Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers
WeightAdviser.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Weight Loss Forum / General Topics / May 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Study finds little healthy in school vending machines

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Ignoramus27444 - 13 May 2004 14:09 GMT
Study finds little healthy in school vending machines

May 12, 2004

BY JANET RAUSA FULLER Staff Reporter

Eighty-five percent of snacks and 75 percent of drinks sold in vending
machines in middle and high schools are junk food, a study released
Tuesday by the Center for Science in the Public Interest found.

The study took stock of vending machine offerings in 251 schools
across 24 states, including Illinois, and categorized items as
"healthier" or "less healthful."

The findings were "much worse" than expected, said Margo Wootan, the
center's director of nutrition policy and the study's lead author.

"I had no idea there was so much candy," Wootan said. "I thought that
with communities and schools being more conscious of rising obesity
rates that more of the beverage options would be healthful ones."

The survey found that candy, chips and "sweet baked goods" accounted
for 80 percent of available snacks, while sugary sodas, juice drinks
and sports drinks accounted for 70 percent of beverages. Bottled water
made up 12 percent and milk only 5 percent of beverages.

Fruits and vegetables -- and refrigerated vending machines that can
stock items like salads and veggie sticks with low-fat dip -- were
even harder to find. Of the 9,723 total snack slots surveyed, just 26
offered a fruit or vegetable, and much of that was dried fruit snacks,
Wootan said.

"If a child buys lunch out of vending machines, it's almost guaranteed
to be high in sugar, salt, calorically dense and virtually devoid of
nutrients," she said.

The center is pushing Congress to give the U.S. Department of
Agriculture greater authority to regulate vending machine foods, as it
already does for cafeteria meals.

The study comes as school districts across the nation, including
Chicago, are considering or putting in place bans on junk foods in
vending machines to help stem what health experts have called an
obesity epidemic.

On May 26, a proposal to ban candy and chewing gum and set
restrictions on the sugar and fat content of vending machine snacks in
all Chicago public schools goes up for vote before the Chicago Board
of Education.

Chicago public school officials are waiting on bids to replace a
five-year beverage vending machine contract with Coca-Cola. In the new
contract, only water, non-carbonated sports drinks and juice drinks
with no less than 50 percent real fruit juice can be sold.

Vending machines are a valuable revenue stream for school
districts. But in case studies of 14 schools sites, CSPI found that
schools did not lose money after switching to healthier vending
machines snacks.

At Mundelein High School, vending machine sales are down a third over
last year after the school replaced soda and candy with items like
granola bars and baked chips, but officials aren't worried,
spokeswoman Kelley Happ said.

"Yes, we've lost revenue, but we're doing the right thing," Happ said.

Signature

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
char*p="char*p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
        "It's never too late to have a happy childhood."

jmk - 13 May 2004 15:37 GMT
> Study finds little healthy in school vending machines
>
> May 12, 2004
>
> BY JANET RAUSA FULLER Staff Reporter

Please refrain from posting entire articles.  Please post links and
sumamries instead.

Signature

jmk in NC

Ignoramus27444 - 13 May 2004 15:45 GMT
>> Study finds little healthy in school vending machines
>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Please refrain from posting entire articles.  Please post links and
> sumamries instead.

No, I will continue to post entire articles, it is much more
convenient than having readers visit websites, possibly go through
registrations etc.

Signature

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
char*p="char*p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
        "It's never too late to have a happy childhood."

jmk - 13 May 2004 15:51 GMT
>>>Study finds little healthy in school vending machines
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> convenient than having readers visit websites, possibly go through
> registrations etc.

It's also much less legal and takes up much more bandwidth.

Signature

jmk in NC

Crafting Mom - 13 May 2004 15:52 GMT
>>>>Study finds little healthy in school vending machines
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>>
> It's also much less legal and takes up much more bandwidth.

Oh cool, I was wondering when the next "copyright violation" debate thread
was due.

Signature

The post you just read, unless otherwise noted, is strictly my opinion
and experience.  Please interpret accordingly.

Ignoramus27444 - 13 May 2004 15:57 GMT
>>>>Study finds little healthy in school vending machines
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>>
> It's also much less legal and takes up much more bandwidth.

A relevant post containing a relevant article is a legitimate use of
"bandwidth".

Not to say, text newsgroups are, more or less, dwarfed by the binary
newsgroups these days.

A typical post of a SVCD format movie would be over 1Gb in total
size. That is about 300,000-500,000 times more than the length of the
article that I posted.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
char*p="char*p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
        "It's never too late to have a happy childhood."
Philippic - 15 May 2004 23:05 GMT
"jmk" <jmk446NOT@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:2ghgb6F2q7p9U1@uni

> >>Please refrain from posting entire articles.  Please post links and
> >>sumamries instead.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> >
> It's also much less legal and takes up much more bandwidth.

