busy and all of us focused on the positive). My 6 year old can use the vacuum (with supervision), for instance. Our bathroom is near the kitchen, so I'll give them rags and spray bottles and have them wash every surface they can reach (they love this, it's messy). Heck, I'll even let them wash the bathroom vanity and walls while I'm in there if necessary. I give them wet towels to skate around on the kitchen floor with, which is fun and actually gets the floor pretty clean. We've come up with lots of interesting things to keep them busy helping out around the house-seems to keep them happier and less likely to do things that irritate mom and dad.

I hope you find something that works for you.


----------



## meowee (Jul 8, 2004)

if there is something "developmentally amiss" with a 6 y.o. boy who likes to make wasteful messes instead of serving up a tea party to guests and sibs... :LOL ... oh my!

This thread comes at a weirdly timely manner for me. My *8* year old has taken to dumping dish detergent down the sink, last night dumped an entire container of salt down the sink, has destroyed toilet paper, toothpaste, drawn on the wall.

I also take the "you waste it, you pay for it with extra chores and doing without for a little bit." I can't afford to just replace everything he wrecks.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meowee*
if there is something "developmentally amiss" with a 6 y.o. boy who likes to make wasteful messes instead of serving up a tea party to guests and sibs... :LOL ... oh my!

This thread comes at a weirdly timely manner for me. My *8* year old has taken to dumping dish detergent down the sink, last night dumped an entire container of salt down the sink, has destroyed toilet paper, toothpaste, drawn on the wall.

I also take the "you waste it, you pay for it with extra chores and doing without for a little bit." I can't afford to just replace everything he wrecks.

I am not saying there is anything developmentally amiss, really. Just wondering why he would continue to make a mess when his mom has asked him not to.

Maybe he's naughty and needs to be punished, I guess. He's normal and defiant, obviously.

Do I have the only 6 yr old who can scoop ice cream into a bowl and knows how to use a spoon?


----------



## MPJJJ (Oct 24, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UUMom*
I am not saying there is anything developmentally amiss, really. Just wondering why he would continue to make a mess when his mom has asked him not to.

Maybe he's naughty and needs to be punished, I guess. He's normal and defiant, obviously.

Do I have the only 6 yr old who can scoop ice cream into a bowl and knows how to use a spoon?

:::sigh::: Yes, you have the ONLY 6 year old who can use a spoon.







: You're completely missiing the point. So I'm gonna yell it at ya. YES MY CHILD KNOWS HOW TO USE A SPOON!!! YES HE KNOWS HOW TO SCOOP ICECREAM!!! HE KNOWS HOW TO MAKE JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING THERE IS TO MAKE IN THE KITCHEN!!!

Now maybe you understand that, I'll explain in normal terms that he did that because the icecream is cold and squishy, his brother wasn't using a spoon, he didn't either, and he thought it would be fun to rebel and eat it with his hands. I did something similar when I was a child, and my butt was busted so bad it hurt to sit down for a long time afterwards. of course I don't want to do that, so I came here hoping to get advice on how to handle this in a gd and age appropriate manner. What I didn't want was your smug "my child can do it, yours must be mental" attitude.







:


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Marie-- you are going to need to punish him, then.

You're right-- I have no idea what the point is.

Your kids are bad, they are wasting food and they ignore you.

What else can you do?


----------



## MPJJJ (Oct 24, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UUMom*
Marie-- you are going to need to punish him, then.

You're right-- I have no idea what the point is.

Your kids are bad, they are wasting food and they ignore you.

What else can you do?

Is there any point to your posting except to act like a jerk? Because everyone else has given me great advice, made me think of what my child could me missing in his every day experiances to want to get into different foods, and child-respectful ways to deal handle it. You've just acted like a pompus jerk.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

My first post was nice. You just didn't like it.

I didn't call you a jerk or anything.

I think you're over-reacting.

i also really think the tactics of locking children out of their own kitchen is drastic.

I know you don't want to hear that, but the whole deal sounds completely punitive and that's not AP or GD. And this is MDC.


----------



## newmommy (Sep 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UUMom*
I am not saying there is anything developmentally amiss, really. Just wondering why he would continue to make a mess when his mom has asked him not to.

Maybe he's naughty and needs to be punished, I guess. He's normal and defiant, obviously.

Do I have the only 6 yr old who can scoop ice cream into a bowl and knows how to use a spoon?

I understand what you are saying. If the OP's 6 yr old has not learned to scoop ice cream into a bowl then it's time for her to teach him.

To the OP: He is certainly old enough. And this is not implying he is developmentally behind. Everyone is ignorant until they are taught properly

And yes, if he if he naughty, there should be consequences. I think you should take the advice offered to you and have a heart to heart with all the kids. Tell'em whatever you gotta tell'em "things are going to change around here" whatever...And I don't think you need to invest in locks or gadgets, just teach your kids what you want them to learn.

If you don't want them into the kitchen without asking you first... tell'em and if they disobey you choose and use *your* consequences.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UUMom*
it seems like there could be something wrong here...

I have a child who recently turned six.

If she were to get ice cream out of the fridge--which she can do at any time-- she would put it on the table, get a scooper, put it in a bowl and get a spoon.

And many times she has served friends & sibs---but she always gets bowls and spoons, and napkins.

Do your children have much experience in the kitchen? I am not being mean--but why doesn't your 6 yr old know that if she/he is going to serve the younger siblings , sitting on the floor eating ice cream with your hands out of the container is germy & difficult to clean up? Can you teach him what to do?

Are they not allowed to serve themselves and to feel their own hunger? Have you always served them? Perhaps they are more interested in getting at forbidden things -- perhaps they have learned not to listen to their bodies' hunger signals.

i would be more concerned about these issues, and why they are sneaking around. I would think closing them out of the kitchen is the lesser part of the issue. I would think that a 6 yr old should be a little more cognizant of how to serve food??? I have 4 kids and I have not exp any of this...so bear with me.

I am almost inclined to wonder if something is developmentally amiss? i ask this gently...as this doesn't seem like regular 6 yr old behavior??. Maybe. Please don't jump all over me MDC mamas.


This was my first post- and i didn't even use the word abuse. :LOL


----------



## moondiapers (Apr 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MPJJJ*
What are these magnet locks you keep talking about?

http://www.babysupermall.com/main/pr...1173-item.html

they work really well, I have them on all of my cabinets because I have a daycare, and you really can't open them without the key. They are a bit of a pain to install, but worth it.


----------



## MPJJJ (Oct 24, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sledg*
One more thought: do they only/mostly do this when you're busy/out of the room? Could they be looking for some extra attention? Sometimes kids will get it any way they want it. My kids can definitely be like this, going through phases where they're always doing something irritating, and often I think it's because they want some extra attention. And even if I'm not sure it's a bid for attention, I find that doing something to include them in my work around the house or giving them a project when I have to go to the bathroom or shower helps a lot (keeps them busy and all of us focused on the positive). My 6 year old can use the vacuum (with supervision), for instance. Our bathroom is near the kitchen, so I'll give them rags and spray bottles and have them wash every surface they can reach (they love this, it's messy). Heck, I'll even let them wash the bathroom vanity and walls while I'm in there if necessary. I give them wet towels to skate around on the kitchen floor with, which is fun and actually gets the floor pretty clean. We've come up with lots of interesting things to keep them busy helping out around the house-seems to keep them happier and less likely to do things that irritate mom and dad.

I hope you find something that works for you.

I think you have a point. I used to have them take showers with me, but recently I felt my son was too old for that. He's probably just bored. Since reading this thread I can see definate possible causes for this. We haven't had a backyard since the middle of June, for one. We just recently moved here, but are waiting to finish out the fence because there is a vicious dog next door that I don't trust around my kids. So they cannot go out to play.They love playing in dirt and things like that. I have thought about putting some dirt into the bathtub for them to play in, but does anyone know if it would cause plumbing problems when it got washed down the drain?


----------



## newmommy (Sep 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MPJJJ*
Is there any point to your posting except to act like a jerk? Because everyone else has given me great advice, made me think of what my child could me missing in his every day experiances to want to get into different foods, and child-respectful ways to deal handle it. You've just acted like a pompus jerk.

This is WAY out of line.


----------



## MPJJJ (Oct 24, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UUMom*
This was my first post- and i didn't even use the word abuse. :LOL









I never said you did.


----------



## Breathless Wonder (Jan 25, 2004)

Maybe it's time to take the disagreements over tone and content to PM?


----------



## mamawanabe (Nov 12, 2002)

I am wary of child centric, self-sacrificing mothering. The entire family (including parents and moms) are equally important.

However, there did seem to be a lot of "my food," "my stuff," "my kitchen" in this thread. It could itself be the problem. If the 6 year old doesn't feel like he is a full participant in the household, he could then not see food and mess as his responsibility.

I think this is what UU is trying to get at. I wouldn't lock a 6 year old out of a room in his/her house. The room is as much the 6 year olds as mine, and 6 is old enough not to abuse stuff unintentionally. If the 6 year old was abusing stuff intentionally, I'd address that (by talking to the 6 year old about what he thinks is the reason and what he thinks could be the solution). Your explanations about money and waste are falling on deaf ears, so I'd get him involved in the conversation. It would help him feel responsible and a full participant in household issues.

good luck


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meowee*
if there is something "developmentally amiss" with a 6 y.o. boy who likes to make wasteful messes instead of serving up a tea party to guests and sibs... :LOL ... oh my!

This thread comes at a weirdly timely manner for me. My *8* year old has taken to dumping dish detergent down the sink, last night dumped an entire container of salt down the sink, has destroyed toilet paper, toothpaste, drawn on the wall.

I also take the "you waste it, you pay for it with extra chores and doing without for a little bit." I can't afford to just replace everything he wrecks.

To me, this is punitive. It's not GD. You have to get at the larger issue.

I also wonder how a small child would be able to get the money together to replace the food he ruined? If the parent pays the child for doing extra chores, isn't that money coming from the same source as the one used to buy the food intially? So the "i can't afford to replace this food' is not really true. I don't agree with a child wasting food, even if a parent can 'afford it', but I also don't agree with a parent telling a falsehood to the child.

There is a lack of respect here--the child does not respect the parent, and the parent show lack of respect for the child through punitive behavior towards the child. It's an endless cycle disrespect.

I wold also think an 8 year old can understand that ruining food is not in anyone's best interests. Again, I would try to figure out why the child continues with behavior the parent has explained is not in keeping with family values. If the child doesn't care , why?


----------



## MPJJJ (Oct 24, 2003)

Mod, feel free to lock this thread now. I've gotten a lot of great responses. Now that I realize my children must just be missing out on the stimulation they used to get from playing outside (and we went from being outside all day to being inside all day, so it has been quite a change) I'm not angry at them. Still frustrated, yes, but now I have a real plan for handling this. Thank you all for your advice and support.

I'm sorry the thead took such a bad turn. But I think any mommy would get angry if someone focused one one thing she said and used that in a "my child can do this so your child must be off balance" way.


----------



## moondiapers (Apr 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MPJJJ*
Thanks, those look great, but our's are metal cabinets. How would one with metal cabinets and no handles keep the cabinets locked?


What about installing handles on the cabinets and then using the locks that are 2 thick cables with zipper like teeth on them, that go through a square. You ahve to push down two firm buttons at the same time, and pull the zip tie out. My own 8yo can't do it by herself. (I have a hard time undoing them sometimes)


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sledg*
My kids are about the same ages as yours-almost 6, almost 4 and almost 2. They have always had free access to what they can reach in the kitchen, and for whatever reason they just don't waste or play with food. I won't claim it's entirely because they've always been welcome in the kitchen to play, cook, clean or whatever-but I think it does help. We spend a lot of time in there eating together and cooking and talking about the value of food.

That said, I think you really do have to restrict access somewhat until they learn to respect food more. Despite having an "open kitchen" policy in our home, some things are still off limits. Anything we don't want them to have is up in high cabinets or on top of cabinets where they can't reach. No cabinets are locked, so most lower cabinets contain only pans, bakeware, bowls and kids' dishes-all stuff they can safely play with anytime they want. We keep canned goods and snacks they're allowed to have in one lower lazy-susan cabinet. If they start wasting food or the baby dumps it, up it goes into a high cabinet. At times all we've had in lower cabinets is canned food. For us it's the best of both world's-the kids feel welcome in the kitchen but they can't really get into trouble. (Yes, there have been times my littlest one has pulled chairs up to the counter to climb up and rummage in cabinets. Some of those times I have actually removed chairs from the kitchen because she tried it every time I turned my head.)

The refrigerator is a different problem, though. I have seen refrigerator locks, and I think if your kids are just going into the fridge to dump things out there's no harm in a refrigerator lock.

I also agree with whomever said a little snack shelf is great. With small quanities of snacks, and perhaps some cups with lids that you keep filled with water (or water bottles) for free access to drinks.

And maybe I'm way off base here, but if my kids were doing something like that I'd also suspect that they love the reaction they get from me and look into ways to modify my reaction.


excellent post.


----------



## moondiapers (Apr 14, 2002)

Just had another idea. If you have a door to your kitchen does it have a latching door handle? Why not install a lock like on your front door? Or an alarm of some kind so that you can hear it when they go in there?


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MPJJJ*
Mod, feel free to lock this thread now. I've gotten a lot of great responses. Now that I realize my children must just be missing out on the stimulation they used to get from playing outside (and we went from being outside all day to being inside all day, so it has been quite a change) I'm not angry at them. Still frustrated, yes, but now I have a real plan for handling this. Thank you all for your advice and support.

I'm sorry the thead took such a bad turn. But I think any mommy would get angry if someone focused one one thing she said and used that in a "my child can do this so your child must be off balance" way.


I totally didn't say that. I can see how you could read it like that, but that was not in my heart.

The behavior does seem a bit out- of- line for a six yr old, and also someone said that 6 yr olds can't understand about germs. I think they can. It's true, I thought there could be a developmental lag, but not that there *was*. It's true he wasn't understanding what you want from him.

Thinking the child might be a little young for his age a lot nicer than suggesting your kid is a disrespectful brat. Or that you are abusing your children.

I mean, *does* your child know what you expect from him? If he doesn't, why? Teach him what you want him to know. Power comes from knowledge, not from locks.

But I also think locks can help keep children safe if they don't get it. But you don't want children growing up thinking their home is a fortress or that they must be locked out of the kitchen, beyond safety reasons fro very small children. You don't want kids thinking they have to sneak and break into their own kitchen (which you said they do) to get stuff.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UUMom*
There is a lack of respect here--the child does not respect the parent, and the parent show lack of respect for the child through punitive behavior towards the child. It's an endless cycle disrespect.

What you see as a lack of respect, I and others see as holding a child accountable for their behavior. It would be very nice if talking to kids and explaining how their behavior is out of line with family values would always solve the problem, but if that were true, we wouldn't have these thousands of threads from parents whose kids are doing things they shouldn't be doing. Putting the onus completely on the parent to solve the problem is, to me, unfair to the parent and also to the child. At some point the child has to be held accountable for their own behavior, and if the child already knows that he/she isn't to do something and does it anyway, I don't see how restricting the child's access to that thing or activity is punitive. It's just natural, to me. If you can't handle the responsibility, then you won't have the opportunity.









Namaste!


----------



## MPJJJ (Oct 24, 2003)

Our house is sort of weird. It's rented,so I'm not sure I could make the changes. But the cabinets are all metal ones with no handle, so I'm not sure how I could install a temporary lock on them. The door is a sliding door that comes out from the inside of the door way and slides in place. There is no door knob. I had tried the eyelet latch near the top of the door, but the boys (my 3-4 year old mainly) just pushed a chair over and undid it. Please understand that I am not looking to lock them out for a long term, nor am I not allowing them access to food. If they come and ask me for something, I will accompany them to the kitchen while they get their snack. I just do not want them being able to go in there alone until they learn to respect the food, or their need that makes them want to play in it is met. I don't see how that is not a natural consequence. Just like "You abuse the playground equipement, so now you can not go there for a while", it's "you abuse the food, so I cannot let you around it unsupervised for a while." I feel that is not mean at all. I'mnot saying "you poured out the cheerios, now you can't have breakfast."


----------



## MPJJJ (Oct 24, 2003)

I'm sorry if I misunderstood what you were trying to say. It's the momma bear in be coming out. I get very defensive of my children, and sometimes that means I have deaf ears (or is that blind eyes) when I think someone has attacked my child.

He knows a little about jerms such as "cover your mouth when you cough because you could spread your jerms around", but not so much about food. We do wash our hands before eating, but that was just to make them clean, I never explained about washing jerms off hands, so I doubt he ever thought his hands were jermy. I should explain that to him.

He is a young 5-6, but not developementally delayed at all. He just has so much fun playing with his little brother that he often forgets reason.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
What you see as a lack of respect, I and others see as holding a child accountable for their behavior. It would be very nice if talking to kids and explaining how their behavior is out of line with family values would always solve the problem, but if that were true, we wouldn't have these thousands of threads from parents whose kids are doing things they shouldn't be doing. Putting the onus completely on the parent to solve the problem is, to me, unfair to the parent and also to the child. At some point the child has to be held accountable for their own behavior, and if the child already knows that he/she isn't to do something and does it anyway, I don't see how restricting the child's access to that thing or activity is punitive. It's just natural, to me. If you can't handle the responsibility, then you won't have the opportunity.









Namaste!


We have a *very* different view of children, for sure. It's not wrong to see things differently, of course. But I am constantly struck by how not punitive I am compared with so many other MDC mamas.

It obviously gets me into trouble. :LOL

The other problem I have is that my children don't 'misbehave' and sharing that comes off as sounding like a pompous jerk.







It's not that they have always made the right choices, but we have always taken their development into account and assumed they wanted to know what we expected from them. We have been able to share this information with them without punishment or spanking.

I think my children don't 'misbehave' because dh and I have never been punitive, but it could also be genetics. I don't know. One of our children is adopted, but dc mght also be from the 'not bratty' gene pool as well.







So maybe we're just lucky.

All I can continue to do is share my thoughts on GD, AP and what I think as long as people contiune to ask for opions on a public AP/GD/NFL board.


----------



## moondiapers (Apr 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MPJJJ*
Our house is sort of weird. It's rented,so I'm not sure I could make the changes. But the cabinets are all metal ones with no handle, so I'm not sure how I could install a temporary lock on them. The door is a sliding door that comes out from the inside of the door way and slides in place. There is no door knob. I had tried the eyelet latch near the top of the door, but the boys (my 3-4 year old mainly) just pushed a chair over and undid it. Please understand that I am not looking to lock them out for a long term, nor am I not allowing them access to food. If they come and ask me for something, I will accompany them to the kitchen while they get their snack. I just do not want them being able to go in there alone until they learn to respect the food, or their need that makes them want to play in it is met. I don't see how that is not a natural consequence. Just like "You abuse the playground equipement, so now you can not go there for a while", it's "you abuse the food, so I cannot let you around it unsupervised for a while." I feel that is not mean at all. I'mnot saying "you poured out the cheerios, now you can't have breakfast."

we have a door like this on one of our bathrooms, the one with the meds in it. The sliding door has a handle that is a loop. I put an eye bolt next to the handle and Then I use one of these http://www.safety1st.com/product.asp?productID=196 It works great to keep daycare kids out of my private bathroom and I don't have to try to install locks on my medicine cabinate.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

I'm not trying to be difficult, honestly, but I really fail to see how holding accountable=punishment. Really, I don't understand.

Namaste!


----------



## mamawanabe (Nov 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
I'm not trying to be difficult, honestly, but I really fail to see how holding accountable=punishment. Really, I don't understand.

Namaste!

I don't know where I stand on the whole accountability stuff. But I guess it is a little about how you expect to be treated. I eat at the computer and get dh's mouse all sticky. It drives him CRAZY. But he doesn't make me do extra chores around the house to "buy" him another mouse. That would be punitive and weird. He leaves cd's upside down out of his cases. I don't take them and put them up until he can respect them. Instead, we negotiate (he'll try to remmeber to put cds back if I try to remember to put teh cap on teh toothpaste) and remind each other and make empty promises and problem solve together (we'll eat at the table more so that we get out of the habit of eating at the computer).

I hope when I have kids it is less me telling my kids that if they do X (dump out cereal) than Y will happen (they have to scrub the bathtub) and more the kind of respectful problem solving between equals that me and dh engage in.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Just a few observations for the OP~

I think this is all age appropriate behavior. I certaintly don't agree with anyone who suggested otherwise. Howevever I think your oldest is capable of learning new behavior in the kitchen, while a 2 year old might not be able to do that yet.

You may or may not notice that you speak very possessively about the food in your home. You said "my" food many times, and seem preoccupied insisting you serve or assist your kids in the kitchen, even with simple snacks, though they clearly don't want the help. That does not make you a bad parent at all! But it is the dynamic you seem to have set in motion, and I think the way your kids are acting, is a logical extension of it. They crave freedom yet have no idea how to behave correctly when they sneak in there and have a moment alone with the food.

I have no problem with locks for real genuine safety issues that are just too dangerous to risk even short term. But I think for what you describe, locks are only going to put off the inevitable learning your kids need to do in the kitchen. And putting off that kind of learning can make it harder, not easier, to begin later.

Eating is a fact of life. You can't make food seem dangerous or hard to get without putting a child at odds with his own biological existence. Isn't that why we nurse on demand? We seem to know how much a baby resents feeling he must wait for his food, and then expect older kids to put up with all kinds of arbitrary expectations. Food is not sharp objects, or glass ornaments, that needs to be carefully kept from reach. Children don't *need* to hold the can of paint thinner. They do need to eat and they love to eat and they may resent anyone getting between them and their food. The only way I can picture real peace in your home is to work with them continuously in teaching indepedence in the kitchen, involving them in all aspects of the kitchen routine, giving them lots of little jobs and responsibilities in there, and generally make it a space they feel safe and confident and *responsible* for using correctly. Be a team. Especially with the oldest. He might really like feeing in charge of "teaching" the younger one's how to put food away or serve it neatly.

I love the idea of giving them other sensory play. That is brilliant. If they play with food, of course, acceptable substitutes are so important as part of the solution.


----------



## oceanbaby (Nov 19, 2001)

I've only skimmed the last few pages, but my first reaction to reading the OP, was that the natural consequence I thought of would be no more ice cream in the house. I know you said you and your dh like it, but maybe everyone needs to just go without for awhile. If the kids can't respect it, it goes away.

I know this doesn't work for things like cereal being squished all over the house, but it seems like you've gotten some good replies about that kind of behavior and are on your way towards dealing with it.

But for treat foods like ice cream, I would definitely remove it from the house if they were shoveling it with their hands on the floor.


----------



## j924 (May 17, 2005)

What about a logical consequence of having to stay close. Last time you guys were in the kitchen you made a huge mess and wasted food/money. I'll need you to stay in the same room with me for now. Have them do what you are doing(dusting, reading, etc) until you can accompany them into the kitchen. That way there is nothing is taken away and no one is "locked" out of the kitchen and you can spend some positive time regrouping for a few days. A great tactile event in our family is painting with shaving cream. I'm pretty sure that can go down the drain easier than mud. Holding you in happy thoughts until your fence arrives.


----------



## Breathless Wonder (Jan 25, 2004)

MPJJ-
Quick question-
Are you the MDC member who just had to move from the house with lead contamination?


----------



## Sydnee (May 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
I'm always hesitant to speak on MDC about how I discipline my kids because the subject of discipline always ruffles so many feathers, but if my kids were repeatedly forcing their way into a room I had told them to stay out of, I would confine them to their rooms.

If my kids were disregarding my instructions to not frolic in the food, I would stop buying snack items and put the remaining food where the kids couldn't reach it.

I am an evil, horrible mother who doesn't respect my kids and requires that they follow the rules.









Namaste!

Ps. You have gotten a lot of other good suggestions, too. I think this is a situation that requires a multi-pronged approach: immediate and long-trem strategies.

God Bless you!! I feel the exact same way. I don't post on here very often, as I really don't agree with how things are handled, to me, people are waaay to judgmental on here. If I don't agree with how someone else might do things, I move on to the next post. Don't understand why people must take it upon themselves to label others when they don't fully know the situation. Sorry, off of my soap box now..


----------



## Sydnee (May 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
I'm not trying to be difficult, honestly, but I really fail to see how holding accountable=punishment. Really, I don't understand.

Namaste!


Another thing I don't understand about not having consequences is, how do you explain to your children when they become adults that if they don't "perform" a certain way, such as at a job, there will be consequences???? How does a child learn about consequences later in life, because we ALL know they are there????? If an adult calls in sick, doesn't get the job done, etc. there will consequences for their actions, right?? How then are they suppose to know that?? I am severely confused on this one. :LOL


----------



## Breathless Wonder (Jan 25, 2004)

Found the answer myself. You were the mom in the house that was contaminated with lead.

And I know you have been having a very hard time lately- lots of stress, etc.

Have the older kids lead levels been checked? What about yours?


----------



## mamaduck (Mar 6, 2002)

Quote:

I feel as though I have to watch them every second they are awake.
This was in your OP, MPJJJ. My first thought was -- well, maybe! I didn't want to post it 'cause it sounds rough. But I think a big reason my kids don't get into trouble around the house is that they are consantly underfoot! Seriously -- my 5 yo. is constantly with me. Even sits on a little stool in the bathroom while I shower. Until about a year ago, my oldest was too. Its easy to catch them before they cause havoc if they are within eye shot all the time, and also easier to teach them stuff along the way.

j924 suggested this:

Quote:

What about a logical consequence of having to stay close. Last time you guys were in the kitchen you made a huge mess and wasted food/money. I'll need you to stay in the same room with me for now. Have them do what you are doing(dusting, reading, etc) until you can accompany them into the kitchen.
It may have some real merrit. Not as a permanent solution -- but for awhile.


----------



## mamawanabe (Nov 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sydnee*
Another thing I don't understand about not having consequences is, how do you explain to your children when they become adults that if they don't "perform" a certain way, such as at a job, there will be consequences???? How does a child learn about consequences later in life, because we ALL know they are there????? If an adult calls in sick, doesn't get the job done, etc. there will consequences for their actions, right?? How then are they suppose to know that?? I am severely confused on this one. :LOL

Modeling, right?! I mean, if it isn't like kids are growing up in a vacume. They watch you and relatives. They read books. They listen to you talk about people. They expereince natural consequences (not just partent directed consequences) in their day-today lives. I think it is as much a cultural myth to say that a kid not "disciplined" with parent directed consequences will grow up and think it is ok to skip work as it is to say a kid who isn't pushed to be independent will live at home at 35.

I think "punishment" and "dicipline" is a difficult parenting issue and so much depends on the child's temperment and our own childhood experience. There is no one right way. Kids without parent directed/enforced consequences will not grow up not understanding consequence, and kids whose parents do play the consequence game are not growing up in a household where they aren't fully respected.

I don't think it is that motehring.com is judemental as much as it is that mothers (esp. those who post on parenting message baords) see the world in such black and white, polarized terms. It is strange. Why, you know, does it matter so whether another ap mom does things differently than how I do things?


----------



## Altair (May 1, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
I've always felt that way, too, and that's why I'm kind-of







when I read here about mothers who don't think we should ever get angry and yell at our kids. I mean, the natural consequence of doing something that makes me angry is that I get angry, and usually I show it.


and would this be a way you want your children to act when angry? if so.. then that's great. if you'd rather your kids not show their anger that way, then the parent needs to also. kwim?

thinking out loud here (not directing this at you b/c i don't know if you mean yelling or not)-- but it always upsets me when i see parents who yell at their kids expect their kids to handle anger better than they can. when we get angry, our natural reaction is to get loud and be rude. but we can fight that, and we're trying to teach our kids to fight that, so it's so counter-productive to expect them to do the right thing when they get angry (i.e. sister steals toy) and then to have them see the parent get angry in a way they aren't supossed to. it's harder for a 2 year old to control anger than an adult!

again, not directed at the quoted poster! just in general, THAT'S why yelling isn't a natural consequence to me. a natural consequence of be being angry is that i have to take some time out to breathe and center my mind. that's what i'm teaching, and that's what i'm doing, and that's what i expect.


----------



## GranoLLLy-girl (Mar 1, 2005)

To the OP, you asked at one point in one of these pages if filling up your bathtub with dirt was a good idea (for the kids to play in)--I don't think this is a good idea. I think the tub would get clogged, and if you rent, that could be expensive to clean up/repair if damaged.
The idea itself sounds like fun, but the aftermath might be problematic.


----------



## MPJJJ (Oct 24, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Breathless Wonder*
MPJJ-
Quick question-
Are you the MDC member who just had to move from the house with lead contamination?

Yes, we are.


----------



## LauraSusan (Jul 29, 2005)

MPJJJ,

I'm sorry you've gotten such a hard time with this post. Can I just say that I had to live in an apartment with no backyard for several months when my daughter was around 2, and it was just sheer hell.

My personal feeling here is that this issue has nothing to do with your children being mental or your lack of punishment/consequences or even calling the blueberries "my blueberries". For what it's worth, we don't use any kind of punishment in our home. Not one thing. We forgive each other for having bad days and always assume that "bad" behavior has a reason.

Your boys needs to get back outside. That, to me, is the real issue here.

I sure hope that fence is up soon. I hate big vicious dogs myself, and would never let my child play outside if there was one around.

Hang in there.







Do what you can to get that fence up. And please think very carefully before you take any of the "get tough and punish your child" advice. Your little boys sound like...little boys. Perfectly normal little boys who need to be outside.


----------



## Irishmommy (Nov 19, 2001)

Do you have a basement? Somewhere you could put a small sandbox for the dirt?


----------



## MamaBug (Jun 13, 2003)

We once used a wheel barrow in our garage for sandbox sand so they could play in that during bad weather and since it was in the garage we just swept it all into the yard when it got messy.

Also I let my kids have water color paints in the tub and they had a blast with that, didn't even need to fill the tub until they were all done. We have the best shot of our oldest at age 2.5 covered in paint.


----------



## MPJJJ (Oct 24, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Irishmommy*
Do you have a basement? Somewhere you could put a small sandbox for the dirt?

actually we do! and it doubles as the boys huge toy room, they even ride their trikes and 4 wheelers down there. thats an awesome idea!







thanks! nak


----------



## ComaWhite (Mar 13, 2003)

Great post heartmama! ITA with all of it









Another thing not mentioned here, is how that most 6,4, and 2 year olds, when fed a bowl full of frozen processed*sugar*, and then left unattended for a peroid of time w/o something to divert their attention or burn/calm the rush would very most likely find something to "get into", not only that but the fact that you've been so strict and off-limits with the kitchen and food, so as soon as your guard is down or your back turned, _you betcha_ they'll be right in there!


----------



## Avonlea (Jan 21, 2002)

Jeebus People, Judge Much ?

MPJJ, I sure hope that a sandbox in the cellar works to help somewhat. We have one on our porch and it is quite a life saver..between that a a wading pool for water.

Just sounds like you are way busy and don't get much of a break and need an extra hand. Is Dh still on the road ? Mines new whore is his brothers boat, I hardly ever see him . he pops in for a change of clothes, or a shower and a 30 minute nap ont he couch.then he is off again. The boy child has been acting up lately, and i think it is because his dads been gone and he knows stuff isn't right and it hurts him.

Well, I hope you find something that works. If not, you could always duct tape them into cardboard boxes with some airholes poked out. You could probably take a shower in the time it would take them to find a way out !









Oh. PS, That was a JOKE , ladies.







Remember those ? People tell them to make one another laugh and fel better about a situation. ha ha..funny..lightens the mood. You know, that stuff ?


----------



## onlyzombiecat (Aug 15, 2004)

MPJJ,
I'm sorry you've had such a hard time lately.
All this probably is related to the kids not being able to get outside like they used to do.

We had a big plastic storage box with sand for dd previously and it was great!
We also have a play area in the basement too. She paints in there She does sidewalk chalk on the cement floor and does bubbles/spray bottle of water too. She also rides her scooter and tricycle there because we don't really have sidewalks outside.
We have set up a tent down there this summer and that was a lot of fun. Dd actually spent a whole afternoon hanging out in there with her toys, napping on an air mattress, telling me to go away.

BTW, I think it is normal for even a 6 year old to get messy with food.
My dd is five and knows how to use a spoon but likes to eat with her hands often. I figure it is not worth battling over most of the time. She will do it the "right way" soon enough on her own. I did the same thing when I was little and turned out okay.


----------



## vicnoe (Jun 3, 2005)

Marie,

I was going to say that it sounds like they might be bored, especially after having a yard to play in. My 3 get bored on hot and humid days (I refuse to let them play outside when the heat index is 115), and then start getting into things and destroying stuff. I keep some activities on hand to keep them busy once they start getting restless. Butcher paper, crayons, water colors, and craft foam keep them occupied long enough for me to mop the kitchen floor or scrub out the tub. I also like the idea of putting a small sandbox in the basement. We have one on our deck and it's been a life saver.

I have also put child-proof locks on my cabinets and pantry when each of them went through a phase of destroying food (my youngest loves to dump and play in anything he can get his hands on). I don't have a problem with doing that until they are at the age where they can understand that dumping and ruining food is something that is not to be done. I've made up a shelf for their snacks that they may have when they're hungry, so that they don't have to ask me for something. If they eat it all or destroy it, they go without. And they help clean up the mess.

I hope you find something that works for you. We've lived in many different homes during dh's time in the military and each place is different. One place might have a yard, but the next only has a deck. I've had to find something new each time we moved. Why don't you ask the older ones what they would like to do? My 5 year old loves to paint and stamp and will sit at the table for an hour, just making pictures. There's always the duct tape and box idea Avonlea suggested. LOL

Christine


----------



## roundpegmom (Apr 11, 2005)

Maybe put them in the tub with a cheapo can of shaving cream. They can smear to their heart's content and it works great for removing soap scum!


----------



## ComaWhite (Mar 13, 2003)

I don't think many are judging here, just expressing a frustration that some would rather take the easy way out and slap on some locks than go through the process of teaching a child and are not open to themselves having to go without their favorite food for a week in order to do that.


----------



## MPJJJ (Oct 24, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *andrea*
I don't think many are judging here, just expressing a frustration that some would rather take the easy way out and slap on some locks than go through the process of teaching a child and are not open to themselves having to go without their favorite food for a week in order to do that.

Grrr.... you're not focusing on my posts at all. This is NOT about icecream!!!! Yea, that is one thing that is frustrating. If I chose to do without everything they have poured out since moving here (Isee the connection of us moving here and this starting. I think the cross between boredom of not playing outside and all the stress we've been through (ie shelter, motel, then here) is contributing to it) then we would not have anything to eat except for the boxed and canned goods in the cabinets. Since being here, they (mainly my almost 4 year old) has destroyed:
*flour
*sugar
*coffee
*milk
*a whole carton of eggs
*bags of cheese
*boxes of cereal
*mashed my leftover rice like it were playdoh
*bread
*jelly
*syrup
*pancake mix

And there were a lot more. These are just from a few times being alone in the kitche for 10 minutes at the most. Your idea of just living without these items is just plain silly. We would have nothing left to cook! So I am putting a lock on the door WHILE WE WORK ON THE REASON HE IS DOING THIS. This is not a long term solution. I never said I meant it to be long term. When he wants something he will ask me, and I'll unlock the door and watch him as he gets what he wants. There is nothing wrong with this. I am not denying him food. I am denying him unsupervised use of the kitchen. He's 4! Not 14! The fact that some people just keep focusing on one thing I said, and not the bigger picture, is just mind boggling!


