U.S. Feds: Remove These Foods/Drinks from all Schools - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-03-2007, 05:40 AM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,739
Local Time: 03:40 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by LarryMullen's_POPAngel
I can't look back to my high school years without picturing every other desk in every class with a can of whatever their poison was on top of their desk.

Diet Coke was (and still is) mine.
Here it is ice tea, (carbonated) water or apple juice with sparkling mineral water.
__________________

Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 12-03-2007, 09:26 AM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 09:40 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel

By the way, I hate diet pop . Tastes like crap.

And see, I can't have the regular stuff because years after going with only Diet, it tastes awful to me. Regular Coke now tastes like dish detergent.
__________________

anitram is offline  
Old 12-03-2007, 09:35 AM   #23
Blue Crack Distributor
 
LarryMullen's POPAngel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: I'll be up with the sun, I'm not coming down...
Posts: 53,698
Local Time: 08:40 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


And see, I can't have the regular stuff because years after going with only Diet, it tastes awful to me. Regular Coke now tastes like dish detergent.
Same here. If I ever do drink regular anymore, it's very rare and when I do, it just doesn't taste right to me.
LarryMullen's POPAngel is offline  
Old 12-03-2007, 10:18 AM   #24
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,563
Local Time: 09:40 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland
Hmmm, I attended high school in the late '80s and neither of my high schools had vending machines. We weren't allowed to drink or eat outside the cafeteria during class hours, either. Was that atypical for the time or something?
For us it depended on the class. You could aways eat by your locker or in the commons during breaks. Most of my teachers allowed drinks...can't think of one that didn't. Everyone had a Nalgene bottle. Some allowed food/snacks during class. The school had a contract with Pepsi so we had about a dozen Pepsi machines. The school also sold coffee. If kids were allowed to drink water and the coffee the school sold, I imagine they'd have a hard time telling kids who drink soda only they can't have it in class. I can't remember not being allowed to have drinks during class. Some teachers even encouraged snacking b/c at least it kept us awake!
Liesje is offline  
Old 12-03-2007, 10:56 AM   #25
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 08:40 AM
Wow, we weren't even allowed gum during class back in my day...I feel so old.
BVS is offline  
Old 12-03-2007, 11:09 AM   #26
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 09:40 AM
We weren't allowed to eat in class unless it was something like a granola bar (you couldn't have lunch in class, basically), but we were allowed to have whatever drinks we wanted.

It was quite liberating in university to be able to bring street meat into the lecture halls.
anitram is offline  
Old 12-03-2007, 11:34 AM   #27
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Canadiens1131's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,363
Local Time: 09:40 AM
This is kind of stupid. Making a move to limit the junk food available in school cafs is avoiding the root of the problem in favour of attacking it at its most superficial level.

Kids are unhealthy due to their sedintary lifestyles, bad nutrition influences from parents (also overweight a lot of the time), and from our culture of modern living in general. The problem of childhood obesity should be attacked at the community level, whether its investment in more wide-ranging after school sports programs, alternative gym classes providing non-competitive physical activity, and pushing good nutrition onto neglectful parents.

You have kids who cook with a microwave seven days a week, living off 7-11 burritos, and you expect taking doughnuts out of the school caf will reduce obesity? I appreciate that a lot of families don't have time to cook every night of the week, but it's not that hard to use a fucking crock pot to get some vegetables into your kids' diets. Cooking smart, healthy food ends up being cheaper than buying pre-packaged crap anyway. It just takes a little bit of effort to make a lifestyle change, and in many cases people are too lazy for even that.

That, and people just need to eat less, for god's sake. Culturally, we get our references on what a good portion size should be from Red Lobster and Bennigans'. Although I appreciate the odd restaurant visit, those are not healthy portions, they are over-servings of food. The French aren't skinny due to some odd combination of the foods they ingest; they're skinny because they eat small portions of a wider variety of food.
Canadiens1131 is offline  
Old 12-03-2007, 11:56 AM   #28
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: DC
Posts: 69,269
Local Time: 09:40 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
Wow, we weren't even allowed gum during class back in my day...I feel so old.
i'd like to punch any kid who walks into the gym chewing gum in the face, but i'm afraid that it would fall out and stick to the floor.

oh, and that i'd get fired and arrested and all.
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 12-03-2007, 12:21 PM   #29
Blue Crack Distributor
 
LarryMullen's POPAngel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: I'll be up with the sun, I'm not coming down...
Posts: 53,698
Local Time: 08:40 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Canadiens1160
This is kind of stupid. Making a move to limit the junk food available in school cafs is avoiding the root of the problem in favour of attacking it at its most superficial level.