Who cares?

It's valuable to have a *whole article* posted because of the number of
broken links and pulled pages that exist across the internet. Plus we don't
have to look at revolting 'advertising'.

Philippic
Ignoramus12481 - 16 May 2004 02:40 GMT
> "jmk" <jmk446NOT@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:2ghgb6F2q7p9U1@uni
>> >>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> broken links and pulled pages that exist across the internet. Plus we don't
> have to look at revolting 'advertising'.

I agree.
Signature

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
char*p="char*p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
        "It's never too late to have a happy childhood."

Eric J. Holtman - 13 May 2004 16:35 GMT
>>> Study finds little healthy in school vending machines
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> convenient than having readers visit websites, possibly go through
> registrations etc.

It's also theft of intellectual properity, dumbass.
JC Der Koenig - 13 May 2004 17:29 GMT
> >>> Study finds little healthy in school vending machines
> >>>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> It's also theft of intellectual properity, dumbass.

Properity?

What are your thoughts on pot, kettle, black, Mr. Intellectual?
jamie - 13 May 2004 22:13 GMT
> No, I will continue to post entire articles, it is much more
> convenient than having readers visit websites, possibly go through
> registrations etc.

As long as you're illegally reposting copies instead of links, you could
at least have the courtesy to include the title of the publication whose
copyright you're infringing.

Signature

 jamie  (jamiemck@newsguy.com)

         "There's a seeker born every minute."

Ignoramus27444 - 14 May 2004 01:19 GMT
>> No, I will continue to post entire articles, it is much more
>> convenient than having readers visit websites, possibly go through
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> at least have the courtesy to include the title of the publication whose
> copyright you're infringing.

That's a good point. The original article was from Chicago Sun-Times.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
char*p="char*p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
        "It's never too late to have a happy childhood."
Roger Zoul - 13 May 2004 16:13 GMT
:: On 5/13/2004 9:09 AM, Ignoramus27444 wrote:
::: Study finds little healthy in school vending machines
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
:: Please refrain from posting entire articles.  Please post links and
:: sumamries instead.

It makes no sense to attempt to moderate an unmoderated newsgroup on usenet.

Of course, you can point how why it might be a good idea to do as you
suggest.
JC Der Koenig - 13 May 2004 16:18 GMT
> :: On 5/13/2004 9:09 AM, Ignoramus27444 wrote:
> ::: Study finds little healthy in school vending machines
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> It makes no sense to attempt to moderate an unmoderated newsgroup on usenet.

LOL

It's also illogical to use logic when trying to reason with people who have
little reasoning power.

;-)
Hannah Gruen - 13 May 2004 20:50 GMT
"Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> It makes no sense to attempt to moderate an unmoderated newsgroup on usenet.

True, but then we'll always have our net-nannies. There are copyright
issues, I suppose. However, for people like me who don't have a lot of time
to devote to this ng, it is a constant disappointment to try to access a
linked article, only to find it's no longer valid, or that they want some
kind of registration etc. So personally I appreciate it when I see the whole
article posted. Even on dial-up the download is a lot faster than any of the
news websites, especially the ones that subject you to multiple popups.

What bugs me, though, is when people leave the whole article in, with no
snippage at all, and make their comment, usually top-posted. LOL.

HG
MH - 16 May 2004 02:44 GMT
> > Study finds little healthy in school vending machines
> >
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> --
> jmk in NC

And please do not continue the crosspost ignorant starts. He has fouled up
asd to the point that it's pretty useless.

Martha
curt - 13 May 2004 17:21 GMT
> Study finds little healthy in school vending machines
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> machines in middle and high schools are junk food, a study released
> Tuesday by the Center for Science in the Public Interest found.

This has been the case for as long a I can remember.  Although we didn't
have machines until high school, which was loaded with junk, there was a
little candy store we all stopped at right across the street in Elementary
and Middle.  IMHO, the only reason this is even talked about is because kids
are fatter now than they were a few decades ago.  Why are they fatter
really?  IMHO, it is because of technology.  Kids all have those stupid
computer games and play them instead of riding bikes and playing football or
whatever.  The streets and ball fields are not nearly as filled with kids as
when I was one.  I am very glad I am not growing up in this current
generation of kids.  They get stimulated on computer games and really don't
play with each other like when I was one.  It is too bad, but I guess it is
called progress.  They sure were good times back then.  All I did was play
basketball, ride bikes, football, flashlight tag and a host of other
physical activities.