----------



## MamaBug (Jun 13, 2003)

I agree. I tend to just take what I need when I post for advice and ignore those posts that upset me, it's hard but in a community this big you will get replies by ppl that either don't understand what your looking for or give advice you don't want.

I know it can be frustrating and I for one don't see a thing wrong with having locks. I have locks on the chemicals why not the food. If they are being fed whenever they are hungry then having locks is not an issue imo. Good luck and I hope things settle down for you soon


----------



## Evan&Anna's_Mom (Jun 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MPJJJ*
The fact that some people just keep focusing on one thing I said, and not the bigger picture, is just mind boggling!

Um... Please take a minute to breath and look back to see why this might be happening. In your first post you talk about ice cream and other "treat" sorts of items, and you got a fair amount of advice (including from me) that looked like "Just don't buy anymore". Your response was that YOU didn't want to do without your icecream or favorite cereal. You didn't talk about other items, you didn't fill in the blanks that you have just moved, that things have been stressed, that your used-to-being-outside children have had to adjust to no outside time... All of those things come later in the this thread. Not everyone makes it throught 6 pages before they respond, though, yes, in an ideal world we would all read everything before writing. You need to be a bit more understanding about what people are reacting to and why they are responding the way they are.

And actually, I think you may have just realized that about your kids too. Regardless of what you do about the kitchen, I think you have realized that the kitchen behaviour is an outgrowth of a bunch of other issues, with tops on the list probably being really stressed out mommy, and being confined inside when they are used to being outside. It makes perfect sense that they would use flour for snow or dirt when they were used to being able to play that way outside until recently.

Hopefully this will help you find both a short-term solution to the frustration and a long-term solution to the needs that your children are expressing by their actions. Good luck with it all.


----------



## mamawanabe (Nov 12, 2002)

yea this is a pretty common in threads:
1) op posts for advice/venting about a situation but doesn't give a full picture (because to do so would mean writing a novel)
2) posters give all kinds of advice based on what the OP posted
3) OP gets frustrated/indignant about the advice because it doesn't address the full picture
4) later posters read the first two pages of the thread (skipping page three with the OP's indignant explanations of why advice doesn't fit) and agree with earlier advice
6) Op and other posters get extrememly frustrated/indignant that posters are agreeing with advice that has already been shown, on page three of the thread, to not fit the situation

I'm thinking if you ask for advice/create a venting thread, you should probably expect a lot of advice that doesn't fit along with some useful advice . . .

Anyway, MPJJJ, I take it this thread has been useful for you and you got a lot of good ideas from it.


----------



## ComaWhite (Mar 13, 2003)

Quote:

So I am putting a lock on the door WHILE WE WORK ON THE REASON HE IS DOING THIS.
Ok, but how are your kids supposed to work on individual responsibility in the kitchen, if the only way they can get in there is by your key and your hand. You are trying to teach them self-control be being the one doing all the controling?


----------



## dido1 (Aug 12, 2004)

I just wanted to chime and say that I'm one of those people who doesn't have a problem with putting locks on cupboards. In our kitchen there are several cupboards DS can play in and several that have locks. We have a small space and don't have the luxury of putting everything we need to keep intact/unspoiled up and out of reach, so we have to make some areas of limits.

I don't believe this means I am failing to teach my child self-control...there are plenty of other areas that we can and do work on self-control and respecting food in.

Good luck to the original poster...and I don't think you need to give up your treats, for what it's worth


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

I have locks on the chemicals why not the food.
That is a completely illogical statement.

The instinct to eat is one of the strongest expressed by a newborn. Eating is life. Hunting and gathering instincts towards food are strong in all humans, especially children! The drive to hunt around for food is totally normal and natural and healthy. If you really treat your food as you might a gun or chemicals, you are putting your child at odds with their own survival.

And before someone says their child can still be "served" when asked, we really need to think about whether it is right or necessary for children to ask our permission to eat, in their own home. Wouldn't it be better to make the kitchen child friendly, so that a child has easy access to simple foods whenever they want them? With very young children it may be necessary to put inedible and fragile foods (like eggs, glass jars, packages of flour) out of easy reach, and stay in the kitchen when we see them toddler there, to ensure their early experience and associations are positive. If access to their own favorite foods is easy from the earliest age, it will make introductions later of eggs, flour, or glass a limit that is easier to respect. It is far better to begin this while they ARE young toddlers, and most likely to be curious and enthusiastic, so that the kitchen never becomes a place of mystery.


----------



## newmommy (Sep 15, 2003)

.


----------



## newmommy (Sep 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
we really need to think about whether it is right or necessary for children to ask our permission to eat, in their own home. Wouldn't it be better to make the kitchen child friendly, so that a child has easy access to simple foods whenever they want them?

Agreed. DS can go to fridge whenever he wants to (withOUT my permission). I've never restricted or denied him access.


----------



## MPJJJ (Oct 24, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *newmommy*
Agreed. DS can go to fridge whenever he wants to (withOUT my permission). I've never restricted or denied him access.

Yea, but not everyone has the space to put these things out of easy reach. I have a very small kitchen. It is so small not even a table will fit in it. I have few cabinets. It is not possible to keep everything out of reach of the kids, and with a 3 story home, it is not possible always see him going into the kitchen. And I hardly think it is fair to him to make him stop whatever he is doing to accompany me upstairs or downstairs so that I can be with him every second. And just because the kitchen is locked when I am not in there doesn't mean that I am never in there. Some 3-4 year olds lack the maturity to be able to go into a kitchen safely. That does not mean that he will never learn, or I am not giving him the opportunities to learn. This is the same child who recently put a packet of hot cocoa into the microwave and takes it upon himself to make toast. Not only is it not affordable or convenient for me to allow him to go into the kitchen by himself, but it is not safe either. I can lock up knives, but I cannot lock up the toaster or microwave, and it is not worth him getting burned on. I fail to see how it is okay to allow a preschooler in a kitchen where he could get hurt, but it is stunting his emotional growth to make sure he is in there with supervision.







Not everyone has the large, safe kitchen with dozens of cabinets to make sure everyhing that needs to be put up can be put up. Some people have to make due with that they have.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

MPJJJ, I am sorry you seem to feel so threatened by those suggestions. You said you had a three story house, so I really do wonder if there is not a way to store less used appliances and pans in another area, to create more child friendly space in the kitchen.

I suppose I should clarify that this is not so much about the room we call the kitchen being important~it is the food in the kitchen which is important to kids. I have no problem childproofing the very real dangers in a kitchen. Of course you shouldn't let a two year old rummage the knife drawer or put what he wants in the microwave. Those are all separate safety issues and could be addressed separately, with safety devices used just to keep those specific area's from causing injury. However if you simply lock the door to the kitchen, and continue to keep all the food in there, you've made it impossible for the child to satisfy their own hunger, and that is probably what would be of greatest concern to the child as well.

if my kitchen were truly a landmine of ancient, bohemoth appliances, gas lines, and electrical hazards I could not make safe, I am sure I too, would lock it, but I would move all non perishable foods my child liked out of it, set up their own food area in another room, and give them free access to *that* space.

I think what confuses me in your post is~ do you really not see a difference between a locked kitchen door, and subtle supervision and childproofing while a child is in the kitchen? Would it be the same to you if a store locked you out, as opposed to letting you shop while employees minded the sales floor? It's doubtful your kids will even care that you are there, unless they've already gotten into the habit of sneaking time in the kitchen when you aren't looking.

I sense you are exasperated and feel defensive, and I am sorry. I don't think a lock on the kitchen door is abuse or evil. I do think it's excessive, will create more work for you, will be a source of irritation for the kids, and will miss a great chance to teach your kids how to behave in the kitchen.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

If we all lived in truly compact spaces, this would be a non issue. The kitchen would be part of the living space. We would be playing, eating, and socializing in the constant presence of cooking gear and food supplies, and the only means to keep it in order would be supervision, teaching, and creative problem solving.

I just find that a little ironic


----------



## MPJJJ (Oct 24, 2003)

My 4 year old can satisfy his own hunger by saying "Mommy, I'm hungry", and accompanying me into the kitchen. A 4 year old simply doesn't need unlimited access to the kitchen, especially when he is a very immature 4 year old. It is ironic that so many people feel it is disrespectful to insist that a child ask for food before he gets it, or has supervision while he gets it. And no, I'm not threatened. It takes a lot more than an arguement on a message board to threaten me.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

It is ironic that so many people feel it is disrespectful to insist that a child ask for food before he gets it, or has supervision while he gets it.
How is that ironic?

Who said supervision was wrong? I think most of said that supervision would be a really good idea. I think supervision is a great idea. You are the one who said it wasn't helpful advice.

I'm not sure I understand your attitiude here. Your children clearly do not want to ask for food. They also do not know how to behave in the kitchen. The kitchen in your home does not sound childproofed. These are all separate important issues, and you seem to respond to all of them with "Look, I can't do that, they are going to have to deal with the lock, they are immature, if they want food they have to go to me first".

It's hard for me to take you seriously if that is what you have to say after this much discussion.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
How is that ironic?

Who said supervision was wrong? I think most of said that supervision would be a really good idea. I think supervision is a great idea. You are the one who said it wasn't helpful advice.

I'm not sure I understand your attitiude here. Your children clearly do not want to ask for food. They also do not know how to behave in the kitchen. The kitchen in your home does not sound childproofed. These are all separate important issues, and you seem to respond to all of them with "Look, I can't do that, they are going to have to deal with the lock, they are immature, if they want food they have to go to me first".

It's hard for me to take you seriously if that is what you have to say after this much discussion.


Exactly!









it's such a confusing thread!! (OP, you can go ahead and a call me a jerk again! It's really ok! I am obviousy stupid since I am still participating in this thread & am *really* trying to get a handle on your needs. I am a sucker for punishment, obviously).

These are normal children who are being locked out of a prime space of the home because their behavior is so over-the-top. They do not understand (I am not including the toddler in this--he's too little) that dumping flour and cracking eggs all over the floor is not a good thing. They keep trying to get into the kitchen to do these things even with a lock on the door.

You would *think* that if food was available at any time and that they could go ahead and eat what they chose, the problem would not be this bad. Yet, desptie that they can have food at any time, they still choose to destroy this food. They dump food because they are 'not thinking' and continue messing up the kitchen even though their mother gets upset about it and is trying to teach them what they need to do to have acess to the kitchen. They don't respond to their mother's dissapointment, nor her anger.

The OP keeps saying the children disrespect food even though they know how to serve food and even though they are not hungry.

They simply enjoy wasting food.

Supervision is difficult, if not impossible They have a large home and if the mother is even upstairs for a few minutes, the children break into the kitchen.

They are bored and need to be moving. There is a basement where they can play and ride, yet they still dump eggs, flour and all manner of things they do not eat.

I have no idea what to suggest, since almost all suggestions are met with anger AND YELLING.

This is a tough one.

Why *are* these children acting out so much? Even when they have a basement to play in, and even when their mother is obvioulsy doing everything she can?


----------



## ComaWhite (Mar 13, 2003)

MPJJJ,
Perhaps you can state exactly what you DO hope to accomplish by this thread, since all of the suggestions and advice (that you asked for) are met with hostility and backlash.

It seems to me that you really just wanted justification of your already-made-up decision to lock up the kitchen.


----------



## MPJJJ (Oct 24, 2003)

Heading off now!

I want to thank everyone who responded to me both here and in PM with great suggestions for handling my children's boredom with fun activities. Before this thread I never would have thought they were bored, I just thought they enjoyed misbehaving, and possibly seeing my reaction. Rather, I understand that it is a sensory thing. Thanks for all of your wonderful suggestions!

I got from the thread what I wanted, and also from the many, many PMs (I've never gotten so many!) I understand that I am NOT alone in this! Many children, some much older than mine, feel the need to destroy food, and many parents have resorted to locking up the cabinets or entire kitchen until the children are mature enough to understand that flour and eggs are not playthings. I understand that I will not damage my kids by setting firm bounderies and letting them into the kitchen only when I am there to supervise them. Thank you for that reassurance!

With much appreciation,

Marie


----------



## Evan&Anna's_Mom (Jun 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MPJJJ*
A 4 year old simply doesn't need unlimited access to the kitchen, especially when he is a very immature 4 year old. It is ironic that so many people feel it is disrespectful to insist that a child ask for food before he gets it, or has supervision while he gets it.

I think many of us here have clearly stated that we disagree with you on this point. I think a 4 YO does, in fact, need access to the kitchen for a variety of reasons (few of them actually having to do with food and water), regardless of maturity. IMHO, my 2 YO needs access to the kitchen. And yes, I do think its shows a fundamental lack of respect to require a child (or anyone else) to come to you and ask permission to eat. That's fine, you are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to my opposing one.

But, you asked for ideas, suggestions, and thoughts. You got them, although few seemed to actually be acceptible.

So, I'm giving up. You want to simply lock everything up and assume/hope that this will solve the problem. No other answer, no other possiblity, no other approach is going to do what you need it to do. Great, please move ahead with your plan.

Of course, if your children are making messes to satisfy some sensory need, they will find other things to make messes with. And if they are doing this to get your attention (which worked), they will find something else to do to get your attention. And they won't actually learn anything about having respect for food and, indirectly, money. And the next thing will likely be worse than the kitchen where at least its relatively easy to clean up!

They will learn (maybe) that mommy is the "keeper of the keys" and has all of the power. They might learn to ask for food politely. They will almost certainly learn that they are untrustworthy, at least in the kitchen and maybe they will take that beyond the kitchen.

And when you come back to ask for help when this all escalates, many of us will have learned not to work so hard at giving suggestion.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

There's a bit of an "ick" feeling when someone says a condescending farewell to a thread they started, and waves on the way out "I know from my PM's that I really am doing the right thing no matter what any of you here say....".

Well, if they aren't saying it to you here, there's probably a reason. People tend to save un-gd advice for pm's. That's common. Which only adds to the icky feeling of realizing you just spent time giving someone gd advice, only to have them leave praising advice that was not or could not be posted on the board.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Heartmama-- i think a lot of people post only wanting to be supported in what they are already choosing to do. They aren't really asking for variations on a theme. They want to hear from others who are handling similar situations in similar ways.

I am thinking that it's probably OK for her to need reassurance that locks and not being able to supevise children are ok. The OP doesn't sound like an abuser, and perhaps there are lots of things happening in herhome that we are not privvy to. While it seems like such a no-win situation to us, there is nothing we non- punitive MDC parents can do when a person's mind is made up.

I think it's always OK for those of who practice GD and non -punitive, non shaming child rearing to speak up here, however. It doesn't mean that such parenting is this is going to be embraced by others, but we still need to talk about it.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

I do not, at all, think a kitchen lock is abusive, if she chooses to use it. I just wanted to make that clear. I would not presume to know all the dynamics of a family. Sometimes a person who seems unable to give a situation greater flexibility has an issue that later, puts it in perspective (illness, difficult partner, financial crisis, etc.). I am not assuming that is the reason the OP seems inflexible, but I won't presume it's about ice cream either (which some did).

UU mom I completely agree with your post. I did assume she wanted variations and idea's, and a more sincere response here would have been appreciated, but it is what it is


----------



## be11ydancer (Dec 2, 2003)

I read about four pages of this and didn't see this idea anywhere. My DH grew up in a house with two younger brothers and all were same age difference as your sons. According to him, this is a "boys will be boys" thing. I'm sure there are exceptions to every rule though. He has tons of stories about how he and his brothers were just extremely destructive and really tried to make messes. That's what it sounds like to me that your sons are doing. They weren't doing it for a reaction and they weren't deprived of anything in the kitchen. But they made messes just to make messes. His dad would use a *snow shovel* to clean up the play room because it got so bad. He told me of a time when he and his brothers would shake the bunk bed back and forth as hard as they could just to see if it would break. And they also made food messes. The problem was remedied when they moved to a place in the country and they would just roam the property playing in the dirt. His happiest childhood times were spent playing outside. I wouldn't take what they're doing too personally. I also don't think locks will work (and they're so expensive!) because that just gives them one more "project" to work on destroying before they reach their goal. Just sounds to me like your kids are stir crazy and they are being boys, which = mess. If there is no backyard, I'd be at the local playground as often as humanly possible in order to help them channel this energy. Hope this helps.

Oh, FWIW, my DH has ironically turned into a wonderful cook and thinks his food messiness may have helped with that.


----------



## MamaBug (Jun 13, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
That is a completely illogical statement.


Well in my opinion it is not. If my child gets into a cupboard with food that is a potential choking hazard and I do not know that he is eating the food....well this could be a potentially dangerous situation, imo. Therefore if you are not going to be side by side with your dc all day it makes sense to protect them from eating something dangerous. Would you not agree with that?


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

You changed your question









Putting away dangerous foods is just common sense.

What safe foods can your child eat? Put that within easy reach. When my son was a toddler I filled ice cube trays each morning with bite sized portions of different foods. He was not a "choker", but I know some toddlers do tend to cram food and need supervision, and that is very important. Again, a safety issue you could address in a number of ways. If you really want idea's I'd be glad to give them!


----------



## MamaBug (Jun 13, 2003)

I do not understand how I changed my question? I also wasn't really talking about myself though we do have locks on the chemicals. My food cabinets are not locked because my children tell me when they are hungry and I feed them. Now that they are older they ask for a snack and then they can get what they want. Anything that is not safe for them to eat is not out where they can get it.

I was just saying that if they are going into her cabinets unsupervised then there is the potential for danger and what is the big deal with having cabinet locks, kwim? Also my kids ask for something to eat and sometimes I have to say no as it is too close to mealtime. I don't feel there is anything wrong with this, my oldest will sometimes say " Well I am really hungry can I have something to hold me off?" If it not super close to the dinner being ready I will tell him fine he can have something small, but if dinner is almost done then I say no.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Mamabug your first statement didn't indicate the "food" in question was a known choking hazard.

You're last post raised a second issue. It's already been discussed and made clear that some families here do not think it is respectful for parents to play "keeper of the pantry" at home (kids must ask for all food, they can't have snacks unless parent says so etc.). I just don't agree with your approach, and probably can't answer your first question to your satisfication if it rests on a parenting attitude I do not practice. In our home, I usually ask ds what he'd like for dinner, and then I make that. He likes simple foods and this has never been impractical or backfired in any way for us. If he were to want to eat before the meal he picked was ready, I'd probably remind him it was almost done, and encourage him to find a light snack if he couldn't wait. There is no rule, he isn't forbidden or forced to wait. When he was littler I just had healthy finger foods ready anytime he wanted them. He didn't have to ask or guess, whatever we owned was already cut up and ready where he could find it.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
snip and encourage him to find a light snack if he couldn't wait. There is no rule, he isn't forbidden or forced to wait. When he was littler I just had healthy finger foods ready anytime he wanted them. He didn't have to ask or guess, whatever we owned was already cut up and ready where he could find it.


Heartmama.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

UUmom, back at you!

You know it's funny, this whole thread has made me ask myself why I ever stopped making those ice cube trays for him. He is going through a growing phase and is hungry quite often lately. I think I'm going to need bigger ice cube trays now *LOL*


----------



## MamaBug (Jun 13, 2003)

Sorry I wasn't clear about that, you know how sometimes it's in your head and you know what you mean but you don't think to write it?

I agree I don't forbid food from my children. When they are hungry they are allowed to eat. And just like you when dinner is almost ready they CAN have a snack, but if dinner is ready in under 5 minutes I ask him to wait because if I am preparing something he wanted and then he fills up on snacks and does not want dinner then I have cooked for nothing. In my book waiting 5 minutes to eat the dinner he asked me for is not being disrespectful. So this may be the way you and I differ as I won't allow a snack when dinner is literally being put on the table.

I hope I have explained myself better? And I do sort of the same thing you do with the ice cube trays though mine is a flat bowl/tray thing with dividers. I fill each section with healthy snaks that they can munch on at will and they never know what I am going to fill it with. Once in a while I will throw in a hersey kiss or two and they will go nuts! They love finding out what is in the tray for the day. And btw my dh totally HATES when I do this. He feels they fill up too much during the day, and I told him too bad, if you are hungry you eat, and so will they


----------



## mamaduck (Mar 6, 2002)

This is a strange thread. Even the title threw me off. While I can definately feel empathy for the frustration the OP feels -- I just find it really hard to imagine being in her shoes. I would really rather spend some intense days or weeks teaching kitchen skills.... that will last forever.... than marking the kitchen off as "mom's territory." I really fear this strategy will backfire, especially with little boys who might eventually make the assumption that kitchen duties are "women's work."

I was just thinking over the fact I feel irritated when when my kids DO ask me for food between meals! My standard resonse is... _"Great idea -- go fix something."_

One of the advantages of including children in kitchen duties from a very young age is that they become independent later which can be very helpful. My 8 yo. son makes his own breakfast and lunch, and often his brother's too. And when I want to serve a salad with dinner, DS will make the whole thing start to finish. He empties and fills the dishwasher as well. My 5 yo. can break eggs very well, and pour milk, and enjoys making Jiffy muffin mixes because he can make them independently (except for the oven part.) He can put dishes away in lower cabinets and he can use a stool to put away cans and jars after we grocery shop. He can sort out "bad" fruit and vegetables from the fridge and put them in the compost, then carry out the compost to dump it and rinse the bucket on the way back in. I have *really* come to rely on them for their help with these things, and I would quickly feel overwhelmed if family nourishment was my responsibility alone. My guys eat A LOT.

From time to time I like to cook something by myself for the pleasure of the experience. The kids understand this need, and when I want the kitchen to myself we compromise by setting them up nearby with playdough. They make lots of "pretend" foods while I make real food."

Its very hard for me to picture them kids going into the kitchen and trashing anything. Even when they were 2 and 6 yo. They both feel a strong sense of ownership in the kitchen.... this is our special place to create meals for ourselves and each other. Something we all appreciate! (Thats not to say that things don't get sticky or wet. Of course they do.) Maybe I just have exceptional children -- because I cannot imagine them doing damage "just for fun" or just because they are "boys."


----------



## moondiapers (Apr 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaBug*
Also my kids ask for something to eat and sometimes I have to say no as it is too close to mealtime. I don't feel there is anything wrong with this, my oldest will sometimes say " Well I am really hungry can I have something to hold me off?" If it not super close to the dinner being ready I will tell him fine he can have something small, but if dinner is almost done then I say no.

I agree with this. If they are going to snack while dinner is on the stove and be too full to eat dinner, why am I even bothering to make it?


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *moondiapers*
I agree with this. If they are going to snack while dinner is on the stove and be too full to eat dinner, why am I even bothering to make it?

Appetizers. A few veggies and a tiny bit of dressing, a small bit of bread...all things adults are allowed.

And we make dinner for ourselves and our partners (maybe) and other children. We can do this dinner time thing without forbidding anything and helping the child get what she needs.

I know sometimes i say 5 mnuites, but by the time everyone has washed their hands and settled at the table it's more like 15, and in 15 minutes a small child can go from being pleasant to having a meltdown.

Sometimes I go ahead and put the salad or whatever else on my 6 yr old's plate as the rest of the family saunters on in. Sometimes I even go ahead and start the blessing (May faith in the spirit of life and hope in the community of earth and love in the sacred in ourseves and each other, be ours this day and in all the days to com) while people are still walking towards their chairs.

But eveyone gets what they need in the end.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Mamabug that post made it much clearer~

I think the key is that in any home you will have preferences, and limits etc. that you all help each other learn to respect. I have always spoken, and expected ds to try to emulate, fairness, and responsibility. Of course if ds asks for a food, I would expect him to only ask if he intended to eat it. I've never really had a problem with this issue. If he snacks while waiting, I probably won't say anything unless I think he's actually filling up. I snack while I wait for food too. If I know it's something that will make him too full to eat, I'll ask him to leave room for the food he requested.

Mamaduck~what a great post! I agree with all of it.

I *am* impressed with what your kids do in the kitchen! Could they teach my ds a few of those skills *LOL*


----------



## moondiapers (Apr 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UUMom*
Appetizers. A few veggies and a tiny bit of dressing, a small bit of bread...all things adults are allowed.


We, the adults, don't eat while dinner is cooking either, unless there is a party(then our guests do, but we don't...unless dinner is going to be late), then ofcourse the children have appetizers too, then they play instead of eat dinner because they are full. The way my children eat, an appetizer is a full meal. They aren't big eaters. Seriously a full meal for my 9 you is 4 baby carrots, a stick of celery, and 2oz of chicken.


----------



## moondiapers (Apr 14, 2002)

I do understand where everyone is coming from, but I don't think many of you are thinking about how different families are in their daily life. ppl keep saying things like "If you were hungry you would eat, why shouldn't they?" But in my family NONE of us snack whenever we feel like it. We have Breakfast at 730 or 800am, lunch at 1145 snack at 330 and dinner at 630, period, for ALL of us, grownups AND kids. We don't do a snack before bed because the kids go straight into the bathtub after dinner, then it's a story and bedtime. they go to bed between 8 and 830 every night......because we're tired and are in bed by 9 most nights ourselves. My husband gets up at 530am to get ready for work, and I'm up by 6am. I have coffee, toast and a piece of fruit, for my breakfast, then I make breakfast for the kids when they get up. They usually wake up at 7am. That's not to say we're totally inflexible. If one of the kids is off of their schedule for some reason and didnt' eat well at meal time I'll give them a few crackers or piece of fruit inbetween time. And they are welcome to get drinks from the kitchen and fridge whenever they live. We've just never made between meal snacking a habit in our home so it doesn't occur to them to do it normally.

-Heather


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *moondiapers*
We, the adults, don't eat while dinner is cooking either, unless there is a party(then our guests do, but we don't...unless dinner is going to be late), then ofcourse the children have appetizers too, then they play instead of eat dinner because they are full. The way my children eat, an appetizer is a full meal. They aren't big eaters. Seriously a full meal for my 9 you is 4 baby carrots, a stick of celery, and 2oz of chicken.









: Egocentricity at play. I always put out veggies while I am cooking, & i am bad about sampling. i also do let my dd start her meal (hence my salad example) as the other older, more patient folks are meandering about and if she needs to.

Although, as long we as are nitpicking, you could go head and serve one carrot, 1/2 stick of celery and .5 oz of chicken--which would only mean that the child has a little less to eat at the 'official' meal.

But any particular post can be picked apart. I think the spirit of it all is helping a child get what they need without arbitrary adult controls


----------



## moondiapers (Apr 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UUMom*







: Egocentricity at play. I always put out veggies while I am cooking, & i am bad about sampling. i also do let my dd start her meal (hence my salad example) as the other older, more patient folks are meandering about and if she needs to.

Although, as long we as are nitpicking, you could go head and serve one carrot, 1/2 stick of celery and .5 oz of chicken--which would only mean that the child has a little less to eat at the 'official' meal.

But any particular post can be picked apart. I think the spirit of it all is helping a child get what they need without arbitrary adult controls


LOL, but you see, if the meal isn't cooked yet, the chicken would still be raw


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *moondiapers*
We, the adults, don't eat while dinner is cooking either,.


Which is fine for adults, butis it fair for adults to decide if/when children are hungry? Adults get the choice, children don't, they just have to go along with what the adults want, and that's my biggest issue here.

Kids are controlled, but the adults get to feel their own hunger and go ahead and eat if they want to-- then they also get to dedide their children's hunger.

Do you see where i am coming from, at all?

Have you read any Alfie Kohn? Or John Holt?


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *moondiapers*
LOL, but you see, if the meal isn't cooked yet, the chicken would still be raw









Raw carrots and raw celery, anyone?


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UUMom*
Raw carrots and raw celery, anyone?










And oh yeah, if the chilcken is still raw, it's more than 5 minutes until dinner.


----------



## pixiexto (Mar 6, 2003)

Something struck me, reading this (yes, I read the whole thing ~ sleeping baby on my lap gives me a good excuse!







)

If kitchen BELONGS to Mama, how does this encourage children the take pride or ownership of food choices? I have to think that at least part of the problem here is that the children are a) rather p-o'd at being controlled and b) have no ownership of the area. Respect is learned through interest and inclusion, not by being told (either implicity or explicity) that you are not capable or welcome in a certain area of the home.

Obviously agreeing whole-heartedly with UUMom, mamaduck and others









Anyway, I know OP is probably long gone and even though she seems to have affirmed her original plans, I think the post still has value in that other, more GD-inspired, ideas have been shared.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

Seriously a full meal for my 9 you is 4 baby carrots, a stick of celery, and 2oz of chicken.








then give her the carrots and celery if she's too hungry to wait, and serve the chicken at the table?

Babies can thrive on a strict schedule. But most here don't think it's best, not only for physiological reasons, but for emotional and psychological reasons, to demand feed.

If an older child says 'I'm hungry, I don't want to wait' why is this your decision? Why are they asking you to decide for them? Is that really what you want? A child who depends on someone else to decide when and what he can eat? How is this the logical next step after two years of demand feeding your baby/toddler?

I don't think it is the logical result of demand feeding and I think parents who believe in demand feeding need to open their minds to continuing, rather than phasing out, that kind of respect for their child's hunger cues. I have no problem with basic routines in the kitchen, minimizing waste, encouraging children to make wise choices, teaching them how to be responsible in the kitchen, how to ask for help, how to be fair with requests they make, etc. That is essential. If you focus on this and never introduce the idea that they must ask permission to eat, or that they can only eat by the clock or by a schedule, there are so many issues parents worry *might* happen, which just do not happen.

Parents cannot underestimate how much easier it is to work *with* a child's natural hunger than to coax them away from it. Food is one of those basics that children are interested in without choosing. It's an instinct, and you can get so much farther encouraging them to make wise choices and learn good kitchen habits *while they satisfy hunger* than you can ever impose while they wait in frustration to eat!

This is such a simple yet almost magical truth. It is much easier to work with natural motivation and teach children when they are eager and interested. It's completely unnecessary to fear this or work against it. Children will naturally learn a great deal of give and take in the home (and the kitchen) without you even knowing it. They learn so much easier and gracefully when they aren't asked to choose between their own motivation to eat, and your expectation that they wait. If you let their motivation to eat guide them to food and help them in that moment to meet those needs in a constructive way, they are just...so much more receptive, it is hard to know what to say to a parent who refuses to look at the issue this way.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

But in my family NONE of us snack whenever we feel like it. We have Breakfast at 730 or 800am, lunch at 1145 snack at 330 and dinner at 630, period, for ALL of us, grownups AND kids.
Why?


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Whether or not you want to hear this, the minute your child decides she is going to snack behind your back without asking (and most children, around later elementary years, will figure this out. If you don't believe me visit a school cafeteria at lunchtime and witness the phenomenal amount of trading, swapping, and begging for snacks that happens), your entire philosophy of food scheduling will go right out the window. It will be over and you won't be able to do a thing about it.

Food control is always a temporary control. Humans just do not accept having their food limited if they can help it. If you have read anything about life inside countries, armies, or other conditions where food exists but access is restricted, the only thing traded and snuck and ferreted away with more gusto is probably cigarettes. You are certain to lose control long before you expected it. The irony is that most humans take pride in controlling their own eating habits, but we rarely connect the dots. By the time you realize what your kids have already figured out, they won't need or care about your help or approval. They will be quite adept at working behind your back.

Which is the point of this entire thread.


----------



## PumpkinSeeds (Dec 19, 2001)

My mom played keeper of the kitchen. We were never allowed to go in there, ever.

When I was a kid I carved with a nail on the back fence "I'm Hungry" and it's still there--my dad still lives there. I spent so much of my life waiting until the clock said it was time to eat.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

I think if somehow you think food=love, then any attempt by parents to restrict access to food (assumng child is still being fed) might somehow translate to deprivation of love.
Food in its natural state is not readily availible to all humans.
Food must be grown or gathered and washed and prepared.
Child or adult, it is the normal state of affairs to have to wait to eat until these processes are complete.
Sometimes I cook while my stomach is growling, but I appreciate my meal that much more when it is ready. I dont just stop and eat somethign quicker instead.
And I dont think it does our children any favors to train their bodies to expect easy to eat foods to be availible at all times.

As for "on demand" feeding. Breastmilk is availible at the right temperature 24 hours a day. But the very first time we offer our child solid food, it is on OUR schedule. Not theirs. They do not ask for somethign they have never had (unless they see us eating it, again which is on OUR eating schedule)
So while I nurse my children on demand, I prepare meals on a schedule.
The first time I offer food I choose the time. The when I offer it twice a day, again I choose the time. Eventually I have chosen 5 times or so a day when I offer my children food.
joline


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PumpkinSeeds*
My mom played keeper of the kitchen. We were never allowed to go in there, ever.

When I was a kid I carved with a nail on the back fence "I'm Hungry" and it's still there--my dad still lives there. I spent so much of my life waiting until the clock said it was time to eat.

That's so sad. My mom was also a control freak with food, in a very abusive way. Maybe that's why I am reacting so strongly to this thread. It reminds me of the time I accidentally wandered into an Ezzo playgroup, and a little boy helped himself to his own sippy cup- the mom took it away and said, "No. It's not juice time." I thought juice time was when you were thirsty. I suppose there would be legitimate reasons for strictly controlling a child's food intake, such as my friend whose daughter can die if she eats too much protein, but what I am not seeing that here.


----------



## mamawanabe (Nov 12, 2002)

I do agree with the kids not asking permission to eat, and with whether to eat or not being a decision the child not the partent makes. It is right and respectful.

On the other hand, there is an underlying assumption that doing this will mean that the child grows up listening to hunger cues and not overeating and/or engaging in bad eating behaviors (dieting, binging, emotional eating, bordom eating). Unfortunatly, I think there is a strong genetic, not just learned, component to this stuff. The best we can do as parents is not make these natural tendencies worse, but if they are there, they are there.

My parents actually did everything "right" (except we had to eat what my mom cooked for dinner). We ate whenever we wanted; my mom asked us what we wanted for breakfast and lunch and made it until we were old enough to make it ourselves; there was always food available to us to make and eat. We ate lots of healthy food (spinach was an early favorite of mine), but sweets were never forbiddon. Yet I was weird about food as long as I can remember. I would sit at the table eating teaspoons of suger from the suger bowl, feeling really bad/ashamed that I was doing so (though my parents didn't care); I got tremendous satisfaction from eating and never listened to huger cues because eating never had anything to do with hunger. I remember eating until I felt gross on a regular basis - sitting on the couch and eating packets of saltine crackers and dry ramon noodles (fortunately, I have a really fast metabolism). I also felt really "bad" about this eating.

I imagine if my parents had tried to restrict, it would have been much worse. I do think, however, that parents who restrict are probably themselves a little genetically weird about food (i.e. they get a "abnormal" physical satisfaction and guilt from eating) and thus raise children who are genetically predisposed to binge and diet and engage in bordom/emotional eating. Parents who don't feel the need to restrict themselves and thus their children are more likley to have children who, genetically, are wired to see food as a nice need rather than this weird place of intense pleasure, satisfaction, and guilt (food guilt is hardwired into some people - at four years old I used to imagine "good food" and "bad food" fighting it out in my belly).


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
Sometimes I cook while my stomach is growling, but I appreciate my meal that much more when it is ready. I dont just stop and eat somethign quicker instead.
And I dont think it does our children any favors to train their bodies to expect easy to eat foods to be availible at all times.

