Anonymous wrote:

OP here. I am not on a diet. I look closely at his growth and he is gaining weight. I hope to keep him at the 70th%ile for weight as long as his vertical growth continues. He does not know that I am watching him closely as I do my other kids. He eats a ton of protein since I do want him to max out on height. He says he wants to play basketball or something like that.

Why? Even if that means he is hungry?

Why do you see being satiated as a bad thing?

Yes, I'm perceiving this as a kind of carryover from the Victorian-era poor houses and public schools in England -- it's morally strengthening for children to be hungry and morally enfeebling for children to be full. Also, enjoying food is a moral weakness; one eats to live, that's all. (This is an extremely un-European attitude, by the way.)

In his essay "Such, Such Were The Joys", George Orwell (the English writer) remembers being told at his fancy preparatory school in 1911 or so that it is healthy to get up from a meal feeling as hungry as when you sat down, but of course the school saved a lot of money by not feeding the boys enough. See http://www.lumsa.it/sites/default/files/UTENTI/u146/Orwell%20-%20Such%20such%20were%20the%20joys.pdf What's the OP's reason for it?

I think the issue is not with the OP's kids' specific nutrition: since these are children who are eating on a regular basis and whose mom seems to know at least basically what foods are healthy and choose those, the kids are very unlikely to starve.

The problem is with OP's overall attitude about food and weight. Her control issues related to her children's food intake - what, when, how much - seems fairly disordered to me, and her vitriol regarding obesity, while it might come from a kind place originally, will absolutely be hell on any child who exceeds that 70th %ile that she's trying to stick to. What happens if the OP's preteen child goes through the incredibly normal phase of being a preteen that involves being a little bit chunky, right before stretching out? A lot of people do, and it's not predictive of later size and shape. The OP's "fat panic" sounds like it'll kick on then, and the small portion sizes that her kids are already not satisfied by will get even smaller.

Tweens eat and sleep a lot. This is a normal part of becoming and being a teen. My tween daughter eats more than I do. At this age, she is the one who decides when to stop eating healthy foods. I'm not yanking the fruits and vegetables away from her to make a point. Why would I? They have to learn to regulate their own eating.

Anonymous wrote:This is a completely bizarre post on many levels. Why is OP posting--what kind of feedback was she expecting when she uses a title like why is it not OK to feel hunger? Her closest friends are telling her what she is doing is not ok and then she comes here to what? Get validation it is okay?

I also don't get this snacking is purely an American thing. It is pretty universal that in nonimpoverished households all over the world that kids have a snack when they come home from school. The stretch between lunch and dinner is typically much longer than the stretch between breakfast and lunch.

I went to a French high school and they even served snack (goutee) at the school in the afternoon. As I recall we had a choice between an apple and a wedge of la Vache Qui Rit or--horrors--a baguette and squares of chocolate. The bread came straight from the bakery and was warm; we stuck the chocolate squares inside and they melted. This is what bread and chocolate means and it is quite yummy.

The British have always had afternoon tea with a scone or two.

The Spanish have light tapas to tide them through to their very late dinners.

A snack in the afternoon is not evil, It is pretty much a world wide thing even among the thinner and of course much superior Europeans.

I babysat for a Danish couple years ago. Their girls had an afternoon snack built right into their routine.

Small nutritious snacks can easily be part of an overall healthy eating plan.

BUT.. OP doesn't want to know this. She gets some sort of weird satisfaction from making sure her kid stays thin even if that means he's often hungry.

This is a completely bizarre post on many levels. Why is OP posting--what kind of feedback was she expecting when she uses a title like why is it not OK to feel hunger? Her closest friends are telling her what she is doing is not ok and then she comes here to what? Get validation it is okay?

I also don't get this snacking is purely an American thing. It is pretty universal that in nonimpoverished households all over the world that kids have a snack when they come home from school. The stretch between lunch and dinner is typically much longer than the stretch between breakfast and lunch.

I went to a French high school and they even served snack (goutee) at the school in the afternoon. As I recall we had a choice between an apple and a wedge of la Vache Qui Rit or--horrors--a baguette and squares of chocolate. The bread came straight from the bakery and was warm; we stuck the chocolate squares inside and they melted. This is what bread and chocolate means and it is quite yummy.

The British have always had afternoon tea with a scone or two.

The Spanish have light tapas to tide them through to their very late dinners.

A snack in the afternoon is not evil, It is pretty much a world wide thing even among the thinner and of course much superior Europeans.

OP here. I am not on a diet. I look closely at his growth and he is gaining weight. I hope to keep him at the 70th%ile for weight as long as his vertical growth continues. He does not know that I am watching him closely as I do my other kids. He eats a ton of protein since I do want him to max out on height. He says he wants to play basketball or something like that.

Why? Even if that means he is hungry?

Why do you see being satiated as a bad thing?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This obsession of always having a snack ready, packing snacks wherever you go, or making a special stop for a snack, is way out of control.

+1. And meetings, practices or activities must have snacks. After 45 minutes everyone needs to eat??

I agree with all this, especially for little kids. But OP said her kid is a lanky tween boy. I think all bets are off. I haven't experienced a growing to teen boy in my house yet, but I remember my brothers eating. Maybe some moms who have been through teen boys can chime in. I think it's good for him to figure out when he is full, and not impose our "over 40 dieting mom appetites and portions" on a growing teen. Does everyone remember the thread about the mom of teens who never had leftovers?

OP here. I am not on a diet. I look closely at his growth and he is gaining weight. I hope to keep him at the 70th%ile for weight as long as his vertical growth continues. He does not know that I am watching him closely as I do my other kids. He eats a ton of protein since I do want him to max out on height. He says he wants to play basketball or something like that.

I am quite sure that you are 100% wrong about this. He knows that you monitor him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not true. As someone who has battled food addiction my entire life (I remember this sense of urgency and shame around food as young 3 or 4), It is actually good for kids to experience hunger. The problem with american kids is the constant snacking, followed by large portions etc. So even if you only provide "healthy meals" at some point they will be out at a friends house, on their own, and they will not understand their own body signals. Most kids are overweight because they eat for dopamine like effect, boredom and honestly have no idea how to read/listen to their own body signals. OP does not have an eating disorder, kids are not gonna starve if they don't get three snacks at a 1 hour soccer game.

Nobody is saying that they will.

Actually a previous poster stated that "its abuse to starve your kid"--clearly parents think the kids will fail to function if they don't eat every waking hour.

Never said they will "fail to function." Said they would fail to develop properly...big difference.

How is a kid who is growing well being starved? Do you understand what starvation is? A home that serves modest portions is not starving anyone.

If you withhold food from a child that is hungry, that is a form of starvation. Any pediatrician would agree and find this behavior worrisome.

The child isn't starving!!!!! You don't even understand the definition of the word starving. Wow.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not true. As someone who has battled food addiction my entire life (I remember this sense of urgency and shame around food as young 3 or 4), It is actually good for kids to experience hunger. The problem with american kids is the constant snacking, followed by large portions etc. So even if you only provide "healthy meals" at some point they will be out at a friends house, on their own, and they will not understand their own body signals. Most kids are overweight because they eat for dopamine like effect, boredom and honestly have no idea how to read/listen to their own body signals. OP does not have an eating disorder, kids are not gonna starve if they don't get three snacks at a 1 hour soccer game.

Nobody is saying that they will.

Actually a previous poster stated that "its abuse to starve your kid"--clearly parents think the kids will fail to function if they don't eat every waking hour.

Never said they will "fail to function." Said they would fail to develop properly...big difference.

How is a kid who is growing well being starved? Do you understand what starvation is? A home that serves modest portions is not starving anyone.

If you withhold food from a child that is hungry, that is a form of starvation. Any pediatrician would agree and find this behavior worrisome.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This obsession of always having a snack ready, packing snacks wherever you go, or making a special stop for a snack, is way out of control.

+1. And meetings, practices or activities must have snacks. After 45 minutes everyone needs to eat??

I agree with all this, especially for little kids. But OP said her kid is a lanky tween boy. I think all bets are off. I haven't experienced a growing to teen boy in my house yet, but I remember my brothers eating. Maybe some moms who have been through teen boys can chime in. I think it's good for him to figure out when he is full, and not impose our "over 40 dieting mom appetites and portions" on a growing teen. Does everyone remember the thread about the mom of teens who never had leftovers?

OP here. I am not on a diet. I look closely at his growth and he is gaining weight. I hope to keep him at the 70th%ile for weight as long as his vertical growth continues. He does not know that I am watching him closely as I do my other kids. He eats a ton of protein since I do want him to max out on height. He says he wants to play basketball or something like that.

Why?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not true. As someone who has battled food addiction my entire life (I remember this sense of urgency and shame around food as young 3 or 4), It is actually good for kids to experience hunger. The problem with american kids is the constant snacking, followed by large portions etc. So even if you only provide "healthy meals" at some point they will be out at a friends house, on their own, and they will not understand their own body signals. Most kids are overweight because they eat for dopamine like effect, boredom and honestly have no idea how to read/listen to their own body signals. OP does not have an eating disorder, kids are not gonna starve if they don't get three snacks at a 1 hour soccer game.

Nobody is saying that they will.

Actually a previous poster stated that "its abuse to starve your kid"--clearly parents think the kids will fail to function if they don't eat every waking hour.

Never said they will "fail to function." Said they would fail to develop properly...big difference.

How is a kid who is growing well being starved? Do you understand what starvation is? A home that serves modest portions is not starving anyone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not true. As someone who has battled food addiction my entire life (I remember this sense of urgency and shame around food as young 3 or 4), It is actually good for kids to experience hunger. The problem with american kids is the constant snacking, followed by large portions etc. So even if you only provide "healthy meals" at some point they will be out at a friends house, on their own, and they will not understand their own body signals. Most kids are overweight because they eat for dopamine like effect, boredom and honestly have no idea how to read/listen to their own body signals. OP does not have an eating disorder, kids are not gonna starve if they don't get three snacks at a 1 hour soccer game.

Nobody is saying that they will.

Actually a previous poster stated that "its abuse to starve your kid"--clearly parents think the kids will fail to function if they don't eat every waking hour.

Never said they will "fail to function." Said they would fail to develop properly...big difference.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not true. As someone who has battled food addiction my entire life (I remember this sense of urgency and shame around food as young 3 or 4), It is actually good for kids to experience hunger. The problem with american kids is the constant snacking, followed by large portions etc. So even if you only provide "healthy meals" at some point they will be out at a friends house, on their own, and they will not understand their own body signals. Most kids are overweight because they eat for dopamine like effect, boredom and honestly have no idea how to read/listen to their own body signals. OP does not have an eating disorder, kids are not gonna starve if they don't get three snacks at a 1 hour soccer game.

Nobody is saying that they will.

Actually a previous poster stated that "its abuse to starve your kid"--clearly parents think the kids will fail to function if they don't eat every waking hour.

It is abuse to starve your kid. Don't you agree?

But why would you think that "it's abuse to starve your kid" means "kids must eat every waking hour?"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not true. As someone who has battled food addiction my entire life (I remember this sense of urgency and shame around food as young 3 or 4), It is actually good for kids to experience hunger. The problem with american kids is the constant snacking, followed by large portions etc. So even if you only provide "healthy meals" at some point they will be out at a friends house, on their own, and they will not understand their own body signals. Most kids are overweight because they eat for dopamine like effect, boredom and honestly have no idea how to read/listen to their own body signals. OP does not have an eating disorder, kids are not gonna starve if they don't get three snacks at a 1 hour soccer game.

Nobody is saying that they will.

Actually a previous poster stated that "its abuse to starve your kid"--clearly parents think the kids will fail to function if they don't eat every waking hour.

Anonymous wrote:

Not true. As someone who has battled food addiction my entire life (I remember this sense of urgency and shame around food as young 3 or 4), It is actually good for kids to experience hunger. The problem with american kids is the constant snacking, followed by large portions etc. So even if you only provide "healthy meals" at some point they will be out at a friends house, on their own, and they will not understand their own body signals. Most kids are overweight because they eat for dopamine like effect, boredom and honestly have no idea how to read/listen to their own body signals. OP does not have an eating disorder, kids are not gonna starve if they don't get three snacks at a 1 hour soccer game.

Nobody is saying that they will.