BellaOnline Forums Food and Wine Low Carb My carb vice- advice needed

Charise - don't feel like a bad parent at all! We all try the best we can, and you were at least giving the kids fruit juice instead of soda. Soda actively has harmful chemicals in it and no nutrients. Fruit juice, while it had sugar, at least has some nutrients in it. And it's not like you can brush a child's teeth for him, so it's hard to know what is going on in there. I'm surprised the dentist didn't catch the problem before it got that bad, though. In any case at least this happened when your child was still young so that now he will grow up with that behind him!!

That really is sad that a *middle* school has those issues. I thought it was only high schools that were that bad. With peer pressure, the kids will all get each other to drink soda and eat candy too. If one kid tries to hold out and not have dessert, she now has to sit there watching everyone else eat dessert and be tortured by it.

I think Connecticut just passed a law against vending machines in the school - and it was a VERY difficult fight because the vending machine companies make HUGE profits off of making kids fat. Ah yes here it is -

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/05/26/school.nutrition.ap/

We're talking about a long term serious health issue here - when our government will have to care for millions of obese people - and they are concerned about losing their profits?

ah..but this is where I feel like the bad parent.. This was only his 2nd visit to the dentist - he was 4 at his first visit and apprently there was no noticealbe problem..I didn't take him again until he was 6..had I taken him anually like I should have- at age 5 I bet they would have caught it <img src="/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

My daughter is standing over my shoulder now...pointing out that I missed the line where it's burgers and fries every day .... *shaking head*

She said they use to have a salads and subs line which was the line she always chose..but that line cosed. Go figure

http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/document/html/chapter7.htm
Sorry it was the USDA. Reading over it the figure has changed to 45-65%.
And the classes I learned all this stuff from were taken in 2004-2005 from professionals who get their research published frequently in reputable JOUNALS (not some magazine or website).
Charise, it is an outrage what schools feed our nations children these days but it is up to the parent so band together if they want to change it. Maybe you can get together a group of parents at your childrens school and try to get a healthier menu established.
Lisa, what do you have your degree in? What kind of research do you do? Where did you get your degree from? What makes you think you are such an expert on nutrition?

I actually had thought about getting a petition together and writing to the school board about their lunch menus..but now my daughter is going into High school...and if it's anywhere near as bad there, I'll be focussing on them!

I think the school system is all county ran so if one changes it will change them all..*I hope*

Actually with the Connecticut situation they had trouble even making a change across the entire state of Connecticut (which is a very small state) because each school district wanted to set its own rules. So the chance of making one set of changes to apply to all schools everywhere is pretty slim. I really do think it is going to happen if parents in each small area push locally for changes, and we get some momentum going!

That's really sad that they HAD a healthy thing going and then shut it down ...

Kat -

First, I have worked for biotech companies for over 10 years. I worked in the regulatory department for many years. I am extremely familiar with scientific journals - and I have to tell you that being published in a journal is not "instant certification" nor is being published on a website "instant denigration". You in fact provided a website link to back your stance up. Both of those are MERELY FORUMS for presenting ideas and all ideas on those forums can be valid or invalid.

It is critically important if you engage in a discussion that you actually do so with an open mind. If all you are going to do is state that your side must be right because its information comes from journal publishers, then I can easily find you hundreds of journal publications which were proven to be 100% wrong. Either discuss the issues, or this won't work. Life isn't about throwing around credentials. Life is about actually discussing issues and being able to explain your stance *logically* (not throwing around really nasty, cruel name-calling because that is the only way you feel you can "win").

Were you actually born in 1980? Meaning you are 25? Would you like it if I started to make assumptions about you and the language you use because of your age? Or would you rather that I take your arguments for how they are presented and for the logical basis you present?

The UDSA and the FDA are completely different organizations with completely different agendas. The FDA is in control of nutrition analysis and making recommendations. They are the Food and Drug association. The USDA is a *department of agriculture* - it is an association to assist farmers. I can give you at least 10 different books you should read, before you start quoting USDA requirements. That might be a good place for us to begin, if you are interested.

And, just to begin, that page you referenced begins very clearly with this sentence: "Dietary fiber is composed of nondigestible carbohydrates and lignin intrinsic and intact in plants." That is EXACTLY what I said. They are including dietary fiber - something that low carb diets do NOT include in their carb count. Low carb diets SAY to eat a lot of fiber - but they do NOT count that as impactful carbs. It's important you agree on / understand the terms here before you argue about how they are applied.

By the way, that AMDR value you quoted was set back in 2002. So this is not recent at all. I am looking to see what it was before then.

OK I found what the AMDR values were before 2002. In 1989, the values were:

Carbs: >50%
Protein: 10-15%
Fat: <30%

So the values you quoted weren't valid then either, at least as far as the US government is concerned. And again, carbs includes ALL non-protein non-fat items including fiber. And, at the time, nutritionists felt ALL fat was bad, which we clearly know is not true now.

Believe me, if you look at 20 different textbooks, you are going to get 20 different points of view of what is "correct". And I really have to point out, it wasn't that long ago that they gave Thalidomide to women with morning sickness - and it caused incredible amounts of birth defects. Nutritionists do NOT know how the human body works. They are making guesses. Nothing is known for sure. It is important - while you can respect your teachers - to understand they are fallible. The most important thing to use is your own brain.

I was accepted as a student at MIT, RPI and WPI. Does that mean my opinion is "more valid" than yours because I could easily have chosen to graduate from MIT with a biology degree, had my parents not refused to pay those bills? I would really hope your answer would not be yes. You cannot judge an opinion just because of who says it, without actually giving facts to explain why your opinion has merit. I feel very childish even having to "defend" that I have a right to have a stance here - and I am to be honest shocked that this is the intellectual stance your school is teaching you to take on discussions.

Kat: We now have threads specifically about the points you complained about:

* dangers of protein
* eating the "proper" UDSA amounts of carbs per day
* eating bread

I am very interested in your factual information on these topics. Instead of laying blanket claims against the low carb diet, and then only backing them up by saying you're getting a degree, I'd actually like to hear you debate facts in those threads.

You grossly underestimate the power of education. I am a science freak and I especially love physiology and the only reason I chose not to get a degree in biological science is because I don't want to spend that much time in school I chose to stop at my masters and you can't do much with a bio. degree with out getting a PhD. And who cares if you get accepted to a school if you don't attend. I am a 4.0 student and can probably get into any University I want but that means nothing if I don't go. And my parents never footed the bill for my education either but there was no way in the world I would let that stop me from following my dreams.