As for "on demand" feeding. Breastmilk is availible at the right temperature 24 hours a day. But the very first time we offer our child solid food, it is on OUR schedule. Not theirs. They do not ask for somethign they have never had (unless they see us eating it, again which is on OUR eating schedule)
So while I nurse my children on demand, I prepare meals on a schedule.
The first time I offer food I choose the time. The when I offer it twice a day, again I choose the time. Eventually I have chosen 5 times or so a day when I offer my children food.
joline

I find this to be really sad and controlling. I don't think it does our children any favors, not does it promote attachment, to teach them that their hunger will only be satisfied on our schedule.

The whole point of nursing on demand, in relation to attachment parenting, is to show that mama will satisfy their needs on cue. This need doesn't change when they switch to solid foods.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

Food in its natural state is not readily availible to all humans.
Well there are two points here:

Food is readily available to most of our children and they absolutely know it.
There is no point in comparing them to starving children in another country.

The second point is that children enjoy finding, washing, and preparing foods when they are eager to eat them. So there is no reason to put them at odds with the process.

Quote:

Breastmilk is availible at the right temperature 24 hours a day. But the very first time we offer our child solid food, it is on OUR schedule. Not theirs. They do not ask for somethign they have never had (unless they see us eating it, again which is on OUR eating schedule)
I don't know quite how to phrase this. It seems like you are saying the only reason you breastfed on demand was because no work was involved. Once feeding involved effort, you refused to do it unless you felt like it, and refused to teach your child how to do for themselves.

I am sorry if you meant this differently, but that is how it looked.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

mamawanabe you raised some interesting points. The genetics of all food disorders are not well understood. I completely agree that a person with a food disorder would have a very hard time knowing how to respond to a child's food habits, or to recognize real problems and find a way to address them.

I don't think any eating disorder exists in which the best solution is to impose external control. I think raising kids with the impression that they cannot have food that is available is a very common power struggle that can create unhealthy habits later. However I want to make it very clear that I don't think it necessarily explains a true eating disorder. Often in a family of 5, 4 kids are fine and one child is anorexic. Why that happens I am sure is much more complex than the issues we are talking about here.

I just want to add that it sounds like you might have had a yeast issue as a child. Eating sugar straight from the jar sounds like a very strong indication of systemic yeast.


----------



## mamawanabe (Nov 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
I think raising kids with the impression that they cannot have food that is available is a very common power struggle that can create unhealthy habits later.

And not doing so doesn't mean that your kids will have a healthy relationship to food and eating.

Like so much of what we do as parents, the reason for a parenting decision doesn't lie in the outcome as much as in the ethics of the reason itself. It is respectfull to allow a child to eat when s/he wants. Doing so is not going to mean that they will grow up with a healthly relationship to food, but it is still the right thing to do.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
I find this to be really sad and controlling. I don't think it does our children any favors, not does it promote attachment, to teach them that their hunger will only be satisfied on our schedule.

The whole point of nursing on demand, in relation to attachment parenting, is to show that mama will satisfy their needs on cue. This need doesn't change when they switch to solid foods.

Apparently you have entirely misunderstood and misinterpreted my statement.
I have never said nor implied that I teach them that their hunger will "only be satisfied on our schedule" however If I am offering my child a snack at 9:30 every single day, guess what, they will be hungry for a snack at almost precisely 9:30 every single day. The body is hungry at the times it is used to getting food.
My children have never been deprived of food when they are hungry. That part is just in your imagination. However they do not have free reign of the kitchen either. They do not NEED free reign of the kitchen in order to have full bellies.
And nobody "switches" to solid foods.(ok well maybe some do, I dont know) Solid foods are added to a diet of breastmilk. The diet of breastmilk continues at the same time as the diet of solid foods. And they continue until the breastmilk is no longer needed and the regular schedule of solid foods is also sufficient. But they are different and separate.
As food has to be prepared, I have to have some 'warning" before my children need it. The most predictable way for me to know when they are hungry before they ask for food is for me to offer it to them on a very regular basis.
So maybe it is so very sad that I offer my children food every couple of hours throughout the day. Maybe it is especially sad and controlling when i give them food at 9:30 whether they are hungry for it at that time or not.

But maybe it is the food that is being so darned stubborn. How DARE rice take a whole hour to cook! And how dare chicken be dangerous to eat raw. Because it is so emotionally damaging to have to wait to eat.
I'd rather my kids wait then stuff their faces with the kind of food that is availible for their immediate gratification (fruit snacks anyone?)
The absolute nerve of granola bars being so darned unhealthful!

Food does not equal love. And meals at regular meal times does not equal deprivation


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
Apparently you have entirely misunderstood and misinterpreted my statement.

After reading your response I don't think I did.

Quote:

I have never said nor implied that I teach them that their hunger will "only be satisfied on our schedule" however If I am offering my child a snack at 9:30 every single day, guess what, they will be hungry for a snack at almost precisely 9:30 every single day. The body is hungry at the times it is used to getting food.
So if they aren't hungry at the scheduled snack time, do you give them food?

Quote:

However they do not have free reign of the kitchen either. They do not NEED free reign of the kitchen in order to have full bellies.
I think there's a wide range of possibilities between "free range of the kitchen" and "eati on a schedule"

Quote:

And nobody "switches" to solid foods.(ok well maybe some do, I dont know) Solid foods are added to a diet of breastmilk. The diet of breastmilk continues at the same time as the diet of solid foods. And they continue until the breastmilk is no longer needed and the regular schedule of solid foods is also sufficient
Semantics, but point taken. So the baby/toddler can breastfeed on demand, but can't have a snack on demand?
.

Quote:

As food has to be prepared, I have to have some 'warning" before my children need it. The most predictable way for me to know when they are hungry before they ask for food is for me to offer it to them on a very regular basis.
So maybe it is so very sad that I offer my children food every couple of hours throughout the day. Maybe it is especially sad and controlling when i give them food at 9:30 whether they are hungry for it at that time or not.

But maybe it is the food that is being so darned stubborn. How DARE rice take a whole hour to cook! And how dare chicken be dangerous to eat raw. Because it is so emotionally damaging to have to wait to eat.
I'd rather my kids wait then stuff their faces with the kind of food that is availible for their immediate gratification (fruit snacks anyone?)
The absolute nerve of granola bars being so darned unhealthful!
Well, now you're just being sarcastic. How does one answer this?

Quote:

Food does not equal love. And meals at regular meal times does not equal deprivation
And allowing a child to eat when they say they are hungry, and not just on a schedule, does not equal anarchy.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Well there are two points here:

Food is readily available to most of our children and they absolutely know it.
There is no point in comparing them to starving children in another country.

The second point is that children enjoy finding, washing, and preparing foods when they are eager to eat them. So there is no reason to put them at odds with the process.

Nobody was referring to starving children in other countries. I was referring to the food I buy for my own children. In our house my children do not eat granola bars, pop tarts, fruit loops or fruit snacks. There is very little in my house that my children could obtain for themselves and prepare and eat without any help. My 3 year old does enjoy getting a cheese slice out of the fridge. But for the most part, food must be prepared and this involves cooking and knives which I think it is reasonable to assume that a child under the age of say 5 or 6 should not be doing alone. So if the child is too young to use a sharp knife or the stove, they do not NEED free access to the kitchen. It certainly would be EASIER for my children to obtain their own food and snacks if I let them eat junk. But I am not going to feel bad for having higher nutritional standards than that.
As for putting them "at odds with the process" I cannot see that preventing them from doing it alone when they are unable to do so puts them at odds with anything but the potential for mess and injury.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
I don't know quite how to phrase this. It seems like you are saying the only reason you breastfed on demand was because no work was involved. Once feeding involved effort, you refused to do it unless you felt like it, and refused to teach your child how to do for themselves.

I am sorry if you meant this differently, but that is how it looked.

I do not know quite how to phrase this but, it seems to me like we werent discussing reasons for breastfeeding at all. As such there could have been nothing in my post which would give you clue to my reasons at all.

As far as "refusing to do it unless I felt like it". and "refusing to teach my child how to do for themselves"
Well, I dont know how I could possibly be "refusing to do it" when I have stated clearly that I am already preparng food for my children about 5 times every day. Obviously that is whether I feel like it or not.
In addition, keeping ones children out of the kitchen wihtout permission does not = refusing to teach them how to do for themselves.

Seriously how many of you let your 22 month olds use the gas stove alone?
How about your sharp knives?
They may be able to peel the lid off of a pudding cup. But I just dont have those in my home so I wouldnt know.
Meanwhile I will keep my gates closed when I cant be in there to supervise. FOr their safety and my sanity.
Joline


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

My List of Handy Dandy Snacks My Kids Can Help Themselves to Without Cooking, Cutting, or Otherwise Engaging in Dangerous Preparation:

cheese cubes, precut
carrot and celery sticks, precut and in a bowl of water
stoneyfield farm organic yogurt
organic raisins
organic crackers- storebought or homemade
apples, bananas, grapes, and other organic fruits
bread and spread (peanut butter, all fruit, etc)
rice cakes (we like the kind with tamari and sea weed)

There was an awesome thread a while back on a toddler snack tray a while back- let me see if I can find it!


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
After reading your response I don't think I did.

So if they aren't hungry at the scheduled snack time, do you give them food?

I think there's a wide range of possibilities between "free range of the kitchen" and "eati on a schedule"

Semantics, but point taken. So the baby/toddler can breastfeed on demand, but can't have a snack on demand?
.

Well, now you're just being sarcastic. How does one answer this?

And allowing a child to eat when they say they are hungry, and not just on a schedule, does not equal anarchy.

But I ask you. At what point did you ever get the idea that I would refuse to feed my child if he was hungry? (unless for example dinner was almost ready)
That is somethign you inferred and imagined.
I have never stated that to be the case.
I give my children breakfast when they get up, a snack at around 9:30, lunch around noon, snack when they wake up, dinner at about six.
That is a pretty regular schedule I admit.
But did you EVER see me say anythign that implies I would never give them a snack in between should they ask? You appear to be imagining that because I give my children meals and snacks at scheduled times that I am therefore at some point telling them that they cannot have food when they are truly hungry. Nothing can be further from the truth.
It has happenned on occasion that my children have asked for food when I wasnt about to give it to them anyway. And should those occasions arise, I would offer them something. It just so happens that this is a very rare occurrence. But they don't need free access of the kitchen to get it.
But I have three toddlers to feed. If I just sat on my butt and waited till they each individually told me they were hungry and what they wanted a few different things woudl happen.
1. They would be even hungrier (and unhappier) because they would have to wait while I prepare the food because I did not anticipate their hunger.
2. I could possibly be preparing 15 different meals at 15 different times. Which in my house WOULD be anarchy and a very inefficent use of my time.

Am I being sarcastic? Yes a bit. It is a little upsetting to state somethign straightforward and have someone quote me as if I had said something entirely different.
Joline


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

Food does not equal love. And meals at regular meal times does not equal deprivation
Food does not equal love. Who said it did?

No, scheduled meals aren't deprivation. But I don't think scheduled food, in the sense that available food is restricted and hunger controlled, is attachment parenting, and since that is what we are here to discuss, that is the point I am making.

Quote:

Nobody was referring to starving children in other countries. I was referring to the food I buy for my own children.
Instead of preparing food five times a day, you could prepare it once, a tray in the morning, of the foods they liked, and they could snack when they were hungry. Surely a food like fruit or cheese does not require much prep.

Quote:

If I am offering my child a snack at 9:30 every single day, guess what, they will be hungry for a snack at almost precisely 9:30 every single day. The body is hungry at the times it is used to getting food.
I'd like to see you prove that







Leave foods they like within reach, let them know you don't care if they eat it or not, and continue to feed them by the clock. I have a feeling they will disprove your theory very quickly. I am not making light of your efforts in the kitchen. I am challenging your reasoning here. You cannot convince me that your children are never hungry outside of your schedule, when you have subtley or overtly discouraged them from eating at any other time.

Quote:

it seems to me like we werent discussing reasons for breastfeeding at all. As such there could have been nothing in my post which would give you clue to my reasons at all.
The only reason for breastfeeding on demand, as you seemed to state, was convenience, and within the context of ap, there are other reasons. If you had other reasons, I would like to hear them.

Quote:

Seriously how many of you let your 22 month olds use the gas stove alone?
We already discussed that at length, so I don't know why you are asking the same question that pages (I think) 6 and 7 discussed in detail?


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

And not doing so doesn't mean that your kids will have a healthy relationship to food and eating.
Nothing you do as a parent will guarantee an outcome, and much of what we do is based on basic beliefs about respect of another person, and isn't done to "ensure" a long term result. I completely agree.

There is a great deal of discussion in forums here about the long term benefits of good food relationships that may result from nursing on demand, as opposed to scheduled feedings. I am not going to go into it here, but I point it out because this idea is not "mine" or something I brought to the discussion of demand feeding. It's a benefit that is often discussed here, and is relevant in this thread.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

OK, couldn't find the thread but it was so awesome I had saved the list!

Quote:

The 8 compartment tray normally contains:
Baby Carrots
Red seedless Grapes
Pineapple
Korean Pear cut-up
unsalted prezetels
Whole grain crackers
pieces of Swiss cheese
peanut butter or almond butter
sunflower seeds
dried fruit (w/out the sugar and chemicals)
raisins (same vein as above)
cherry tomatoes
dates
rice cakes
olives
unsweetened carob chips
orange sections
berries
snap peas
almonds and cashews
dried apple rings
frozen veggies
popcorn
figs
organic cereals
occasional veggie sticks with hummus
Homemade granola
puffed rice/millet (or kamut/wheat)
Blueberries
Beans (dd loves beans, lol)
baby spinach leaves
apple pieces
pumpkin seeds (shelled)
sprouted almonds (peeled)
- Edamame (cooked & shelled)
- Nori (strips to chew on)
- Rice Cakes (ones you can cook up with leftover rice and goodies) - I just make mini ones for snacks.
- dried apricots (so yummy and good for you to)
- Sweet Potato (cut into chunks, toss in oil, roast) - great to eat a room temp.
hard boiled eggs pieces
frozen blueberries
cooked pasta (in different shapes, my DS loves eating cold cooked rotini)
cucumber slices
hummus
pita wedges
Grapes (of course )
Nori
cooked cold whole wheat pasta wheels
apple slices
cucumber slices
homemade granola
carrots
plain popcorn
toast tortillas and give him apple sauce as a dip
healthy mini muffins (cranberries, oats, flax, sunflower seeds, carob, etc...)
roasted garbanzo beans (they taste better when they are just cool enough to eat but they are still okay later in the day) I like them roasted with a little olive oil and tamari soy sauce...for me and dh I add a little chili powder or hot sauce.
cut up homemade tortilla pizza
dried fruit
nuts
nut butters
whole grain crackers
cheeses
hard boiled egg
sushi rolls
homemade granola bars and muffins
olives (limited though, since so salty)
fruit
berries
yogurt
miso
carrot sticks
celery sticks
nori
blue corn chips
whole grain cereals (mostly for baby to snack on)
stuffed grape leaves
trail mix
smoothies
baked apples
seasoned & baked sweet potato fries
occassional popcorn
homemade fruit pops
cheese curds
canned green beans
fresh peas
rye crisp
meat or "meat" roll-ups
hummus and rice crackers
avacado slices
cheerios
banana pieces rolled in oatmeal
cooked beans
rice cakes
raisins
organic dried fruits
sunflower seeds
seed mixes
edamame (my son's faves)
boiled peanuts
all veggies cut up (bell peppers, carrots, tomatoes, etc)
pickles

Cut up toasted english muffins with cheese/soy cheese

For apples and vegetables, rinse them in a very diluted vinegar rinse, something like 1 tsp vinegar to a cup of water. I say diluted so that you won't get vinegar taste but you will get the benefits. That's what I did for our apples today and it really helped.


----------



## mamawanabe (Nov 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*

There is a great deal of discussion in forums here about the long term benefits of good food relationships that may result from nursing on demand, as opposed to scheduled feedings. I am not going to go into it here, but I point it out because this idea is not "mine" or something I brought to the discussion of demand feeding. It's a benefit that is often discussed here, and is relevant in this thread.


Yea there is a lot of discussion on these forums about cause-effect. Mom did this, child turned out like this. Parents do have a huge influence on their kids, but this influence seems to be mostly about encoruging and discouraging natural tendencies. It is scary how much I take so much after a grandmother I never spent much time with.

I belive you parent in certain ways because it is right/respectful not because such parenting decisions will have a high(er) probablity of resulting in a child that is like X, Y or Z.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

johub earlier you said

Quote:

And I dont think it does our children any favors to train their bodies to expect easy to eat foods to be availible at all times.
I think that is where you gave the impression that training for scheduled feeding was necessary.

Johub if you live in America, food is available to most of us, in excess, all the time. We are literally bombarded with the message to eat-eat-EAT.

I agree with mamawanabe that letting a child eat when the are hungry is primarily right because it is a respect issue. But there is a lot of discussion within attachment parenting of broader benefits to raising children to eat when they are hungry, not by the clock. The general idea is that eating by the clock desensitizes children to their own body signals, and teaches them to rely on external cues to eat. And long term, there are so many external cues, that this can make self control difficult. Obviously this is not *fact*,but it's discussed here enough that I think it's valid to question someone who says here they think it's wrong for a child to eat whenever they are hungry (or imply it).


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

heartmama said:


> Food does not equal love. Who said it did?
> 
> 
> > You may not have. But there is an underlying thread that not having food readily availible at all times to a small child is somehow emotionally damaging as if it were a deprivation of love.
> ...


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

I belive you parent in certain ways because it is right/respectful not because such parenting decisions will have a high(er) probablity of resulting in a child that is like X, Y or Z.
I definitely agree. But that is rarely enough to persuade anyone to ap







People like to know ap is right for the long term too.


----------



## LauraSusan (Jul 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*

Instead of preparing food five times a day, you could prepare it once, a tray in the morning, of the foods they liked, and they could snack when they were hungry. Surely a food like fruit or cheese does not require much prep.



This is what I did with my daughter, and we have absolutely no issues around food and control. Even though she is only three, Laura will see me making dinner, ask what it is, and then say "okay, I'll wait", if she likes it. Of course, I get the "is it ready yet?" question about a zillion times, but that's okay.

My point is that I don't have to tell her to wait for dinner. She does it on her own.

I had a friend who strictly controlled her children's food intake, with specific snack and meal times, and I found it very upsetting. It just seems so wrong to me to force kids to ask for food. And when her children came to my house, they would gobble down every single thing in Laura's tray because they had no idea how to control themselves in the face of unlimited food. Very sad, I think.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
johub earlier you said

I think that is where you gave the impression that training for scheduled feeding was necessary.

Johub if you live in America, food is available to most of us, in excess, all the time. We are literally bombarded with the message to eat-eat-EAT.

Oooh. I am trying to not train them to eat JUNK FOOD. WHich is the type of food that is easy to eat and readily availible. I guess everyone thought I was meaning already prepared food that MOM prepared. But because we were discussing foods taht children can obtain in the kitchen themselves. I was talking about what types of foods kids are most able to get on their own. Which is the kind of food I do not want them to be in the habit of eating.
I in no way meant to infer that we need to train them to eat at a strict schedule. But that it is a good idea to not train them to graze on fruit snacks and chips and the kind of foods that it is "easy" for children to obtain for themselves.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
I agree with mamawanabe that letting a child eat when the are hungry is primarily right because it is a respect issue. But there is a lot of discussion within attachment parenting of broader benefits to raising children to eat when they are hungry, not by the clock. The general idea is that eating by the clock desensitizes children to their own body signals, and teaches them to rely on external cues to eat. And long term, there are so many external cues, that this can make self control difficult. Obviously this is not *fact*,but it's discussed here enough that I think it's valid to question someone who says here they think it's wrong for a child to eat whenever they are hungry (or imply it).

I think I see. If anybody has interpreted the quote above that I believe it is wrong for a child to eat whenver they are hungry I wish to at this time apologise. That is not what I ever meant. And i do not believe that for a minute.

I also think self regulation is extremely important. I dont even believe in spoon feeding, except when it cannot be helped. I want my children to control their own food intake from the very beginning.
We all just have different means by which we do this.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Johub please see my last post to you. You may not see the impression your first post gave, but your comment about having to contain your own hunger when you cooked, and the quoted comment about children needing training away from dependency on available food, is very different than your last post.

I am not sure what you are looking for here, or why you seem so irritated. If you are feeding your children whenever they ask for food, then your first post seemed to be a statement against that, and thus your last post seems equally unclear.

I will wait until you clarify this, before giving another detailed reply







Either your children are free to eat whenever they are hungry, or they are not. It really doesn't matter what that looks like. The details are not as important as the child having access to available food whenever they want it. If they have that access and still like to have mom prepare snacks, great. If that is all your meant, fine. But that is not what you started out saying.


----------



## MamaBug (Jun 13, 2003)

I am with Joline. No one here ever said they don't feed their kids when they are hungry. And I hate when ppl post that I or others are showing less then GD because sometimes the mommy makes the rules, it's a fact we do, it's what kind of rules and how you use them that matters. So the statement that I am less then gentle with my kids because they have to ask for a snakc is just not true. My kids eat when they are hungry, stop when they are full and never have to beg for food, and Joline never said that hers did either.

Annettemarie, the list of snacks you posted was thoughtful but not necessary. No one here asked for a list of appropriate food nor did they need it. We never said we don't know what kind of snacks to serve just that we like to know when the kids are eating them.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Johub we cross posted, sorry.

Your last post was much clearer. Thanks for taking the time to explain your early statements.


----------



## MamaBug (Jun 13, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*

I also think self regulation is extremely important. I dont even believe in spoon feeding, except when it cannot be helped. I want my children to control their own food intake from the very beginning.
We all just have different means by which we do this.









:
Just wanted to second that. I have issues with food due to my mother making me eat too large portions every time, even if I didn't like something. While visiting her this past week she got very angry at me for not forcing my boys to eat something she made that they didn't like and also for not forcing them to eat everything on their plate. In general I think we all get too large of a portion, so I feel it is very important to let my kids eat when they want and stop when they feel full, even if that means they want something else an hour later.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaBug*
Annettemarie, the list of snacks you posted was thoughtful but not necessary. No one here asked for a list of appropriate food nor did they need it. We never said we don't know what kind of snacks to serve just that we like to know when the kids are eating them.

Wow. Didn't know there was a list of criteria to post on the thread. The list was in response to the assertion that it was either pudding cups or granola that took hours to bake. I am unsure as to whether or not your post is as a moderator or just as regular person. I don't want to break a rule by arguing with a mod, but your post was hurtful and unwelcoming.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Mamabug I feel like your last post was a blanket dismissal of all we discussed here.

I am not sure what you are advocating.

"Mommy makes the rules?" I'm sorry but that really isn't a very gd statement, especially concerning food. I don't think you meant it to sound as negative as it came across, but it seems to go back to the very beginning of this thread, and the essence of this discussion.

Can your child eat when they say they are hungry, whether or not it's the time you might prefer they eat?

Can your child say to you "I want to fix my own snacks" and count on your help and support?

These are the questions at the heart of this issue.

Saying "my children never go hungry" or "my children are never forced to eat" completely misses the point of food in the context of attachment parenting. I think we are all here with the understanding that nobody is starving their child or shoveling food into their mouth while they kick and scream. Falling back on that "defense" derails the discussion. Of course you are not doing that.

"Not spanking" isn't the definition of GD. It is much more than that. So is this issue more than a question of "not letting kids go hungry".


----------



## MamaBug (Jun 13, 2003)

I am usually a regular person when I post unless I have to post on threads where there is an issue.

I am sorry if you were offended but I was feeling as if you felt the need to enlighten us on the right kinds of food that we could serve, like we didn't know. If I offended you I am sorry, I took your post the wrong way. Tone is so hard to read online.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Nope, as I said, I was trying to include it without singling a mama out, because she seemed to be saying it was either unhealthy quick food or super slow healthy food.


----------



## MamaBug (Jun 13, 2003)

oops double post computer acting up


----------



## MamaBug (Jun 13, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Mamabug I feel like your last post was a blanket dismissal of all we discussed here.

I am not sure what you are advocating.

"Mommy makes the rules?" I'm sorry but that really isn't a very gd statement, especially concerning food. I don't think you meant it to sound as negative as it came across, but it seems to go back to the very beginning of this thread, and the essence of this discussion.

Can your child eat when they say they are hungry, whether or not it's the time you might prefer they eat?

Can your child say to you "I want to fix my own snacks" and count on your help and support?

These are the questions at the heart of this issue.


heartmama I am sorry you took my post that way, I was a bit miffed when I posted and I guess it came across wrong. See I guess my definition of GD might be different then others. The fact is as the grown up I do make the rules for the most part. 99% of the time those rules are made with every intention of making my child happy but sometimes we as parents have to do things that our children might not like, for instance changing diapers or holding my hand in a busy parking lot. These are rules that I made that really are not negotiable, kwim? That is what I meant about mommy making the rules, does that make more sense?

Everyone makes different rules for their family and just because I might say ask my ds to wait 5 more minutes instead of having veggies out, which btw my kids hate!, that does not mean I am not using GD, at least not imo. I was just getting the vibe that since I sometimes ask my child to wait 5 mintues to eat, or I don't let him eat yet another piece of cheese that day ( constipation issues) that I am less then gentle with him.

I hope that clears things up.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Mamabug I feel like your last post was a blanket dismissal of all we discussed here.

I am not sure what you are advocating.

"Mommy makes the rules?" I'm sorry but that really isn't a very gd statement, especially concerning food. I don't think you meant it to sound as negative as it came across, but it seems to go back to the very beginning of this thread, and the essence of this discussion.

Ok but why? Why especially food? I really think this goes back to some of us are just wondering "what's the big deal?" When it comes to food. I really dont understand why it is OK to keep my children from dumping out the shampoo and conditioner but somehow if it is a food product it is sacred.
It really has not been made any clearer than mud as to why it really matters that children have free access to food when they wouldnt be allowed free access to my credit cards or any number of other things.

And there is NOT only one definition of GD. Mommy does make the rules in some GD homes. It may not be your definition of GD. We are not all painted with the same brush. I am GD and AP and I Do make the rules.
You might not agree and that is OK. But it is uncalled for to say it is "un AP" or "Not GD". There are just as many books on GD which back up the way I do things as that which go further.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Saying "my children never go hungry" or "my children are never forced to eat" completely misses the point of food in the context of attachment parenting. I think we are all here with the understanding that nobody is starving their child or shoveling food into their mouth while they kick and scream. Falling back on that "defense" derails the discussion. Of course you are not doing that.

"Not spanking" isn't the definition of GD. It is much more than that. So is this issue more than a question of "not letting kids go hungry".

Again, we all practice our own forms of AP and GD. And I think it is fair to assume that the "point of food" in the context of AP is going to be as different for each family as where each child sleeps, or what carrier they prefer (if any).
Joline


----------



## MamaBug (Jun 13, 2003)

Thank you for understanding me Joline


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

I was just getting the vibe that since I sometimes ask my child to wait 5 mintues to eat that I am less then gentle with him.
I don't agree that gd means gently enforcing all the arbitrary rules we might invent. I think it is about much more than how we deliver the message, kwim?

Are you willing to talk about this in more detail? I'd really like to discuss what you mean by "waiting 5 minutes". I think you have come close to the essence of this discussion.

I don't know whether you asking a child to wait is gentle/respectful, until I know whether your child views that as a request, or an order. If your child knows it is their right to eat when they are hungry, and has always known this, and knows that you will not stop them from getting something to eat, then saying "Please wait a few minutes, I'm almost ready" is just a request, and there is nothing ungentle about it. It's like the waiter saying "Just one more minute, I have to get this table's order first". It's just a polite request, nothing more.

On the other hand if your child knows that by saying "Please wait 5 minutes", that at that point, reaching for food will mean having it taken away, or viewed as a "discipline" issue, then that is totally different. That is not a gentle or respectful thought for the child to face. Choosing between hunger and consequences? That is not gentle, and it isn't respectful.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaBug*
Thank you for understanding me Joline


Hey here's a paddle! You can jump in my GD boat! :LOL


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

I think Mamabug and myself are perfectly capable of judging how gentle we are with our own children for ourselves. And certainly more knowledgable about how they feel about what we say to them than anybody else could imagine themselves to be.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Johub~

Children do not have a biological need to charge credit cards. They do have a biological need to eat.

I am going to ask whether or not this is ap. I have no problem asking those questions. Disagree with me. Challenge me. I want to discuss this









Why would you demand feed an infant, and then make your older child ask permission to eat, and call both attachment parenting?


----------



## MamaBug (Jun 13, 2003)

Yes I would be more then happy to discuss this.

When I ask my ds to wait, he usually waits. If he says, but mom I am really hungry now.....I say ok fine, take x, y, or z, things I know will not fill him up and not allow him to eat at least some of his dinner. He does not reach for food if I say, dinner is in five minutes you need to be patient. This gives him time to finish up what he was doing and wash his hands. If dinner is truly not going to be ready in time to satiate his appetite then by all means he can have a small snack to tide him over. In our house we never have consequences for food


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

_Why would you demand feed an infant, and then make your older child ask permission to eat, or deny them food when they are hungry, and call that gentle parenting?_

Why would you assume that if you demand feed an infant that he is not "asking" to eat in the only language he has?
A child with more language asks in a different way.
I can see no difference.

My newborn cannot crawl into my arms and undo my bra. I help him.
My 2 year old cannot make scrambled eggs. I help him.
So why is one the natural state of affairs but the other not AP.

And as we already discussed, nobody is denying anybody food when they are hungry so that is a moot point.


----------



## MamaBug (Jun 13, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
I think Mamabug and myself are perfectly capable of judging how gentle we are with our own children for ourselves. And certainly more knowledgable about how they feel about what we say to them than anybody else could imagine themselves to be.









:

My paddle is packed.







Which river are we going in!

Honestly I feel like we go around and around on this and this is how I am feeling







I am totally comfortable with the decisions I make and honestly while I don't mind discussing them I will never see that it is wrong for my child to at least tell me they are going to get a snack. I like to know how much of what they consume in a day. My kids do help in the kitchen, they do have access to snacks, they do know how to make things for themselves and they don't make messes. I just want to know how much and what they eat throughout the day if for nothing else that I know what kinds of meals to prepare and how much I think they might eat after grazing all day.


----------



## mamawanabe (Nov 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LauraSusan*
I had a friend who strictly controlled her children's food intake, with specific snack and meal times, and I found it very upsetting. It just seems so wrong to me to force kids to ask for food. And when her children came to my house, they would gobble down every single thing in Laura's tray because they had no idea how to control themselves in the face of unlimited food. Very sad, I think.

See that is what I am talking about. My parents did EVERTHING right re food (they simply were not controlling parents - young hippies), but I certainly would have gobbled down every single thing in Laura's snack tray. That Laura doesn't is due to her nartual tendencies, tendencies you haven't messed up by arbritarily restricting food. That she doesn't isn't due to the way you have approached food with her (except that your approach hasn't messed up her natural tendencies) My natural tendencies would have told me to eat it all.

We are not as powerful, as parents, as we think we are, which is why the means and not the ends is the important part of parenting.


----------



## Altair (May 1, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaBug*
Annettemarie, the list of snacks you posted was thoughtful but not necessary. No one here asked for a list of appropriate food nor did they need it. We never said we don't know what kind of snacks to serve just that we like to know when the kids are eating them.


I thought it was necessary b/c the point came up that if a toddler can easily get to a food, it must be unhealthy. (pudding, granola bars, and fruit snacks).

which couldn't be further from the truth.


----------



## MamaBug (Jun 13, 2003)

I guess I took it that johub was taking in general terms, not necessarily her own. But honestly if my child eats too many grapes or cheese we have issues, so if they are eating these things all day long and I am unaware of exactly how many they eat, it could be something that actually makes my child sick, kwim?


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Johub you keep going back and forth, back and forth *LOL*

If you always help your children eat when they are hungry, that is great! Why are you so defensive here?

Let me ask you something. When someone posts here (and they did) that their child can only eat at breakfast, lunch, and dinner, are you asking me to believe that this child is never, ever hungry outside of those times? Because I don't believe it. If it's true, then let them know they can eat when they want, and continue to serve regular meals. Aha. But then we get close to the issue. The parent *does not want* to let them think they can eat whenever they want. The parent *wants* to control this issue. The parent does not want to believe their child is hungry at any other time, because that is an unpleasant thought, and extinguishes the cues the child may have at other times through years of ignoring or denying or delaying those requests.

Second example. The child wants to make their own food. The parent refuses. The parent locks the cabinets, locks the kitchen door, and forces the child to ask them if they want food. The child does *not* want to ask for food. If they did, they would have in the first place.

Do you think these are respectful, attachment based parenting decisions? I don't.


----------



## MamaBug (Jun 13, 2003)

I guess I was under the impression that the OPs children were not actually eating the food but PLAYING with it. That is a huge difference imo.

I agree with you not allow your child to eat when hungry is not AP, but I did not get that from what the OP said? What did I overlook? Going to re-read since this thread has taken a different course...........


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Johub you keep going back and forth, back and forth *LOL*

If you always help your children eat when they are hungry, that is great! Why are you so defensive here?

Let me ask you something. When someone posts here (and they did) that their child can only eat at breakfast, lunch, and dinner, are you asking me to believe that this child is never, ever hungry outside of those times? Because I don't believe it. If it's true, then let them know they can eat when they want, and continue to serve regular meals. Aha. But then we get close to the issue. The parent *does not want* to let them think they can eat whenever they want. The parent *wants* to control this issue. The parent does not want to believe their child is hungry at any other time, because that is an unpleasant thought, and extinguishes the cues the child may have at other times through years of ignoring or denying or delaying those requests.

Aaaah well I just must have missed THAT post. Because I was under the very strong impression that you were telling me that my children just had to be hungry if I fed them 5x a day. In addition I was under the impression that you told ME that I was being very controlling.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Second example. The child wants to make their own food. The parent refuses. The parent locks the cabinets, locks the kitchen door, and forces the child to ask them if they want food. The child does *not* want to ask for food. If they did, they would have in the first place.

Do you think these are respectful, attachment based parenting decisions? I don't.

I imagine not. HOwever I did not see a single post on this thread which described the above scenarios.
I may have missed some in the middle.
If there were such posts I would have imagined you would have quoted THEM instead of mine and Mamabug's.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

mamabug~ again, I am not sure that what you are doing looks very different than what I am doing. However your comments seem directed at disagreeing with suggestings that limiting food and feeding by the clock isn't gentle parenting. So there must be something here you are trying to defend but I am not clear what it is.


----------



## MamaBug (Jun 13, 2003)

I agree it seems we do the same thing as each other. I guess that even though I myself do not lock my cabinets I see nothing wrong with doing so. If my cabinets are were locked but any time my child asked for food I gave it, I see nothing wrong with this. And I guess that was my issue, ppl were getting all nuts that the OP wanted to use locks, to make sure her kids didn't waste food, and I agree 100% with her. Now if she were locking her cabinets to make sure the children could not eat except when she felt they should, well that is a totally different issue. Does that make more sense?


