Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Spotlight on Children and Healthy Eating

I read the Well blog frequently; I have to for work, but I read most of it because I’m genuinely interested in its content. In the past few days, Tara Parker-Pope has written two entries that deal with children and food, one of her many pet topics.

Friday’s “Slowing Down School Lunch” featured a short interview with Dr. Arthur Agatston, a cardiologist who has done studies on elementary schools and children’s eating, seeing how the shortened school lunch period negatively affects students’ eating habits. “Children in America today are often overfed and undernourished,” he said, and cites the positive turnaround that antismoking campaigns have done for children’s health, hoping that a similar initiative can be put in place to foster healthy eating.

I spent every day in middle school bitching about how short my lunch period was. The time did not change in high school, but by then I was used to it and resigned to the fact that there was nothing I could do. Lunch was twenty minutes, which included time from the bell to get out of the previous class to the bell that announced the next class begin, and in that time you had to fit in walking to and from your locker, exchanging books, walking to the cafeteria, possibly buying lunch (something I did approximately once a week), and using the bathroom. I also tried to squeeze in some homework or socializing in addition to eating my lunch.

That’s not enough time. I’m a slow eater—always have been, always will be—regardless if I’m doing anything other than eating. I just am. Inhaling my food has always been problematic, and I spent many lunch periods still choking down food as everyone exited, packing up my books with a banana in my mouth.

What Parker-Pope discusses goes hand in hand with the post from the previous day, how you can teach your child to eat healthy. Having quick meals encourages fast food of all stripes—frozen dinners, breakfast bars, a bag of chips. Eating an apple takes time, especially when your mouth and hands are small. And shorter lunch times, especially when faced with a ridiculous long line, bullies, and a Spanish test to study for guarantee that a trade-off is made, and that trade-off is usually to disregard lunch. And with meal times so out of whack (10:30 am, anyone, when school starts at 8), it’s often hard to eat too, especially if your body is severely sleep-deprived.

I am a big believer that children need to be exposed to lots of different things, and that includes food. They may not appreciate some of it until they are older, but sometimes children are more willing to try things than adults are, and they at least have the knowledge to recognize that they don’t like something for a concrete reason that’s not “because it’s green”.

Too many kid-centric entertainments consider children’s food the lowest common denominator, and as such perpetuate the horrible nutritional value and bad reputation of food that children like. There are children who like vegetables and healthy meals, and they don’t all live in San Francisco. Going to a McDonald’s party (do they still do those?), a Chuckie Cheese, or a movie theater is a recipe for a toothache and a stomachache, and really poor quality of pizza. It’s distressing to see children—even adults—who are reduced to chicken fingers and French fries, and their version of a salad is the basic “chicken ceasar”, nothing but some iceberg lettuce, cheese, three croutons, and creamy dressing. Gross. It also fosters children to be very narrow-minded food consumers as adults, and will balk when presented with anything different or fancy—even if a common dish’s preparation is altered. This viewpoint leads to finicky, picky people who often have poor habits and an even poorer diet, which can lead to problems down the road…which leads to higher health expenses, less mobility, less options, and a crappier quality of life. Sold?

I’m getting ahead of myself. My original intention was to highlight part of Parker-Pope’s interview with Tom Colicchio, the head judge on Top Chef. He discusses how hard it is to teach children good healthy habits in regard to food, and his experience with his son. I agree with a lot he says, and love that he points out the positive feedback his show has gotten. Food and cooking shows can be great family entertainment, and it’s encouraging to hear that Top Chef has changed viewers’ habits positively.

Does having a father who is a chef make a difference in your son’s eating habits?

I don’t think having a father as a chef makes you any more or less susceptible to eating unhealthy food. If he’s out with his friends he’s going to do what his friends are doing. He’s like most kids. He’s not a chicken finger kid, and we’re not big fast food eaters. But it’s still a struggle to get him to eat healthy food. He’d rather grab a Sprite. But he enjoys good food. His idea of a great meal is seafood.

What do you think is the most important thing you’ve done to shape his eating habits?

We’re eating healthier food at home, so he’s eating what we’re eating. For us the challenge is he likes soda and he likes sweets, so we have to limit that. I think the patterns are set very early when the kids are young. But at the same time, there are some flavors kids just don’t like. For him, he’ll eat peas, but he doesn’t like broccoli. Green was always an issue. For a while he wouldn’t eat anything with chopped parsley. He still doesn’t eat raw tomatoes, it’s the goop inside. I had the same issue when I was a kid. But there are also things he loves that he probably wouldn’t if he hadn’t been exposed to them. For instance, he loves caviar.

Do you talk to him about healthy eating?

Giving him a choice between something that is unhealthy and something healthy, that’s not the choice. It’s between good and bad, well prepared and poorly prepared. He used to complain that the school cafeteria food was so bad he wouldn’t eat it. He used to like boxed mac and cheese, but once he got the real stuff, he said he didn’t want the boxed stuff anymore.