Curt
Ignoramus27444 - 13 May 2004 17:26 GMT
>> Study finds little healthy in school vending machines
>>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> basketball, ride bikes, football, flashlight tag and a host of other
> physical activities.

I am curious, did you take a bus to school or did you walk?

Signature

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
char*p="char*p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
        "It's never too late to have a happy childhood."

curt - 13 May 2004 18:02 GMT
> I am curious, did you take a bus to school or did you walk?

I walked. What is funny is I can truly say I walked a mile to school.  Down
hill on the way there and back up on the way home.  My parents didn't
believe in giving me a ride.  I liked to walk back then and still do.  It is
one of my favorite things.  Very relaxing.

Curt
Ignoramus27444 - 13 May 2004 18:06 GMT
>> I am curious, did you take a bus to school or did you walk?
>
> I walked. What is funny is I can truly say I walked a mile to school.  Down
> hill on the way there and back up on the way home.  My parents didn't
> believe in giving me a ride.  I liked to walk back then and still do.  It is
> one of my favorite things.  Very relaxing.

I also like walking.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
char*p="char*p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
        "It's never too late to have a happy childhood."
Jayjay - 13 May 2004 20:33 GMT
>>> Study finds little healthy in school vending machines
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
>I am curious, did you take a bus to school or did you walk?

I'm a product of the 80's...  spent the 1980's in school.   And I can
certainly say that we didn't have vending machines in elementary
school or middle school.   We had a soda (coke) machine and a juice
machine in highschool, that was it.   In the 2nd highschool (I moved
my senior yr) I only went into the cafe 2 times so I cannot recall if
they even had a vending machine in that school or not.
Hannah Gruen - 13 May 2004 21:48 GMT
"curt" <nospam@verizon.net> wrote in message news:XfNoc.35327
> This has been the case for as long a I can remember.  Although we didn't
> have machines until high school, which was loaded with junk, there was a
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> basketball, ride bikes, football, flashlight tag and a host of other
> physical activities.

I agree, I think it is mostly the lack of physical exercise. However, eating
patterns have changed over the years and I think kids today are, on average,
more consistently exposed to large amounts of foods that are even junkier
than when we grew up. Just the advent of high fructose corn syrup use in
everything for one, and supersizing so many things. But we ate a lot of
sweets, pretty much as much as we could get hold of. Could afford, really.
But we spent our allowances on many things other than sweets. I suspect
allowances are often bigger these days, come to think of it, as we used to
do odd jobs (washing windows and cars, cleaning boats, etc.) to supplement.
I can remember occasionally buying an entire cheesecake at the local bakery
with a little friend and taking it to the beach to split. And we were always
buying cotton candy and frozen bananas, taffy, corn dogs (oh the culinary
joys of growing up within a bike ride of a beach resort).

However... note the bike riding, and we went on very long rides sometimes,
depending on where we wanted to go. Summers were spent running around the
beach and swimming all day and into the evening, the rest of the year we ran
around the beach and rode bikes. Rowing and sailing year round. I even went
to an elementary school that has its playground on the beach, so more
running around and in middle and high school we had lots of sports...
required! Although we did ride the bus to school. Just lots and lots of
activity and no TV until after dinner. In the summer we ran around until
well after dark playing hide-and-seek and stuff like that. Once in a while
card games, Go Fish or Canasta at somebody's house. It was just a far more
active lifestyle. And hardly possible any more, with working parents,
latchkey kids, and increased dangers in letting kids run free like that. But
I don't remember any friends from my neighborhood with weight problems until
maybe high school (and even then it was pretty minor... we just weren't as
emaciated as we wanted to be). And we girls became less active by high
school, too, not wanting to mess up our hair... lol. No blow dryers back
then, can you believe it?

HG
Ignoramus27444 - 14 May 2004 01:19 GMT
> "curt" <nospam@verizon.net> wrote in message news:XfNoc.35327
>> This has been the case for as long a I can remember.  Although we didn't
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> buying cotton candy and frozen bananas, taffy, corn dogs (oh the culinary
> joys of growing up within a bike ride of a beach resort).

My thinking is that it is everything together. Lack of exercise,
better junk food marketing, busier parents, etc etc.
i
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
char*p="char*p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
        "It's never too late to have a happy childhood."
Manky Badger - 13 May 2004 21:41 GMT
> Study finds little healthy in school vending machines

And we are surprised by this ?
FOB - 13 May 2004 22:07 GMT
It's so hard to keep celery fresh in a vending machine.