----------



## Altair (May 1, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaBug*
I guess I took it that johub was taking in general terms, not necessarily her own. But honestly if my child eats too many grapes or cheese we have issues, so if they are eating these things all day long and I am unaware of exactly how many they eat, it could be something that actually makes my child sick, kwim?


but we're talking about ice cube tray sized portions, not the entire bag of grapes. a toddler can have a tray out of food that s/he can easily reach/eat. a slightly older child could have a certain shelf of pre-cut foods. a school aged child will be learning about good indepedent food choices.

i think one thing being argued here is that if a toddler/preschool child gets to choose and graze amoungst appropriate foods, it makes teaching a school aged child how to cook and eat healthy foods a little easier. of course there's a million reasons why any one particular child wouldn't eat right... but GD is about prevention through teaching positive behaviors (IMO!), and this is one way of teaching.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Johub~my second example was based on the OP. That is exactly what she said she planned to do.

My first example was originally based on a post made, I think, on page 7, by the mom who said what I described. However shortly after I questioned her, you came in with the post which I quoted earlier, seeming to agree that you also fed only 3 meals and two snacks, and you seemed to suggest this was best so children learn food is not always available to them. Later you clarified what you meant, saying that it was only junk foods (packaged foods) you were trying to avoid, and that in fact you were trying hard to prepare fresh foods whenever they were hungry, and it so happened that they were content with your routine, but if they should ask for a snack at, say, 11am, you would help them it.

However it took two pages for you to clarify that, and at this point, I am not sure why you seem to disagree with the idea that children should be fed when they are hungry. Since you do this, what are you disagreeing with here?


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

i was actually going to post a "Wow! Great list, AnnetteMarie! I never it saw it the first time".

Can I still say that?







(At any rate, I just printed it out).

When i read the list, I thought it could be helpful to this thread in various ways. I mean, the who discussion started because the OP said her children pulled out a tub of ice cream, scoooping it out with their hands, therefore making a mess of themselves and the floor, not to mention wasting all that ice cream.

Perhaps a tray of various foods like AM posted could keep things under control a bit more. Even if the OP's children might not stop at the little array of food before getting into the freezer, some other children might.

The list could potentially save a parent from a mess and waste.


----------



## LauraSusan (Jul 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamawanabe*
See that is what I am talking about. My parents did EVERTHING right re food (they simply were not controlling parents - young hippies), but I certainly would have gobbled down every single thing in Laura's snack tray. That Laura doesn't is due to her nartual tendencies, tendencies you haven't messed up by arbritarily restricting food. That she doesn't isn't due to the way you have approached food with her (except that your approach hasn't messed up her natural tendencies) My natural tendencies would have told me to eat it all.

We are not as powerful, as parents, as we think we are, which is why the means and not the ends is the important part of parenting.


You know, I think I see your point here. I remember feeding a very dear friend's little daughter when she was only about eight or nine months old. My friend had made a fairly big bowl of mashed yams, and I was feeding the baby, while her mama did the dishes and cleaned up the kitchen. Without even thinking about it, I just kept feeding her, and feeding her. I put the yams on the spoon, and if she opened her mouth, I popped them in.

My daughter would always indicate to me when she was done by turning her head, and then later, by making her "all done" baby sign.

So imagine my surprise when I heard my friend yelping "you didn't feed her the whole thing, did you?"

Gosh. Turns out this little girl would just eat until she vomited. She didn't have an "off" switch. She would just gobble down every single thing in front of her. As far as I know, she was demand fed as a baby, and weaned at about eighteen months, and her mama is very AP and GD.

Still, though, while my friend controls the size of her daughter's portions, she does not control what time she eats, or how often. She could never leave a full tray of snacks, because her daughter would just eat them all. But if her little girls wants a snack, she gets a snack. There is no "it's 9:30, time for your snack" kind of scheduling.

So I see what you mean, mamawanabe, but I think responding to the instinct to eat what is in front of you is different from controlled feeding. Does that make sense? In one case, you are responding to your child, and in the other sense, you are doing something for your convenience that doesn't respect the child's need for free access to food.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Only one person went 'crazy' and used the word abuse. the rest of us said locking up for saefty reasons was not so terrible.

I really do think that children having to ask for food could be a problem. Children should be able to eat food on their own, and to perhaps prepare it.

I am not saying all 3 yr olds can do this. But certainly a 5 yr old can. Setting up a home in a such a way that children can be competant and secure is paramount, imo, to children feeling connected and a part of a family. Having to ask each time a basic need has to met is controlling on the part of a parent. How does that control benefit the child's development into a thinking human being? What is it like to grow up having to ask for food whenever one is hungry?

A 5 yr old child should be able to access food as easily as he can access the bathroom.

Can you imagine if a child had to ask, in his own home, if he could please pee?

Even if i had a toddler who got into problems in the bathroom, I mightput a little hook lock on the door, but i would set a stepping stool near the lock for the 5 yr old.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Johub~my second example was based on the OP. That is exactly what she said she planned to do.

It may have been a similar solution but it was not the problem. Apparently you read "my children were not hungry but they trashed the kitchen anyway and ate ice cream with their hands" as being "my children were hungry and did not want to ask me for a snack so they were trying to make a nice snack and accidentally trashed the kitchen and ate ice cream with their hands"

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
My first example was originally based on a post made, I think, on page 7, by the mom who said what I described. However shortly after I questioned her, you came in with the post which I quoted earlier, seeming to agree that you also fed only 3 meals and two snacks, and you seemed to suggest this was best so children learn food is not always available to them. Later you clarified what you meant, saying that it was only junk foods (packaged foods) you were trying to avoid, and that in fact you were trying hard to prepare fresh foods whenever they were hungry, and it so happened that they were content with your routine, but if they should ask for a snack at, say, 11am, you would help them it.

However it took two pages for you to clarify that, and at this point, I am not sure why you seem to disagree with the idea that children should be fed when they are hungry. Since you do this, what are you disagreeing with here?

What I am disagreeing with is your disparaging attitude to the moms posting on this thread.
If one mom says "I'm the mom and I make the rules" you say something to the extent of "that's not GD" or "enforcing all the arbitrary rules we might invent . . ." Which is obviously not what the poster had said.

And so we have a lot of really lovely women on this thread sharing some very useful ideas. However it does become somewhat difficult to share useful gentle ideas when every sentance we state is going to be expounded upon to make us sound like atilla the hun.
I should not have to "clarify" that I do not refuse my children food if they are hungry. Since I never implied such a thing it ought to be taken as a given.

The mom who said she asked her child to wait 5 minutes also should not have to "clarify" that she is doing so in a kind and respectful manner. It ought to be taken as a given unless or until she states otherwise.

I am not really sure why you are choosing to take everybody's statements and twist them so that they lose their original meaning and taking on a more sinister meaning. And really it should not matter.
I do however find it difficult to sit by and watch other moms try to defend themselves against this type of attack. And although I bowed out of this argument pages and pages ago, I suppose I returned to "go back and forth" for the mundane and pointless reason to defend the statements of myself and others which have been misused in this way.
Joline


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

The OP is no longer here, not responding, and so this thread has evolved in something greater, with more ideas and questions about whether we should control our children's acess to the kitchen and to food, no matter what time it might be.

Asking that question is not sinister.

Some of think it is wrong to ask our children to eat on our schedules.

It does not make one evil to insist on this, but it does tell children that what they need and what adults wish them to need are different things. And since the adult wins, the child learns his needs are less, or that his needs are wrong.

If a child is hungry, but a parent tells that child to 'wait'--for 5 minutes or 30, the parent is telling the child his signals are wrong.

People are even finding fault with suggestions to offer the child a carrot or some bread bread as they wait . I cannot see how that degree of control (and I strive not to control my children at all) is emotionally or physically healthy.

I do not think it is appropriate for cildren to always have to ask adults for food. And i think it is wrong for adults to deny children all food even if dinner is in 15 minutes. We can accomodate that if we think outside the box.


----------



## Teensy (Feb 22, 2002)

This thread had taken quite a different turn, but I'd like to paint a picture of my world because I think it is similar to the one OP is living in.

I'm not looking for advice. Of course the following gets me frustrated, but I am working with my DS to find a common ground where we can both be happy.

I'd just like to describe a day "in my shoes."

DS #1 has tons of energy and loves messes. Any kind of messes. He has almost free access to a one-acre yard that is part forest, part "garden," part mud, part grass. He is welcome almost anytime to get as messy as he likes outside. However, he also likes to make messes indoors. He also likes to create things. One of his latest passions is creating "recipes" in the kitchen. Sometimes this is done with my acquesience, more often it is done when I am not looking.

I will enter the kitchen (after changing the baby's diaper, taking a shower, peeing, getting dressed, the usual kind of stuff moms do) and discover, using this morning's example, that he has made "banana soup" - he had mashed a banana on the table with the potato masher, put some in a frying pan, stirred it with a spoon, added salt, pepper, coffee and water, poured it into cups and placed some of them in the freezer and carried other cups containing this concoction into the playroom where one gets spilled onto the carpet.

He also doesn't do "pretend" very well. Not content to play with the pretend food at his disposal, I will discover that he has made "soup" in the pot that goes with the toy kitchen in a bedroom with water, toilet paper, shampoo, and bits of paper - all stirred together. Yummy.

Now, at five, almost six, years of age, I don't feel though I need to follow him around every minute of the day. Often when he is playing quietly in his room I will discover that he has built a complex vehicle using his K'Nex. Or maybe he created a spider's web using a purloined ball of yarn, tape and every coat hanger from his closet (the clothes tossed into a pile).

None of this is dangerous, but it is very frustrating to deal with messes in almost every room of our home on an almost daily basis.
So I sympathize with the OP and other moms of such children. The qualities that will serve our children well as adults (creativity, thinking outside the box, etc.) can certainly make it difficult to keep a home as well as we might like to.


----------



## mamawanabe (Nov 12, 2002)

He cleans up the messes, right? If he is willing to clean (and at five he should be able to clean) than some, at least, of your headache will be lessoned


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Teensy*
I will enter the kitchen (after changing the baby's diaper, taking a shower, peeing, getting dressed, the usual kind of stuff moms do) and discover, using this morning's example, that he has made "banana soup" - he had mashed a banana on the table with the potato masher, put some in a frying pan, stirred it with a spoon, added salt, pepper, coffee and water, poured it into cups and placed some of them in the freezer and carried other cups containing this concoction into the playroom where one gets spilled onto the carpet.

He also doesn't do "pretend" very well. Not content to play with the pretend food at his disposal, I will discover that he has made "soup" in the pot that goes with the toy kitchen in a bedroom with water, toilet paper, shampoo, and bits of paper - all stirred together. Yummy.

Wow! What a fantastically creative little guy you have!


----------



## alicia622 (May 8, 2005)

I admit I have not read the whole thread so this may have already been suggested- I think the reason the kids are getting onto the kitchen is to get the reaction they are getting from you. I bet if you change your reaction, they will stop. Of course, they will probably find something else to drive you bonkers :LOL You might try pointing out when they are doing what you want them to do. So, the one time they DON'T sneak into the kitchen- praise them for playing with their toys and not the food.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

I am not really sure why you are choosing to take everybody's statements and twist them so that they lose their original meaning and taking on a more sinister meaning. And really it should not matter.
Exploring the reasons why we set arbitrary limits isn't sinister. It is a vital part of any discussion on respecting children, and treated them with integrity. It is so important that we do ask each other to look at issues in a new way, to question, to not shy away from that kind of discussion. This thread evolved into a deeper discussion about our attitudes towards food. There is no reason to view those questions so negatively, or to assume they are threatening. I have not, and would not, call someone a bad parent, abusive, terrible, etc. Asking whether something is really respectful and gentle within the context of ap is not saying "You are a horrible cruel parent". You may choose to hear that but I never thought it or said it.

Quote:

I do however find it difficult to sit by and watch other moms try to defend themselves against this type of attack. And although I bowed out of this argument pages and pages ago, I suppose I returned to "go back and forth" for the mundane and pointless reason to defend the statements of myself and others which have been misused in this way.
You were not attacked by me. I have not used vulgar, hostile, or threatening language in this thread. I asked you to explain and clarify opinions you chose to post here, I have openly disagreed with you, and welcomed you to keep discussing this with me.

That is not an attack. However if you feel "misused" please contact the administration immediately. I don't have it front of me, but I think that accusing someone of personal attacks and "misuse" of the user agreement should go to the administration. Using that kind of accusation to justify your presence in a thread is a reflection of your integrity here, not mine.


----------



## crazydiamond (May 31, 2005)

Johub, I agree 100% with everything you've written!

It seems some of you have an unclear picture of how the regular meals and snacks routine works. Firstly, meals and snacks are offered regularly, so that the children know when to expect them. They do not have to ask for them. If they are hungry, they eat. If they are not, then they don't. The important thing is for meals and snacks to be OFFERED even when the child doesn't indicate they are hungry. It does NOT mean they must eat. This teaches the toddler and preschooler that you are dependable, that you WILL offer food regardless of whether they ask for it or not. They will be much more willing to skip a meal if they are not hungry because they KNOW that a snack will be offered in 1-2 hours. That is the key. However, if they truly are hungry and it'll be a while before the next snack for meal and they ask to eat, then YES feed them.

Some people here seem to think that feeding must be an all or nothing approach. Either feed them on strict schedules and ignore hunger, or let them have free range to the kitchen and graze all day. IMHO, neither is healthy. There certainly is a middle ground, where meals and snacks occur regularly, giving the child the chance to eat if he desires but also giving him an out if he's not quite ready. It also allows children to be part of the family meal and socialization instead of running off to play because he just had food 5 minutes prior. Toddlers don't always know what they need, such as some structure and limits, and they WILL take the easy way out if given the chance.

Infants, toddlers, preschoolers, and older children are all at different developmental levels. Taking the approach for one group and applying it to another can spell disaster. Just like it would be cruel to make an infant wait 10 minutes for the next feeding, it would be just as destructive to let an older child eat a snack every 45 minutes around the clock.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

The important thing is for meals and snacks to be OFFERED even when the child doesn't indicate they are hungry.
You said this is important so that they know you are dependable. IMO this is equating food with larger issues which do not need to be invoked in order for children to feel cared for and secure.

I do not see anything wrong with a parent setting aside certain times in the day to prepare a meal, and offering it to the child. I also see nothing wrong with the child feeling secure in their freedom to refusing to eat then, and eat half an hour later instead. One does not have to negate the other. You simply don't have to choose. You can streamline your time in the kitchen, and still give your child the freedom to decide when they want to eat.

I have seen the argument made before that the child can always refuse to eat knowing "a snack will come at 3 o clock". However if someone said this to me, what I would hear is "Eat now, because you can't have anything else until 3 o clock". The first statement is only a nicer way of telling the child you, not they, decide when the child is hungry.

So what is wrong with that?

Well, it can go along nicely for quite a while. If a child has always been scheduled, and subtle or overt encouragment was given to stick to the schedule~ requests to eat at 2pm, not 3pm, were met with distraction and admonisments to wait just a little bit more, a bit more, a bit more...well, fairly mild tempered children may accept this for a good long while. The parent comes here and reads this thread and thinks "What is the big deal? What is wrong with these people? My kids are fine. They like the schedule. No problems here".

This is where the really interesting discussions can take off. This is the same logic used by anyone doing anything which ap discourages, but which, for various reasons, "works" for some parents nonetheless.

A large part of the reason why this approach is met with so much criticism is because *there are so many posts on AP boards by parents who reach the day where this system no longer works*. I can't stress this point too strongly.

I have seen countless posts by parents who post in shock, frustration, disbelief, and anger to have met with a variety of situations where their attempts to control a child's eating dissolved into a power struggle. All of those posts describe a child who suddenly and seemingly without warning, will no longer go along with this schedule. They sneak food. They skip more meals than seem healthy. They are defiant when asked to wait to eat, and throw tremendous tantrums. They deliberately waste food, destroy food, and sneak behind the parents back to get around the rules set down in the home.

I think for some what we saw in the OP's post was not a need for more locks, but a real paradigm shift in the way she was speaking and thinking about the food in her home.

I agree with you that different ages call for different approaches. But I think if your 6 year olds needs you to lock the kitchen closed and is not allowed to fix his own snacks, or cannot do it without dumping the contents of the kitchen all over the floor, it is more than reasonable to ask whether the way to meet his needs is more locks and stronger latches.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

And it's not all or nothing- we have set meal and snack times, and they can help themselves if they want something. It's amazing how capable they are at self-regulating!


----------



## MamaBug (Jun 13, 2003)

johub I understand your frustration with this thread. However, heartmama was not attacking us with her statements, or misusing this thread in any way. It was our choice to *defend* what we do at home. Yes she asked for clarification, but while it might irriate us to feel we have to explain something we think should be obvious by our participation at an AP board I don't feel that she is attacking us personally, just trying to get her point across. I just wanted to go on ther record with that.

I also still stand by my opinion in general about food and having my children ask me before they take something. I am going to keep on an eye on this discussion but for the most part I have stated my point of view and am done defending it. now johub where is our boat?


----------



## Dechen (Apr 3, 2004)

I've read all 13 pages, and found the discussion wonderful and thought-provoking.

I want to revisit the issue that a poster mentioned and the OP felt was correct: the boys were being destructive because they needed an outlet for their energy. They were used to spending time outdoors, and after the move were inside much more and going a little nuts.

Sometimes the answer to a problem has nothing to do with the "problem" itself. The answer is not about the kitchen. It is not about food, or snack trays, or locks. It is about seeing the *cause," instead of focusing on the result. (I have loved the conversations about food, snack trays, and locks, btw. I'm not slamming those discussions.) The answer is not even an answer to the question, because it turns out we (as parents) have gotten the questions wrong. "How do I keep my boys from trashing the kitchen?" should be "How do I give my boys outlets for their energy?" I run into this all the time - asking the wrong question. I'm thankful for the mamas at MDC who provide insight and a little stick poking, because it makes me rethink how I think.


----------



## slightly crunchy (Jul 7, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LauraSusan*
You know, I think I see your point here. I remember feeding a very dear friend's little daughter when she was only about eight or nine months old. My friend had made a fairly big bowl of mashed yams, and I was feeding the baby, while her mama did the dishes and cleaned up the kitchen. Without even thinking about it, I just kept feeding her, and feeding her. I put the yams on the spoon, and if she opened her mouth, I popped them in.
<snip>

Gosh. Turns out this little girl would just eat until she vomited. She didn't have an "off" switch. She would just gobble down every single thing in front of her. As far as I know, she was demand fed as a baby, and weaned at about eighteen months, and her mama is very AP and GD.

Well see, I think here there IS some control in the feeding just by spoon feeding the baby. A 9 month old can eat with her fingers. However much she wants, she will eat. If she isn't hungry, she'll likely stop trying to stuff food in her mouth. You said "if she opened her mouth, I popped them in". A baby that is hungry will be grabbing the food and trying to eat it herself, IMO. Or fussing and ASKING for food in some way.

You said this baby was also breastfed...if she had no "off" switch, did she then nurse and nurse and nurse for hours at a time until the mother decided she was done? Instead she likely got full and popped off--but she was the one making the decision.


----------



## NaomiLorelie (Sep 2, 2004)

I've been really frustrated by this thread because like crazydiamond said it seems people are taking an all or nothing stance on the issue. She said exactly what I wanted to but couldn't figure out how to say it. And I don't think that children knowing you will offer food as linking food with love. I think it would let children know that food is there if they need it. My children eat whenever they are hungry. However, I see nothing wrong with asking my three year old to wait five minutes while I get dinner on the table. I wait too. There is a difference between a certain amount of structure and denying a childs needs. What's the point in cooking dinner if she is going to eat something else?


----------



## Missy (Oct 22, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Teensy*
One of his latest passions is creating "recipes" in the kitchen. Sometimes this is done with my acquesience, more often it is done when I am not looking.

I will enter the kitchen (after changing the baby's diaper, taking a shower, peeing, getting dressed, the usual kind of stuff moms do) and discover, using this morning's example, that he has made "banana soup" - he had mashed a banana on the table with the potato masher, put some in a frying pan, stirred it with a spoon, added salt, pepper, coffee and water, poured it into cups and placed some of them in the freezer and carried other cups containing this concoction into the playroom where one gets spilled onto the carpet...
I will discover that he has made "soup" in the pot that goes with the toy kitchen in a bedroom with water, toilet paper, shampoo, and bits of paper - all stirred together...
Often when he is playing quietly in his room I will discover that he has built a complex vehicle using his K'Nex. Or maybe he created a spider's web using a purloined ball of yarn, tape and every coat hanger from his closet (the clothes tossed into a pile).

OMG!!







You have my son!!! He is a month younger than your son (dob 10/22/99) and just today he created several different devices to rescue people who have fallen down cliffs. I have to hide my tape if I ever want to use it myself. And, ooohhh, my poor bathroom sink...he makes experiments, recipes, projects...


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Exploring the reasons why we set arbitrary limits isn't sinister.

I agree. My argument is soley about twisting the words of the posters to mean something sinister.
FOr example if I say "I have rules" and you misquote me by stating that I "enforce arbitrary rules" you are twisting the meaning of what I have said. THis may not bother others. I however get a little tired of stating something perfectly obvious such as "I offer my children three meals and two snacks a day" and having it misused to mean "I refuse my children food when they ask for it." Which was not my meaning but is an entirely different and more sinister meaning.
So I never meant to define you or your questions as "sinister" but only your attempts to "Understand" us by misusing our statements.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
I have not, and would not, call someone a bad parent, abusive, terrible, etc. Asking whether something is really respectful and gentle within the context of ap is not saying "You are a horrible cruel parent". You may choose to hear that but I never thought it or said it.

No perhaps not, but you have taken statements, restated them in a way which entirely changed their meaning and then made judgments on them such as ."That sounds controlling to me" or "refused to teach him how"
So while you never said "you are a bad parent" you have been arguing against arguments some of us never made.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
You were not attacked by me. I have not used vulgar, hostile, or threatening language in this thread. I asked you to explain and clarify opinions you chose to post here, I have openly disagreed with you, and welcomed you to keep discussing this with me.

You have not used vulgar or hostile language. You have however used insulting and condescinding language.
I am happy and delighted to be openly disagreed with. I really enjoy a good debate. But if you should choose to do so I only ask that you disagree with what I actually say as opposed to the additional meaning you have chosen to add to what I said.
I certainly cannot defend somethign I have not said and do not believe.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
That is not an attack. However if you feel "misused" please contact the administration immediately. I don't have it front of me, but I think that accusing someone of personal attacks and "misuse" of the user agreement should go to the administration. Using that kind of accusation to justify your presence in a thread is a reflection of your integrity here, not mine.

Again, you misunderstand my use of the word "attack".
I did not say you are making personal attacks.
I said it is hard to stand by and watch moms defend themselves against "this type of attack." To which I was referring to your debating style which is to argue with us against ideas we have not stated.
For example:
""It seems like you are saying the only reason you breastfed on demand was because no work was involved. Once feeding involved effort, you refused to do it unless you felt like it, and refused to teach your child how to do for themselves.""
You accuse ME of 1. only feeding on demand because I am lazy. 2. Refusing to feed my child if I dont feel like it and 3. Refusing to teach my child how to do it themselves. (to wit, my children are 3, 22 months and 22 months).
This is not an effort to seek information. THis is a judgment made towards me for stating simply that breastmilk is availible 24 hours a day ready made and at the right temperature, and regular food is not so easy to come by.

I can see that others do not mind having their words used falsely against them. As such I will gladly stand back and not interfere with your , ahhm. . . debating style.
Call it what you will. But I consider such a statement as you made above one of many examples of this type of "attack"
As for me, it is pointless to waste my time expressing my thoughts in a thread where their meaning will be twisted and rephrased in such a way as they have lost all meaning I have intended for them.
I am reminded of an old adage about never arguing.
However to post it would certainly violate terms of use.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Johub, I would be happy to go over this again. I think it's important that you figure out why I took such an issue with some of your words. I don't have time to scroll back tonight, however do you remember what you said about a baby's first bite of food?

You said that the minute they take their first bite of food, now things are happening on your schedule. Those are the kinds of comments you have made which seem excessively controlling and yes, arbitrary. You can say this is all about me, but you are probably going to feel misunderstood again if you come into a discussion, make a statement like that, and hope everyone assumes that, because you are on an AP board, you really did not mean what you seemed to be saying.

And to blunt, either I attacked someone or I did not. The moderator has stated I did not, so I suggest you direct your feelings to her.

If you feel misunderstood here, I honestly think you need to look at what you said. I wasn't the only person who had the impression your motivation to nurse was convenience. In fact, I am the one who asked you if my impression was correct, rather than assuming it. Why don't you go back and see what others said to you, how others took that exact statement?

This is not about my "style". I do not need to invent opposing viewpoints on this board. There's always more than enough to go around *LOL*

If you want to leave, I won't ask you to stay. But I think you are missing a chance to clarify some of the things you said.


----------



## crazydiamond (May 31, 2005)

Quote:

You said this is important so that they know you are dependable. IMO this is equating food with larger issues which do not need to be invoked in order for children to feel cared for and secure.
Dependable when it comes to feeding. And it's only one small part of being all around a "dependable" parent. But you can't be dependable in all areas except for feeding, so naturally this is just one piece. Just like if you tell a child to wait 5 minutes for dinner, it really needs to be just 5 minutes. If that 5 minutes morphs into 30 minutes, then who can blame the child when he doesn't believe you next time? And if it's going to be 30 minutes, then it may not necessarily be fair to make the child wait, depending on age.

The other benefit of offering snacks even when they aren't asked for is that you can sometimes avoid a meltdown because a child got too busy playing to eat. Sometimes they need to be asked if they are hungry before they realize they are, whereas if you just wait for the child to ask they may already be famished. Making a child always ask to be fed could be a problem, too, because he may feel you've forgotten about him. That's where offering snacks gives a sense of dependability.

Quote:

I do not see anything wrong with a parent setting aside certain times in the day to prepare a meal, and offering it to the child. I also see nothing wrong with the child feeling secure in their freedom to refusing to eat then, and eat half an hour later instead. One does not have to negate the other. You simply don't have to choose. You can streamline your time in the kitchen, and still give your child the freedom to decide when they want to eat.
Well, I do agree with this, because my approach to feeding still allows the child to eat when they are hungry.

Quote:

I have seen the argument made before that the child can always refuse to eat knowing "a snack will come at 3 o clock". However if someone said this to me, what I would hear is "Eat now, because you can't have anything else until 3 o clock". The first statement is only a nicer way of telling the child you, not they, decide when the child is hungry.
Certainly the way it's phrased makes a difference. Directly telling the child "you'll get a snack at 3" could have this effect, yes. As I see it, though, there's no need to phrase it as such because it DOES sound very rigid. But if you make it a routine to offer food at a certain time, without saying a word, then it'll leave a different impression. If you start the child off, before he can even remember, that he's free to eat when he's hungry AND you offer regular snacks without mentioning them at the prior meal, then what's the problem? Essentially, if he asks he gets a snack and if he's too busy playing to ask, then you're there offering.

Quote:

If a child has always been scheduled, and subtle or overt encouragment was given to stick to the schedule~ requests to eat at 2pm, not 3pm, were met with distraction and admonisments to wait just a little bit more, a bit more, a bit more...well, fairly mild tempered children may accept this for a good long while.
If this is happening then the fault is cleary with the parent. If requests are consistently at 2pm, then the default snack time should obviously be 2pm! 1 hour is much too long to make a child wait. In fact, in a small child anything more than about 5 minutes is too long. But I see this issue as moot, as well, because I'd just serve the snack 5 minutes early! It's all very flexible, based on the children's needs, not the parent's.

I have a feeling we're much more in agreement than it seems. But maybe not, I'm not sure. Basically, it's got nothing to do with denying food or making a child go hungry, it's more about preventing the child wandering around the house all day with an endless stream of snacks and providing a bit of structure that toddlers need. Once the children are a bit older and that structure isn't as needed, then of course they can help themselves just as we adults do.

Quote:

I have seen countless posts by parents who post in shock, frustration, disbelief, and anger to have met with a variety of situations where their attempts to control a child's eating dissolved into a power struggle.
Power struggles with feeding is never good and yes, it can lead to a variety of disorders. But I don't see my approach being about control. Limiting meals and snacking without allowing eating in between is. I just don't understand how offering snacks on top of all makes it control.

Quote:

I agree with you that different ages call for different approaches. But I think if your 6 year olds needs you to lock the kitchen closed and is not allowed to fix his own snacks, or cannot do it without dumping the contents of the kitchen all over the floor, it is more than reasonable to ask whether the way to meet his needs is more locks and stronger latches.
Oh certainly! My post really had little to do with the OP's plight, but rather the current discussion. Obviously the OPs feeding approach is not working and change is needed. I think it's quite reasonable for a 6 year old to be able to get a snack and eat it without too much fuss. The meals/snacks structure I discussed is not so necessary for a child that age, like it would be for a 2 year old. I'm a strong proponent of letting a child do for himself what he is able to do, in all facets of life including food preparation and eating.

Perhaps her boys are just bored and acting out, which is a strong possibility. But I also have to question why she has to make 5 meals a day (I'd quote her but I don't remember what page she said it). It sounds like she's being a short-order cook or preparing multiple meals to get them to eat and because of that, perhaps her approach to feeding really is the heart of the problem. I'm just guessing here, though, since she didnt elaborate.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

crazydiamond~as I said, I have no problem with a parent offering set meal and snack times *and* making sure the child knows they can eat any other time they are hungry as well. Personally, I would just fix a snack tray and be done with it, but if you really enjoy preparing snacks on request, and your children enjoy making requests, then bon apetite.

I agree that small children (heck, even my 9 year old) can be so engrossed in their play, they might wait until blood sugar drops and grumpiness sets in before stopping and getting a bite to eat. I have no problem with a parent, knowing this is a habit, reminding a child throughout the day to eat when they are hungry, or setting down a snack at intervals and saying "I noticed you've been playing here since lunch, it's 5 o clock, I thought you might like a snack".

I also agree that very young children, especially one and two year olds, are very likely to be staying close to mom all day and turn to her (logically, because of breastfeeding) for food.

For us having a snack tray was very simple, and it did work quite well. Toddlers may be tempted to tip it over, play with the contents, or stuff their mouths, and I would definitely go back to bite sized portions, and supervision, as I would have during their first months eating solids, if this were a problem.

I still don't quite understand your use of the clock, since most people I know really don't get hungry *on the dot* every day. It seems like a needless factor based on what you've said about serving food whenever the child says they are hungry.

I was going to ask why you think a child would need the assurance that food was available with set snacks in the first place (since you mentioned this first). But I see you seem to be saying this is only for a very young toddler who really doesn't know food is available~ and that by 4 and 5, children should understand that food is available, and be capable of getting it.


----------



## crazydiamond (May 31, 2005)

heartmama, thanks for understanding what I'm saying









I don't have a problem with the food tray, in theory, it's just that I find that the kids tend to grab something and then run off to eat it. I prefer they eat food and drink (except water) at the table. . .just personal preference. I think the reason I find the scheduled snack thing to be effective is that when I offer, I rarely get separate requests for food. When I do I always give the snack, but I just find it doesn't happen all that often. And yes, most of what I was saying was geared towards toddlers. Once the child is 4 or 5 and capable of asking for or preparing his own snack, then the scheduled snacks aren't so important.


----------



## moondiapers (Apr 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Why?


because that's how I got to be obese.....I don't believe it's healthy to eat all day, I was allowed to do it as a child and was an obese child then an obese adult. Since my 9yo was 2 years old we've gone to scheduled meals (I've also had a daycare since then, and I can't feed 8 children constantly all day long AND homeschool AND do a preschool curriculum). Since we've gone to scheduled meals my weight has dropped without changing what I eat or the portions. I eat less because I eat less often. My children are happy and healthy....I've taught them the reasons for eating only 3-4 times per day, and they understand. I don't expect them to follow my rules without questions, they are always welcome to question. I've also found, since opening a daycare, that children thrive and are much happier on a schedule, without one things get chaotic, and there is more crying, more unhappiness...etc. Children under 2 years old are fed on demand and nap when they are tired. Once they are approx 2 years old I start slowy easing them into the meal/nap schedule. It is also LAW that i do this. I HAVE to have a meal scedule, and there has to be a certain amount of time between meals because my daycare is on the food program. If I wasn't on the food program I wouldn't have any clients. My family has been so much happier and healthier since we started using a schedule. Maybe they are OCD like I am (can that be inherited?) or maybe they just like knowing what comes next. My children like being able to go look at the menu on the fridge and see what they'll be having for lunch in 20min. Sometimes I wonder how I would get things done if everyone was eating all of the time, how would he have circle time? Do 7 of them have to sit and wait because 1 wants a snack? etc. This just doesn't work in a family childcare home. And you know what? They've all adjusted to the schedule, they are HUNGRY when it's time to eat. Daycare parents have told me that on the weekend their kids start complaining that they are hungry for lunch at 1145am when I normally serve lunch. They've adjusted, they aren't feeling hungry between meals unless there is a reason, like a growth spurt etc. Then I hand them a couple of crackers or something to hold them over till the next meal, and they usually eat a larger meal for a while until the growth spurt is over.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean for this to turn into a book....but a schedule has saved my health, and my husband's health, and probably my son's. He has the exact same body style as his father, who has been obese since he was 10 years old. I've not lost all of the weight I need to, but I've lost 30lbs slowly over time, without trying. I still have about 100 more to loose.

I also wanted to add, if we didn't eat on a schedule, my dd probably wouldn't eat. She's naturally a very thin child with hardly an appetite, who forgets to eat frequently. Having EVERYONE sit down to eat at the diningroom table 4 times a day has helped her to put on some weight and be healthy. She's 9 years old, size 8 jeans fall off of her, but they are way too short too. When she gets sicks he looses weight and it takes months to put it back on.







I don't make a big deal about it, I just explain that the schedule benefits her in the opposite way it benifits me, that she NEEDS to eat.

-Heather


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *moondiapers*
because that's how I got to be obese.....I don't believe it's healthy to eat all day, I was allowed to do it as a child and was an obese child then an obese adult.

With all due respect, and I can tell this is something you feel strongly about, don't you feel this is partially due to what TYPE of food you ate, and whether or not you were encouraged to be physically active? I don't think my kids are going to become obese or develop bad eating habits having free range to munch on apples and crackers and yogurt, and playing outside, doing yoga, ballet, and generally running around.


----------



## LauraSusan (Jul 29, 2005)

I've heard exactly the opposite. That waiting until you are HUNGRY and watching the clock before eating encourages gorging and overeating. Children stuff themselves, because they know they will not be allowed food until a set period that may or may not be the same as when they feel hungry.

I've heard that "grazing", eating lots of small meals all day long, is actually healthier.

I find the "hunger training" mindset to be very similar to the "sleep training" one. My mind rebels instinctively against "training" a small child to do anything. I'm more of the "watch for an opportunity to set a good example"mindset. And no, I did not toilet train my child. I provided a potty, gave lots of encouragement and let her figure it out for herself, which she did.

I feel badly for anyone struggling with food issues. Eating is such an elemental part of life. But as the pp mentioned, I think WHAT you eat is just as important as WHEN you eat it.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

because that's how I got to be obese.....I don't believe it's healthy to eat all day, I was allowed to do it as a child and was an obese child then an obese adult.
I respect that you are struggling with this issue personally, which is going to make it harder to feel flexible with your child.

This is from the American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines for preventing childhood obesity:

Quote:

Encourage parents and caregivers to promote healthy eating patterns by offering nutritious snacks, such as vegetables and fruits, low-fat dairy foods, and whole grains; encouraging children's autonomy in self-regulation of food intake and setting appropriate limits on choices; and modeling healthy food choices.
I don't see anything there which explains your no-snack, strictly scheduled policy. It says to limit the choice of foods your child can eat~it doesn't say you should be limiting food. It says you *should* be letting your child have snacks, and you should be letting your child self regulate food intake.