Does it surprise you how popular your show is with kids?

I travel around and hear from so many kids. Their parents say they were always very picky but they watch the show and they want to try stuff. The show is entertainment, but I think it has done so much for the public perception of what food can be.

Should restaurants be doing more to promote healthful eating?

What chefs can do when it comes to getting the word out is have people understand food differently. If food is well sourced and well prepared, I don’t think the word healthy needs to be brought into it. It’s healthy because it’s wholesome. That’s what we should focus on. You can buy a box of low-fat macaroni and cheese made with powdered nonsense. I’m not worried if I’m using four different cheeses and it’s high in fat. It’s real food. That’s what’s more important.

What do you say to parents who work all day and rely on packaged foods for convenience?

I want to feed my kid something that is real and not processed. It’s hard to do. People are working and busy. The question is: Is it worth it? Is it worth stopping at the farm stand or supermarket to buy fresh ingredients? Even just choosing whether to buy a head of lettuce. Do you buy fresh or the prewashed lettuce in a bag with the nutrients leached out of it? That’s what’s more important to me.

Saturday, February 21, 2009

Abortion: Sometimes It's Really Not That Big a Deal

A really great essay on abortion, and not feeling guilt, but relief:

But with the recent popularity of slapstick pregnancy comedies like Knocked Up and Juno, you'd be surprised at how randomly "So have you ever been pregnant?" or "What would you do?" can invade a light conversation. And where anti-choice activists believe "confession" is a necessary step to absolve yourself of the "crime," and Christian sites like Care Net are full of essays about regretful women weeping about the mistakes of their youth to disapproving, divinely forgiving husbands, the pro-choice side isn't offering up any nifty guides titled So You're Eating a Cheeseburger With Your Man and Abortion Comes Up. That, at least for me, would've been more handy than all the safe-sex pamphlets stuffed in my hand when I exited the clinic. Between my desire to be honest and my fear of that honesty's ramifications, managing and packaging my abortion became more difficult than the act itself.

One of the problems is that Hollywood is too afraid to actual show abortions--not to protagonists, not to sympathetic characters. They always, in the end, decide to have the baby.

Men, the writer of the essay contends, have a hard time dealing with abortion, thinking that it's this gut-wrenching emotional experience, when in fact for many it's just an annoying but necessary medical procedure, like going to the dentist. We're conditioned to think of abortion as this horrible thing--killing babies!--but at such an early point it's nothing, and depending upon one's views and stage of life, it can be hard to attach such emotion to something that merely seems like a crappy outcome.

The New York Times explored these mixed feelings with this cover story. For another type of abortion--one that freaked me out when I first read it--check out this, another cover.

(Original essay link from Slate)

Thursday, February 5, 2009

Wishing, Wanting, Hoping

It always seemed bizarre to me that the book, and now the movie, are marketed as empowering. Since when does inaction make you feel in control? It's ultimately the same philosophy behind The Rules, just covered in a lacquer of sass.

He's Just Not That Into You may be common sense, but it's also based on a woman's (supposed) total powerlessness in starting relationships.

If he's into you, he'll call. Doing anything proactive would be a waste of time, not to mention, pathetic. (As the trailer for next week's film version of He's Just Not That Into You makes abundantly clear, that one extra, unsolicited phone call could be really, really embarrassing.) God forbid, you should pursue some one you truly liked; you might get rejected to your face, which would be so much harder to bear than getting passively rejected by an unanswered voice mail. If the prospect of a real-time dismissal seems worth the risk in certain, obviously rare!, cases, He's Just Not That Into You can't help. Fiona could. Maybe she should write her own book (if she can find time between all the fire fights). It could be called He's Just Not That Into You: Who Cares?

From Slate’s XX Blog

They’re commenting on Burn Notice’s Fiona, how she tries and tries and tries to get her ex-boyfriend, Michael back, yet she’s still totally badass.

I’ve never watched Burn Notice (though I’d like to at some point), so I can’t comment on her. But I will on He’s Just Not That Into You:

I never understood the premise behind The Rules, because I do not believe that love is passive. If I wait and wait and wait for a boy to like me, I will wait forever. You have to be active, you have to let them know—or else they won’t. Hormones will compel you anyway, but there’s no point in hiding behind a mishmash of games. Games will happen even if you’re honest. You have to take the chance.

Maybe what He’s Just Not That Into You is saying is you have the choice of dropping the guy, of saying no, of declaring “I’m not going to put up with this.” Learning they have this option—no matter how obvious it may seem—can be empowering (if not depressing when they see what options they do have).

My mother suggested to me that I’d get a boyfriend if I just wanted one hard enough. Not only did I stifle a brewing argument, I shot down a “So if I just pray really really hard every night, he’ll just come to me—poof!” What kind of agency is that? I already have issues with that whole wanting concept, and I’m clearly not the only one.

Wishing idly does no good. But neither does “just waiting for the right time”, because that time might not come, and waiting and praying for it is a futile, depressing existence.