In news:c80mev$kog$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk,
Manky Badger <spam@p.u.r.i.t.a.n.f.r.e.e.s.e.r.v.e.c.o.u.k.> stated

|| Study finds little healthy in school vending machines
|
| And we are surprised by this ?
Dee Jay - 13 May 2004 23:01 GMT
>>Study finds little healthy in school vending machines
>
> And we are surprised by this ?

No kidding Manky!  When I was a kid, pop was a special treat and offered
(not always) on say Friday or Saturday  nights.  Also, chips (and that
type of snack food) also a treat.  Our meals consisted of home-made
meals (there was really no fast foods).

We walked to school (I'm now amazed at how kids are bussed to school for
such short distances). And we walked home for lunch!  We had recess
twice a day and then after school we played outside until mom called us
in for supper.  Then we would play outside after supper until it became
dark.

WE moved constantly.

A friend of mine has a 9 year old daughter who is obese.  Whenever I see
this child, she is eating.  It is either a sugar laden or fat laden
"treat"..treat...yah right...it's no treat, it's something the kid gets
every day.

Kids today are not moving, they've no reason to.

DJ
Ignoramus27444 - 14 May 2004 01:18 GMT
>> Study finds little healthy in school vending machines
>
> And we are surprised by this ?

I am not surprised. I think that it is impossible to keep healthy food
in vending machines.

Signature

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
char*p="char*p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
        "It's never too late to have a happy childhood."

MH - 16 May 2004 02:51 GMT
> > Study finds little healthy in school vending machines
>
> And we are surprised by this ?

Are we surprised by ignorant crossposting, bringing all sorts of posters who
don't belong and don't want to be a part of asd, making it hundreds of times
harder for us regular asd users?

No, we are not. Unlike ignorant, we have friends and lives we want to spend
time withl. He has none of this and makes it up by trying to seem like he's
Big Man On Campus. Ignorant, get some guy friends and play cards, go watch
stock racing or whatever guys do and give us a rest. We won't hate you so
much and you will find things a bit easier for you. And stop
crossposting!!!!!!!!!

Martha
AntwainBarbour - 19 May 2004 23:14 GMT
The problem I have with people taking vending machines and their
contents out of schools is this.  Are we really teahcing children
anything by taking this stuff away.  Shouldn't they be educated about
nutrition and encourgaed to make their own decision from there?  What
do they learn by simply having it taken away?
Ignoramus22432 - 19 May 2004 23:20 GMT
> The problem I have with people taking vending machines and their
> contents out of schools is this.  Are we really teahcing children
> anything by taking this stuff away.  Shouldn't they be educated about
> nutrition and encourgaed to make their own decision from there?  What
> do they learn by simply having it taken away?

they learn that they can live without junk food.

i
Chris Braun - 19 May 2004 23:37 GMT
>> The problem I have with people taking vending machines and their
>> contents out of schools is this.  Are we really teahcing children
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>i

I'm not sure that this works the way you think.  I grew up being
permitted to eat sweets or junk food only extremely rarely.  As a
result, they took on a larger-than-life image as a forbidden treat,
making them much more desirable to me than they might have been
otherwise.  Once I had opportunities to select my own food, I ate far
too much of these things.  It took me years to get past that -- to the
extent that I ever have.  :-)

Chris
262/150/ (145-150)
Ignoramus22432 - 19 May 2004 23:45 GMT
>>> The problem I have with people taking vending machines and their
>>> contents out of schools is this.  Are we really teahcing children
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> too much of these things.  It took me years to get past that -- to the
> extent that I ever have.  :-)

Tooo bad you did not have an identical twin who was permitted to eat
sweets. So it is hard to say what effect your house rules had on
you... What if you could eat all sweets you wanted, would you have a
better relationship with food? That said, obviously you do know
yourself well, so your theory is probably right.

This topic is interesting for me because I have a 3 year old kid, who
does like sweets, but is given very little. He is not overweight, not
too thin, and likes sweets, but is not hung up on them. So, obviously,
I want to hear all opinions as to what is a reasonable approach to
giving sweets to children.

My main reason why I think that he should eat very little sweets, is
not so much psychology, but my opinion that sweets damage the body
each time they are eaten, even if the child stays slim for a while.
Plus, they are designed to be addictive and are addictive.

i
Chris Braun - 20 May 2004 00:48 GMT
>>>> The problem I have with people taking vending machines and their
>>>> contents out of schools is this.  Are we really teahcing children
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>better relationship with food? That said, obviously you do know
>yourself well, so your theory is probably right.