I read 7 or 8 websites on childhood obesity before I came back to your post.

Every single one emphasized the importance of activity level, limited media, and healthy food alternatives. Only one even suggested that restricted caloric intake could be a consideration.

Again, I sense you are going to be very defensive since this is a personal struggle you are facing.

However there is nothing on any of these sites which says a child having access to a tray of low fat, whole grain snacks, fruits, or veggies, will increase their risk of obesity. Your opinion about this does not seem to be based on fact.

Exercise level, limited media, and access to healthy low fat foods were key.


----------



## Dechen (Apr 3, 2004)

I think there is a difference between grazing and mindlessly filling one's mouth with food all day. Grazing on healthy foods, and according to hunger, is a very healthy way to eat. The body knows when it is hungry, and it knows when it is full. It can be difficult to tune into the body's needs and "hear" what our bodies are telling us, but just as a baby knows when it needs to eat, we do too.

Geneen Roth has written some excellent books on eating & learning to tune back into hunger after compulsive eating.


----------



## Altair (May 1, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *moondiapers*
.I've taught them the reasons for eating only 3-4 times per day, and they understand.


3-4 times a day of eating is ok for an adult, if that is what sh/he chooses. A child should be eating **at least** 6 times a day, their stomachs are smaller than ours and should not be completely emptied in between meals. Their activity levels and metabolisms are higher than ours so they burn through the food much faster. Combining a small stomach and high metabolism means they need to eat almost twice as often as we do. otherwise their blood sugar drops in between meals. 3-4 times a day is a diet. children should not be on diets unless there is a medical need.

most nutrition experts recommend access to healthy snacks as a prevention against obesity. if a child eats only 3-4 times a day, they actually have to expand their stomachs to take in more food. once you expand your stomach, it takes more food to make you feel full. more frequent, smaller amounts of food (i.e. unlimited access to healthy snacks) do not stretch your stomach-- that's why it's recommended that children learn how to self-regulate hunger.

children should not have to complain of hunger at 11:45. that means their blood sugar already dropped and it's *past* the time they could have listened to their own cues and ate something small.


----------



## MamaBug (Jun 13, 2003)

I just wanted to add that in older children that might be gearing up for school, they will eventually have to wait to eat. My child had breakfast around 7:30 in the am, then snack was not until 10:30 and lunch at 12:45, he then didn't have access to food until 3:30 when he came home for a snack. If a child is used to eating all day they will surely be hungry alot in school, kwim? So how would one prepare a child for this? I give my son a big snack and a big lunch, he eats what he wants, I give him many choices so that he will possibly not feel hungry btwn 1-3:30, but what if he is not in the mood to eat a big lunch at 12:45 and becomes hungry? Would like to hear suggestions about that, because if your child is used to eating every hour at home, which btw is fine imo if they are hungry, they will not be able to do that once they are in school. I realize this is different for those who homeschool.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamawanabe*

I hope when I have kids it is less me telling my kids that if they do X (dump out cereal) than Y will happen (they have to scrub the bathtub) and more the kind of respectful problem solving between equals that me and dh engage in.

But see, you're creating a situation that I didn't. If my kid dumps out the cereal, I'm not going to tell him to scrub the bathtub. If my kid dumps out the cereal, I am going to put the cereal where my kid can't reach it or stop buying cereal. But my kids are 3 and 2. When they are 10, what I do will change. What will I do then? I don't know, it will depend on my kid. But I do know that, with my son, I can explain to him ad infinitum why he shouldn't dump out the cereal, why I don't want him to dump out the cereal, how dumping out the cereal is not in line with our family values, etc., and he's still going to dump out the cereal. That's my son. I don't expect that he will do that forever, but he does it now (and no, my son doesn't actually dump out the cereal, but I could substitute several comparable things that he does do). So, instead of badgering him and constantly getting after him, I just remove the cereal. Why spend hours and days and weeks battling a problem when the problem could just be short-circuited? Yes, we should teach our children and work with them, etc., but why bother when it's a time-limited problem that will eventually go away on its own? Why clutter up life in that way? I'd rather spend my time teaching my kids things that really matter rather than chasing down every little fire.

Namaste!

Namaste!


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Altair*
and would this be a way you want your children to act when angry? if so.. then that's great. if you'd rather your kids not show their anger that way, then the parent needs to also. kwim?

Do I want my kids to yell when they are angry? Not really, but I know it's going to happen because my kids are human and not perfect. Same as I am. When I get really angry, sometimes I yell. So do my kids. Then we apologize and move on. I don't believe that, even if I were perfect and never, ever yelled at my kids, that they would never ever yell at me (or anyone else).

Namaste!

ETA: I guess what I am trying to say is that I don't hold my kids to a standard higher than I hold myself, and I don't hold myself to a standard of perfection.


----------



## mamawanabe (Nov 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
But see, you're creating a situation that I didn't. If my kid dumps out the cereal, I'm not going to tell him to scrub the bathtub. If my kid dumps out the cereal, I am going to put the cereal where my kid can't reach it or stop buying cereal. But my kids are 3 and 2. When they are 10, what I do will change. What will I do then? I don't know, it will depend on my kid. But I do know that, with my son, I can explain to him ad infinitum why he shouldn't dump out the cereal, why I don't want him to dump out the cereal, how dumping out the cereal is not in line with our family values, etc., and he's still going to dump out the cereal. That's my son. I don't expect that he will do that forever, but he does it now (and no, my son doesn't actually dump out the cereal, but I could substitute several comparable things that he does do). So, instead of badgering him and constantly getting after him, I just remove the cereal. Why spend hours and days and weeks battling a problem when the problem could just be short-circuited? Yes, we should teach our children and work with them, etc., but why bother when it's a time-limited problem that will eventually go away on its own? Why clutter up life in that way? I'd rather spend my time teaching my kids things that really matter rather than chasing down every little fire.

Namaste!

Namaste!


Umm, my posts were about the posters that had their children do chores to pay for wasted food etc. AND they contained caveats about how i am still deciding about parental "consequences." AND they said that I would be inclined not to buy ice cream or ceral for a awhile (toast and smooties for breakfast). AND they talked about how these discussions would actually be discussions - with the child offering solutions rather than explanations and lectures.

????


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaBug*
I realize this is different for those who homeschool.

Well, honestly, this is just one more reason in a long line of reasons why I'm choosing to homeschool.


----------



## mmace (Feb 12, 2002)

This has been a very interesting topic!

We're pretty scheduled in this house - breakfast, lunch and dinner, and yes, my kids ask before they get snacks. Did I force them to ask? No, it just seems like they always have, and it seems that it is working pretty well so far! Most always I tell them to go get whatever it is that they are asking for, but yes, sometimes I say dinner is almost ready and that they need to wait, and they do. I can count on one hand how many meltdowns there have been through three children over the period of almost twelve years because they have had to wait for a little bit for dinner. They know when I say that dinner is almost ready that it is, in fact, almost ready, and they also know that it will almost always be worth the wait! :LOL

I was also going to bring up the school issue - my kids are on the bus at 7:15, they will have a morning snack and lunch at school, and then they will be back home at 3:45. Yes, lots of people choose to homeschool, but some of us don't, and our kids have to be able to follow the rules at school. And even if you homeschool now, what about college? Or when they get jobs? Most companies I know don't allow their employees to take snack breaks whenever they feel like it....

Okay, I just reread my post and I think it sounds a little snarky, but I don't mean it too, and I don't know how to fix it - so please trust me when I say that I don't mean to be snarky, I'm honestly wondering what your thoughts are...


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamawanabe*
????

Well, the post I quoted was something you posted in which you quoted me, so I thought you were responding to me.









Namaste!


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Mamabug/ Mmace ~

To begin I just want to point out, I really don't know any children who eat every hour at home. My son has never done it. Most children become engrossed in play at some point during the day, and choose to go much longer without stopping for a snack.

Second, shouldn't children, even at school, have access to a small healthy snack if they want it? That isn't unusual at some schools. In fact it's one of many things that parents really need to think about when choosing a school. Do you want your child forbidden from eating or drinking when hungry or thirsty? Many parents who do not want their children treated like that, make it a point to find a school that is flexible on this issue.

At public schools, you could probably get around this by saying your child may have low blood sugar if expected to go longer than, say, 2 hours without a small snack. Get a doctors note if you need too. Most likely the teacher would be happy to let the child sit out for a few minutes and have a small, quiet, prepared snack from their bag. It doesn't address the larger issue of the schools attitude, but it would address the needs of your own child.

In the real world, most jobs do not forbid a person from attending to their personal needs when they feel it is necessary. I have never had a job which prevented me from keeping a power bar in my purse and finding a few minutes to eat. I personally do not need to do it, but I knew I could if I wanted, and that is really the point here.

In general, I think we need to avoid comparing work and college to the compulsory attitude of schools towards children. In almost half the states in this country, it is still legal to take a wooden plank and hit children repeatedly with it. In my state, Arkansas, it is *legal to hit special needs or handicapped children*. Please think about that. Please think about the way our society *really* views children. It is not the same treatement we enjoy at college or at work. Nobody would *ever* dream of striking a handicapped adult. Can you even image it? Can you picture your boss getting upset with, say, a coworker who had spina bifida, and reaching for a plank, and striking him with it? But right here in my state, it is legal to do this in Searcy county.

My point is that asking "what about school" is a much more complicated question than it is often stated. I homeschool, but I really don't put that out as a "response" because I realize not everyone can or will. However, I think what is important is the attitude you instill in your child. I think it's important for your child to know that *you* believe he has rights, and that you will stand up for him if he feels his needs are not being met in the school system. I think it's important that your child know that you would never be angry or upset with him if he were to snack or drink something outside of that kind of schedule. It may seem like a small thing but it could make all the difference in how your child perceives the school environment.


----------



## the_lissa (Oct 30, 2004)

mmace, at my university, we were treated like adults. Pretty much everyone brought a cup of coffee or bottle of water to class, and we were allowed to eat if hungry. I am not currently in the workforce, but I know my partner is allowed to eat at his desk any time he chooses.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

I find this issue about feeding kids when they are hungry to be odd and hyberbolic. There seem to be people who are confusing "when the child is hungry" with "the instant the child is hungry." If my kids wander into the kitchen while I am getting out the plates to set the table, I am not going to give them a snack because as soon as the table is set (which takes about 2 minutes) I am going to serve the food. The kids will probably be eating within 5 minutes. To me, that is feeding my kids when they are hungry.

If my kids come to me and say, "We're hungry, Momma!" and I say, "Oh, well, I guess I'll go in and start dinner" (which means it will probably be about 1/2 an hour until dinner is on the table), then I will give them a light snack.

Half an hour is a very long time for a 3 and a 2 year old to wait when they are hungry. Five minutes while they was their hands and help set the table is not unreasonable.

If you want to hand your kid a snack any time, day or night, that's fine. But it's also fine to tell your kids that dinner will be on the table in a matter of minutes and they can eat then. Mothers who don't feed their kids instantaneously are not refusing to feed their kids when the kids are hungry.

Namaste!


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

dharmamama I think you may overlooked something many keep saying.

It isn't about the mother dropping everything she is doing and leaping into action at the words "I'm hungry". The phrase "Just a minute" isn't a crime. No one said that.

This discussion is (to me) not about what the parent is doing, it is about what the child knows they are free to do, regardless of what the parent is doing.

It may not look very different. In fact, I think it is very rare that a child, hearing snack would be ready in 2 minutes, would actually stop their play to go and fix themselves something in under 60 seconds flat *LOL* C'mon!

If your child knows they are free to eat when hungry, that is a separate issue from how often you are making a point of offering snacks, or the speed at which you put them on the table. I have no idea how often you might want to do that, or how often your child would like that. Whatever you wind up doing, it won't be intimidating or controlling on any level, if your child knows you are not ordering them to wait, you are politely asking. You can't define the difference in that moment. That moment is a reflection of the attitude you already have in your home. If your child knows they are free to grab a cracker if it's that important to them, your "just a minute" is not controlling them.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

{{If your child knows they are free to grab a cracker if it's that important to them, your "just a minute" is not controlling them}}

And hyberbolic or not --this is the basis of my food philosophy.

I even put 'pre dinner' (aka appetizers) food on the table-- raw veggies, bread, sometimes bits of cheese, maybe crackers instead of cheese. It doesn't matter to me. In fact, i think sometimes their tastebuds get a little activated by this.

It's not about dinner is in 5 minutes or 15 or 30. Or whether a person schedules 3 meals a day or 6. For me, it 's all about letting a person's own body dertermining it's needs. If my kid is sitting at the table and I we are starting to serve food or set the table, any person knows that they can reach out a munch a carrot as they do this. It's simply there. If it isn't, any person of any age is *free* to reach into the fridge and get one. I cannot bother to micromange anyone this way. For one thing, it's exahusting, but for me, it's also symbolic of greater control.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

It's not about dinner is in 5 minutes or 15 or 30. Or whether a person schedules 3 meals a day or 6. For me, it 's all about letting a person's own body dertermining it's needs. If my kid is sitting at the table and I we are starting to serve food or set the table, any person knows that they can reach out a munch a carrot as they do this. It's simply there. If it isn't, any person of any age is *free* to reach into the fridge and get one. I cannot bother to micromange anyone this way. For one thing, it's exahusting, but for me, it's also symbolic of greater control.








:

Exactly. This is it *exactly*.


----------



## mamawanabe (Nov 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
Well, the post I quoted was something you posted in which you quoted me, so I thought you were responding to me.









Namaste!

You asked how holding a child accountable = punishment (and I quoted nothing more than that question); the holding someone accountable that we were debating in that protion of the thread had to do with posters who have their kids work around the house to earn money to pay for wasted food.


----------



## mamawanabe (Nov 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *the_lissa*
mmace, at my university, we were treated like adults. Pretty much everyone brought a cup of coffee or bottle of water to class, and we were allowed to eat if hungry. I am not currently in the workforce, but I know my partner is allowed to eat at his desk any time he chooses.

white collar workers eat at their desk at will. Blue collar workers *may" have to wait for breaks depending on the work.

Regardless. I don'tr think teh fact they will have to eat on a schedule when they are in 1st grade is any reason to make them eat on a scedule at four (there may be valid reasons, but this isn't one). It is like saying, they will have to sit at a desk for 45 minutes strait in kindergarden so I'm going to have them sit at a desk for 45 minutes strait when they are four.


----------



## the_lissa (Oct 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamawanabe*
white collar workers eat at their desk at will. Blue collar workers *may" have to wait for breaks depending on the work.

Yes there are class issues involved too.


----------



## mamaduck (Mar 6, 2002)

Quote:

Second, shouldn't children, even at school, have access to a small healthy snack if they want it? That isn't unusual at some schools. In fact it's one of many things that parents really need to think about when choosing a school. Do you want your child forbidden from eating or drinking when hungry or thirsty? Many parents who do not want their children treated like that, make it a point to find a school that is flexible on this issue.
My children have access to their lunchboxes all day at school. They can drink and snack at will.

Quote:

It isn't about the mother dropping everything she is doing and leaping into action at the words "I'm hungry".
Indeed it is not. But this leads back to the Original Topic. I don't think we need to be jumping every time our kids say "jump." But then its only fair to allow them some independence and ownership in the kitchen. IMO -- kids should be able to grab a peice of fruit or a handful of crackers without any help. Even very young kids.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)




----------



## Altair (May 1, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
Do I want my kids to yell when they are angry? Not really, but I know it's going to happen because my kids are human and not perfect. Same as I am. When I get really angry, sometimes I yell. So do my kids. Then we apologize and move on. I don't believe that, even if I were perfect and never, ever yelled at my kids, that they would never ever yell at me (or anyone else).



i've never been in a yelling family/household. really, i'm not close with anyone who raises their voices. it bothers me so much and just puts out such bad energy. i know it's normal (even rarely) in some places, but it just doesn't sit right with me.

i don't think adults/kids have to be perfect, of course not. i just don't think it can EVER hurt to look closely at negative communication.


----------



## MamaBug (Jun 13, 2003)

Well unfortunately my child does not go to a school where he will have access to his lunchbox all day long. And I am not going to lie to the school and get a fake note from the Dr saying he HAS to eat, that would just be wrong imo. He can drink when he needs to and often brings in a water bottle with him. The fact is that many schools don't allow children to eat other then at lunch and snack time. Otherwise the whole class would want to eat something and if this happens at various times of the day nothing would get done.

And thank you heartmama for discussing the whole school/food issue and not just stating that you homeschool so you would not know. I agree it would be nice for him to have access to food if he needs it, and I am sure if he came home and told me he was starving in school and needed to eat but wasn't allowed to that I would talk to the teacher and work something out for him, on the up and up though. I was just asking out of curiosity to see if ppl have ideas to address this.

mamawanbe I agree a 4 year old does not have to do the same things that a child who attends kindergarden but making them sit at a desk for 45 minutes is not the same as maybe saying honey since you just ate lunch 5 minutes ago lets wait a little for your snack. And again I will state that when my children are hungry I feed them.


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
however If I am offering my child a snack at 9:30 every single day, guess what, they will be hungry for a snack at almost precisely 9:30 every single day. The body is hungry at the times it is used to getting food.

This is not true. People may eat at the same time because that's when they're used to eating (or because their mom wants them to eat a snack, and their hunger for it is irrelevant), but it has nothing to do with hunger.

Bodies don't get hungry at a certain just because they're "used to getting food" at that time.

Really, this discussion about scheduling food is startling to me. The discussion is remarkably similar to debates that moms have who schedule formula or breastmilk for their children.

If my DS is hungry, I don't rush in a prepare a 3-course meal for him, and sometimes I make him wait for a minute or two. But if his body tells him that he needs food, he should listen to that signal, and satiate his need (consequently I have several healthy and unhealthy snacks available for him at all times of the day).

That is what eating is supposed to be all about! Eating when your body tells you to.


----------



## MamaBug (Jun 13, 2003)

If you read further she also says that she does not make her children wait if they are hungry at a different time, but she does offer snacks at certain times during the day. I don't really think anyone on this thread talks about not feeding a child when they are hungry? Unless I totally missed something?


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

She definitely DID allude to giving them a snack at certain times that they should eat even if they're not hungry. And many posts have mentioned that they have their children wait until dinner if they're hungry.


----------



## MamaBug (Jun 13, 2003)

I believe that most ppl, including myself said we may make them wait a few *minutes* until dinner, not making them starve until we make dinner.

And alluding is what you see, in another post she CLEARLY said that she feeds her children when they are hungry


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

And I am not going to lie to the school and get a fake note from the Dr saying he HAS to eat, that would just be wrong imo.
Why would you lie? I never said suggested you lie. I'm not sure why you took it that way, but apparently I wasn't very clear. If your child eats every two hours and gets hungry and irritable if expected to go longer, they probably do have low blood sugar. Talk to the pediatrician. Pull studies from the internet. There is a great deal of research which indicates that children study and concentrate better when fed snacks through the day (based on the way blood/sugars/proteins interacts in the body and affect behavior). In fact many programs for children with learning disabilities feed regular snacks for this very reason. If your child is much more comfortable eating a snack every couple of hours, and you want them to concentrate in an environment that expects them to learn, I would absolutely talk to the doctor, and have him address this with the school. He will probably choose to do that through a written recommendation. I realize now that speaking to the doctor about this may seem unnecessarily "heavy"~since my son is special needs I am so used to talking to doctors about everything, I forget how formal it can seem if you aren't doing it all the time.

RE the rest of your post~Mamabug there have been posts here which said snacks and meals were on a strict schedule, and eating outside of that was strongly discouraged and or/not allowed at all. I cannot cut and paste for you, but yes, it's been said.

Beyond that, the whole issue of "just 5 minutes" meaning different things depending on the background dynamics, you kind of glossed over in my reply.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

I don't mean to sound sanctimonious, but I would like to point out that we have now spent over 100 posts discussing the finer points of kids' snacking.

We are REALLY REALLY REALLY lucky that such a topic is even cause for discussion, because many people in this world never get enough to eat.

Let's not lose perspective.

Namaste!


----------



## sunnmama (Jul 3, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
I don't mean to sound sanctimonious, but I would like to point out that we have now spent over 100 posts discussing the finer points of kids' snacking.

We are REALLY REALLY REALLY lucky that such a topic is even cause for discussion, because many people in this world never get enough to eat.

Let's not lose perspective.

Namaste!

Good point.

The alternative pov, of course, is that having abundant food has not protected people from high rates of eating disorders. This is my first post on this thread (and last...even if I have to sit on my hands, lol)....but I can relate to the passion of many posters about the need for kids to have personal control of eating from a young age.

Food and feeding are hot







topics.


----------



## mamaduck (Mar 6, 2002)

Quote:

Otherwise the whole class would want to eat something and if this happens at various times of the day nothing would get done.
I just wanted to say that I really don't see this happening at my kid's schools. Sometimes the kids come in the morning holding a snack and continue to munch through circle time. Once in a while a child "excuses" himself or herself to get a quick bite by the lockers. More frequently, they are holding a water bottle during whatever is happening. Especially since they don't have AC. They need water constantly.

For the most part though, they are more interested in what is happening in class and don't want to be distracted by food until an official breaktime. They also use the kitchen at school to do group cooking projects -- so they snack on those several times a week as a group. And they all have a working knowlege of what goes into snack preparation and they value the effort and take the responsibility seriously.

This is a whole other subject, but IMO -- if kids are actively looking for ways to avoid schoolwork and classtime, then there is a real problem that needs to be addressed broadly -- probably a problem with the school. And restricting distractions like snacks is avoiding the real problem.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

I don't mean to sound sanctimonious, but I would like to point out that we have now spent over 100 posts discussing the finer points of kids' snacking.
It does seem sanctimonious to

1)Assume we are not well aware that many children go hungry and
2)Point this out *after* you've participated and posted, and then been disagreed with, in a thread.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KristiMetz*
She definitely DID allude to giving them a snack at certain times that they should eat even if they're not hungry. And many posts have mentioned that they have their children wait until dinner if they're hungry.

I definitely did NOT say they should eat if they are not hungry.
I said I offered it at the same time a day regardless of whether they had indicated they were hungry or not.
Only my children decide whether or not they eat and how much.
Even as infants.
This is something I am so deeply opposed to that I just couldn't not defend myself against this gross misinterpretation of my words.
And to clarify. If I give my kids a snack at 9:30. THat does not mean I promptly remove it at 9:45 or somethign like that. The bowl of crackers or plate of apple slices stays out until it is finished with. I dont care if or when they eat it.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

I don't really care whether I have been disagreed with or not. I am well aware that I am not as laid-back, for lack of a better term, than a lot of parents here. It doesn't bother me because I am comfortable with how I parent. I do, however, like to participate in discussions, whether my opinion is the prevailing one or not.

However, I have two children from Ethiopia, where over half of the population is malnourished and on the edge of starvation. Food discussions are very near and dear to my heart after what I have seen in Ethiopia. My attitude toward and about food has changed greatly since my trip there. I do think it's important that people sometimes stop and think about how lucky we are to have to have the luxury of debating the issues we debate. I didn't say that the discussion was useless, nor did I tsk-tsk anyone for participating. I said I didn't mean to be sanctimonious. If you insist on taking it that way, that's not my issue. You don't have to agree with what I have said, but obviously I felt I had something meaningful to contribute or I wouldn't have contributed it.

Namaste!


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

If you just felt motivated to point out how you felt, then use "I" statements. Saying something like "Let's not lose perspective" does imply that some of us did or might, if you weren't here to remind us. If this was your only contribution to the thread, I'd just acknowledge it. But you've only said this after many other posts. It's a bit like "pulling rank" in a discussion. Since the point you are making is being disagreed with, you've tied it into a global crisis.

Suppose a parent who was also an abuse counselor responded to gentle discipline discussions against spanking with "Let's not lose perspective, the spankers here aren't beating their kids. Many children die from beatings. A smack on the hand is not a beating". People say things like this all the time. It misses the point completely. It's also a common response from the mainstream to GD.

P.S.

I would like to hear more about your experiences with Ethiopia. That sounds amazing!


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
It's a bit like "pulling rank" in a discussion. Since the point you are making is being disagreed with, you've tied it into a global crisis.

As I already said, I don't care whether I am disagreed with. That's not the issue. I'd have said what I said even if everyone fell all over themselves saying, "Oh, Dharma, your thoughts on children and food are so wise!" Sorry that you think that expressing how this issue relates to me personally, on a broad level, and sharing how I think that experience might be of benefit to others is "pulling rank." Yes, hunger is a global crisis. Yes, we are lucky to have an overabundance of food in this country. Yes, our attitude toward food and the attitude we impart to our children is important. Yes, it's important to stop and remember how lucky we are. Yes, all these things are interrelated. Yes, I shared my opinion on all that.









Namaste!


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

I guess I'm







now too~you knew it might come across as sanctimonious~and it did.

My own summary~

If you aren't asking, but telling, your kids they have to wait to eat, it says something about the power play over food in your home, and that is the focus of my posts. I think it's okay to discuss that here.


----------



## Evan&Anna's_Mom (Jun 12, 2003)

Chiming in on the issue of school. I have 2 kids in preschool 3 full days a week (well, as of today its only one because DS starts K next week, but anyway...) I have a "free snacking" house -- meaning the kids get snacks for themselves at will, though meals are at fairly set times because they work in our schedule. At preschool, snack times are set and, while water is always available, food is not. Surprisingly, the kids adjust back and forth with ease. I was worried about this so I've talked with my almost 6 YO about it a lot over the last 3 years. He says he's "too busy" to be hungry at school but likes snack time. I've observed class a lot and I've never seen him act hungry or anything.

I realize that these are my kids and this may not be true for everyone. But I also think that setting up a particular approach to snacks for a stay-at-home-toddler (SAHT??) or child in anticipation of school may not be necessary. I think we (in general, but certainly not universally) have a tendency to underestimate the ability of children to adapt to different situations. I am constantly amazed at how different my kids act at school than at home -- food, bathroom, nap, politeness, social interactions are all different (and generally better, but that's another thread). I have to remind myself that they are amazingly flexible, which I think is a wonderful thing.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Johub~

Children do not have a biological need to charge credit cards. They do have a biological need to eat.

I am going to ask whether or not this is ap. I have no problem asking those questions. Disagree with me. Challenge me. I want to discuss this









Why would you demand feed an infant, and then make your older child ask permission to eat, and call both attachment parenting?


There is a difference between AP and GD. All AP'ers do I beleive GD (or try). But there are those of us who use GD (no punishment, no rewards, no yelling, no shaming) but are not necessarily AP.

We make the rules in our homes. Our children do not have a great deal of input into these rules, especailly when they are young.

Some of what people here are calling GD is part of the large AP picture, but IMHO you can GD without necessarily being "AP"

Like Johub (i think) I use the well known philosophy of Elly Satter regarding my "feeding relationship' with my kids.

After the demand feeding of infancy, it goes like this;

I decide when we eat and what is put on the table. My children decide which of these foods they will eat and how much.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*
There is a difference between AP and GD. All AP'ers do I beleive GD (or try). But there are those of us who use GD (no punishment, no rewards, no yelling, no shaming) but are not necessarily AP.

We make the rules in our homes. Our children do not have a great deal of input into these rules, especailly when they are young.

Some of what people here are calling GD is part of the large AP picture, but IMHO you can GD without necessarily being "AP"

Like Johub (i think) I use the well known philosophy of Elly Satter regarding my "feeding relationship' with my kids.

After the demand feeding of infancy, it goes like this;

I decide when we eat and what is put on the table. My children decide which of these foods they will eat and how much.

You are aware this is a sight to the left of mere AP, right?

And eating in infancy? I never had a child of mine who 'ate' in infancy.

It's all about the breastmilk then, chica







.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

Some of what people here are calling GD is part of the large AP picture, but IMHO you can GD without necessarily being "AP"
Maya, most parents do prefer to follow an experts feeding schedule, instead of following their child's cues and needs. You are right, that isn't ap.

I can't really understand your point. Ap and natural family living *are* the "larger picture" here. Why would you advocate an ap free approach here?


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

The Pearls are Natural Family Living advocates, without AP.

Gentle Discipline without AP~mainstream positive parenting?

MDC, definitely NFL, and AP.

What's that song~~ya' can't have one without the ah-ther!


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
I don't mean to sound sanctimonious, but I would like to point out that we have now spent over 100 posts discussing the finer points of kids' snacking.

We are REALLY REALLY REALLY lucky that such a topic is even cause for discussion, because many people in this world never get enough to eat.

Let's not lose perspective.

Namaste!

Personally, I have a good deal of perspective. My children are very thankful for their food, very generous in giving of food to others, and understand where food comes from and how much time and energy goes into purchasing and preparing it. I don't know about sanctimonious, but I do wonder what your point is.


----------



## LauraSusan (Jul 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*
I decide when we eat and what is put on the table. My children decide which of these foods they will eat and how much.

Maya44, this sounds so harsh, although I'll bet this is a case of the written word being inadequate to describe what you mean.

Your children have no say in what kinds of foods are offered in your home? They are offered no chance to participate in making foods or suggesting a menu - "Mama, can we have tacos tonight? Can I rip the lettuce?" - that sort of thing?

In my home, I do most of the cooking, but I constantly encourage my daughter to make suggestions, be involved, help me with what she can. Of course, we do not eat TV dinners and TaterTots (that's only at Grandma's house :LOL ), and I do not buy unhealthy things. So in that sense, I decide.

But I totally respect her need to eat according to her own body. Just tonight, I was making chicken, wild rice and broccoli for dinner (she loves all of those things), and she helped me do most of the preparation and even put the pan in the oven (it was cold).

And then she grabbed herself a banana and ate the whole thing. So of course she wasn't ready to eat dinner when we did. I just left her plate on the table, and about an hour after we were finished dinner, she ate almost everything on her plate.

She sat at the table with us during dinner (not required, she just likes to), and then put her dish in the sink after she was done.









Laura is three and a half, by the way.

How would something like that work in your house? Would they be allowed to eat the banana? What if they don't like what you've made, or wanted something else?


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UUMom*
And eating in infancy? I never had a child of mine who 'ate' in infancy.

It's all about the breastmilk then, chica







.


The word eat is usually defined as "to consume" I assume that in that sense your childre "ate" in infancy. When most people discuss bf'ing they say. "My baby is eating 10-12 times a day"

So that is the sense I was using the word "eat". Was I really not clear?????


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LauraSusan*
Maya44, this sounds so harsh, although I'll bet this is a case of the written word being inadequate to describe what you mean.

Your children have no say in what kinds of foods are offered in your home? They are offered no chance to participate in making foods or suggesting a menu - "Mama, can we have tacos tonight? Can I rip the lettuce?" - that sort of thing?

In my home, I do most of the cooking, but I constantly encourage my daughter to make suggestions, be involved, help me with what she can. Of course, we do not eat TV dinners and TaterTots (that's only at Grandma's house :LOL ), and I do not buy unhealthy things. So in that sense, I decide.

But I totally respect her need to eat according to her own body. Just tonight, I was making chicken, wild rice and broccoli for dinner (she loves all of those things), and she helped me do most of the preparation and even put the pan in the oven (it was cold).

And then she grabbed herself a banana and ate the whole thing. So of course she wasn't ready to eat dinner when we did. I just left her plate on the table, and about an hour after we were finished dinner, she ate almost everything on her plate.

She sat at the table with us during dinner (not required, she just likes to), and then put her dish in the sink after she was done.









Laura is three and a half, by the way.

How would something like that work in your house? Would they be allowed to eat the banana? What if they don't like what you've made, or wanted something else?

We do menu planning at the begining of the week. Each dd picks a night to help plan the meal (as you dicussed within reason.) I plan on my own the other two nights. We eat out the other two.

There is always something on the table the everyone likes. It might be a "side dish" and not the main course though.

There is no eating at home before meals, excpet for the salad which usually makes its way to the table about 1/2 an hour before dinner. A snack is served right after school.

You must come sit with us at the table. If you decide not to eat anything on the table, there is nothing else to eat til the next snack.

My dd's have never complained about this arragngment. Never said "Can't I have X instead." It just does not occur to them. This is simply how we do it in our house.


----------



## LauraSusan (Jul 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*
You must come sit with us at the table. If you decide not to eat anything on the table, there is nothing else to eat til the next snack.


But why? And is this a rule in principle or an actual rule? Have you ever had a situation where a child didn't want to eat at dinner time, and then was hungry and asked for a snack and you refused to give it? And if this did happen, are you saying your would allow your child to go away crying and hungry because it wasn't snack time yet?

I'll bet you would never do this.

I find this issue upsetting because my parents would force us to sit at the table and strictly controlled all food. They used to try and prevent us from taking food from the garden, but I remember being hungry and risking a spanking to get something to eat.

I guess I know where I stand. I feel pretty strongly that children should never, ever be denied food. But I suppose that comes from my experience.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Maya-- you can certainly do what you want in your own home. You need to deal with your onw family in your own way.

But what you are doing is something that can't ever register on my radar. We are total equals here.

I don't/won't micromanage my kids appetties. While, I do keep an eye on little ones to see if they are looking/acting low on protein, i would never use food the way you suggest above.

To deny them food?

No way. No how.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LauraSusan*
But why? And is this a rule in principle or an actual rule? Have you ever had a situation where a child didn't want to eat at dinner time, and then was hungry and asked for a snack and you refused to give it? And if this did happen, are you saying your would allow your child to go away crying and hungry because it wasn't snack time yet?


The why is because I read the writings of Ellyn Satter and believed in her theories about healthy feeding realtionships. When I put them into practice into my home, I found them to work well in that all three of my children are healthy and very adventerous eaters. Moreover, they seemed happy eating like this.
I felt that being used to eating (or not) what is offered made the less "afraid" than some people I see who always seem slightly panicked that there might be something served that they don't like ( I see this at work when we have lunch meeting or when we travel for work to more exotic places). The idea that you will not fall apart if you don't like what is served for one meal is a lesson they understand.

And familly meal times are a joy in my house.

I have had one or two times when a child did not eat alot at dinner time and asked when snack time would be. Since we generally finish dinner around 7:15 and snack time is around 8:30, I never had crying as a result of saying "we will have a snack in an hour (or when they were younger "after your bath" or some other time thing they could relate to).


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*
The why is because I read the writings of Ellyn Satter and believed in her theories about healthy feeding realtionships. When I put them into practice into my home, I found them to work well in that all three of my children are healthy and very adventerous eaters. Moreover, they seemed happy eating like this.
I felt that being used to eating (or not) what is offered made the less "afraid" than some people I see who always seem slightly panicked that there might be something served that they don't like ( I see this at work when we have lunch meeting or when we travel for work to more exotic places). The idea that you will not fall apart if you don't like what is served for one meal is a lesson they understand.

And familly meal times are a joy in my house.

I have had one or two times when a child did not eat alot at dinner time and asked when snack time would be. Since we generally finish dinner around 7:15 and snack time is around 8:30, I never had crying as a result of saying "we will have a snack in an hour (or when they were younger "after your bath" or some other time thing they could relate to).


I cannot let this go.

I read Satter as well--and she is not saying what you are saying.

Not at all.

She is writing about buying food for little children that you want them to eat.

Slater is *not* about controlling children's appetites as you are.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UUMom*
I cannot let this go.

I read Satter as well--and she is not saying what you are saying.