Kids are unhealthy due to their sedintary lifestyles, bad nutrition influences from parents (also overweight a lot of the time), and from our culture of modern living in general. The problem of childhood obesity should be attacked at the community level, whether its investment in more wide-ranging after school sports programs, alternative gym classes providing non-competitive physical activity, and pushing good nutrition onto neglectful parents.

You have kids who cook with a microwave seven days a week, living off 7-11 burritos, and you expect taking doughnuts out of the school caf will reduce obesity? I appreciate that a lot of families don't have time to cook every night of the week, but it's not that hard to use a fucking crock pot to get some vegetables into your kids' diets. Cooking smart, healthy food ends up being cheaper than buying pre-packaged crap anyway. It just takes a little bit of effort to make a lifestyle change, and in many cases people are too lazy for even that.

That, and people just need to eat less, for god's sake. Culturally, we get our references on what a good portion size should be from Red Lobster and Bennigans'. Although I appreciate the odd restaurant visit, those are not healthy portions, they are over-servings of food. The French aren't skinny due to some odd combination of the foods they ingest; they're skinny because they eat small portions of a wider variety of food.
Exactly.

I don't think anyone would disagree with what you're saying, but even a small step such as this is still a step in the right direction, I guess.

Both kids and their parents need to be a lot more proactive in the choices they make.
LarryMullen's POPAngel is offline  
Old 12-03-2007, 12:30 PM   #30
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,218
Local Time: 09:40 AM
I think high school students should be given the credit and responsibility to police their own food choices-they can easily get to a store nearby their school and get junk anyway if they have a car or their friends do. Or they can bring it to school in their backpacks, if they're not searched these days even for food I suppose. But I do think it's a good idea to keep it out of other schools, especially soda. Even diet-it is full of bad chemicals. I haven't had soda in about a year and a half now and I wish I had given it up a long time ago. If I could only give up coffee. I know many adults who are soda addicts, diet and regular.

If schools can ban hugging I don't see why banning certain foods and soda is over the line either. Hugs are much healthier.
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 12-03-2007, 01:35 PM   #31
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 02:40 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Canadiens1160
The problem of childhood obesity should be attacked at the community level, whether its investment in more wide-ranging after school sports programs, alternative gym classes providing non-competitive physical activity, and pushing good nutrition onto neglectful parents.
Well, schools are 'the community level,' or at least one arena of it. But how would you enforce something like 'pushing good nutrition onto neglectful parents'? I agree that what kids have access to during school hours is only one part of the picture and not a particularly large part at that, but I also don't see where it's harmful, and to a limited extent I do think it could help. While home-based habits are unquestionably a larger influence, still, making a habit of spending your pocket money--and setting aside whether that's how your parents, whose money it probably is, intended you to spend it--on 'a la carte' fast-food items or vending machine chips-and-cookie combos while at school can slide into longterm regular cravings for those foods, even if your parents ARE diligent about limiting those things to occasional treats at home. It's not a question of not realizing that that way of eating "isn't very good for you"--we all know perfectly well that it isn't, but just like with smoking, once you let unwise eating habits get established during a phase of bad judgment (and, again as with smoking, that's much likelier to happen before your twenties than it is later in life), it can be very difficult to get out of them.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 12-03-2007, 01:53 PM   #32
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 08:40 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
I think high school students should be given the credit and responsibility to police their own food choices-they can easily get to a store nearby their school and get junk anyway if they have a car or their friends do.
Exactly.

I think at the elementary and middle school levels, kids would abuse the selling of soda (I know I would have), when they don't really understand the consequences.

In high school, we do.

If soda was sold, I'd buy it occassionally.
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 12-03-2007, 02:16 PM   #33
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,563
Local Time: 09:40 AM
If schools are going to cut junk food and remove vending machines or not allow soda, I would assume that at the same time they are going to increase PE in their curriculum, otherwise it would seem pretty hypocritical...
Liesje is offline  
Old 12-03-2007, 02:29 PM   #34
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 08:40 AM
What states require PE? I know PA does, and I think we watched a video in health once that said it's one of the few left that requires it.
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 12-03-2007, 02:31 PM   #35
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,218
Local Time: 09:40 AM
I think schools just don't have the money anymore for PE-it seems even the wealthy communities would rather spend the money on other things. It does seem hypocritical.
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 12-03-2007, 02:34 PM   #36
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 08:40 AM
Well, from what I know, many schools cancelled PE in order to put that funding into funding for the standardized testing that has recently been emphasized.

In summary, kids are becoming less healthy and more academically average.
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 12-03-2007, 02:44 PM   #37
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 09:40 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
I think schools just don't have the money anymore for PE-it seems even the wealthy communities would rather spend the money on other things. It does seem hypocritical.
I honestly remember dozens of times in elementary school where the teacher would "punish" the class for misbehaving by cancelling gym that week. There's a bright idea.
anitram is offline  
Old 12-03-2007, 03:06 PM   #38
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 08:40 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26
Well, from what I know, many schools cancelled PE in order to put that funding into funding for the standardized testing that has recently been emphasized.