I think there's a balance between eating vast amounts of this stuff
and turning it into a rare reward.  I think it's good to make all
sorts of choices available to children but to educate them about the
benefits of eating nutritious foods.  

My mother restricted sweets and junk not for nutrition reasons per se,
but because she was extremely weight/appearance conscious.  I never
really was given much more explanation than "they're fattening".  This
didn't serve much of an educational purpose for me.  

I grew up largely rejecting the excessive value my mother placed on
appearance.  I was an intellectual child and young adult, and thought
her values shallow.  Though I was a reasonably attractive girl, my
sense of self-worth came much more from being smart and from academic
achievement.  (Most definitely not from sports or fitness :-) .)  My
mother is still this way.  Her favorite pursuit is clothes shopping.
She is so thrilled by my weight loss that it really kind of turns me
off -- like it's the most important thing I ever did.  Mind you, at
this point in my life I also enjoy clothes shopping, and I feel the
weight loss was a big accomplishment, but she can still push my
buttons :-).

>This topic is interesting for me because I have a 3 year old kid, who
>does like sweets, but is given very little. He is not overweight, not
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>each time they are eaten, even if the child stays slim for a while.
>Plus, they are designed to be addictive and are addictive.

I don't personally think that sweets damage the body.  There's nothing
evil about sugar; people have been eating it forever.  The main thing
wrong with many sweets is that they're a source of calories without
much accompanying nutritional value.  Even sugar has value as a quick
source of energy -- though it's probably better consumed in a form
like fruit juice.

I also have a problem with the "sweets are addictive" thing, honestly.
Some people seem to have that sort of relationship to sugar, though
I'm not sure whether it's physiological or psychological.  Others find
things like chips and nuts more addictive.  Properly used, the word
"addictive" refers to things like heroin.  I don't think any foods
really fall in that category.

I don't have children, so am not the best source of advice in how to
teach them nutrition.  But I wouldn't forbid any foods.  Neither would
I make the less nutritious foods freely available.  I'd set an example
of a healthy approach to all foods -- including the occasional dessert
or treat food -- and share my enjoyment of them with my child.  The
child would see that they are something one eats only occasionally,
and not in binge quantities.  I wouldn't purchase packaged treats to
keep in the house (candy, chips, etc.), but might occasionally share
something of that sort with him/her when out at event where they were
offered.  I might fix a modest dessert (like fruit pie, cookies,
pudding, ice cream) once a week or so and serve small portions.  For
other meals, I'd offer fruit afterward.  I would also take the child
to restaurants and show by my example how to make reasonable food
choices and to eat reasonable portions (like sharing courses and
taking leftovers home when comfortably full).

Enough babbling -- I need to go eat dinner!

Chris
262/150/ (145-150)
Ignoramus22432 - 20 May 2004 02:35 GMT
>>>>> The problem I have with people taking vending machines and their
>>>>> contents out of schools is this.  Are we really teahcing children
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> sorts of choices available to children but to educate them about the
> benefits of eating nutritious foods.  

Educating them is sensible.

> My mother restricted sweets and junk not for nutrition reasons per se,
> but because she was extremely weight/appearance conscious.  I never
> really was given much more explanation than "they're fattening".  This
> didn't serve much of an educational purpose for me.  

Does not sound like a good way to relate to children. Appearance is
not very important to me, not completely unimportant but I am more
interested in quality of life and longevity. So I side with you here.

> I grew up largely rejecting the excessive value my mother placed on
> appearance.  I was an intellectual child and young adult, and thought
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> weight loss was a big accomplishment, but she can still push my
> buttons :-).

it is not often that children rise intellectually much above their
parents.

>>This topic is interesting for me because I have a 3 year old kid, who
>>does like sweets, but is given very little. He is not overweight, not
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> I don't personally think that sweets damage the body.  There's nothing
> evil about sugar; people have been eating it forever.

that is not true. They were eating suger for the last 100 or so years,
and only recently in such huge quantities (150 lbs per person per
year, including corn syrup).

> I also have a problem with the "sweets are addictive" thing, honestly.
> Some people seem to have that sort of relationship to sugar, though
> I'm not sure whether it's physiological or psychological.  Others find
> things like chips and nuts more addictive.  Properly used, the word
> "addictive" refers to things like heroin.  I don't think any foods
> really fall in that category.

I think that food marketers make food too attractive to chidlren.
I have no doubt that they try to make it addictive in the sense that
children want to overeat it.

> I don't have children, so am not the best source of advice in how to
> teach them nutrition.  But I wouldn't forbid any foods.  Neither would
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> something of that sort with him/her when out at event where they were
> offered.