Not at all.

She is writing about buying food for little children that you want them to eat.

Slater is *not* about controlling children's appetites as you are.


I am not sure what you are talking about. Ellyn Satter's philsosophy is that "There is a division of responsibility in feeding. The parent decides when and what. The child decides whether and how much."

Once a child is no longer a toddler the parent is resposible for timing and location of feeding. You no longer feed your child on demand. You require him to come to the table to eat."

This is from "How to get your kid to eat, but not too much"

_Also from Page 26 of that book:_

*

"Its alright to say "Don't eat now, dinner is in an hour" or "get out of the refridgerator you've had your snack"*

_And from page 37:_

*A child shoud be told that he can eat all he wants at the table, but once he leaves the table "that is all until snack time"*

Is there a quote from Satter that you beleive shows something different from what I have talked about?

Perhaps you are thinking of someone else???

IF not, how do you interpret her clear statments of "the division of responsiblity"????


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*
Ellyn Satter's philsosophy is that "There is a division of responsibility in feeding. The parent decides when and what. The child decides whether and how much."


I did some reading online at her site and read some book reviews. She does have some good things to say - i.e., not trying to force or bribe your children to eat certain things, etc.

However, she does seem insistent on scheduled eating times. Rather than children eating when they're hungry, they're to eat at specified times.









For example, she says this on her web site :

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ellen Sattyr*
Have 3 meals a day at set times. Give sit-down snacks at set times.
Do not short-order cook.
...
Say no when she begs for food or drinks between eating times, except for water.

Anyone want to elaborate on her why she feels feeding on a schedule, rather than on demand, is the way to go? I'm curious now.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Satter has been discussed here before.

From what is usually posted, her approach is parent directed feeding, and has nothing to do with ap, or gd. She doesn't expand upon either philosophy, and at times is directly at odds with them. It's a shame for a thread to fragment into details over a philosophy which doesn't provide gd/ap answers to food issues. What's the point of discussing her here? Her advice will not help anyone find gd solutions once a challenge does arise.

No matter how thoughtfully you plan it, if you know in your head requests for food outside the schedule will not be granted, no matter how nice or hysterical the child asks for it, your attitude has nothing to do with gentle discipline.


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Satter has been discussed here before.

Her book was recommended to me several times. However, the title was a huge turnoff for me.... "How to get your child to eat... but not too much" (I think it is).

That's always seemed to me to presume that my child will HAVE a problem with eating too much.

Anyway, I ended up reading *"Are You Hungry? A Completely New Approach to Raising Children Free of Food and Weight Problems " by Jane Hirschmann* (the "Overcoming Overeating" author). It's a wonderful book and I think it would not conflict at all with the parenting style of most here. She dispells many food myths and advocatings a very demand-feeding style approach.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Satter has been discussed here before.

From what is usually posted, her approach is parent directed feeding, and has nothing to do with ap, or gd. She doesn't expand upon either philosophy, and at times is directly at odds with them. It's a shame for a thread to fragment into details over a philosophy which doesn't provide gd/ap answers to food issues. What's the point of discussing her here? Her advice will not help anyone find gd solutions once a challenge does arise.

No matter how thoughtfully you plan it, if you know in your head requests for food outside the schedule will not be granted, no matter how nice or hysterical the child asks for it, your attitude has nothing to do with gentle discipline.


First, the long discussion started because I was asked why I used the feeding method for our family that I do. I responded about Satter's philosophy and UU Mom accused me of being completely wrong about it. I felt the need to defend myself.

Second, I would like to say that using her feeding philosophy in practice in our home is very GD. There has NEVER been a time when my children have been hysterical about needing to eat. Meals and snacks come so frequently that if they were so desperate for food in between these times, there would be a much bigger problem that would need to be dealt with.

You know how when people who use TCS sometimes discuss it with mainstreamers, and those mainstreamers will say "but what if your child does X" (like "refuses to ever go to sleep, or will only watch TV 23 hours per day) what in the world would you do? How could you do this, your child would be out of control? And those who actually use it and practice it know that the situation just reallly does not come up. That it really can work on a day in day out basis and that all the "what if's" are just a fantasy of scared mainstreamers. [BTY, I obviously don't use TCS, but I do understand that it can "work" for many families and that all the fears about it by those mainstreamers who hear about it are not justified]

This is how it has been for us with Satter's methods. The "well what if you child is hysterical" has simply NEVER happened to us. A "we will have dinner in an hour" is met here with an "OK".

I have read all of Ellyn Satters books and have even worked with her institute when one of my kids was having a health problem early on that made feeding difficult. (Let's make it clear here that when the phrase "parent led feeding" is used, she is NOT talking about babies and fully and completely supports bf'ing on demand.)

This feeding relationship has been healthy and gentle for my family as well as for many others. It helps expands kids palates while never asking them ever to eat (or even try) something that they do not like. It helped my very AP SIL who was in a nightmere feeding relationship with her kids (she was always gently urging them to eat one more bite, and it became a very control thing for them.) I am sure she would not have "stuck" to it, if her kids were upset or really demanding foods at different times. But it just did not happen.

Using these methods often takes all of the tension out of a bad feeding relatiohip while preserving FAMILY MEALS and leading to those who don't fret over "not liking" something. These family meals are very important to me, and I feel her methods are the best at preserving them. And, important to me also, I beleive it helps raise kids who do not "fear" food. Who are not scared to try new dishes and do not freak out if they are placed in a situation outside of home where a meal is served that they just don't like.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Sorry, but there is nothing gentle about putting food on the table and telling a kid to eat it or wait until the next served meal/snack. I am not perfect and reading this thread has made me think a great deal about how I approach food with my kid. But I grew up in a house like that and it was not cool. Yes, my mom had me help her cook and choose meals. But sometimes even after I requested something or helped cook it, I did not want to eat it after it was on the table. This happens to me sometimes even now. I think I want something but after it is ready I do not want it. I went from an adventurous eater to beyond picky and actually existed on very little calories a day for several years because of my aversions to certain foods and eating at certain times. I was 80 pounds when I started high school (at 5'5"). Not healthy. It took YEARS for me to break this problem and it was not until I was 25 years old that I started to try new foods. If that is really what the book teaches, I think it is awful. I am not perfect and I do get upset when dd turns up her nose at something she requested. But I try my darndest not to show it because I know that controlling food IN ANY WAY is not good for children.


----------



## LauraSusan (Jul 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*
"parent led feeding"


That's what Ezzo calls it, too. No wonder the whole idea gives me the heebie-jeebies.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *yoopervegan*
But sometimes even after I requested something or helped cook it, I did not want to eat it after it was on the table. This happens to me sometimes even now.

And when this happens, what do you do about it?

I ask because one of the things I am trying to cultivate in my household is a thankfulness of our abundance of food and an understanding of how our food habits have a global impact. IMO, which I know is not shared by the majority here, to choose food, prepare it, and then decide you don't want it, is wasteful (even if only in attitude). I don't want to teach my kids that their eating habits should be dictated by whim and that the only acceptable food is what they want RIGHT NOW.

Namaste!


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LauraSusan*
That's what Ezzo calls it, too. No wonder the whole idea gives me the heebie-jeebies.


Satter does not call it this. And she beleives that babies must be fed on demand.


----------



## LauraSusan (Jul 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*
Satter does not call it this. And she beleives that babies must be fed on demand.


Is this a case of tomayto/tomahto? Same idea, different name?

Maya, just curious. Have you read anything here that makes you think twice about _why_ you need to control your children in this way?


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *yoopervegan*
Sorry, but there is nothing gentle about putting food on the table and telling a kid to eat it or wait until the next served meal/snack. I am not perfect and reading this thread has made me think a great deal about how I approach food with my kid. But I grew up in a house like that and it was not cool. Yes, my mom had me help her cook and choose meals. But sometimes even after I requested something or helped cook it, I did not want to eat it after it was on the table. This happens to me sometimes even now. I think I want something but after it is ready I do not want it. I went from an adventurous eater to beyond picky and actually existed on very little calories a day for several years because of my aversions to certain foods and eating at certain times. I was 80 pounds when I started high school (at 5'5"). Not healthy. It took YEARS for me to break this problem and it was not until I was 25 years old that I started to try new foods. If that is really what the book teaches, I think it is awful. I am not perfect and I do get upset when dd turns up her nose at something she requested. But I try my darndest not to show it because I know that controlling food IN ANY WAY is not good for children.

Did you mother never make you eat what was on the table? Was there a WIDE variety of choices on the table? Was it all there for you to serve yourself? Did you get dessert after every meal (or even during it if you wanted?). Did you mother not get at all upset if you chose not to eat at meal? Was a substantial snack served within an hour and a half of the last meal? Did you mother work with you and with a nutritionist immediatley when you became increasing picky and dangerously thin to get to the root of the problem?

If you can't answer yes to ALL of the above then you did not grow up eating as Ellyn Satter recomends. Her methods are I maintain VERY gentle in practice.


----------



## monkey's mom (Jul 25, 2003)

I would rather my children waste all the food in my house than have to be hungry until the next scheduled feeding or choke down food they didn't want.

I still don't see anything gentle or responsive about "eat only when I say it's time to." And if people TRULY aren't wanting to eat at other times, why is this rule in place?


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LauraSusan*
Is this a case of tomayto/tomahto? Same idea, different name?

Maya, just curious. Have you read anything here that makes you think twice about _why_ you need to control your children in this way?


NO. I believe that I am feeding my children in the best way possible. My children are healthy and adventerous eaters. They never complain about "why can't we have X instead". There is always something on the table they like.

My dd's LOVE that, unlike many of their friends, they NEVER have to try even "one bite" of something. They love that they have a wide variety of foods availiable including foods that some parents won't allow in the house, like chips and cookies. They love that they get a yummy dessert EVERY single meal and that they dont' have to eat something "healthy" to get it like their cousins.

They are open to new foods and new eating experiences. *They have never been even mildly upset about the way our meals and snack times work.*
Why do you think that I would feel uncomfortable with the way my familye eats???????

I beleive that these methods help preserve family meals, something that is important to me. That is why I use them. When I read about everyone in a famliy grabbing there own food and rarely sitting down to eat together it makes me sad.


----------



## OakBerry (May 24, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
And when this happens, what do you do about it?

I ask because one of the things I am trying to cultivate in my household is a thankfulness of our abundance of food and an understanding of how our food habits have a global impact. IMO, which I know is not shared by the majority here, to choose food, prepare it, and then decide you don't want it, is wasteful (even if only in attitude). I don't want to teach my kids that their eating habits should be dictated by whim and that the only acceptable food is what they want RIGHT NOW.

Namaste!









Ita with you!
I grew up in a house with 10 kids. We didn't have alot of money. But we always, thank goodness, had enough to eat. My mother let us choose what kind of cereal for breakfast or whether we wanted eggs or toast. She gave us 2 choices at lunch. But dinner, we all ate what she cooked, and that's it. We always got dessert even if we didn't eat dinner. Snacks were given between mealtimes at my mother's discretion. We weren't allowed to go into the chips and just eat at free will, because one kid would eat the whole bag and the rest would get none. My parents couldn't afford to waste food. And it really wasn't a bad way to grow up. I don't have food issues.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
And when this happens, what do you do about it?

Namaste!

I save it and eat it later. Or dh eats it then or later. Or dd eats it then or later. Or I freeze it for a rainy day. Or I pack it up and give it to a friend. Or I convert it into a different meal. I cannot handle wasted food. I actually never ever have something go bad in the fridge because I am so careful about using it before it goes bad. I have even been known to pack up a rejected meal and send it with dh to work as he has many coworkers that live on McDs for lunch every day and appreciate a home cooked meal.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*
Did you mother never make you eat what was on the table? Was there a WIDE variety of choices on the table? Was it all there for you to serve yourself? Did you get dessert after every meal (or even during it if you wanted?). Did you mother not get at all upset if you chose not to eat at meal? Was a substantial snack served within an hour and a half of the last meal? Did you mother work with you and with a nutritionist immediatley when you became increasing picky and dangerously thin to get to the root of the problem?

My mother never made me eat it. There was usually 3-5 items on the table. We served ourselves. We only had desert on Fridays but we were allowed to have it even if we ate nothing at dinner. My mom never showed she was upset if she was. We ate dinner very late (7-8pm) and bedtime was at 8:30 so usually there was no time for a snack. And no my mom did not take me to a nutritionist because back then a skinny kid was a skinny kid and pickiness was pickiness. No one really thought about it. We were allowed free access to snacks in the afternoon until about 6:30pm at which time it was "too close to dinner" for snacks.

The problem was that I have great aversions to certain foods and they change. One day I liked mac and cheese, the next day it repulsed me. If mac and cheese was the main course served with say.....green beans, rolls, and some salad and it was a day when mac and cheese bothered me, beans, salad, and a roll just did not carry me until breakfast....which was a whole nother issue. Again oatmeal is good some days and repulsive other days...... I think my aversions started BECAUSE I was forced to eat what was on the table. No one shoved it down my throat, but I knew I would be hungry in the middle of the night if I did not eat it. After a while I decided being hungry in the middle of the night was better than eating what was on the table sometimes. I honestly think it was my way of having some control.

AND it is not that way for many people, I know. But who cares? If dd is hungry two minutes after dinner, do I need to know the reason? If dd rejects what is served for dinner even if she requested it and LOVED it last week, do I need to know why? No. I need to know that dd gets enough food to be comfortable. If I treat her with repect when she asks for something different, any "novelty" of seeing how to push mommy's buttons soon disapate. And very soon she will be big enough to make her own alternative and I will not even have to think/worry about it.

I just do not understand what there is to gain by taking the reins in the child's ability to monitor thier own hunger. It seems we are built to do this on our own and any tinkering is only going to mess with a perfect system.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
I would rather my children waste all the food in my house than have to be hungry until the next scheduled feeding or choke down food they didn't want.


BUT this is not what happens when you use this feeding method. Like I said, it's like with people who don't understand that with GD your kids are not running around like uncontrolled brats. That not punishing does not lead to out of control kids.

Feeding after babyhood (which must be on demand) with scheduled meals and snacks using a wide variety of foods on the table, does not lead to kids going hungry or "choking down food". When kids know that they don't have to eat anything they don't want, that their will always be something on the table that they like, that treats are part of the day, as well as snacks, it leads to a very relaxed feeding relationship.

They are not hungry. They eat FAMILY meals. They are advernterous and open and not scared to try new foods when they want to.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Why do you assume family meal time is impossible if you do not control food? We eat lunch and dinner as a family every day. Usually dd eats what is served during the meal. Soemtimes she does not like it and I serve her something else, but we are still eating food together. And even more rarely she does not want to eat at all. Sometimes I do not want to eat at all (like when I am sick) but we still gather as a family during that time.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *yoopervegan*
My mother never made me eat it. There was usually 3-5 items on the table. We served ourselves. We only had desert on Fridays but we were allowed to have it even if we ate nothing at dinner. My mom never showed she was upset if she was. We ate dinner very late (7-8pm) and bedtime was at 8:30 so usually there was no time for a snack. And no my mom did not take me to a nutritionist because back then a skinny kid was a skinny kid and pickiness was pickiness. No one really thought about it. We were allowed free access to snacks in the afternoon until about 6:30pm at which time it was "too close to dinner" for snacks.


Well this is defintiely NOT an Ellyn Satter approach because a snack after dinner is part of the game plan.

There needs to be a snack so that just the type of situation you described does not come up. That a child never feels that they need to wait until morning if they did not like dinner.

And figuring out what is going on with pickiness is too!


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*
I beleive that these methods help preserve family meals, something that is important to me. That is why I use them. When I read about everyone in a famliy grabbing there own food and rarely sitting down to eat together it makes me sad.

Family togetherness time is very important to me too. So instead of having a scheduled dinnertime (we sometimes have dinner together, sometimes not) we have a "family together time" in the evenings when DH isn't working. We all kick back as a family together and either go outside and play or chat inside, whatever we feel like.

I feel togetherness is important, but unfortunately to use family dinners as that time forces everyone to eat on a schedule... and people don't get hungry on schedules.

I'm still curious about why Satter places emphasis on SCHEDULED eating times rather than children eating when they're hungry. Why does she feel this is healthy? Is the idea that you offer food so often you're going to catch the window of hungriness no matter what?

Also, on reading her web site, she says parents determine the "what" and "when". What do you do if one of your children wants to eat, say, cheese and crackers, or a chocolate bar for a snack, but you have scheduled grapes for them to eat? What happens? Do you tell them no, you can eat the grapes or else wait for dinner?

Just curious how this works...


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *yoopervegan*
Why do you assume family meal time is impossible if you do not control food? We eat lunch and dinner as a family every day. Usually dd eats what is served during the meal. Soemtimes she does not like it and I serve her something else, but we are still eating food together. And even more rarely she does not want to eat at all. Sometimes I do not want to eat at all (like when I am sick) but we still gather as a family during that time.


Not impossible but harder.

If i had to jump up to make something else, the family meal would lose its rythym. We have wondeful discussions at meal times.

And my kids don't request something else. They just don't. I dont' pay much attention to whether they eat something or not. It is up to them.

And of course things change when someone is sick. As with any household routine, then all bets are off!


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Maya - After all of your explainging, it sounds much different than the "I serve the dinner and the kids can eat it or not but that is it" attitude that your opening post leaned towards. It sounds like you are just trying to find a meal method that works for your family and it does not sound "abusive". But I do find the statement:

"Parents decide what and when and kids decide if and how much"

to be abusive. You might decide the what and when is a large selection and often. But the statement in and of itself implies that whatever a parent decides should be acceptable to all kids. And I just do not understand why the kid cannot decide what and when and if AND how much. I mean why? Is it because people fear that will lead to an unhealthy outlook on food? Is it because it is too much work or waste or a not-balanced-diet? It might be working great for your kids now, but what would you do IF that changed? What would you do if one of your kids did not want anything on the table but was still hungry? Why is ti not OK to let them use thier own body equipment to determine what and when they should eat in addition to if and how much?


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KristiMetz*
I'm still curious about why Satter places emphasis on SCHEDULED eating times rather than children eating when they're hungry. Why does she feel this is healthy? Is the idea that you offer food so often you're going to catch the window of hungriness no matter what?

Also, on reading her web site, she says parents determine the "what" and "when". What do you do if one of your children wants to eat, say, cheese and crackers, or a chocolate bar for a snack, but you have scheduled grapes for them to eat? What happens? Do you tell them no, you can eat the grapes or else wait for dinner?

Just curious how this works...


Yes, there is no chance to go hungry. If kids are really hungry between scheduled meals and snacks, she says to add another scheduled snack to the day.

As for snacks, the idea is (in working with her institute) to have a LONG list of possible snacks. The list is made by the parent, but the child certainly has input into ideas. We have an actual list of thirty or so items. Candy is not on the list (its a dessert) but veggies, cheese and crackers, fruits, deli meats etc all are. A child can choose anything from the list.

My dd's have almost never left a table hungry. Maybe a few times in their lives (they are 11, 9 and 8). And between dessert and the knowledge that a snack is coming it just did not upset them. They have occassionally not found anything to eat at their grandmother's house (ugh bad cook!). But this does not upset them because they knew that they could survive this easily.


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *yoopervegan*
I honestly think it was my way of having some control...
AND it is not that way for many people, I know.

Well, I think that your food aversions may not happen to a lot of people, but having neurotic food habits as an adult (in reaction to food being very controlled as a child) seems very common.

Food is nourishment. It is not love, but it is nourishment that we need. To have control over that taken away, and to be told what nourishment we need and when, is what causes us to doubt the ability of our bodies to tell us what we need to eat.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*
Not impossible but harder.

If i had to jump up to make something else, the family meal would lose its rythym. We have wondeful discussions at meal times.

I get that. It can be disruptive. I guess since my kid is still little I am already getting up a million times no matter what. Things spill at almost every meal and I need a rag. Or dh wants salt and I forgot to put it on the table. Or I run out of water and want more. Grabbing a handful of grapes to run under the tap or popping a can of refried beans for dd is about the same to me and I do not even think about it. And the kitchen is right next the to dining room so the converstaion keeps going and it does not seem disruptive to me.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Maya I am not challenging whether this works in your family. There are many choices outside of GD and most families prefer them.

Your SIL was already in a power struggle over food. She was losing.

With this approach, she won the power struggle.

Neither approach has anything to do with GD.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

That's right. Satter is the one I don't like.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *yoopervegan*
I get that. It can be disruptive. I guess since my kid is still little I am already getting up a million times no matter what. Things spill at almost every meal and I need a rag. Or dh wants salt and I forgot to put it on the table. Or I run out of water and want more. Grabbing a handful of grapes to run under the tap or popping a can of refried beans for dd is about the same to me and I do not even think about it. And the kitchen is right next the to dining room so the converstaion keeps going and it does not seem disruptive to me.

Family meals are SO important to me, that this just does not happen. We place big jugs of water on the table. Rags are in a drawer inside the table for spills. IIts a farm style table with drawers at either end.) Condiments are placed on the table as a part of meals. I have an actual check list I go thorough.

Once we sit, I dont' want to get up!


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Maya I am not challenging whether this works in your family. There are many choices outside of GD and most families prefer them.

Your SIL was already in a power struggle over food. She was losing.

With this approach, she won the power struggle.

Neither approach has anything to do with GD.


I am not sure what you mean. Her main problem was that she was asking her kids to eat. They were refusing. You are right that there was a power struggle.

Using Satter's methods, she put a wide variety of foods on the table and then just did not worry about whether her kids ate or not. This not trying hard to have a chld to eat more is a very key part of the Satter approach. What really worked for her. And what she was afraid to do before using this approach.

They started eating. They did not ask for anything else, since there was so much there that they liked.

They were not hungry between all the meals and snacks. I am sure she would not have "stuck" to Satter's idea of telling a child to wait, but it never came up for her.

For her the power struggle was simply gone. NOt won.

How do you figure that she "won"??????


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

maya - I'm still wondering about the "why" behind rigorously scheduling snacks and mealtimes.

If the child is hungry and it's not "snack time", why not just feed them? Why "add a scheduled snack time"?

What is the purpose behind the scheduling?

Also, when your child is an adult, and it's "time to eat" but they aren't hungry, do you think they'll still prepare a meal and eat at least part of it, because meals are at "certain times"? Or do you think they'll have the attunement to their own signals to simply not eat because they're not hungry, even though it's the traditional meal time?


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *yoopervegan*
But I do find the statement:

"Parents decide what and when and kids decide if and how much"

to be abusive.

Abusive of what? Actually abusive of a child or a parent abusing their power over their child? I could see where you might think the latter (even though I don't agree) but I would completely fail to understand if you actually thought that a child with ample access to a wide variety of food was being abused simply because that child didn't choose the food.

Namaste!


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
Abusive of what? Actually abusive of a child or a parent abusing their power over their child? I could see where you might think the latter (even though I don't agree) but I would completely fail to understand if you actually thought that a child with ample access to a wide variety of food was being abused simply because that child didn't choose the food.

Namaste!

Because the statement by itself implies that parents should have total control with food. Yes, people here are stating that they follow this quote but choose to offer a wide variety at frequent intervals. But someone else could interpret this to mean they can choose whatever "when" and "what" they want and kids only should have say over the "if" and "how much". That is why I find it abusive without adding a paragraph of other qualifiers.

I simply do not understand why it is a bad thing to let the child have control over all 4 items. You could provide 15 choices to a child and have a chance they do not want one of them that day. And a kid might be hungry at 9:15 even though snack time is at 9:30. Why does it matter that he/she wait? I just do not get it. And I think that making a child be hungry for any amount of time (even if it is 15 minutes) is totally unnecessary and could even be abusive if it happened regularly.

I understand wanting to make things easier. I understand wanting meal time to be peaceful. I understand wanting to condition kids so they know not to "ask" because they know "the rules". But I think that allowing a child to have control over all 4 items can still fit within a peaceful and easy meal situation. Dd rarely (maybe once a week) asks for something different for a meal. Even more rarely refuses to eat. I do not think getting out of my chair once a week to grab something fast and easy is enough of a disruption to risk messing with dd's feelings about food.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KristiMetz*
maya - I'm still wondering about the "why" behind rigorously scheduling snacks and mealtimes.

If the child is hungry and it's not "snack time", why not just feed them? Why "add a scheduled snack time"?

What is the purpose behind the scheduling?

Also, when your child is an adult, and it's "time to eat" but they aren't hungry, do you think they'll still prepare a meal and eat at least part of it, because meals are at "certain times"? Or do you think they'll have the attunement to their own signals to simply not eat because they're not hungry, even though it's the traditional meal time?


The purpose is to encourge meal eating, as opposed to ONLY snacking.
To encourage family sit down dinners.

Satter's extensive research shows that children do better nutritionally and emotionally with food than with many other approaches including handing out food without any thought to the upcomming meal.

I have read many of her studies. It made sense to me.

Under Satter's approach as children age and especially as they enter the teen years, scheduling the 'when' gradually shifts for them to decide.

My 11 y.o. has already started this process, she chooses the times of her snacks. But based on her own eating temprement, she often does not have them al all. 01


----------



## Evan&Anna's_Mom (Jun 12, 2003)

Hm.. Seems like we are headed down a very well worn path with many of the same players. Maybe we could just post a link to the last 20 page thread on this here and be done with it? That said ...

I am equally uncomfortable with the idea of letting children eat whatever, whenever and never preparing or participating in family meals. Children in that sort of household might or might not have a healthy relationship with food and their body signals, but I would be really worried about the family ties and associations they would miss. Not to mention how such a child would handle visits to other, less free, homes and entering "the real world" of more rigid schedules at some point.

I think there is a healthy, happy middle ground here. For us, this means reasonably healthy snacks freely available during the day, ALONG WITH family breakfast and dinner (lunch is with school or work family). It is perfectly possible to find and manage this sort of middle ground. Admittedly, I'm biased because this has worked for us, so I think its the perfect solution.  Seriously though, I think extremes are dangerous and don't meet all the complex needs of a family. Find a middle ground that meets as many needs as possible and then work with that. This is,of course, more work than either extreme, but worth it in the end. But then, isn't that true of many of the parenting practices we at MDC support -- more work but woth it?


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *yoopervegan*
Dd rarely (maybe once a week) asks for something different for a meal. Even more rarely refuses to eat. I do not think getting out of my chair once a week to grab something fast and easy is enough of a disruption to risk messing with dd's feelings about food.

First let me say that I appreciate your taking the time to answer.

Second, I consider you lucky (or, more accurately, karmically blessed) that your child seems so content with meals. My kids, and my daughter in particular, regularly, and by that I mean like almost every meal, no exaggeration, ask me "What are we having?" and when I tell them, they reply with "Yuck!" Even if it's her most favoritest thing in the whole world. Even if, five minutes ago when I asked her what she wanted to eat, that's what she told me. My daughter regularly tells me, "I want oatmeal!" and then, when the oatmeal is ready, says, "Yuck! I don't want that!" Some kids are just like that. My son does it because my daughter does, and my son, whom we call "Monkey-do," as in "Monkey see, Monkey do," wants to do exactly what my daughter does. For me, that's a large part of the reason that I basically tell my kids, eat what you are served. I plan the menu at the beginning of the week. My kids help me pick the meals, my kids help me decide which of the meals from the menu we will eat that day, my kids help me with the shopping and the meal prep (when they want to, which is not often, they'd rather make their own "meals" in their little kitchen while I am cooking in the big kitchen), and my kids still tell me "Yuck" when it's time to eat. But, oddly enough, when the food is put on the table, they usually eat it all! Sometimes they pick out things they don't like and eat the rest. Occasionally, they don't eat what's served and I offer them a PB&J instead. Sometimes they don't want that and they just don't eat. I guess they are not hungry in those instances. My kids have a lot of freedom in deciding their meals; breakfast and lunch, they choose. Snacks, I make those up in the morning when I am making my dh's lunch and I put them on the kids' shelf in the fridge. I serve three "Momma-scheduled" snacks a day (which the kids choose) and if they are hungry at other times, they get their own snacks from their snack shelf. They know in advance what's for dinner, and it's a meal that they have helped plan at the beginning of the week. It's something they like, because I don't serve meals that I know my kids don't like. I think that amount of their having control over what they eat is more than adequate! It's the same amount I have. Sometimes, when it's burrito night, I don't feel like eating burritos. But that's what I bought the ingredients for, so that's what we eat. We don't have enough money, nor do I have the time or inclination, nor do I believe it's necessary to, make four separate dinners for the four (soon to be five) separate people in our house based on their current whims, and I also think that allowing kids to dismiss the family meal with a figurative wave of the hand and choose something else just because that's what their whim is right now encourages a fickle attitude toward food. I think it engenders ungratefulness to have a full plate of food in front of you and to turn up your nose at it just because you'd prefer something different at the time. No choking food down here, as what I offer my kids are things they like, not things they detest.

I guess in some ways my Buddhist faith plays into things, too. Once, at the Dharma Center, we were talking about how highly realized lamas don't let their desires control their lives and emotional state and one of our lay leaders made the point that when monks come to teach in America, they eat what they are given by the sangha members. A monk may prefer (for example) tsampa, a traditional Tibetan food. It may be what he desires right now. But he gratefully eats what he is given and does not let his preferences and desires run away with him and make him unhappy about his meal. Also, when our teacher, His Eminence Garchen Rinpoche, was visiting last month, I noticed that when he was given a strawberry, he ate the entire strawberry, leaves and all. No waste. I was very impressed. That type of practice is available to all of us, not just to the highly realized, and I think that teaching children from the start that their transitory desires shouldn't rule their lives and that we should show gratefulness for our abundance by not being fickle and wasteful is a very good start on the road to enlightenment.

I'm not, obviously, trying to convince you I'm right. I'm just explaining where I come from. I think different things work for different families, and I don't like how the tone on this thread has sometimes been that those of us who don't follow some pre-determined AP/GD model of feeding our kids are somehow abusing or disrespectful of our kids. I think that there are many ways to cultivate a healthy relationship with food, and I appreciate a discussion about all those ways, not a dogmatic defense of the one right way (and I am not accusing you of doing that, but that often happens here at MDC).

Sorry, I got carried away with this post!









Namaste!


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

I am uncomfortable with you comparing this approach to that of someone who beats their kids. If a child does not complain because they fear reprisals, that is not a true "non complaint"

Here you are free to complain. There is no punishment in my house. Everyone is free to speak their mind. So a lack of complaining means something completely very very different and indicates a true lack of being bothered by a way of family operation.


----------



## LauraSusan (Jul 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*
Family meals are SO important to me.

Once we sit, I dont' want to get up!


This sounds so very controlling. Why are they so important? Why do you not want to get up? Why is this such a trigger? Are there deeper issues here?

Maybe some people just HAVE to have one area of their children's lives they control absolutely, and that allows them to be more relaxed about other things?

I have friends who are just nutty about bedtimes. When it's seven thirty, the entire world screeches to a halt, and they will not bend the rule for any reason, period. They have all kinds of theories as to why this is best for their children, but it seems to me that really, they just need to feel in total control of this one issue.

The admin assistant in my husband's department has this thing with photocopy paper, too. The entire office can be going wild, but don't anyone dare touch that paper. It is her one thing she controls absolutely.

Just a thought.


----------



## MamaBug (Jun 13, 2003)

I do not like the turn that this thread is now taking.
Rule one from the UA:
*1.Posting in a disrespectful, defamatory, adversarial, baiting, harassing, offensive, insultingly sarcastic or otherwise improper manner, toward a member or other individual, including casting of suspicion upon a person, invasion of privacy, humiliation, demeaning criticism, namecalling, personal attack, or in any way which violates the law.*

It is one thing to disagree with how someone decides to serve meals in ones home, it is quite another to compare them to known child abusers. I am going to ask everyone to please stay on topic and refrain from comparing and insinuating things about others.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LauraSusan*
Why are they so important? Why do you not want to get up?


Family meals are a joy in our house. A time for discussion and communication. A time to talk about our day and our world.

We have a busy family. This is our time together. Plus, I have wonderful memories of family meals in my own home.

My dd's are simply used to sitting down to a family meal. They know no one is going to moniter what they eat. If they don't like something they know they dont' have to eat it. They know that I will make sure that there is something on the table they like. It has never occurred to them to ask for anything else, (apparently because they have never done so) just like it never occurred to me.

As for not wanting to get up its becaue, I don't like to "hop up" generally during meals and also because I think it interupts the flow of our family discussion.


----------



## newmommy (Sep 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*
Family meals are a joy in our house. A time for discussion and communication. A time to talk about our day and our world.

I agree. I watch Leave it to Beaver and this is always the scene at their house. I use to say "I wish I could be like June"


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

I cook dinner 6 nights a week (Fr is pizza night) and we all sit down together, but I don't control food.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UUMom*
I cook dinner 6 nights a week (Fr is pizza night) and we all sit down together, but I don't control food.

True. This works for us as well- they serve themselves, I always serve something they like, desert is not tied into what you eat, I offer snacks regularly, but if they want an apple or something and it's not "time" they are welcome to an apple.


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*
As for not wanting to get up its becaue, I don't like to "hop up" generally during meals and also because I think it interupts the flow of our family discussion.

Well, I can relate to that at least. My MIL will fix a huge meal and sit down with her boys and husband to eat.. then they send her fetching after stuff the whole damn meal!







: Get it yourself, you are grown men!


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*
Here you are free to complain. There is no punishment in my house. Everyone is free to speak their mind. So a lack of complaining means something completely very very different and indicates a true lack of being bothered by a way of family operation.

Maya - You (and Ellyn Satter) describe your eating strategy as "I decide the what and when, and they decide if and how much".

I've been giving this some thought and based on your comments, I think your strategy would be more accurately described like this :

"I decide the when. My kids decide if and how much, and within reason, what."

I'm basing this on your comments that your children help you plan your meals and snack options, and that you always have something available at meals and snacks that they like.

Someone who truly decides the "what" might plop down brussels sprouts on the table (ewww) and say "That's what we're having - eat it or go hungry." I don't think that's what you do, am I correct?

So, I think your philosophy around eating is more gentle and less extreme that it initially sounded. I can't say I totally agree with it (I believe listening to hunger cues and then determining to eat based on that is the way to go), or that it's a solution I believe would work for my family, but it's a much more reasonable philosophy than the quote than that quote from Satter indicates.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KristiMetz*
Maya - You (and Ellyn Satter) describe your eating strategy as "I decide the what and when, and they decide if and how much".

I've been giving this some thought and based on your comments, I think your strategy would be more accurately described like this :

"I decide the when. My kids decide if and how much, and within reason, what."

I'm basing this on your comments that your children help you plan your meals and snack options, and that you always have something available at meals and snacks that they like.

Someone who truly decides the "what" might plop down brussels sprouts on the table (ewww) and say "That's what we're having - eat it or go hungry." I don't think that's what you do, am I correct?

So, I think your philosophy around eating is more gentle and less extreme that it initially sounded. I can't say I totally agree with it (I believe listening to hunger cues and then determining to eat based on that is the way to go), or that it's a solution I believe would work for my family, but it's a much more reasonable philosophy than the quote than that quote from Satter indicates.


Yes, one important part of the Satter approach is that there is ALWAYS something on the table that everyone likes. And it should be something fairly filling (bread, rice, potatoes). So if brussel sprouts are on the table (which all three would say eww about, but which my dh likes, we'd proabaly have a favorite salad that night on the table too so they could get their veggies that way)

And my dd's are definitely involved in meal planning. However with three kids they are each only getting big input into one day per week, but I do make sure that each of them has something on the table that they really like.

