4 year old told to eat 3 chicken nuggets

reply to post by v1rtu0s0


So you're just going to completely ignore the line I had following the two you quoted where I said...

Depending on the brand they can be a healthy way to provide much needed carbohydrates for the child.

Seriously if you're going to quote someone to disagree with them quote the entire text.
If you don't you are no better than the average blogger, and can argue any point by leaving out relevant points.

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by v1rtu0s0

 

Just curious then, what would you pack as lunch for a child that age?

Depends on the genetics, allergies, predisposition to obesity, and other diseases.

I certainly wouldn't shovel franken food GMO's down their throat and watch them grow up with health conditions.

Why must they have a certain type of food? Because they watch comericals all day? Why are they watching comercials?

Of course chicken nuggets grown in oil, dipped in oil, and sold for oil are very good for you. Eat up...

Originally posted by samlf3rd
Of course chicken nuggets grown in oil, dipped in oil, and sold for oil are very good for you. Eat up...

Depends on the oil... since alot of oils can turn to transfats when heated as well as produce acrylamide when mixed with frutose or glucose and fried / baked.

Chicken nuggets are usually the unwanted products of chicken.

Originally posted by Pigraphia
reply to post by v1rtu0s0

 

So you're just going to completely ignore the line I had following the two you quoted where I said...

Depending on the brand they can be a healthy way to provide much needed carbohydrates for the child.

Seriously if you're going to quote someone to disagree with them quote the entire text.
If you don't you are no better than the average blogger, and can argue any point by leaving out relevant points.

I'm not really sure what your arguement is...? You say they can be given healthy carbohydrates. Sorry, what do you mean?

Originally posted by nixie_nox
And if you read my previous statement, there are schools where parents have to sign agreements that they will pack lunches by their standards or the lunches come home and then the parents have to pay for a school provided lunch.

Wait. What??

I'm hoping you're talking about private schools with that kind of policy. With a private school, the parents have made a choice to send their child to that particular school.
If it is public schools you're talking about, that's even worse than the food police story that started this thread. Public schools are paid for with taxes, and district enforced. A public school that forced parents to sign an 'agreement' like the one you spoke of is worse than "legislating from the bench" ...it's "legislating from the school board" and those people are not there to make or enforce laws. It would be tantamount to blackmail.

And what is this "fight against obesity?" Sounds like a bunch of rhetorical crap. People are fat for all kinds of reasons, none of which can be solved by a public school system that so often fails to teach basic arithmetic and basic literacy. Obesity can only be defeated by personal choice; the idea of a "fight against obesity" as a common public cause is just another prop platform for power grabs by the State, re: "War on Drugs," "War on Poverty," et cetera et cetera ad nauseum infinitum.

reply to post by v1rtu0s0

OK, i just wanted your suggestions.

I was just interested because you said neither the packed lunch or nuggets were healthy.

Now that will leave people like myself at a loss of what to actually pack (for an average child that's not struck by serious allergies or diseases).

reply to post by v1rtu0s0


My argument is with the fact that you improperly quoted me to make your point.
In my original post I already added the caveat "depending on the brand".
I don't have to go out and list every healthy brand of chips out there, we all know they exist.
If you choose to focus on only the negative chips to prove your point, that's your problem.
I'm just saying you shouldn't misquote(which included excluding and or out of context) people to make your point.

As for the issue at had, I would rather send my nephew to school with any brand of chips I chose even if they aren't 100% healthy over some government bought lowest bidder slop chicken nuggets.
At least the food I pick out I would know the nutritional content of the items, you talk about health risks...
I'm pretty sure the home packed meal had less of a negative impact over low bidder slop.

People letting this slide is a mistake, this is child indoctrination plain and simple. And its far more pervasive than we want to believe. Lunch inspections? Really? Wtf is this garbage.if the kid looks and acts healthy, then she's probably fine and needs no inspector peering into her lunch

reply to post by canuckster


You're right.
The lines in the sand need to be drawn.
The nanny state is getting too intrusive.

While we are at it bring back first and last place and get rid of "participation" awards.

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by v1rtu0s0

 

OK, i just wanted your suggestions.

I was just interested because you said neither the packed lunch or nuggets were healthy.

Now that will leave people like myself at a loss of what to actually pack (for an average child that's not struck by serious allergies or diseases).

edit on 14-2-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

You think that maybe they are trying to condition everyone to think that declaring war on something is the way to solve our problems?