I would not enjoy a piece of junk food with them, but eating them
occasionally out of home makes sense.

i
Mary M - Ohio - 20 May 2004 14:21 GMT
> I don't personally think that sweets damage the body.  There's nothing
> evil about sugar; people have been eating it forever.  The main thing
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> "addictive" refers to things like heroin.  I don't think any foods
> really fall in that category.

Well you knew I'd have to put in my two cents. :-)  As Iggy pointed out, we really
haven't been eating sugar forever -- it has only been post- WWII that we've been
bombarding our bodies with the stuff to the tune of roughly 150 lbs. per person per
year. Chris, I can understand the lack of belief in the "addictive" properties of
sugar and I don't think I was truly physically addicted to it -- but it changed my
body and my brain chemistry to the point where I was virtually unrecognizable. It was
only when I stopped eating it 19 years ago that I began to get "myself" back.
Personally, I can't understand how anyone could be "addicted" to alcohol either
because I've never had any trouble giving it up or stopping voluntarily -- and the
prospect of being drunk and being around drunk people is rather distasteful. But I do
believe that the issue goes beyond my personal experience with it, and I do believe
that it is genetically imprinted as to whether people have the prospensity to become
alcoholics. There is no alcohol addiction in my family, but diabetes is another
story -- it runs rampant on my Dad's side.

I do think that some individuals are genetically disposed to not be able to handle
quantities of sugar. I come from a family of six -- three kids had weight problems
and problems with sugar "addiction" and three did not. My sister and I had weight
problems since childhood, and my brother didn't have a weight problem till adulthood.
My oldest brother has never had a weight problem but he has adult-onset diabetes --
hence my belief that some families have a true genetic problem with insulin
production and handling.

I can only say from personal experience what an "insulin rush" does to me -- even
today, when eating sugarfree items (which I cannot control my intake of any better
than the "real stuff") -- I am unable to stop eating the substance despite an initial
honest desire to eat only a little -- then the "chainsaw" (my term) takes over and my
thought patterns begin to change where I stop wanting to stop eating. In fact, I
cannot stop unless I do something drastic like throwing it in the trash can and
dumping used cat litter on top. Highly refined carbohydrates have the same effect on
me. I do not normally behave in an out-of-control manner -- i.e. I have never had the
need to throw cauliflower into the trash bin and dump cat litter on top, lest I dig
out the cauliflower and begin eating it again. I do believe that it is the substance
that causes the problem -- or more precisely, causes the insulin response and
physical reaction that supersedes any logic or conscious desire. Enough consumption
and I stop *wanting* to stop -- I just want to go on and on eating and eating and
eating and eating and getting more, more, more, more, more. It goes way beyond
anything conscious that I can control and through experience I know that it is a
physical reaction that causes an emotional response. I do not behave that way if I do
not indulge in highly refined carbohydrates to excess.

To sum up this long stream-of-consciousness response, I know in my heart that I
cannot eat sugar *and* weigh under 300 lbs.  I am not saying that this applies to
anyone else, but I know what is true for me and this is the heart of my weight loss
success. I am very very impressed with your own success and applaud it
wholeheartedly. I just felt compelled to respond to help reinforce my own convictions
and quell the voice of the eternal sugar junkie inside me who is always ready to say
"Oh, just a little won't hurt -- come on -- remember how fun it was?" :-)

Mary M
325-156-145
Ignoramus32087 - 20 May 2004 14:44 GMT
>> I don't personally think that sweets damage the body.  There's nothing
>> evil about sugar; people have been eating it forever.  The main thing
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> post- WWII that we've been bombarding our bodies with the stuff to
> the tune of roughly 150 lbs. per person per year.

And even that horror started not right after WWII, but around
1970-1980s.

> Chris, I can understand the lack of belief in the "addictive"
> properties of sugar and I don't think I was truly physically
> addicted to it -- but it changed my body and my brain chemistry to
> the point where I was virtually unrecognizable.

You see, it is not, as such, that sugar alone is addictive. Even sugar
addicts do not usually eat sugar powder by the spoon. They buy sweet
junk food.

What is addictive is commercial junk food made with sugar, and
generally sweets, which are sweet carbs mixed with fat.

On alt.support.diet.low-carb, here is a low of sweets addicts
_suffering_ because they are deprived of sweets. Since those sweets
have no nutrients, their cravings can only be caused by addiction and
not by craving for nutrients.

> It was only when I
> stopped eating it 19 years ago that I began to get "myself" back.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> my family, but diabetes is another story -- it runs rampant on my
> Dad's side.

We have some history of diabetes in our family. My MIL is a T2, and my
grandma is a T2 at 80 years old (developed it only recently).