For example, last night was dd 2's meal plan which was worked out with me last Sunday. It was: Fillet Mignon, Baked Potato with cheese, sour cream and chives on the side, Cesar Salad, Creamed Spinach.

Now dd 1 does not really like Fillet. She had a baked potato filled with spinach and cheese and a Ceasar Salad. DD2 had suggested oven baked fries when we planned, but I decied that baked would be better because DD1 likes those much better and leads to a more nutritious meal for her. DD3 is not really into creamed spinanch and she does not love baked potatoes, but does not mind them either. She has about 3 helping of Fillet, A big salad and about 1/2 a potato with sour cream.

[I was paying more attention than usual because of this thread].

For dessert, I had baked "chocolate chip cookies as big as your head" Well they are not really THAT big, but that is what we call them!

Our discussion topic last night was "What do you think your teacher will be like for this comming year, and what are you most worried about"


----------



## Kerry (Aug 1, 2004)

Wow, nine pages! I'm glad to know I'm not the only one with food issues! :LOL


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*
For example, last night was dd 2's meal plan which was worked out with me last Sunday. It was: Fillet Mignon, Baked Potato with cheese, sour cream and chives on the side, Cesar Salad, Creamed Spinach.

Wow, Maya, will you come cook at my house? :LOL Sounds like a delicious meal, and puts to shame most of the meals I prepare!! (And up until now I was so proud of my meals.) I think your approach to meals makes complete sense. Our approach to meals is similar in that we always make sure that there is a food on the table that each person likes so that if they don't like one thing there are still other things they do like (sometimes the kids pick what to cook for some meals when we're planning for the week, other times I pick all meals with their tastes in mind). This way we're preparing only one meal but everyone has something healthy and yummy to eat-they decide how much they'll eat of which things. We never have struggles over food. We always eat together, and it's always a very enjoyable time for the whole family. No one feels forced or controlled, everyone leaves the table satisfied.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sledg*
Wow, Maya, will you come cook at my house? :


:LOL

Tonight is Teryiaki Turkey Breast, Rice with Mushrooms, Asparagus and Chopped Salad (Tomatoes, Cucumbers, Corn and Avacado), Berry Salad (Rasberries, blueberries, strawberries)

DD 3 will prob only eat the chopped salad and the fruit salad, (though last time we had the Teryiaki Turkey Breast she mentioned that it "smelled good" but was "not ready to try it yet" so you never know. But believe me she won't be "hysterical" and won't be "starving." She'll be too excited about and too full from her favorite dessert: Carmel Apple Pie, which just come out of my oven!


----------



## MamaBug (Jun 13, 2003)

I agree can you please come and cook for us, maybe my boys would eat more! CARMEL APPLE PIE!!! Please feel free to PM me the directions to making this for my apple pie loving dh!


----------



## LauraSusan (Jul 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*

DD 3 will prob only eat the chopped salad and the fruit salad, (though last time we had the Teryiaki Turkey Breast she mentioned that it "smelled good" but was "not ready to try it yet" so you never know. But believe me she won't be "hysterical" and won't be "starving." She'll be too excited about and too full from her favorite dessert: Carmel Apple Pie, which just come out of my oven!


Sounds very yummy.

But not very nutritionally sound. DD 3 will not be eating any protein.

This is the part of the strategy I don't get. If you know DD 3 isn't going to eat the turkey (or probably won't), why not just make her a peanutbutter sandwich or boil her an egg or provide her with some other protein you know she will eat?

I get that you respect her right not to eat what she doesn't like, but don't you have some obligation as a parent to make sure she is getting the protein she needs to grow?

If you used black bean flour to make the pie crust ( a great way to add protein to any flour based recipe), then just ignore this whole thing. :LOL


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LauraSusan*
Sounds very yummy.

But not very nutritionally sound. DD 3 will not be eating any protein.

This is the part of the strategy I don't get. If you know DD 3 isn't going to eat the turkey (or probably won't), why not just make her a peanutbutter sandwich or boil her an egg or provide her with some other protein you know she will eat?

I get that you respect her right not to eat what she doesn't like, but don't you have some obligation as a parent to make sure she is getting the protein she needs to grow?

If you used black bean flour to make the pie crust ( a great way to add protein to any flour based recipe), then just ignore this whole thing. :LOL

One thing that maya and I do probably agree on is that micromanaging every meal to try to make sure every meal is balanced is inadvisable and can set you up for heartache.

Over the course of a week, I'm sure DD3 gets a balanced diet, if given a variety of options to choose from.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LauraSusan*
Sounds very yummy.

But not very nutritionally sound. DD 3 will not be eating any protein.

This is the part of the strategy I don't get. If you know DD 3 isn't going to eat the turkey (or probably won't), why not just make her a peanutbutter sandwich or boil her an egg or provide her with some other protein you know she will eat?

I get that you respect her right not to eat what she doesn't like, but don't you have some obligation as a parent to make sure she is getting the protein she needs to grow?

No I don't have an obligation to make sure she gets protein at every meal.

Because as KristiMetz figured out there is absolutely no reason for her to need or for me to worry about her having protein at every meal. Over the course of a week or so, my dd's get a sound nutritional experience.

As I mentioned yesterday we had fillet mignon, and she had THREE nice big serving. And today for lunch she had an omlette. She has had a huge amount of protein this week so far. And tomorrow we are having her planned dinner, Fried chicken and rice and bean, so its protein city!

There is no reason to make her any special meal! It will just make her less likely to consider all the options on the table and decide for herself if she might be ready to try something new.


----------



## MamaBug (Jun 13, 2003)

That is what I try to do, make sure that over the course of a week they get everything they need.

You sound like an excellent cook! ARe you sure we can't all just eat at your house?


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaBug*
That is what I try to do, make sure that over the course of a week they get everything they need.

You sound like an excellent cook! ARe you sure we can't all just eat at your house?


Hmmm, sure! As long as you don't mind my approach to meals!


----------



## MamaBug (Jun 13, 2003)

Can't say that I do!


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaBug*
Can't say that I do!


Well thank you for everything MamaBug.

I appreciate you supporting me, even when if you don't totally agree with me!


----------



## MamaBug (Jun 13, 2003)

Your very welcome. The things is that I don't really disagree with you at all! I might not be as organized as you as to have a set schedule, but the basic principle you have is also the same one I tend to have. Maybe slightly different but for the most part more alike then not, kwim?

They way I see it everyone has different ways of doing things. And as long as our kids are happy and we are kind that is really all that matters. Every person has a different idea of how things should be but we all need to respect each other, period. I am not saying that we might learn a new way of doing things from others, but if our way works for us and everyone is happy then well why fight?


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

We can go on for pages discussing Satter. In the end we will still come back to the question of why a child can't have a cracker at 2pm instead of 3. We will still be wondering what to do if the child cries for the cracker or gets the cracker once our back is turned.

It is fine to have a routine.

Almost everyone left in this discussion has qualified their food routine with an exception clause for the child who is out of sorts, feeling cranky, and who for whatever reason will not go along with the routine that day.

Except Satter. That's the difference.

Maya I think it's fine for you to raise your kids in the way which seems best too you. If it's this important you discuss Satter, it would seem more respectful to answer GD related questions, rather than brush over them with a "never happens here".

What would you do if your child child *did* cry for snack earlier than the established time?

What would you do *if* , after you said 'no snack until 3', your child went over and got a cracker and ate it anyway?


----------



## MamaBug (Jun 13, 2003)

I guess this is where we differ, maya has made it clear that this thing does not happen in her home. I think it is getting rude to keep asking these same questions of her. IMO


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

I think it's also pretty clear that although many parents have some sort of system in place for making sure things happen in a way that they feel is orderly and consistent, very, very few parents are so rigid that they don't bend to meet circumstances. I don't see a contradiction in saying, for instance, "I follow Ellyn Satter's advice on feeding my kids but if circumstances indicated a need for temporary departure from that advice, I would do it."

I know I can't speak for Maya, but I have a hard time imagining any parent here at MDC standing over their "hysterical," "starving" child, waving a book in the air and saying, "I can't feed you now, Ellyn says I can't."

Namaste!


----------



## *LoveBugMama* (Aug 2, 2003)

Phew!! 18 pages!! Took me 3 days to read this thread.. :LOL

I have nothing new to add, but just wanted to say a big thank you to Maya44. I have really enjoyed reading all your posts in this thread.
I would not have managed to be so open, honest and polite for so many pages.









Thank you for sharing how your family does things.


----------



## MamaBug (Jun 13, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
I think it's also pretty clear that although many parents have some sort of system in place for making sure things happen in a way that they feel is orderly and consistent, very, very few parents are so rigid that they don't bend to meet circumstances. I don't see a contradiction in saying, for instance, "I follow Ellyn Satter's advice on feeding my kids but if circumstances indicated a need for temporary departure from that advice, I would do it."

I know I can't speak for Maya, but I have a hard time imagining any parent here at MDC standing over their "hysterical," "starving" child, waving a book in the air and saying, "I can't feed you now, Ellyn says I can't."

Namaste!









:


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
We can go on for pages discussing Satter. In the end we will still come back to the question of why a child can't have a cracker at 2pm instead of 3. We will still be wondering what to do if the child cries for the cracker or gets the cracker once our back is turned.

It is fine to have a routine.

Almost everyone left in this discussion has qualified their food routine with an exception clause for the child who is out of sorts, feeling cranky, and who for whatever reason will not go along with the routine that day.

Except Satter. That's the difference.

Maya I think it's fine for you to raise your kids in the way which seems best too you. If it's this important you discuss Satter, it would seem more respectful to answer GD related questions, rather than brush over them with a "never happens here".

What would you do if your child child *did* cry for snack earlier than the established time?

What would you do *if* , after you said 'no snack until 3', your child went over and got a cracker and ate it anyway?


No problem answering any question. And I would almost never say "no snack' until 3, Snacks are scheduled loosely between meals with more of a "no later than time" than a "not until' time. I gues if we ate lunch at 2:30, I would say "wait a while you just ate" And I might thus say at 6:00 p.m. "no more snacking" "we are eating dinner in an hour"

If my child took the food anyway, I would react as I usually do at any time they don't follow the rules: I would say "I said that you were not to have a snack now. I want everyone ready to eat dinner. Do not take something when I have asked you not to". That is it, nothing else would happen. And though I know it is hard to "hear" how this is done in writing, let me make it clear that my voice is not loud or angry.

As some of you may know, I am a pretty "rule oriented" mama. But these rules are only "backed up" by my expectations and my expressing those expectation to my children. The vast majority of the time, they meet my expectation, but when they don't I repeat them and express the expectation that they will be followed in the future.

And of course, if some crazy day or thing happened when we were off schedule because of illness or emergency, or something really unusual happened, we like any family, let go of routine.

Here is an example. My dd had lunch served at school. They brought in lunch from a pasta place and in hers they found a piece of metal! Gross, I know. When she got home she was going to need more than a snack because for good reason, she had not been able to eat lunch. So I gave her a new full meal right then and there!

But most of the time we stick to our routine. Excpetion maybe happen once every other month or so. And I would definitely not change food routines because a child was cranky in general. That is using food as too much of an emotional pacifier for me.


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*
I gues if we ate lunch at 2:30, I would say "wait a while you just ate" And I might thus say at 6:00 p.m. "no more snacking" "we are eating dinner in an hour"

Don't you feel that this approach disconnects the child from their feelings of hunger? Rather than eating when hungry, they are eating at an arbitrary time. When it's not "time" to eat, they don't. When it's "time" to eat, they do.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KristiMetz*
Don't you feel that this approach disconnects the child from their feelings of hunger? Rather than eating when hungry, they are eating at an arbitrary time. When it's not "time" to eat, they don't. When it's "time" to eat, they do.


If I really though they were hungry as opposed to eating so close to the meal time out of boredom, I would try to figure out what had happened and certainly decide that it was time for a snack in the eating right after a meal scenario.

In the one hour before dinner time, I would not hesitate to ask them to wait an hour.

If they really protested that they were hungry, I would do by best to move up the dinner time a little, but unless something really ususual would happen I would not give them a snack.

And almost always when I say this, they say "OK" and move on. They are not feeling overwhelmed with hunger and can easily wait.

If this happened repeatedly before dinner, I would try to adjust the timing of the last snack, or add another one.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

mamabug I do not think my questions were rude.

Maya I am glad you answered.

Quote:

If they really protested that they were hungry, I would do by best to move up the dinner time a little, but unless something really ususual would happen I would not give them a snack.
What are you afraid will happen if you give them a few carrot sticks to munch?

Quote:

If this happened repeatedly before dinner, I would try to adjust the timing of the last snack, or add another one.
It sounds like you need to feel completely in control of the food in your home. I am sure you put a lot of time into directing and planning meals and snacks. It doesn't reflect the kind of self discipline which I think is essential to GD.


----------



## mom2alexandcalynn (Aug 10, 2005)

i would have a basket on the table of foods that are healthy (fruit, ready to eat veggies, crackers, ect.) then i would lock up the other things you dont want them to eat. my son went through the dragging the chairs across the kitchen floor and climbing thing but has grown out of it. my parents used to bungee cord the fridge closed when we were little b/c we used to do that with the ice cream, lol. good luck


----------



## the_lissa (Oct 30, 2004)

I just wanted to add that I do not get hungry at the same time every day even when I was in a situation that my meals were at the same time every day. There are way more factors than time including how much you eat, how much activity you are engaged in, how much energy you burn, etc etc. I wouldn't expect my kids too either. I want them to learn when they are hungry by their bodies' signals, not by the clock.


----------



## MamaBug (Jun 13, 2003)

heartmama, I am sorry if you were offended but I am feeling for maya and that she is having the same questions asked over and over just in different ways. And just because her idea of GD does not meet your, or others standards does not mean it isn't GD.

Holy 18 pages Batman


----------



## monkey's mom (Jul 25, 2003)

I think for some of us, the issue is that rigid feeding schedules for small children fails to meet the most important criteria of Attachment Parenting: Responding to your child's needs.

If someone was here promoting CIO/sleep training and saying that it worked for their family and the kids were fine, etc. I think you would see some of the same questioning. And, if I recall correctly, Maya has been involved in discussions where she defended CIO and has repeatedly stated that she is not an AP mom.

I think support of practices that are fundamentally at odds with Attachment Parenting on MDC--and posters who are not practicing Attachment Parenting--should be questioned. Especially when some of the ideas being defended come very, very close to things espoused by folks like Ezzo--with the potential to harm real children should someone read this advice, think it is being given in the spirit of AP, and follow it.


----------



## MamaBug (Jun 13, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
If someone was here promoting CIO/sleep training and saying that it worked for their family and the kids were fine, etc. I think you would see some of the same questioning. And, if I recall correctly, Maya has been involved in discussions where she defended CIO and has repeatedly stated that she is not an AP mom.

I think support of practices that are fundamentally at odds with Attachment Parenting on MDC--and posters who are not practicing Attachment Parenting--should be questioned. Especially when some of the ideas being defended come very, very close to things espoused by folks like Ezzo--with the potential to harm real children should someone read this advice, think it is being given in the spirit of AP, and follow it.

Well I was/am not aware of any posts about CIO, which btw I am VERY against. I am judging this thread purely on what I have read her say here. She has never said that she would not feed a hungry child. Therefore I think it is unfair to keep questioning her.


----------



## monkey's mom (Jul 25, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaBug*
She has never said that she would not feed a hungry child.

Because she says *her* kids aren't hungry at other times and/or don't ask. And my point is, then WHY is there a rule in place? If I'm defending spanking as my discipline method, but assert that my children don't misbehave in a manner that warrants spanking, then why is spanking even in the picture? And as sure as the day is long, there are going to be kids who are hungry outside the set meal times and kids who are going to "misbehave." It doesn't do those children any good to have a one-size-fits-all approach.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaBug*
Therefore I think it is unfair to keep questioning her.

I don't think it's unfair. People are concerned that this is not a method that will help children or facilitate families becoming more attached. If posters choose not to respond, that's cool, but it is a public forum and those ideas have already been put up for discussion/criticism.


----------



## MamaBug (Jun 13, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
I don't think it's unfair.

And that is your right to think that it's not unfair. But I do think it is unfair and it is also my right to feel that way.

However this is not my *argument* for lack of a better word and I am bowing out. If maya feels she wants to reply and answer questions that is her choice.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
And my point is, then WHY is there a rule in place?

I think that has been more than adequately explained: Maya follows the methods of Ellyn Satter.

It seems that the same questions are being asked of Maya over and over in an attempt to trap her in an inconsistency or, like other posters have commented, in a manner that's similar to the way those who practice GD or TCS are sometimes questioned in an attempt to get them to admit that their theory is not perfect.

Namaste!


----------



## cmb123 (Dec 30, 2004)

Well, chiming in on the 18th page is almost pointless, but since I actually sat and read it all....

I think it takes a lot of organization to do things the way Maya does. I couldn't pull it off myself, but I notice it has many of the qualities I find important- family meals (which we always have), kids being part of planning, always something on the table that they like, no control over amount, treats not only as a result of parent controled amount of other food. I see nothing wrong with times being designated- some people really like that kind of predicablity, and organization. Her kids are happy, she is happy- she has made it clear that if an exception were really needed for some freak reason she would make it... why all the hubub?

Also, just wanted to add... I really don't think this thread (OP, not now) has ANYTHING to do with food, access to it, or lack thereof.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Wow, I was away and missed all the hubub. Thanks to all. I think this discussion is interesting and don't mind answering questions.

I do try to be a gentle mom.

I do not want to get into a big CIO discussion other than to say that I did have one daughter who did not tolerate being touched at all for the first year or so of life. (I had to bf without touching her for more than one minute to get her latched on or she would scream). We did let her cry by herself for a few minutes over a very short period of time. The other alternative was a child who would cry scream and turn red in our arms as she tried desperately to get away from our touch. It was a long time ago (10 years) and I still dont' know what else we could have done!

I did not consider discussion of what I had to do "advocating CIO" but I know others disagree and I think on this one, we just have to let it go.

And as for or way of feeding, unlike spanking or CIO, when I say it "works" for us, you have to understand that that means that my children are happy with it. No one can say the same for a child who is crying or fears that something bad will happen to them if they don't follow the plan.

You are free to speak your mind here. And believe me my kids do! But they have never once complained about how we schedule meals. In fact one of the few areas where my dd's tell me they can't beleive how good they have it is with meals.

Unlike some of the kids they know they NEVER have to try something unless they want to. They are never told to "take another bite" Or that they have to eat X to get Y.

Unlike others of their friends no food is off limits in our house. While I try to serve a generally healthy diet, we have pleanty of "junk" in our house. Chips, cookies, candy etc.. are part of our lives.

And most of all they really do love our family meals. Tonight's discussion is "What was the one thing you love most about our vacation and what was the one thing you did NOT like at all"


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

She has never said that she would not feed a hungry child.
well....

maya wrote:

Quote:

f they really protested that they were hungry, I would do by best to move up the dinner time a little, but unless something really ususual would happen I would not give them a snack.


Quote:

In the one hour before dinner time, I would not hesitate to ask them to wait an hour.

Mamabug and dharmamama~I think asking a 4 year old child to wait an hour, when they have said they are hungry, is beyond the scope of attachment parenting. I think the majority in this thread feel the same way.

Maya often promotes Satter here. She just promoted it on another food thread. I think she is quite aware that many, many of the parents here do not agree this is within the scope of what most understand to be the spirit of ap/gd.

If fairness is what you are concerned about, then let's look at both sides of it. How many people have to say Satter sounds un ap/gd before it seems unfair to derail a food thread with what is already known to be a controversial author? An author who doesn't make any claim to be ap/gd and who many feel is at starkly at odds with ap/gd?

I say this gently~the conversation does seem redundant. I too am wondering what the point may be in bringing up an author so many object too.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Mamabug and dharmamama~I think asking a 4 year old child to wait an hour, when they have said they are hungry, is beyond the scope of attachment parenting. I think the majority in this thread feel the same way.

I never said I would ask a four-year-old to wait an hour. I think that's too long, too, at least for my kids. What did I say that led you to believe I thought differently?

Anyway, nothing that Maya has said has led me to believe that she's a mean mommy who is too controlling of her kids. We all have different ways of relating to our kids, and every family's dynamics are different, and I'm not sure why so many people seem to have a hard time believing that Maya's methods work for her family.







Just because you wouldn't do it with your own kids doesn't make it evil.









Namaste!


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Maya I would like to address your last post.

I do not question that you are a loving parent.

I do not question that you strive to be a gentle parent.

I am questioning why you choose to discuss an author *here*, so often, when so many here have said to you 'this does not sound ap/gd at all'.I have favorite authors outside the scope of ap/gd. I recognize that and make sure the advice I give here incorporates the ideals *here*.

I realize you are going to say "Because it works for my kids", and I can only say respectfully, that doesn't make it ap/gd~and it doesn't address the very real controversy here around Satter.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

Anyway, nothing that Maya has said has led me to believe that she's a mean mommy who is too controlling of her kids. We all have different ways of relating to our kids, and every family's dynamics are different, and I'm not sure why so many people seem to have a hard time believing that Maya's methods work for her family. Just because you wouldn't do it with your own kids doesn't make it evil.
In all fairness, this is beside the point.

AP/GD doesn't encompass all choices. I think good parenting happens outside the ap/gd circle. I also think ap/gd is what we are talking about *here*. I think repeatedly promoting an author that so many object too is counter productive to these threads.

Quote:

never said I would ask a four-year-old to wait an hour. I think that's too long, too, at least for my kids. What did I say that led you to believe I thought differently?

You'll have to go back in thread. I know you did not agree with a one hour wait. You seemed to imply a question over what was being objected too~so I answered specifically, with the quotes I gave.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
I think repeatedly promoting an author that so many object too is counter productive to these threads.

Perhaps, but who decides what is ap/gd?

I think I am a pretty attached momma yet many here don't agree with certain ways I relate to my kids. Should I consider myself non-ap just because some MDCers, who don't know me and haven't observed me interacting with my family, disagree with something I describe?

Namaste!


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

Perhaps, but who decides what is ap/gd?
It's usually an evolution, which happens through many conversations and threads. It's happened here many times.

Quote:

Should I consider myself non-ap just because some MDCers, who don't know me and haven't observed me interacting with my family, disagree with something I describe?

If you describe something that a majority actively, repeatedly tell you is outside the scope of gd/ap~I think it would be a good idea to listen.

Dharmamama~not everything I believe fits inside the GD/AP box. I think very few people could say that every moment of their lives is about GD/AP.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Ps. I think the line between AP and discipline gets pretty blurred once kids are no longer infants. Dr. Sears is a good example. Some people love the discipline style he espouses in The Discipline Book. Others say it's not very gentle because he _does_ employ consequences and hold kids accountable. I don't think that AP and GD are one and the same. And, personally, I often feel that some people here at MDC push things to the extreme in terms of their interpretation of AP or GD and that those of us who are not as extreme or radical are then labeled non-AP or non-GD (although I have never claimed to be GD anyway). I'm not saying that in an accusatory way, either, because as I have said before in this thread, I'm well aware that I am not a radical momma. But I think that sometimes parents here are called out and picked on for minor infactions of the radical-parenting model.







And I don't think that MDC should be a place only for those most radical-minded.

Namaste!


----------



## lilyka (Nov 20, 2001)

jumpingi n late to say I think there is definitely a difference between AP and GD and you can certainly be one without the other (going either way)


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

I wanted to explain a bit more what I meant by "extreme" and "radical." By that I mean "narrowly interpreted." I guess I don't put a lot of stock into letting some "other" define whether what I do is AP or not because, from my vantage point, I see a lot of instances in which a thread starts off rather innocuously and, as the thread progresses and people get more entrenched in defending their positions, interpretations of "correct" parenting tend to get narrower and narrower as people bring up increasingly obscure possible scenarios and demand answers as to how those scenarios should be handled.

My personal opinion is that AP and GD are relationships, not methods.

Namaste!


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

dharmamama~if you don't even identify with GD, surely you can see how it might influence your perception of this forum?

Oh and don't worry about the radicals~I doubt any radical ap'ers would tell you they thought MDC was a very radical ap place.


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
I think repeatedly promoting an author that so many object too is counter productive to these threads.

Hmmm. Well, I agree that Satter doesn't seem very GD/AP. However, I don't feel that many parents here feed their children in a way that is GD/AP. Trying to "get" your child to eat certain things is not very GD/AP. Not allowing them to eat what their body tells them to, because it's not as healthy as you want it to be, is not very GD/AP (I don't mean YOU, I mean posters of some threads I've read before). That's just my opinion, I guess, but it's how I see things.

Yet, I see many many threads and posts on MDC about those things.

I guess from what maya says, I consider her overall style to be more GD/AP regarding food than many other people here. She at least doesn't try to get her children to eat certain foods. She lets them eat what they want, and what their bodies tell them they need. She doesn't try to control everything that goes into their mouths.

She does put them on a schedule, which I personally disagree with, but she tries to feed them often enough that they don't get hungry very often at least.

Anyway, popular or not, those are my thoughts.


----------



## lilyka (Nov 20, 2001)

19 pages ago there was an original post. i read the first two and last 2. just wanted to chime in with what I did in the original posters question.

1. supervision supervision supervision (anyone surprised that is my answer). If they take something out with no intention of eating it take it back and put it away and help them clean it up.
2. I put a child lock on the fridge. the only one who couldn't easily get past it was the baby. This wasn't to prevent them from eating but to slow them down enough so i could be aware. and to keep the baby out of the fridge. refridgerators are no place for babies to be playing anyway. it is dangerous.







: It didn't kill them or ruini thier fragile sense of self to ask for help wioth the fridge latch.
3. my kids always have to ask me for a snack. it is not about denying them food but just being aware and making sure they aren't eating the whatever we need for supper, chowing on crap food constantly or whatever. My oldest has sensory isues that have caused her to overeat since birth. She does need to be closely monitored.
4. I also really liked the idea of "no more of . . . . until grocery day" And to be completely honest I would probably not buy things they had a habit of wasting. If ice cream is a target is it really that important to buy ice cream? why stress it when you can just skip it. if they kept wasting it I would just leave it at the store from now on. I just wouldn't be motivated to buy stuff likely to become garbage or cause a conflict. And I don't mind rewards so a reward for following the food rules would be to reintroduce some of that fun food again as tehy showed they could be responsible with it.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Lilyka~Ap without gd would be the Pearls. Breastfeeding, homebirth, co sleeping, no vax, sling wearing, lots of bonding. And the occasional spanking starting at about 4 months.

Obviously ap/gd together create something wholly different.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
dharmamama~if you don't even identify with GD, surely you can see how it might influence your perception of this forum?

Of course I can. But 1) This is the Parenting Issues, not the GD, forum; 2) MDC is a NFL website, and there are many ways to be NFL without necessarily being GD; and 3) Just because I am "not" GD doesn't mean that I am "anti" GD. I don't think I really am much of anything because I don't parent by any sort of book but my own, and my bag of parenting tricks is not limited by adherence to one philosophy. So I can often appreciate both sides of the coin, which maybe those who are staunchly in one camp or the other can't.

Namaste!

Ps. Read on to see how I explained "radical."


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Lilyka~Ap without gd would be the Pearls.

Yes, because you either GD or you beat your kids.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Dharmama~well, Satter is discussed in the GD forum too







And I think the spirit of MDC is consistent across all the parent topic forums.

NFL can definitely be practiced without ap or gd. It is very common for religious sects to practice homebirth, no vax, organic living, breastfeeding, etc.

I am sure MDC would look very different if it was only NFL or only a positive discipline forum.

edited to add we cross posted~

Quote:

Yes, because you either GD or you beat your kids.
Statistically, something like 92% of parents in the US use spanking as part of their parenting. Outside of GD or positive discipline, it is *not* a very far jump to using spanking. I agree not all spankers "beat" kids in the Pearl sense. However I think outside of GD, you are going to find parents spanking a short way down any imagined "discipline spectrum".


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Satter isn't GD by any stretch of my imagination. Not for us.

I accept that some readers of MDC are not GD, but are fine parents.

However. This family is GD.

I cannot support behaviors that are not.

I don't think other folks are actually 'abusive', but they *are* doing things that would *never* feel right for our family.

Dh and I have been together for over two decades, and we decided from the get-go that our lives would look like something *much* different from what the 'regular' world sees as OK.

We are all equals here and the children know it, show it, and are lovely.

We could not be more blessed. We do accept others have a diferent view.

We don't nec agree with that view, but there is nothing we can do about that.

But we know we won't go down this control road.

Edited to fix pathetic spelling typos.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Somewhere here someone asked why I advocate Satter on a GD site.

Its' because I believe that for many faimlies, if they try it, especailly if its what they start with, they will be feeding their children in a very gently way without power struggles and have healthier and less "afraid of new food" eaters.

I think that having children always snacking at will and never sitting down to a meal l creates less healthy eaters. The underying reserach by Satter shows this. And I never said that I would tell a child who it truly hungry to wait an hour. A child asking for a snack is not necessarily hungry. If they ask for a snack and you say "well wait til dinner, its in an hour" and they say "Ok" and are not at all upset, I don't think that you have a child who is really horribly hungry. As i have said, if they were really hungry I would move up dinner a little, maybe 30 minutes or so. If they were truly upset, (which just never happened, I'd have to do something different, but I would not make this a habit. Instead I'd try to do better snack planning so it did not happen.

What I found was that by saying to my kids when they were young, "oh, we are not going to have a snack now, we will have lunch/dinner in a little while" instead of handing them a snack every single time they asked, we met my goals of us all eating family meals.

By having a set meal on the table and not jumping up to make them a special meal because they did not eat the protein at that one meal, they felt that I believed them to be competent to choose what to eat from what was on the table and to try them when they were ready. I think that this made them more likely to decide on their own to try new foods and less likely to feel worried in any situation where they were served a meal. Satter's reserach definintely shows that it makes kids more likely to try new things faster.

My kids never got hysterical or even mildly upset by these things. They never asked "Can't I have X instead?"

I think its like many of you who don't bring into your house foods you consider to be unhealthy. Your kids are not (I assume) screaming and crying for some product like Cheezzee Doodles (or some such product whose bag states in small print "does not contain actual cheese") at home. They are not saying "But I want CHEEzzE DOODLES now!" They just accpet that this is how their family eats. They are probably even proud of it. Mine are. They love their family meals. They feel sorry for people who have to eat veggies to get a cookie. They roll their eyes (privately) when we are with friends who keep handing their kids cups of goldfish and juice during the day and then wonder why they never eat anything at meals.

Many of the people I know who have tried it have found the same. Like I said my SIL who is very AP tried it. If her kids had complained AT ALL, she would have dropped it. But they didn't. They loved the fact that they no longer had to eat "at least something healthy' to get dessert. When they asked for a snack an hour before dinner and she said "you know what we are having homemade pizza for dinner, its in the oven and will be ready in twenty minutes" they said "OK". They were used to reaching for a snack when they were bored. They were not upset about being reminded that a real meal was comming. I know if they had said "But I am sooooo hungry, I need to eat now" SIL would have given them a snack immediatly. But because she had scheduled snacks during the day they never said it because they were not in fact terribly hungry.

I think that for people who are in a power struggle over food and/or are struggling with a really poor eater, Satter's methods solve these problems. That is why i bring them up. For those who have none of these struggles, I understand that this is not the right way for you. But my idea is, if you do have these problems why not try them and see if your children feel deprived or unhappy.

This is not like advocating spanking. Obviously no child is going to like that. Do you really believe that no child is going to be happy with a method of feeding like this?????


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*

his is not like advocating spanking. Obviously no child is going to like that. Do you really believe that no child is going to be happy with a method of feeding like this?????


Happy is good. happy is not the least bit bad.

But we are going for freedom, absolute respect and---dare i say it???--- equality.

At this point, we are looking at a larger picture of what we want for our kids.


----------



## Dechen (Apr 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*

I think that for people who are in a power struggle over food and/or are struggling with a really poor eater, Satter's methods solve these problems. That is why i bring them up. For those who have none of these struggles, I understand that this is not the right way for you. But my idea is, if you do have these problems why not try them and see if your children feel deprived or unhappy.

I have to agree with Maya here, and my family operates more like UUMom's and Heartmama's. I don't schedule food, and I don't restrict food. I am very much an advocate of eating when you are hungry, stopping when you are full, and appreciating the food you eat.

On the other hand, so many people have issues with food. I see it in my friends - both Apish and non Apish - the impulse to control, cajole, and force a child to eat what the parent considers appropriate.

I find Satter a much better alternative to force. Even if that force is manipulation or pressure.

I would much rather a parent follow Satter than bribe a child to eat, or harrass a kid about trying "Just one bite." The idea behind Satter (and I have one of her books) is that kids eat frequently enough that they will never go truly hungry.

I myself have low blood sugar issues, and there are times I need to eat NOW. Not in 15 minutes, and not in an hour. A child with similar issues would not do well to wait an hour until dinner. I have to trust that a reasonable parent following Satter's philosophy would take their children's needs into account.

So - while I do not follow Satter, I don't hesitate to suggest her books to people I know. I think Satter offers a decent alternative to the common approach to food.


----------



## cmb123 (Dec 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UUMom*
But we are going for freedom, absolute respect and---dare i say it???--- equality.

other than the fact that we eat our main 3 meals at the table together, my kids have the ability to snack whenever they want to. I don't think it makes them any more "free" than if there was a scheduled snack coming at regular intervals. I doubt that they respect me or the food anymore. I don't really get the equality thing. I buy it, I prepare it, I serve it a lot of the time. How is that equal, or "more equal"..I doublt Maya's sitting there eating a delectable snack and smacking her lips telling the kids they have to wait until dinner. From what has been said, her whole family eats this way. Sounds equal to me.
Different strokes for different folks.
Take what you can and leave the rest behind. Simple.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Statistically, something like 92% of parents in the US use spanking as part of their parenting. Outside of GD or positive discipline, it is *not* a very far jump to using spanking.

I wonder where this statistic came from, because a lot of my friends are not AP but I only know one person who spanks her kids.

Namaste!


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dechen*
I myself have low blood sugar issues, and there are times I need to eat NOW. Not in 15 minutes, and not in an hour. A child with similar issues would not do well to wait an hour until dinner. I have to trust that a reasonable parent following Satter's philosophy would take their children's needs into account.

So - while I do not follow Satter, I don't hesitate to suggest her books to people I know. I think Satter offers a decent alternative to the common approach to food.


Yes, you can rest asssured that Satter discusses how a child with diabetes or other medical conditions that affect feeding may need some modifications to a "no snacking constantly throughout the day rule"

But she still STRONGLY recomends the most important part, not forcing a child to eat. With a child that MUST eat for health reasons, she urges parents to place expectations on a child that they will eat something when it is necessary but to try to be as low key about it as possible.

My friend Amy told me that Satter's philosophy was very helpful with her diabetic dd, and made Amy less anxious about feeding her.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*
Yes, you can rest asssured that Satter discusses how a child with diabetes or other medical conditions that affect feeding may need some modifications to a "no snacking constantly throughout the day rule"

But she still STRONGLY recomends the most important part, not forcing a child to eat. With a child that MUST eat for health reasons, she urges parents to place expectations on a child that they will eat something when it is necessary but to try to be as low key about it as possible.

My friend Amy told me that Satter's philosophy was very helpful with her diabetic dd, and made Amy less anxious about feeding her.