In summary, kids are becoming less healthy and more academically average.
No fat child left behind...
BVS is offline  
Old 12-03-2007, 03:12 PM   #39
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 02:40 PM
My understanding is that it's at least as much a time question (ever-expanding academic curriculum requirements, 'elective squeeze') as it is a funding question. We'd really need someone who's up-to-the-minute on nationwide legislative and policy implementation trends in this regard though, and I'm not sure we have that in here...?

New York Times, October 20, 2007
Quote:
The percentage of districts that require elementary schools to teach physical education increased, to 93% last year from 83% in 2000. But just 4% of elementary schools, 8% of middle schools and 2% of high schools provided physical education each school day, as is recommended by the disease control agency. One-fifth of schools did not require physical education at all.
USA Today, August 23, 2006
Quote:
Government research shows that the percentage of high school students enrolled in daily physical education decreased from about 42% in 1991 to 33% in 2005. Most states introduced legislation this year and in 2005 to toughen up PE requirements.

To figure out whether higher PE time requirements are effective, economist John Cawley of Cornell University and colleagues analyzed data on 37,000 teens in grades nine through 12 from government surveys in 1999, 2001 and 2003. The economists did calculations on students' height, weight and amount of time in gym classes and compared the data with states' PE requirements. They found that when states required an extra year of PE for high school students, which is roughly 200 more minutes a week of physical education:
• Male students said they spent another 7.6 minutes a week exercising or playing sports in gym class.
• Female students spent an extra eight minutes and six seconds a week doing exercise in PE.

There may be several reasons for this small increase in time, Cawley says. "Some schools are ignoring the laws and not meeting the state requirements." And some teachers are not keeping children moving during class time, he says. His research also showed that the amount of time states required for physical education classes didn't seem to have an effect on teens' weight or risk of obesity.

He says another study showed that 26% of schools in the country fail to comply with state regulations for PE, and research on elementary school students in a county in Texas showed that the children did moderate to vigorous activity for 3.4 minutes of a 40-minute class. About two-thirds of class time was spent in sedentary activity; one-quarter of the time was spent doing minimal activity. "The real risk here is that states may increase the time requirements, think they've addressed the problem of childhood obesity and may move on to other priorities," says Cawley, whose paper is in the fall issue of Education Next.
PTA.org, undated
Quote:
Judith Young, executive director of National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE), the nation's largest organization for physical education teachers, maintains that schools cut gym classes for lack of funding, but more often cuts result from time constraints that develop with the addition of new curriculum. "Standards-based reform has been detrimental to physical education," said Young.

Young said it troubles her to see gym classes eliminated, especially when physical education curriculum is getting better. Historically, she explained, physical education programs did a poor job of promoting life-long physical activity, and focused almost exclusively on a handful of competitive sports, such as basketball, soccer, volleyball, softball, and baseball. According to a November 2000 report to the president from the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Education, kids need to be taught less competitive activities—such as bicycling, running, and swimming—because they're more likely to carry these activities into their adult lives.

As gym classes get elbowed out of the curriculum in favor of other subjects, recess, in many school districts, is also in jeopardy. An estimated 40% of U.S. school districts either have eliminated recess or are considering eliminating it, said Rhonda Clements, president for the American Association of the Child's Right to Play. Some school districts cite safety and supervision issues as reasons for eliminating recess, explained Clements. But more likely, she said, recess is chucked in favor of an expanded curriculum.
I'm not sure how the spread of requirements from one state to the next varies with education level (elementary, middle, high). Also, I suppose a generalized requirement to "have" PE isn't necessarily the same as specifying how much time needs to be devoted to it, what kinds of activities satisfy the requirement etc.

It's a little hard to compare this to regulating what's available to eat in schools, though--for obvious reasons, providing a lunch period is an absolute non-negotiable in a way that providing an organized exercise period isn't.

I'm not sure that regular PE classes at the high school level were ever particularly common. But then again, the average high school student 30 years ago was probably getting more exercise outside of school than today's.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 12-03-2007, 03:13 PM   #40
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,563
Local Time: 09:40 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26
What states require PE? I know PA does, and I think we watched a video in health once that said it's one of the few left that requires it.
No idea, I went to a private school so at least from experience I am disconnected as far as state standards. PE was a requirement for me, including high school and college. Yes, I was required to take three phys ed classes in order to graduate college (I took weight lifting, dance I and dance II). In elementary school and middle school I think we had PE 1-3 times a week. During recess, we were required to be outside unless it was too rainy or the windchill got below -20F (which happened maybe once or twice ever).
__________________

Liesje is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×