> I do think that some individuals are genetically disposed to not be
> able to handle quantities of sugar. I come from a family of six --
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> has adult-onset diabetes -- hence my belief that some families have
> a true genetic problem with insulin production and handling.

Absolutely.

> I can only say from personal experience what an "insulin rush" does
> to me -- even today, when eating sugarfree items (which I cannot
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> throwing it in the trash can and dumping used cat litter on
> top. Highly refined carbohydrates have the same effect on me. I do

And, you cope with it by not having the stuff around, right?Does it
work for you?

i
Mary M - Ohio - 21 May 2004 00:04 GMT
> And even that horror started not right after WWII, but around
> 1970-1980s.

It seems that the further we get from the "old-time" generation the more

> What is addictive is commercial junk food made with sugar, and
> generally sweets, which are sweet carbs mixed with fat.

That's my instant-weight-gain food plan -- refined carbs with lots of fat. Amazing
how fast I can put it on -- amazingly scary actually.

> On alt.support.diet.low-carb, here is a low of sweets addicts
> _suffering_ because they are deprived of sweets. Since those sweets
> have no nutrients, their cravings can only be caused by addiction and
> not by craving for nutrients.

Bad habits are hard to break. :-)

> > eating. In fact, I cannot stop unless I do something drastic like
> > throwing it in the trash can and dumping used cat litter on
> > top. Highly refined carbohydrates have the same effect on me. I do
>
> And, you cope with it by not having the stuff around, right?Does it
> work for you?

If I slip in vigilance and say "OK this time I will be able to handle it" -- it
always ends up backfiring. So yes, I do not keep it around. Single servings where I
do not have the opportunity to eat the stuff in large quantities seems to be OK -- as
when I have a sugarfree ice cream cone from a stand. But for me, a sugarfree
half-gallon of ice cream in the freezer is just asking for trouble.

Mary
SnugBear - 21 May 2004 03:20 GMT
Ignoramus wrote :

> You see, it is not, as such, that sugar alone is addictive. Even sugar
> addicts do not usually eat sugar powder by the spoon. They buy sweet
> junk food.
>
> What is addictive is commercial junk food made with sugar, and
> generally sweets, which are sweet carbs mixed with fat.

I just wish we could stop using the word "addictive".  As Chris pointed
out, heroin is addictive - if an addict quits they can easily die without
their substance.  Sugar takes a long time to kill you and lack of it sure
won't.

But if you reach for my brownie I might take your arm off ;-)

Signature

Walking on . . .
Laurie in Maine
207/110  60 inches of attitude!
Start: 2/02  Maintained since 2/03

Ignoramus32087 - 21 May 2004 04:53 GMT
> Ignoramus wrote :
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> But if you reach for my brownie I might take your arm off ;-)

There are different degrees of addiction...

``Addiction is a term used to describe a strong compulsion to repeat a
behavior regardless of its negative consequences. A person who is
addicted is sometimes called an addict.''

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Addiction

i
Chris Braun - 20 May 2004 14:47 GMT
Interesting stuff, Mary.  I can't disagree with your experience, of
course, even though I can't relate to it personally.  I don't quite
know whether I believe that this is genetic, as opposed to something
one builds up a sensitivity to or something, but what I believe is
pretty irrelevant anyway :-).

The analogy to alcoholism is interesting.  I also don't know whether
that's a genetic tendency as opposed to a psychological one.  There do
seem to be family patterns of alcoholism, but both could account for
that.  I also can take or leave alcohol.  I am very interested in wine
and drink it often, but never have cravings for it or miss it when I
don't have it.  (Well, if I were eating a fine restaurant meal with no
wine I'd think it a darn shame, but I wouldn't have physical craving
for it :-) .)

Chris
262/150/ (145-150)
Mary M - Ohio - 21 May 2004 00:00 GMT
> Interesting stuff, Mary.  I can't disagree with your experience, of
> course, even though I can't relate to it personally.  I don't quite
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> wine I'd think it a darn shame, but I wouldn't have physical craving
> for it :-) .)

I am very very interesting in knowing anything about the genetic/psychological etc.
etc. connections involved in overeating, alcoholism, and other aberrant behaviors
including compulsive gambling, etc.  This is all endlessly fascinating to me. I've
recently become more interested in wine but I too do not miss it when I don't have
it. Thanks for your thoughts!

Mary
janice - 20 May 2004 08:12 GMT
>Tooo bad you did not have an identical twin who was permitted to eat
>sweets. So it is hard to say what effect your house rules had on
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>each time they are eaten, even if the child stays slim for a while.
>Plus, they are designed to be addictive and are addictive.

