Jump to content
If the government is going to spend $3.2 billion annually to implement new lunch standards, it would be really good to make sure it's based on solid research and not just the going conventional wisdom. Yes, vegetables and fruit are great, trans fat and sugar are bad, but more and more respected researchers agree that
-saturated fat is not bad for you (butter and coconut oil are healthy),
-there is no reason to make kids drink low fat or skim milk,
-and most grains just aren't good for you, whole wheat or not.
I noticed the new requirements call for 1 ounce of meat a day instead of 1.5-2 ounces for K-8. So kids will be getting less protein and less fat to get through the day, which means they will be hungrier and probably eat more carbohydrates.
This is not a bunch of fringe wackos saying this. Anyone who has made a serious effort to study the best way to eat for health knows that the government has a terrible history of figuring it out. Here are just a few of many good sources of information. They don't agree on everything but they agree on a lot:
Movie: Fathead (http://www.fathead-movie.com/)
Also, you say that sugar does not cause diabetes. But if you regularly eat a lot of sugar and it causes your blood sugar to soar, then that makes it way more likely that you will get diabetes. Not to mention all the other health problems caused by too much fructose.
With all due respect, this article is not the best thing for people to read if they want to know more about diabetes or how not to get it. I would suggest going to the Blood Sugar 101 website which is maintained by someone smart who has type 2 diabetes and has included all the research over many years:
The dietary advice given in this article ("follow a healthy eating plan that is low in saturated and trans fat, moderate in salt and sugar, and contains lean protein, whole grains, high fiber, vegetables and fruit") is partly wrong and is the same spiel given by the American Diabetes Association (funded by big Pharma and cereal makers and much derided by all online diabetes forums).
Diabetes is a disease of carbohydrate intolerance, therefore it makes sense to cut down on carbohydrates. Diabetics should not be advised to eat whole grains (that is harmful advice) and there is nothing wrong with saturated fat.
If you want to see what's going on with your blood sugar, get a $9 blood sugar meter at Wal-Mart and test yourself one and two hours after meals. See what makes your blood sugar spike. Blood sugars over 140 can damage your body and lead to type 2 diabetes.
If you want a good book on diabetes, get Dr. Richard Bernstein's.
If you want to see what a lot of people who actually have diabetes say to the typical ADA advice, see the comments on the following worthless ADA article:
Exactly. Why would you write this and put it in the newspaper? Why? I didn't find it funny at all, only mean. How will you feel if your mother reads it - will you care? In your long list of complaints against her, I didn't notice her doing anything mean, unlike you. You were embarassed in the restaurant, hoping the waiter didn't know you? Grow up, you sound like a self-centered teenager. Your mother may not be around for that much longer.
And now you really have embarassed yourself. The pilot should have saved you and never printed this.
Good intentions in this letter. Problem is not everyone agrees on how to make school meals healthier. The proposed guidelines were to "make school meals healthier by increasing fruits and vegetables, whole grains and low-fat milk, while setting limits on calories, salt and unhealthy fats.". Fruits and veggies, ok. But some experts believe
1 - kids need plenty of saturated fat, including in their milk,
2 - grains, especially wheat, are bad for you, and
3 - salt is not a worry.
hit the highway - short on science? If there's one thing this letter is not, it's short on science. And you think the Pilot shouldn't publish "articles such as this." I guess you think it'd be right to only publish ones against the ban? I believe I've seen several letters from your side. I am sick of the pro-dispensary crowd bashing everyone who dares to have a different opinion than them. Harassing and bullying is what people stoop to when they're intellectually out of ammunition.
Gern123 - Very nice summary of the key points. I agree that the bully tactics of some of the pro-dispensary crowd are going to backfire.
For once I agree with the Pilot editorial. What's happening is not at all what we voted for with Amendment 20 and it's a total sham. Ridiculous that 6.2% of adults in Routt have a medical marijuana card. The ads are a big problem too and make the whole town look bad. We have enough drug and alcohol problems in this town without adding phony medical marijuana shops and huge ads in the paper for all our kids and visitors to see. It leaves kids with the impression that it's normal to smoke pot.
Let's see, could there be anything that the Pilot newspaper has done over the last few years that would make people less likely to want to volunteer for the school board?
"Why wait until next year?" asks the Pilot board. Because you don't cut important and beneficial programs for students until you have to, especially when they don't even cost much. The budget situation is constantly changing and we don't know yet what it will look like for 2012-2013, even if the signs aren't good. There are many variables in the funding puzzle. Colorado is ranked 49th in per pupil funding in the country, Mr. Duckels, and if you had a child currently in the system, you would see that there is not as much waste as you think (aside from what appears to be an unsustainable retirement system) and some of the cuts that have already been made have hurt kids. Cutting education is a very poor plan for the future of our economy.
Last login: Thursday, February 9, 2012
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |