Reply With Quote
Holy ...the mods changed the spelling in the le...let me see if this works...
nutritious
Holy ...the mods changed the spelling in the le...let me see if this works...
nutritious
cowboybonics
Obama and Mic e don't micromanage school lunch menus, which are often out-sourced, "to save money", to MORE expensive. for-profit scammers maximizing their profits,not maximizing nutrition nor tasty-ness.
Kids don’t care if you swap french fries for fruit: study
Though notorious for their finicky taste buds, kids are surprisingly cool with their French fries getting replaced with fruit and having their soda and lemonade taken away completely, a new study finds.
The findings come from Tufts University, and they suggest to researchers that default menu options are actually more preferable to people than whatever unhealthy food they’re accustomed to. It’s more of an effort, in other words, for young diners to actively select something sugary and fried than struggle through a plate of strawberries or salad. And in some cases, they actually prefer the healthier option.
The Silver Diner set the stage. In 2012, before the Tufts scientists began collecting data, the restaurant’s founder, chef Ype Von Hengst, began taking unhealthy sides and drinks off the kids’ menu. He replaced them with healthier, contemporary options, including quinoa pancakes and teriyaki salmon. Instead of offering fries as a side dish, he made salads and mixed fruit the default. If customers still wanted fries, they had to ask for them specifically.
The result? “This was a huge hit, I think,” Hengst told NPR. “I think everybody — moms and kids — appreciated this.”
Chef Ype Von Hengst noticed considerable changes in how his young diners ate when he switched out French fries for healthier side dishes, all because they ate what they were given. Ron Cogswell, CC BY 2.0
The menu overhaul got the attention of Stephanie Anzman-Frasca, a research associate and adjunct professor of nutrition at Tufts. She and her colleagues decided to analyze Hengst’s changes for any signs of healthier food choices, which they ultimately found in spades. In looking at 350,000 meals, they found the percentage of people ordering fries dropped from 57 percent before the menu change to 22 percent.
“Our study showed that healthier children's menu options were ordered a lot more often when those options were more prevalent and prominent on kids' menus,” Anzman-Frasca said in a university press release. Before the change, only three percent of menu items qualified as “healthy” according to the National Restaurant Association's Kids Live Well program. Afterward, that rate jumped to 46 percent.
The problem of childhood obesity is well-known in the United States: Some 18 percent of kids were obese in 2012, up from seven percent three decades earlier. Kids aren’t as active as they used to be, opting to engage with their friends online rather than in neighborhood streets. That challenge is, as of yet, unresolved. But when it comes to their food choices, psychology suggests activism isn’t always necessary.
There’s an effect that kids and adults alike both experience: the default effect. Time and again, psychologists and behavioral economists have found people would rather keep what they know they have than make an active choice. Sometimes this applies to major decisions that affect public health, such as the well-publicized gaps in organ donation rates between countries. The differences don’t come from inherent feelings of generosity, merely that some people sign forms that allow them to opt in to the donation program and some allow them to opt out.
The latest children’s menu study is a version of the organ donation program. Kids are essentially given the choice to opt in to French fries by opting out of salad. But like the countries that give people the chance to opt out of giving up their kidneys and hearts, the rates of staying with what you already have are much, much higher.
“Given how frequently kids go to restaurants, and evidence that this can be linked with consuming excess calories,” Anzman-Frasca said, “offering and promoting healthier menu options could play a role in reversing the childhood obesity epidemic.”
Source: Anzman-Frasca S, Mueller M, Sliwa S, et al. Changes in children's meal orders following healthy menu modifications at a regional US restaurant chain. Obesity. 2015.
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/kids-dont-care-if-you-swap-french-fries-for-fruit-study/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaig n=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story%29
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/kids...e+Raw+Story%29
Too bad. If you're going to come out with a directive like that, then you need to own it. You can't just throw out an un-executable plan and then duck when the criticism comes.
why would any kids complain?
nom nom nom
but is this the pudding OR the meat????
You can buy pretty good lunch at might middle school and high school (by school standards at least).
blaming Obama for the quality of school lunches in Texas is borderline moronic.
iow, "Thanks, Obama!"
figgers a head like you would be against "kids eating healthy menus at schools"
Stop blaming the first lady!
This is obviously a BigRepug conspiracy.
We need a congressional subcommittee to investigate this ...
School lunches in Texas began sucking well before Obama...
just another example of BigGov overstepping their boundaries. Unfortunate students that have been subjected to this are going home and binge eating because they won't eat that . Also, mandating a calorie max for all kids and disregarding that kids have different dietary needs is moronic.
If she really wants to tackle the obesity problem, she needs to go after the electronics that keep kids inside and not exercising. Or go after the parents for letting them sit around. But that would be too unpopular so she won't do it.
Liar! That was clearly the republicans' fault.
and how would you do that?If she really wants to tackle the obesity problem, she needs to go after the electronics that keep kids inside and not exercising
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) reports that the average American consumes anywhere between 150 to 170 pounds of refined sugars in one year!
You may be thinking, “I do not consume that much.” Well, it is also said that:
- For every American who eats only 5 pounds of sugar each year, there is one who eats about 295 pounds per year.
That is A LOT of sugar – especially when you compare it to how much we used to consume in the past.
- Less than 100 years ago, the average intake of sugar was only about 4 pounds per person per year.
Not 150, 170, or 295 pounds!
Are you eating 30-34 five-pound bags of sugar each year?
Are you having a difficult time understanding how much sugar 150 to 170 pounds is? Here is a visual:
- Imagine 30 to 34 five-pound bags of sugar lined up next to each other on a counter.
Now imagine one person, perhaps yourself, eating ALL of that sugar.
Are you eating 1/4-1/2 pounds of sugar each day?
To break it down even more, eating 150-170 pounds of sugar in one year is also equivalent to consuming 1/4 to 1/2 pounds of sugar each day. That is 30-60 teaspoons of sugar in a 24 hour period. Not convinced that one person can easily consume this amount of sugar? Think again… it is not that difficult to achieve.
Here are some more numbers:
...
http://bamboocorefitness.com/not-so-sweet-the-average-american-consumes-150-170-pounds-of-sugar-each-year/
The low-fat bull is right up there with the high-cholesterol bull as 100% medical misleading/confusing, BigPharma scams.
The low-fat bull led to the high-carb and high-sugar (including HFCS) disaster over the last 40 years which is also the period where the AVERAGE American became overweight and/or obese.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