I don't disagree with any of this at all. In fact, i am not disagreeing with anyone at this point. Just sharing my world.

It's hard to ignore a discussion that is 19 screens long.









ETA--Oops, now it's 20.


----------



## Britishmum (Dec 25, 2001)

This is a fascinating discussion. Nothing like a discussion about food to get the opinions going.









Maya, your input always interests me and challenges me to think. We don't do things the same way as you, but I respect that you consider the wider issues in your family (I find it hard to deal with people who just do things because 'that's how it's done' or 'that's the way I was raised')

Maybe this is a little off topic, but I'm wondering about the notion that a family has a way of life, and everyone is happy about it, which we know because nobody complains.

That seems logical.

However, if the decision to have this family way of life comes from the top and is controlled by the top, surely the lack of complaints proves nothing. Because you can't alter the structure anyway, so complaining would be pointless. Plus, you don't know any different, so you accept.

Does this prove that something is right?

I understand that in a particular situation you would not deny your child food, and that all your children have input etc etc. But the basic structure is the parents', not the children's. So they know that there would be no point in complaining. What would that achieve, if the family is structured this way and they know it's not going to change, not without a major revolution, anyway. Or quite probably, they feel no need to complain because they are happy about the arrangement. I'm not insinuating that they are unhappy but accept their lot, but I do wonder if complaince can be taken as an indicator that something is working.

Does complaince mean that this is best for their emotional development? Or their attitudes towards food? If children are managed so carefully, are they developing the best skills in independence and self-direction?

This is a wider issue than food, although I do think that food is one of the most important areas where we should trust children and give them maximum independence (along of course with some guidance). In every area of our children's lives, I believe that we should trust them and allow them to make independent choices. That, I believe, will set them up for a better future than superficial 'achievements' such as being an adventurous eater.

On a personal and anecdotal front, I have been reflecting on my own upbringing and attitudes to food. We certainly didnt have much freedom about when we ate, although we were well nourished and never hungry. We didnt complain, and I guess I was 'happy' about the arrangement. But I certainly ended up with food issues, which I have battled my entire life.

On the other hand, I had a good friend whose mother allowed far greater freedom and independence to her children over food. I absolutely loved being at her house, and I couldnt understand why her kids didnt pig out on all the available food! But they just didnt. When I went for a day, you bet, I made the most of it. The food wasnt very different to what I was given at home - but it was _available_ to me when I wanted it.

However, they later moved home and I then started visiting for weeks at a time. I was amazed that whenever I visited, I lost weight, but without ever intending too. Meanwhile, when I was at home, I struggled daily in this ridiculous circle of dieting and binging. Sneaked food, hid it, etc, because I was ashamed.

The other thing that seems significant to me is that she raised daughters with no food issues at all. They all have a healthy attitude to food. Ironically, she was often criticised (behind her back of course, but in front of us kids) for being 'disorganised' and permissive, because she didnt have any firm meal rules or arrangements. So how come her kids grew up with a far healthier relationship wiht food than the rest of us with such socially acceptable mothers?


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Britishmum*

On the other hand, I had a good friend whose mother allowed far greater freedom and independence to her children over food. I absolutely loved being at her house, and I couldnt understand why her kids didnt pig out on all the available food! But they just didnt. When I went for a day, you bet, I made the most of it. The food wasnt very different to what I was given at home - but it was _available_ to me when I wanted it.
The other thing that seems significant to me is that she raised daughters with no food issues at all. They all have a healthy attitude to food. Ironically, she was often criticised (behind her back of course, but in front of us kids) for being 'disorganised' and permissive, because she didnt have any firm meal rules or arrangements. So how come her kids grew up with a far healthier relationship wiht food than the rest of us with such socially acceptable mothers?

Interesting. Not surprising, but interesting.

My brother brought my kids to the beach yesterday at 4:45. I invited him over for supper (we eat late, esp in summer and had a friend driving in fromNYC coming to join us, so we finally ate supper at about 8:30). But i digress. Anyway, my brother brought the children home at about 7:00. He had stopped and bought them ice cream cones at a small delish local (open only in usmmer) indie place near the beach. This is fine, and my brother knows it is fine. My six yr old bounded in with half a a small ice cream cone left. "I am thinking that I want to save room for supper. I am going to put this in the freezer until tomorrow."

To me, that's brilliant and emotioally healthy. And I do think it's because there is no food control at all going on. I hope she can maintain this healthy attitude about food all of her life.

Of course, she had an ice cream cone for breakfast before she even had her oatmeal. :LOL


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Never mind.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

If your nephews trully had equal access to food, they would not need to whine for treats. They could just have them. I think personality is an issue, but unless there is a medical issue, children with access might binge occassionaly, but would soon come to a balance as they better understand their body signals. I know others do not agree with that as they fear children are without self control and parents need to control for them.

I don't agree with that, obviously, for 'normally' growing, healthy children.

You need not take offense at my opinions, as whatever you are doing for you family is working, and what our family is doing is working. I am not offended by your comments in any way. Not agreeing and being offended or upset isn't the same.

ETA-- hey-- you deleted your whole message. What i got in my email & replied to, and what's now above is 'never mind' . :LOL Oh well, that's pretty much my life. Talking to myself.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UUMom*
If your nephews trully had equal access to food, they would not need to whine for treats. They could just have them.

Unless they are out of them because they ate them all the same day they were bought or they are at my house, where we don't really serve treats.

Quote:

ETA-- hey-- you deleted your whole message. What i got in my email & replied to, and what's now above is 'never mind' . :LOL Oh well, that's pretty much my life. Talking to myself.








Yeah, I pretty much decided that the conversation is not worth continuing just because it's going round and round and not much progress is being made any more. I'm not offended by your views. I just wish that when people here stated that they do something that is not regarded as AP/GD by the more vocal MDC members that people could just accept that there are different strokes for different folks and not keep trying to punch holes in other people's theories. I feel like the less-gd people here are a lot more accepting of different approaches than the more staunchly gd people are.

But, I don't really take it personally because I don't come to MDC to learn how to parent. I just come for good conversation.










Namaste!


----------



## monkey's mom (Jul 25, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
I think that has been more than adequately explained: Maya follows the methods of Ellyn Satter.

Right, I know. But, what I'm trying to get to is that parents who are focusing on trust and attachment would be better off following their children's hunger cues.

Lots and lots and lots of people feed babies and children on a set schedule that has little or nothing to do with the child's needs. There is lots of encouragement "out there" to do just that. However, on an AP board, I think it's really important to critique those methods.

Attachment Parenting at it's core is about meeting your child's needs, yes? What is a clearer need than hunger?

And it worries me when people (especially those who self-identify as "not AP") endorse/promote following something (schedules, authors, experts, etc.) that leads people AWAY from listening to and following their children's needs--away from attachment.

I'm all for family meals--we do them here. I'm all for regular snacks throughout the day--we do that here, too. I'm also sure that Maya's family is happy and that she is a gentle and good mom--I've read some wonderful ideas from her.

I'm just not for methods that seem to be more about devotion to the method or ensuring some future outcome for the child, than about meeting the child's needs here and now.


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
Right, I know. But, what I'm trying to get to is that parents who are focusing on trust and attachment would be better off following their children's hunger cues.

But people, including children, do not always eat because of genuine hunger cues. Sometimes they are just bored, or triggered by an advertisement, want to eat for comfort, or even just seeking attention.

Asking a child to wait for dinner, if it is not that far away, could help the child to learn to recognise when she is really hungry.


----------



## monkey's mom (Jul 25, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *choli*
But people, including children, do not always eat because of genuine hunger cues. Sometimes they are just bored, or triggered by an advertisement, want to eat for comfort, or even just seeking attention.

I would consider all of those valid needs by my child. When my baby wants to nurse for comfort I don't deny him that. Why would I trust my newborn more than I would my 3 yr. old, you know?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *choli*
Asking a child to wait for dinner, if it is not that far away, could help the child to learn to recognise when she is really hungry.

Asking isn't problematic--as long as they're allowed to say 'no.'

But, I don't think making people hungry helps them recognize when they're hungry any faster than hunger just occurring on it's own. I think letting them experience eating for a wide range of reasons (if they want) would better help them understand their hunger or desire for food.


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
I would consider all of those valid needs by my child. When my baby wants to nurse for comfort I don't deny him that. Why would I trust my newborn more than I would my 3 yr. old, you know?

Asking isn't problematic--as long as they're allowed to say 'no.'

But, I don't think making people hungry helps them recognize when they're hungry any faster than hunger just occurring on it's own. I think letting them experience eating for a wide range of reasons (if they want) would better help them understand their hunger or desire for food.

I disagree. I think mindless snacking and eating for comfort are major contributors to the American obesity problem. I prefer for my kids to THINK about whether they are really hungry or not.


----------



## monkey's mom (Jul 25, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *choli*
I think mindless snacking and eating for comfort are major contributors to the American obesity problem.

No, I agree. But, how many of us Americans have been raised without food controls and in families who fed us on demand? And who, furthermore, comforted us in a way that AP promotes? I don't know for sure, but based on conventional wisdom regarding kids and food and "spoiling babies", I'd guess not many. I think scarcity early on (real or contrived) would definitely make someone seek to create abundance later--food, comfort, whatever.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *choli*
I prefer for my kids to THINK about whether they are really hungry or not.

Absolutely! But, feeding and encouraging thinking can happen at the same time. I think having a kid eat out of boredom--and feel what that feels like vs. eating out of hunger--is more of a learning opportunity to discern eating for hunger or other reasons.

I guess I see this as more of passing phase in kids--not, something neurotic like what many adults do.


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
No, I agree. But, how many of us Americans have been raised without food controls and in families who fed us on demand?
SNIP
I guess I see this as more of passing phase in kids--not, something neurotic like what many adults do.

I was raised without much food controls. So were my sisters. My sisters are obese, comfort eating, constant snackers, and have been since they were small children. I have never been overweight, rarely snack, and never comfort eat. I would rather have my kids turn out to be mindful of what they eat and why.

By the way, my sisters would tell you that they have no idea why they are fat and i am thin - that we eat the same amount. They would tell you this while eating a large bag of chips and not even notice they had eaten the whole bag.


----------



## the_lissa (Oct 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *choli*
But people, including children, do not always eat because of genuine hunger cues. Sometimes they are just bored, or triggered by an advertisement, want to eat for comfort, or even just seeking attention.

Asking a child to wait for dinner, if it is not that far away, could help the child to learn to recognise when she is really hungry.


How is waiting to eat at an arbitrary time going to help them recognize hunger?


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *the_lissa*
How is waiting to eat at an arbitrary time going to help them recognize hunger?









:


----------



## cmb123 (Dec 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
Why would I trust my newborn more than I would my 3 yr. old, you know?

Because newborns nurse for many other reasons besides hunger.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *the_lissa*
How is waiting to eat at an arbitrary time going to help them recognize hunger?

I don't know that it will teach them to recognize hunger per se, but it does help them to recognize that every whim does not have to be met at the second they have it, sometimes you just have to wait a few. That's life. If I ate every single time I thought to myself "I'm hungry" I'd be in a very unhealthy physical state. It's OK to have to wait a few minutes until dinner is done cooking. Of course there are times when you just can't or shouldn't wait- NOT ONE PERSON HERE HAS ARGUED WITH THAT.


----------



## the_lissa (Oct 30, 2004)

Whoa why the caps.

I didn't say anything about waiting or not for food. I just asked how it teaches a child to know when it s/he is hungry. If dinner was going to be ready in a few minutes, I would ask dd to wait too. I just think it is silly to say that asking someone to wait teaches them to recognize hunger. It might teach them patience or other things, but not hunger.


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *choli*
I was raised without much food controls. So were my sisters. My sisters are obese, comfort eating, constant snackers, and have been since they were small children. I have never been overweight, rarely snack, and never comfort eat. I would rather have my kids turn out to be mindful of what they eat and why.

By the way, my sisters would tell you that they have no idea why they are fat and i am thin - that we eat the same amount. They would tell you this while eating a large bag of chips and not even notice they had eaten the whole bag.

I have met very few people who were actually not raised with food controls. Most people have at least some portion of their diet dictated by their parents "for their own good". If you really liked chocolate chip cookies, did your mom make sure that there were ALWAYS chocolate chip cookies in a cabinet for you? If not, then you were not allowed to truly dictate what and when and how much you ate.

You sound very judgmental of your sisters. I don't know their situation, but there are many people whose metabolism has been ruined by constant diet/weight gain yo-yoing, and consequently eat a normal amount but are still overweight.

However, whether or not that's the case, your critical attitude towards them sounds like a different issue than the one here.

You stated previously that making a child wait for dinner was going to help them recognize their hungry. The opposite is true. We would not all be hugely obese if we ate when we were hungry; we would be the healthy, normal adults we're meant to be.

Our job is to feed children what and when they want, and to not screw them up by equating food with love, or comfort, or anything besides hunger and the joy of meeting the needs of your body.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KristiMetz*
Most people have at least some portion of their diet dictated by their parents "for their own good". If you really liked chocolate chip cookies, did your mom make sure that there were ALWAYS chocolate chip cookies in a cabinet for you? If not, then you were not allowed to truly dictate what and when and how much you ate.


Nobody can truly do this. Is this what we require to be physically and emotionally healthy? There is probably no one in the world who can have exactly what they want all the time. Even as an adult, I can not dictate what and when and how much I eat all the time. I don't think that's necessary for me or for my children to be healthy.

Namaste!


----------



## monkey's mom (Jul 25, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cmb123*
Because newborns nurse for many other reasons besides hunger.

Right, that's my point. Let me try again:

Plenty of people state with absolute certainty that nursing a newborn on demand will lead to obesity, spoiling, manipulation, a mom who is "used as a pacifier," failure to thrive, colic, adults with food issues, etc.

But AP moms trust their babies cues and respond to them. The notion that the baby is doing anything other than trying to meet it's basic needs for food or comfort is outside the realm of this trust.

But then somewhere along the lines this changes--and I'm not sure why.

Suddenly, the same baby who we trusted to take as much milk as it needed or to satisfy its sucking needs to contentment or eat at 3 am, becomes a toddler/child and can no longer be trusted to take as much food as he/she needs when he/she needs.

Scheduled feedings make no more sense to me at 1 month than at 3 yrs. I still trust older children to take what they need when they need it.

So to me, people who endorse scheduled feeding perpetuate this mistrust. That mistrust undermines what we are trying to do here: respond to our child's needs.


----------



## Kerry (Aug 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
But then somewhere along the lines this changes--and I'm not sure why.

Suddenly, the same baby who we trusted to take as much milk as it needed or to satisfy its sucking needs to contentment or eat at 3 am, becomes a toddler/child and can no longer be trusted to take as much food as he/she needs when he/she needs.

Well there are other issue at play. For one, there is a nutritional difference between breastmilk and ho-hos.

There is also a logistical issue in most families. Sitting down to meals together is important in some families, and that can't happen if everyone is grazing all the time., and there needs to be some schedule to ensure that everyone arrives when the food is prepared.

In our home there are usually foods available always, (such as fruits). If it is 10 minutes before a meal is being placed down I don't think it unreasonable to ask anyone (child or adult) to wait, and help facilitate getting the meal to the table faster by helping because usually everyone is hungry. There have been times that my oldest child starts to serve himself before all the food is even on the table. I feel that he needs to see that since everyone is hungry we need to work together so everyone can eat quickly.

It does seem like food issues are universal. I wonder why that is?


----------



## cmb123 (Dec 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
Right, that's my point. Let me try again:

Plenty of people state with absolute certainty that nursing a newborn on demand will lead to obesity, spoiling, manipulation, a mom who is "used as a pacifier," failure to thrive, colic, adults with food issues, etc.

True, except NONE of them have been on this thread, and most not on this forum at all.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
But AP moms trust their babies cues and respond to them. The notion that the baby is doing anything other than trying to meet it's basic needs for food or comfort is outside the realm of this trust.

But then somewhere along the lines this changes--and I'm not sure why.

Because children grow, and needs change.


----------



## monkey's mom (Jul 25, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kerry*
Well there are other issue at play. For one, there is a nutritional difference between breastmilk and ho-hos.

:LOL Yeah, but there is a world of choices between breastmilk and ho-hos.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kerry*
Sitting down to meals together is important in some families, and that can't happen if everyone is grazing all the time., and there needs to be some schedule to ensure that everyone arrives when the food is prepared.

We're able to combine grazing and family meals in our house without issue. I can't imagine we're the only ones. ? We're not stuffing our faces all day (well, most days!), just having food available and nibbling at will. In fact, most of our snacks are family snacks. When people want to be together, they will--hunger or not.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kerry*
If it is 10 minutes before a meal is being placed down I don't think it unreasonable to ask anyone (child or adult) to wait,

I don't either. But people are talking about an hour. And not asking.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cmb123*
True, except NONE of them have been on this thread, and most not on this forum at all.

No, but if you substitute 'nursing a newborn' with 'feeding a child', there have been quite a few people in this thread predicting similar outcomes. Doesn't that seem strange to anyone else? Maybe it's just me...

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cmb123*
Because children grow, and needs change.

Of course, but why should the VALIDITY of those needs be called into question? Just because they are different and evolving, doesn't make them any less real.


----------



## Kerry (Aug 1, 2004)

I can agree with everything that you are saying Monkey's Mom, but what strikes me is that I don't seem to know anyone without food issues.

An hour is al really long time to wait, and if someone was forcing me to wait when food was available I would be really grumpy. I would even act out and end up in time out.









I keep remembering what a great Mama said a long time ago in another thread about how if sugar and tv were truely addictive them everyone who had free access to them would be addicted. I just can't let that though go because I don't agree with it.

I am an adult with MANY years of EXPERIENCED eating, and I still struggle to connect that eating sugar and processed foods leads to a crappy feeling. I don't see my kids making that connection, and I wonder when (if ever) it happens.

I have free access to alcohol and I am not addicted, but a great many people are.

I definitly see great value in allowing children (people) to learn to self regulate, and I KNOW that responding to internal cues of hunger are vital.

I know that I am rambling, but here is another example. One of my children will adamatly deny that he is hungry and doesn't not want me to make him a sandwich. As soon as things are cleared away he will say that he is now hungry. This is not a hunger issue but (possibly) a control or independance issue. I will not make him a sandwich but he is free to make one for himself. Sometimes we are on our way out the door right after lunch (I do let him know that info as I am making the lunch) and then he needs to wait until we get back.

And who is Sader anyway?


----------



## monkey's mom (Jul 25, 2003)

Kerry, this site has lots of stories about kids w/out food issues: http://sandradodd.com/food. Might be interesting to you...I love it!


----------



## cmb123 (Dec 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*

We're able to combine grazing and family meals in our house without issue. I can't imagine we're the only ones. ?

No, you're not the only ones, we do too. I don't have any restrictions as to when the kids eat either, and we have all of our "main" meals together every day. It's never a problem.

I just can see how for some families a more scheduled approach might work, if there is some willingness to be flexible if needed.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
Of course, but why should the VALIDITY of those needs be called into question? Just because they are different and evolving, doesn't make them any less real.

I think it's more about ability. A newborn can't an shouldn't wait at all to nurse- but an 11 year old can wait a few minutes till dinner is ready. Again, babies nurse for other reasons than hunger. 11yo's (and grown ups!) often eat for other reasons too. That's not usually a great idea, and a habit I hope my kids don't fall into.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kerry*
I am an adult with MANY years of EXPERIENCED eating, and I still struggle to connect that eating sugar and processed foods leads to a crappy feeling. I don't see my kids making that connection, and I wonder when (if ever) it happens.

It does happen. I happen to be someone who is very food sensitive, but it took me until adulthood to understand it was food making me ill (years, and years of Dr. visits, none of them ever bother to look at food







, I finally figured it out by doing some reading ). Anyway, because of my experience, I have always talked to my kids about how food makes them feel. They are all very good at recognizing bad feelings associated with food, and often refuse certain foods because they know it'll make them feel crappy.


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
I would consider all of those valid needs by my child. When my baby wants to nurse for comfort I don't deny him that. Why would I trust my newborn more than I would my 3 yr. old, you know?

Asking isn't problematic--as long as they're allowed to say 'no.'

But, I don't think making people hungry helps them recognize when they're hungry any faster than hunger just occurring on it's own. I think letting them experience eating for a wide range of reasons (if they want) would better help them understand their hunger or desire for food.

I don't see being bored as a valid need for a snack. Same for being triggered by an ad. If my kid wants comfort or attention, I would rather give them comfort and attention than a snack.

Of course they are allowed to say no, they don't want to wait. The important thing is that they thing about whether food is what they really want.


----------



## monkey's mom (Jul 25, 2003)

But, it sounds like you're doing the thinking for them. You've already experienced this stuff and made up your mind about it--which is great, but why can't we trust kids to have the same experiences and make up their own minds, too?

And I just can't see how catching an ad for microwave popcorn triggering a "Hey, that sounds good right about now, let's make some." isn't a valid reason to go into the kitchen and pop some up and enjoy.


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
But, it sounds like you're doing the thinking for them. You've already experienced this stuff and made up your mind about it--which is great, but why can't we trust kids to have the same experiences and make up their own minds, too?

And I just can't see how catching an ad for microwave popcorn triggering a "Hey, that sounds good right about now, let's make some." isn't a valid reason to go into the kitchen and pop some up and enjoy.









Well, we all have our hot button issues, which is probably why "triggered by an ad" came to my mind as a "not valid" reason for snacking. I try very hard to teach my kids not to respond in a Pavlovian way to advertising, whether for food or for consumer goods.

My kids can have a (healthy) snack if they really want it - I just try to have them examine why they feel they need a snack if it is right before a meal. If they are really hungry they get it, but if the reason is "i just saw an ad for microwave popcorn" or Ho-Ho or whatever then forget it - wait for dinner.


----------



## monkey's mom (Jul 25, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *choli*
Well, we all have our hot button issues, which is probably why "triggered by an ad" came to my mind as a "not valid" reason for snacking. I try very hard to teach my kids not to respond in a Pavlovian way to advertising, whether for food or for consumer goods..

Yeah, I get hot button issues.







:LOL

Here's my thinking: ads are not that powerful in our family--we talk about them a lot, rate them on how effective they seem, etc. I used to be in marketing, so it's an interest.

But, I also think it's important to personally experience what it's like to be swayed by advertising. For example, some toy ad comes on and my kid gets all jazzed about it--the ad makes it seem REALLY cool, right? (or cereal or whatever). But, I'm pretty sure this toy is not "all that." I can either try to convince him (which I might), or I could spend the $10 or whatever and let him get the toy and see for himself that it didn't measure up to the advertisement's hoopla. And without saying, "See, told you," I could talk about being disappointed when the thing isn't as great as the ad made it out to be, and share my experiences there. That's only $10 for a really valuable experience and life lesson.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *choli*
If they are really hungry they get it, but if the reason is "i just saw an ad for microwave popcorn" or Ho-Ho or whatever then forget it - wait for dinner.

I would be very uncomfortable judging my family members' wants and needs as valid or not. I trust that they are able to discern that for themselves. And if they make some choices that aren't great along the way (like eating a whole bag of candy corn that squelches their appetite for Thanksgiving dinner), that's just learning. (That's never happened, btw.)

On the flip side, I'd be pretty pissed if I had to justify my desire to snack to someone, and then they decided yes or no. And it might not take me long to figure out to say what they wanted to hear just so I could get it.







:


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
Unless they are out of them because they ate them all the same day they were bought or they are at my house, where we don't really serve treats.

Yeah, I pretty much decided that the conversation is not worth continuing just because it's going round and round and not much progress is being made any more. I'm not offended by your views. I just wish that when people here stated that they do something that is not regarded as AP/GD by the more vocal MDC members that people could just accept that there are different strokes for different folks and not keep trying to punch holes in other people's theories. I feel like the less-gd people here are a lot more accepting of different approaches than the more staunchly gd people are.

But, I don't really take it personally because I don't come to MDC to learn how to parent. I just come for good conversation.










Namaste!


I am not sure whether I am supposed to feel insulted or not.

But Namaste right back at you!


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
I would be very uncomfortable judging my family members' wants and needs as valid or not. I trust that they are able to discern that for themselves. And if they make some choices that aren't great along the way (like eating a whole bag of candy corn that squelches their appetite for Thanksgiving dinner), that's just learning. (That's never happened, btw.)

In our house, needs are always met, wants are not always met, and not always met immediately. This goes for adults as well as children. I want a yacht, but I don't have one :LOL

I feel that it's important to recognize the difference between a need and a want.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

{{I feel that it's important to recognize the difference between a need and a want.}}

I don't believe we shoud determine our children's hunger.

I can't get down with that at all.

You can decide your hunger needs, but if a kid is hungry, they should be able to eat without permission. This to me, is fundamental. Put carrots on the table as you prepare dinner and natural yogurt in the fridge instead of Ho Hos. Talk to your kids about what you want them to know. Someday you will not be there to control their every morsel. Trust begins in infancy.

I don't buy Ho Hos and I don't even desire a yacht for environmental reasons.

Control over one's own basic physical needs-- that's a non -negotiable issue for me.


----------



## Britishmum (Dec 25, 2001)

Hmm, I'm wondering about the basic assumption that eating for boredom or comfort or because of an advert is automatically a bad thing.

Why?

Now, I believe that doing any of these things habitually is unhealthy (emotionally and physically). But doing them sometimes? I personally don't see any harm. Heck, I do it myself. So does dh. We see an advert or read a review of some restaurant, and we want to go to try it out. Or one of us mentions ice cream after dinner, and we want to have some. Is that really so bad?

I think it all comes down to trust. If my kids say something like, "It's hot today - can we get out the ice cream?" mostly, I"ll say yes, and I"ll probably have some too! Or my three year old gets an owie, and says that some strawberries would make her feel better. Fine, she can get some strawberries out. I offer boo-boo bear for comfort, I give cuddles, and sometimes she asks for a story or even a video. But sometimes she suggests a food item. And if we have it in the house, that's fine - even if it's almost dinner time.

I trust my kids. I don't believe that watching a video to calm down after an upsetting incident is going to become a habit. I don't think that eating an ice cream after scraping a knee is going to lead to eating disorders. I believe that making a big deal of the request for food by denying it, is far more likely to lead to a food issue.

Eating is pleasurable, it gives comfort, and it fulfils far more than quenching hunger. I don't think that you need to be hungry before you eat. I don't think that eating a cookie before dinner will automatically 'ruin' your dinner. Heck, I can pick at food as I prepare dinner but still eat my meal.

IMO control over food and not trusting children to make choices severely underestimates their ability to take care of their own needs. Not every choice has to be healthy, and not every item we consume needs to be because we are hungry.

We manage to snack during the day but still have mealtimes. It's not any big deal - nobody here ever 'ruins' their appetite. And we're all within perfectly normal, healthy weight limits. We eat basically healthy diets, but we do snack sometimes on imperfect foods. And we all eat sometimes for comfort, and occasionally through boredom - although I try to take action if we're bored and get out to do something after we've eaten our snack.









Anyway, what the heck are ho-hos. Are they something I need to try? (for when I"m bored or need some comfort eating :LOL


----------



## monkey's mom (Jul 25, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *choli*
I feel that it's important to recognize the difference between a need and a want.

No, I totally agree, but I feel it's really important for my kids to experience those differences for themselves and categorize things for themselves--not using *my* criteria, you know?

I totally agree with Britishmum and UUMom's posts!

Ho-Hos are delish! Get some--you won't be disappointed!


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UUMom*
I am not sure whether I am supposed to feel insulted or not.

No, not at all. Some people come to MDC looking for support in their parenting and for ideas and stuff. Some people feel like they are struggling to be the parent they want to be. That's completely cool and I am glad MDC is here for them and I think it's a valuable resource. But I mostly just come here for interesting conversation. I rarely ask for advice or anything. I feel pretty good about my parenting and I don't feel like I need to ask for a lot of advice. That's not a dis on anyone. I'm certainly not the parenting goddess. I just use MDC for different purposes than some others do. So I don't feel like my parenting is being personally attacked when people disagree with me.

I enjoying stimulating discussion and debate!

(And I'm certainly not above learning or changing in the process!)

Namaste!


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
Ho-Hos are delish! Get some--you won't be disappointed!

Unless you're a vegetarian. Then you can't eat them because they have lard in them.

Why oh why does Hostess still put LARD in their products?? What's the point???

Namaste!


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

**Why oh why does Hostess still put LARD in their products?? What's the point???**
Ok I have stayed out but kept reading because I didnt have the patience to keep arguing.
BUt this is so funny!!
I dont like hostess much. (I was raised on Little Debbies myself LOL)
Anyway, once in a great while I will have a taste for a cupcake.
SO the other day I bought a two pack at the convenience store and ate one, and put the other in the fridge for later.
I come out to find my 13 year old vegan daughter holding the cupcake about to eat it.
I told her "you dont want to eat that, it's hostess, it probably has lard in it"
She got a sad look on her face and said, "well I cant see the label (it was in a ziplock) so maybe it doesnt count". It is her choice so I left it alone and looked the other way. Until I saw my 22 month old dd running around the house with it! LOL
She needed it even less than my 13 year old! Add to that her two brothers were now wondering why their sister had a cupcake and they didnt!
UGH! Lard!
Joline


----------



## FireWithin (Apr 29, 2004)

I am enjoying this thread a lot, it is making me think about food in new ways.

Earlier on pp wrote in that food does not equal love, that food is for nourishment only.

I am having a hard time agreeing with that.

**full disclosure** I feel the need to mention that I am very overweight**

To me, preparing and sharing food has a lot to do with love. It is a way that I share my life with my DH and child.

For me, having my ds involved in food selection, preparation and eating is just as important as reading to him.

This is important for me for two reasons: exposure and understanding of healthy eating (foods that make you strong and healthy) & also I think that it is an important way to share time with each other, attach & show love.

So in my house I am not standing over my family like my Ukrainian grandmother saying "eat, eat!!" while forcing another helping on your plate. Instead we are in the kitchen making nourishing meals and snacks together - and eating how much and when we wish to.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
**Why oh why does Hostess still put LARD in their products?? What's the point???**H! Lard!
Joline


I agree that Lard is gross, but if you want to know why it's in there, read the fascinating article in the Chicago Tribune about what a tought time Nabisco had of tying to rid Oreos of both lard and trans-fat. They are still working on it. Lard works the best (in a physical sense) for a ho=ho type filling. Other stuff tends to ooze out.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Oh, well, probably just another reason to avoid those kinds of food, anyway. *sigh*

Namaste!


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

My mom still uses lard for her pie crusts!
I grew up never knowing it. I kinda still wish I didnt.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Isn't lard just animal fat?

Forgive me for asking, but I am the person who barely skims the fat off the top of a chicken carcass broth. All the flavor is in the fat!

I mean...unless one is a vegetarian. I respect that.

Is everyone who is saying "It's gross!" a veg?


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

I'm not veg.
I dont know why I think lard is so gross.
I mean I eat butter.
But for some reason to me beef fat belongs in meat dishes. (and I still cut if off whenever possible).
It's like the Friends episode where Rachel was trying to make a Trifle and accidentally confused recipes and put ground beef in the lovely layered dessert.
SOme things just dont belong together.
Joline


----------



## Britishmum (Dec 25, 2001)

Bummer about the lard. I reaaly want to try these hohos now but cant cos I'm veggie.

Sigh.

What about Twinkies? I've never had one of those either.............

I really want some comfort food right now......or maybe I'm just bored..... :LOL


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Britishmum*

What about Twinkies? I've never had one of those either.............


All Hostess products have lard.









But the generic Twinkie-esque treats don't!
















Namaste!


----------



## lilyka (Nov 20, 2001)

twinkies are gross. little debbie has a hoho friend that might be lard free.

caramel hohos . . . mmmmmmmmmm


----------



## FireWithin (Apr 29, 2004)

better lard than trans-fats - unless you are a vegetarian of course and then both options are pretty bad


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
I would be very uncomfortable judging my family members' wants and needs as valid or not. I trust that they are able to discern that for themselves.

Is this in general or just with food? I actually view it as part of my responsibility as a parent to help my kids interpret their wants and needs and such, not to just leave them to discern that on their own. With food as the example, sometimes my daughter will come to me and say, "I'm hungry. I want something chocolate." Because we limit junk food, sometimes I say no because she has already had something chocolate that day. Sometimes I say no because we have nothing chocolate in the house. I always offer an alternative (99% of the time, a healthier alternative). Most of the time, she says no, she doesn't want anything. We talk about cravings and what they are and why we have them and whether we should always follow them. My parents taught me to be a healthy eater, in part by not letting me eat whatever I wanted whenever I wanted but by allowing me to eat whatever I needed whenever I needed it. I am thin and have never had a weight problem or food issues. I think this is, in part, because I was actively taught the difference between a want/craving/urge/desire and a need. I was taught to choose healthy food, and I was taught to recognize the difference between hunger and other things. I was not left to discern it on my own.

Namaste!


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Now you're getting into morality issues and food --whether a craving is justified or not. Whether a craving is gluttony etc. Whether we need to lecture our chidlren on not being gluttonous etc. Sometimes we just want a piece of chocolate and I would consider that no big deal. My only issue would be whether the chocolate is organic or free trade. if there is a bar of chocolate in the house, they can eat. I don't dole things out. Whatever is in the home is free to however wants it.

All these scenarios people keep bringing up just haven't come up for us. We don't have gluttony issues or obssessive cravings pr similar problems that seem to be facing others.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UUMom*
Now you're getting into morality issues and food --whether a craving is justified or not. Whether a craving is gluttony etc. Whether we need to lecture our chidlren on not being gluttonous etc.

No, I'm not, not at all. All I'm talking about is *recognizing* the difference between a want (craving) and a need and talking with kids about the difference. Sometimes I have a craving and I indulge it. Sometimes I reflect on my recent eating habits and don't indulge the craving. To me, that's just common sense and a healthy attitude. I
*help* my kids do the same thing, I don't just leave them to figure it out by themselves. Not sure where you picked up some moralistic tone to my post.

I *do* want my kids to know the difference between hunger and whim, nutritional needs and cravings for junk food. In my opinion, indiscriminately indulged cravings for junk can be a big factor in weight and health problems.

Namaste!


----------



## monkey's mom (Jul 25, 2003)

I wrote:
"I would be very uncomfortable judging my family members' wants and needs as valid or not. I trust that they are able to discern that for themselves."

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
Is this in general or just with food? I actually view it as part of my responsibility as a parent to help my kids interpret their wants and needs and such, not to just leave them to discern that on their own.

First, I want to clarify--when I say, "discern that FOR themselves" I don't mean that they do it "ON their own." I totally agree that parents have a huge responsibility to help kids interpret anything and everything. We do a lot of talking here.

And yeah, that's in general.







Without choices you can't learn to make choices. Experiential learning is a big thing to me.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
I was taught to recognize the difference between hunger and other things.

And that's cool. I just think that recognizing that difference is nearly impossible if people aren't allowed to experience it for themselves--but, like you said, definitely not without parental input.


----------



## monkey's mom (Jul 25, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UUMom*
if there is a bar of chocolate in the house, they can eat. I don't dole things out. Whatever is in the home is free to however wants it.

All these scenarios people keep bringing up just haven't come up for us. We don't have gluttony issues or obssessive cravings pr similar problems that seem to be facing others.

Ditto. Except my kid doesn't like chocolate.


----------