The best thing you can probably do for your son is have healthy food
at home so he regards this as normal, but not attribute too much power
or "badness" to any foods.  Hopefully he will grow up with a balanced
attitude, and able to make informed decisions for himself later on.
Not easy in today's world, though, with all the outside influences.

janice
Ignoramus32087 - 20 May 2004 14:06 GMT
>>Tooo bad you did not have an identical twin who was permitted to eat
>>sweets. So it is hard to say what effect your house rules had on
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> attitude, and able to make informed decisions for himself later on.
> Not easy in today's world, though, with all the outside influences.

Sounds not unreasonable at all -- to not give junk/sweeets too much
power.

i
janice - 20 May 2004 08:07 GMT
>I'm not sure that this works the way you think.  I grew up being
>permitted to eat sweets or junk food only extremely rarely.  As a
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>Chris
>262/150/ (145-150)

When I was a kid I wasn't aware of the concept of junk food, and
indeed in the 1950s it didn't really exist and as a family we ate out
very rarely.  I wasn't overweight at all as a kid, so perhaps it
worked.  Indeed, it was rare to see obese young people in those days.

Sweets were, however, very strictly controlled - only 3 small sweets a
day after lunch, with rules about how many squares of chocolate or
centimetres of mars bar counted as one sweet.  I didn't really resent
it at the time, but I do wonder if these rules contributed to my
eating problems later on.  On balance, I think probably not, although
I was brought up quite strictly and perhaps I may have seen food as an
area where I could break away from parental control as I got a bit
older.

janice
Crafting Mom - 20 May 2004 16:35 GMT
>>> The problem I have with people taking vending machines and their
>>> contents out of schools is this.  Are we really teahcing children
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> making them much more desirable to me than they might have been
> otherwise.

Same, Same.  I have 4 kids and I don't deny them junk food.  They get it far
less often than most kids.  However I tell them (and show them by example
and lifestyle) that in order to be healthy they have to eat a wide variety
of real foods.  I tell them the junk food is really nonsense in the way
it's been idolized by the media, and is only meant to please the taste
buds.  It's a recreation, not a reward, not a teaser, not a bribe.  They
just get it when they get it.  We don't eat out at fast food restaurants,
we choose quality "junk" (whole ingredient ice cream rather than the gummy
kind - and we often forget it is even in the freezer, we buy it so rarely).
However, every now and then they are offered a cookie, or a bit of
chocolate or something like that, and I don't get my pants in a wad over
it.  They just get some.
Signature

The post you just read, unless otherwise noted, is strictly my opinion
and experience.  Please interpret accordingly.

Chris Braun - 21 May 2004 04:59 GMT
>>>> The problem I have with people taking vending machines and their
>>>> contents out of schools is this.  Are we really teahcing children
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>chocolate or something like that, and I don't get my pants in a wad over
>it.  They just get some.

This sounds remarkably sensible!

Chris
262/150/ (145-150)
Doug Freyburger - 20 May 2004 20:37 GMT
> The problem I have with people taking vending machines and their
> contents out of schools is this.  Are we really teahcing children
> anything by taking this stuff away.  Shouldn't they be educated about
> nutrition and encourgaed to make their own decision from there?  What
> do they learn by simply having it taken away?

So cigarette vending machines should also be put back in schools?
After all taking them out did not teach anyone anything.  So what
that their contents are harmfull.
julianne - 21 May 2004 00:05 GMT
> The problem I have with people taking vending machines and their
> contents out of schools is this.  Are we really teahcing children
> anything by taking this stuff away.  Shouldn't they be educated about
> nutrition and encourgaed to make their own decision from there?  What
> do they learn by simply having it taken away?

Well, that argument is good but think about it?  Do we allow children to
make important decisions about their life such as which school they will
attend, what insurance to buy, etc.?  Or do we as parents make certain
decisions for kids until they mature enough to participate in them?

Certainly, many children have the maturity to make intelligent decisions but
until all students possess that maturity, wouldn't it better to focus on the
education they require before they hit the real world?

j
taurusrc@aol.com - 14 May 2004 00:05 GMT
Vending machines in schools were not designed for health.  They were designed
for profit.  Why should anyone expect them to promote health.  They were put
them for only one purpose.  To get kids to spend their money on their contents.
I seem to remember something about the promoters of vending machines giving part
of their profits to the schools.

Ora

>Study finds little healthy in school vending machines
>
[quoted text clipped - 62 lines]
>
>"Yes, we've lost revenue, but we're doing the right thing," Happ said.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2012 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.