Anonymous wrote:My kids eat when they want. I bring snacks everywhere. Some days my 6 yo dd will out eat me. She is tall and thin.

If your kid isn't overweight op, please please do not with hold food. Especially from a growing boy teenager. Seriously, wth is wrong with you?

Op, what is your height and weight and measurements?

They don't always stay tall and thin.

Anonymous wrote:Um, the only way to be thin is to eat small quantities of food. Also, folks have to learn to ignore the "hunger", which is all relative. Your definition of hunger is different than mine.

One way to be thin is to eat small quantities of food. Certainly it is not the only way, though. Some people eat regular amounts of food and exercise. Others limit what kinds of foods they eat, but not the overall quantity. Still others do not need to worry about any of this, being that their body type and genetics result in them being thin even if they eat tons of total crap.

I quit snacking all together, because I wanted to lose weight by reducing the amount of food I ate overall. The OP is banning snacking and restricting portions on a child who does not need to lose weight because she wants to prevent him from being fat.

Anonymous wrote:Um, the only way to be thin is to eat small quantities of food. Also, folks have to learn to ignore the "hunger", which is all relative. Your definition of hunger is different than mine.

This is factually incorrect.

OP is a weird troll.

Um, the only way to be thin is to eat small quantities of food. Also, folks have to learn to ignore the "hunger", which is all relative. Your definition of hunger is different than mine.

OP, your relationship with food is disordered. You've spent 5 pages talking about how there was less food around 50 years ago, how people weren't snacking all the time, etc. No one disagrees with you there. However, you're not teaching your child patience. You're teaching him that your food rules are rigid and to sneak around. What you will end up with is a child who eats secretly and then feels guilty about it. I would rather teach my child about proper nutrition and give her a handful of nuts or an apple while I'm making dinner than teach her that self denial and discomfort are a virtue.

And PP, no one said anything about processed junk. The OP is denying her child even healthy snacks, at all times, and policing portion sizes because she wants her child to be thin. I'm not sure which would be preferable to the OP - a child who becomes overweight as soon as he's permitted to make his own food decisions or a child with an eating disorder who is unable to confide in his mom for fear of being shamed. My guess is that the OP will end up with at least one of each, though.

Anonymous wrote:

The spare tire around my husband's stomach is proof he isn't a better judge. The man wants to eat all the time. Sorry but no way you can convince me eating processed junk before dinner is good for you. The majority of people don't eat healthy snacks like fruit.

That is an argument against "processed junk", not an argument against a snack before dinner.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP I think it's fine if you're teaching your children they don't need to eat all the time. The American obsession with snacking is unreal. People eat all the time. Europeans don't carry around snacks for kids. That being said, you should absolutely make sure you provide enough food to your child at mealtimes. This food should be nutritious.

But yes, the obsession with eating all the time here is weird. My husband almost throws a fit if he gets remotely hungry. Like he won't survive the two hour wait until dinner. He must eat now!

If your husband is hungry now, why do you think that he should wait two hours to eat until dinner? What is the benefit? Why shouldn't he have a small snack to tide him over? I am asking sincerely.

Because you should be hungry when you come to the dinner table to eat dinner. It is not normal to constantly be putting things in your mouth to the effect that you are never hungry. Calories from snacking add up quickly and snacking is one of the huge difference between America and European countries where there is less obesity. Americans didn't snack before the 1970s and it is a relatively new phenomena. It is also an issue of immediate gratification. Children need to be taught patience and that they can't have what they want when they want it all the time.

Ah, so it's the moral argument: hunger is good because it shows that you have will power and can delay gratification. Plus also the "Europeans do it, so it's better" argument.

Maybe your husband believes that he'll function better if he has a small snack, and also believes that he's a better judge than you of whether he'll still be hungry for dinner?

The spare tire around my husband's stomach is proof he isn't a better judge. The man wants to eat all the time. Sorry but no way you can convince me eating processed junk before dinner is good for you. The majority of people don't eat healthy snacks like fruit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP I think it's fine if you're teaching your children they don't need to eat all the time. The American obsession with snacking is unreal. People eat all the time. Europeans don't carry around snacks for kids. That being said, you should absolutely make sure you provide enough food to your child at mealtimes. This food should be nutritious.

But yes, the obsession with eating all the time here is weird. My husband almost throws a fit if he gets remotely hungry. Like he won't survive the two hour wait until dinner. He must eat now!

If your husband is hungry now, why do you think that he should wait two hours to eat until dinner? What is the benefit? Why shouldn't he have a small snack to tide him over? I am asking sincerely.

Because you should be hungry when you come to the dinner table to eat dinner. It is not normal to constantly be putting things in your mouth to the effect that you are never hungry. Calories from snacking add up quickly and snacking is one of the huge difference between America and European countries where there is less obesity. Americans didn't snack before the 1970s and it is a relatively new phenomena. It is also an issue of immediate gratification. Children need to be taught patience and that they can't have what they want when they want it all the time.

Ah, so it's the moral argument: hunger is good because it shows that you have will power and can delay gratification. Plus also the "Europeans do it, so it's better" argument.

Maybe your husband believes that he'll function better if he has a small snack, and also believes that he's a better judge than you of whether he'll still be hungry for dinner?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP I think it's fine if you're teaching your children they don't need to eat all the time. The American obsession with snacking is unreal. People eat all the time. Europeans don't carry around snacks for kids. That being said, you should absolutely make sure you provide enough food to your child at mealtimes. This food should be nutritious.

But yes, the obsession with eating all the time here is weird. My husband almost throws a fit if he gets remotely hungry. Like he won't survive the two hour wait until dinner. He must eat now!

If your husband is hungry now, why do you think that he should wait two hours to eat until dinner? What is the benefit? Why shouldn't he have a small snack to tide him over? I am asking sincerely.

Because you should be hungry when you come to the dinner table to eat dinner. It is not normal to constantly be putting things in your mouth to the effect that you are never hungry. Calories from snacking add up quickly and snacking is one of the huge difference between America and European countries where there is less obesity. Americans didn't snack before the 1970s and it is a relatively new phenomena. It is also an issue of immediate gratification. Children need to be taught patience and that they can't have what they want when they want it all the time.

Anonymous wrote:OP I think it's fine if you're teaching your children they don't need to eat all the time. The American obsession with snacking is unreal. People eat all the time. Europeans don't carry around snacks for kids. That being said, you should absolutely make sure you provide enough food to your child at mealtimes. This food should be nutritious.

But yes, the obsession with eating all the time here is weird. My husband almost throws a fit if he gets remotely hungry. Like he won't survive the two hour wait until dinner. He must eat now!

If your husband is hungry now, why do you think that he should wait two hours to eat until dinner? What is the benefit? Why shouldn't he have a small snack to tide him over? I am asking sincerely.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mom of growing teen boy here. As a "tween" your boy should be getting all the nourishment he needs. Normally at this age boys will get a little chunky at the waist. This is totally normal and they will lose all that chunk when they shoot up. You are depriving him of necessary nourishment to develop properly. And I agree with other posters that you are setting him up for eating disorders in the future. OP you sound like you need som serious therapy...I would say this is bordering on child abuse.

Again with the "abuse." What is it about this thread that brings out the drama queens?

I'm not OP, by the way.

OP is purposely giving OP's child less food than OP's child wants, because OP thinks that it's fine to be hungry and wants tall, thin children. If that's not abuse, what is it?

I think it's abuse to feed your kids all the time and for the extra fat rolls on them. If they don't have them now, they will. There isn't anything wrong with wanting thin children. Healthy people are thin. Fat people look awful and are a burden on our healthcare system.

So giving your child too much food is abuse, but giving your child insufficient food is not abuse. That is an interesting definition of abuse.

And again, nobody has said that there is anything wrong with wanting thin children. However, there might be something wrong with the actions people take to make their children be thin.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mom of growing teen boy here. As a "tween" your boy should be getting all the nourishment he needs. Normally at this age boys will get a little chunky at the waist. This is totally normal and they will lose all that chunk when they shoot up. You are depriving him of necessary nourishment to develop properly. And I agree with other posters that you are setting him up for eating disorders in the future. OP you sound like you need som serious therapy...I would say this is bordering on child abuse.

Again with the "abuse." What is it about this thread that brings out the drama queens?

I'm not OP, by the way.

OP is purposely giving OP's child less food than OP's child wants, because OP thinks that it's fine to be hungry and wants tall, thin children. If that's not abuse, what is it?

I think it's abuse to feed your kids all the time and for the extra fat rolls on them. If they don't have them now, they will. There isn't anything wrong with wanting thin children. Healthy people are thin. Fat people look awful and are a burden on our healthcare system.

OP I think it's fine if you're teaching your children they don't need to eat all the time. The American obsession with snacking is unreal. People eat all the time. Europeans don't carry around snacks for kids. That being said, you should absolutely make sure you provide enough food to your child at mealtimes. This food should be nutritious.

But yes, the obsession with eating all the time here is weird. My husband almost throws a fit if he gets remotely hungry. Like he won't survive the two hour wait until dinner. He must eat now!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mom of growing teen boy here. As a "tween" your boy should be getting all the nourishment he needs. Normally at this age boys will get a little chunky at the waist. This is totally normal and they will lose all that chunk when they shoot up. You are depriving him of necessary nourishment to develop properly. And I agree with other posters that you are setting him up for eating disorders in the future. OP you sound like you need som serious therapy...I would say this is bordering on child abuse.

Again with the "abuse." What is it about this thread that brings out the drama queens?

I'm not OP, by the way.

OP is purposely giving OP's child less food than OP's child wants, because OP thinks that it's fine to be hungry and wants tall, thin children. If that's not abuse, what is it?