Hmmmm

reply to post by EmceeTrick

What can one say to this?America has become one huge insane asylum,that much becomes clearer every day..and this clown who told her the chicken nuggets were the only healthy things in that lunchbox,dont know jack! They were actualy the UNHEALTHIEST things compared to what other foods she had in there..This witless idiot can consider him/herself real lucky they did,nt try it here in South Africa-they would have started a thing they could,nt finish,lemme tell you that much.

reply to post by canuckster

Yeah, I could see that declaring a metaphorical "war" has been noticeable in contemporary culture, especially when it comes to language on disease (the war on cancer) or subversives (the cancer in society).

Here, I was however just expecting some practical hints, or alternatives to the packed lunch and nuggets from the article.

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by Malcher


This is why it is important to learn before dictating whose lifestyles we agree with. The question is who will be in the cross hairs next? Actually you are demonstrating a major problem in the thought processes that go into universal health care.

It’s not weight gain which causes diabetes. It’s diabetes which causes weight gain. The majority of people with type 2 diabetes (there is no such thing as Type II diabetes) have an excess of insulin in their blood, which causes the body to lay down white adipose tissue. (There are two types of fat, white and brown, and it’s the white fat that is associated with health problems.)

Source: newslanc.com...

I have long suspected as much and good to see people catching on.

Bull, it's insulin that causes the weight gain. Continued insulin response causes one to store more fat. Diabetics use insulin (and still eat starchy crap for the most part), before that they ate a diet which promoted insulin resistance. The link between insulin resistance and Obesity is clear.
www.sciencedirect.com...
Diets which lead to Obesity promote inflammation. Obesity itself promotes inflammation and continued buildup of resistance to insulin causes...drumroll please...Diabetes! While there are thin people who will get Type 2 Diabetes the vast majority of people who will are overweight or obese.

And next time cite and actual medical study not a letter to the editor.

Just typed key words into google and that was the first (most recent) to come up.

Try this one:

one out of five people diagnosed with diabetes are thin or normal weight. And though heavy people with diabetes are, indeed, likely to be insulin resistant, the majority of people who are overweight will never develop diabetes.

Source: www.phlaunt.com...

I think you are missing the forest through the trees.

By your logic you can also say:

"People who play sports break bones or get other injuries so we are not going to pay for that health care".

Is playing sports higher risk behaviour than eating a cheese burger? It certainly can be so why pay health care for people who play sports?

As far as diabetes, i have seen people gain weight AFTER being diagnosed with diabetes so i don't know what to tell you except that there is bias in everything. This is a major problem with universal health care and being told what you can and cannot do.

Unless it effects the people making the decisions on what to pay for they may leave you hung out to dry. Another example: you are working many hours and fall asleep when you are driving home and get into an accident.

"well you fell asleep while driving, this was avoidable. since you were working it will be covered. IF you had been doing something enjoyable it would not be covered"

Also, another thing people never seem to consider is that diabetes (and other diseases) went undiagnosed for centuries. This does NOT mean people did not get diabetes decades or centuries ago. They didnt get it diagnose from a doctor or it just was not known about.

That lunch the mom packed her is a heck of a lot healthier than anything I've ever seen in any cafeteria I've ever eaten in, even as an adult.

Part are parts. Don't all little kids love chicken nuggets? Welcome to the police state numb nuts.

Shouldn't they be doing more important things? Lol. So sad.

It could be worse. Coming soon, Soy nuggets.

reply to post by mrnotobc

Old hat, I've been eating them for years.
www.frysvegetarian.co.za...

In many Eastern countries tofu (made from soy) has been battered and fried for ages.

I often thought that chicken nuggets were actually a corrupted copy of this.

And this is why we do our schooling at home. I don't understand why people continue to send their children off to these institutions to receive a cookie cutter education, that is below standard. We have too many children plodding through school not knowing how to read or write. I'm seeing 18 year old "graduates" out of high school who can't even form a sentence, and write in text message format.

I also love the fact that I don't have to deal with ridiculous teachers who either don't do their job, or, get into your business and treat you as if they are doing you and your child a favor.

If you don't want your child in the police state, don't send them out to it then complain about how it is. It's not difficult to teach your children at home, and my child gets plenty of socialization and interaction with other children every single day. She was recently tested and she's a grade above her reading, vocabulary, and math skills.