• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Study Finds Elementary Students Like New Healthier Lunches

You can send your kids to a private school too if you wish. Or you can send your children to school with a meatball sub (unless you go to a school where the administration of that school has chosen to ban lunches from home, which has absolutely nothing to do with either Obama, their children, nor even the new school guidelines).

The limit is not 750, it is 850 for high school students, teenagers, which they found is pretty close to the average amount of calories that they were being served prior to the guidelines changing. Plus,

No one "outlawed" meatball subs or ice cream for school children. In fact, my child last year had several days where they had junk food during class. Plus, some schools even have ice cream as an "a la carte" item, as it has always been. Students have always had to pay extra (at least every school I've ever known) for things like ice cream. I can prove this.

Huntingdon Primary School: Lunch Program

Oh and some get meatball subs for lunch as well.

http://www.plainville.k12.ma.us/cms/lib3/MA01000200/Centricity/Domain/18/JLunchSep12.pdf

Maybe you should actually look at what is allowed rather than simply reacting to some things being said on the internet. Meatball subs nor ice cream are banned from schools. Ice cream in public schools has almost never been available as included in the regular meal price, and has pretty much always been for most schools an a la carte option, as it still is in many schools.

So if she thinks that kids need to eat healthier how about she tends to her own kids first. yes lunch rooms cannot serve those things as they violate the amount of protien and other restrictions that she thinks other kids should be on.

no that is not how elitism works.

she would never feed her kids the slop that she is making other kids eat.

ice cream falls outside the to much calories for the meals.

no 750-850 calories is not enough for a person burning over 1000.

not to mention there are plenty of studies that say hungry students don't learn was well or concentrate as good.
 
I haven't read one supporter of the new lunch meal guidelines that'll admit it might be slightly overboard?

There's nothing wrong with improving the diets of a bunch of over weight, sedentary kids but there's a common sense, middle ground, without torturing them with bunny rabbit food. But god forbid anyone critize precious Michelle and her looney initiative extremes.


View attachment 67170116

^^ You wouldn't give this to your dog more less a kid.

Many kindergarteners can't eat more than that, preschoolers even less. That is a healthy amount for many elementary school age children. It's insane to believe that what you posted isn't good enough for elementary age kids. And I'm willing to bet that is closer to preschool lunch.

That is in fact more than what is recommended (and I know from experience) that most Kindergarteners and preschoolers will eat at a lunch if you can get them to eat the fruits and vegetables (if they are hungry, they will eat them). It all depends on the child.

Healthy Meal Planner: How Much Does My Kid Need to Eat?

When I sent my son to school just about a month ago with his lunches, he normally came back with half a sandwich, no matter which one I sent because a whole sandwich was too much for him to eat. And he didn't have that much extra. With a lunch like this, he would barely be able to eat it even if he liked vegetables. But if he's hungry, he'll eventually eat it. Plus, if teachers introduce different fruits and vegetables to the class as part of classroom learning activities (the Kinders in Cali taste tested various fruits and later various specific apple types to graph who liked which ones), they would likely encourage kids to like even more types of foods. Younger kids are generally eager to please adults, and recognize that eating what adults want you to eat (or at least trying to) pleases us.
 
The government indoctrinated me to think 2+2=4 and that the earth is spherical.

Once you get hooked on facts you'll move on to science and even thinking. The next thing you know you'll start accepting scientific theories about evolution and climate change. That kind of dangerous thinking can lead to questioning religion and other traditional ideas.
 
What is overboard about the new guidelines?



What is wrong with that lunch?

You know, kids are supposed to grow, right? There aren't enough calories for one. For another, though I hate that it's true, most of the kids today seemingly cannot handle real milk like that. The nuts are very hard to digest. The carrots and celery are diet foods for a reason, takes more calories to chew than are gotten from them. And even prisoners get a whole sandwich.
 
I haven't read one supporter of the new lunch meal guidelines that'll admit it might be slightly overboard?

There's nothing wrong with improving the diets of a bunch of over weight, sedentary kids but there's a common sense, middle ground, without torturing them with bunny rabbit food. But god forbid anyone critize precious Michelle and her looney initiative extremes.


View attachment 67170116



^^ You wouldn't give this to your dog more less a kid.

that looks like a high school lunch or middle school.
most of that will be thrown into the garbage which is what is worse.


we pack our kids lunches and they never complain about being hungry. i would be ticked off if i knew i was spending money on that.
 
So if she thinks that kids need to eat healthier how about she tends to her own kids first. yes lunch rooms cannot serve those things as they violate the amount of protien and other restrictions that she thinks other kids should be on.

no that is not how elitism works.

she would never feed her kids the slop that she is making other kids eat.

ice cream falls outside the to much calories for the meals.

no 750-850 calories is not enough for a person burning over 1000.

not to mention there are plenty of studies that say hungry students don't learn was well or concentrate as good.

Nothing says she isn't. But her kids almost have to go to a private school right now, and you have no idea if they are eating there or in fact what they are eating while they are there. There are healthy options at that school.

If her kids went to public school, perhaps she would push for the school to actually fix the menu to work better for taste while still meeting the guidelines, something that is completely possible and other schools are doing. Who knows? Maybe she would simply send their lunch, an option that is available for the vast majority of schools.

Since when is lunch the only meal that a teenager is going to get during a day? That is the average amount that they were served before the new regulations. What happened to them being responsible for their own food that they want extra? Students don't have to go hungry, especially not in high school. They can bring more food with them from home (none of the guidelines ban this, only individual schools). They can buy extra food a la carte (again, the guidelines do not ban this). Many high school age students can even leave campus to get food.
 
You know, kids are supposed to grow, right? There aren't enough calories for one. For another, though I hate that it's true, most of the kids today seemingly cannot handle real milk like that. The nuts are very hard to digest. The carrots and celery are diet foods for a reason, takes more calories to chew than are gotten from them. And even prisoners get a whole sandwich.

lets not forget those kis allergic to nuts. also it isn't even whole milk it is skim milk which is basically white water.
they go to gym or play football or some other sport and that will not fill them up and probably make them sick.

again i don't see obama's kids eating that.

no they get
BBQ sandwhiches
roasted chicken
ice cream
meatball subs
and a whole slew of other

elitism at its finest
 
Last edited:
that looks like a high school lunch or middle school.
most of that will be thrown into the garbage which is what is worse.


we pack our kids lunches and they never complain about being hungry. i would be ticked off if i knew i was spending money on that.

Bull. That is obviously an elementary or lower lunch tray. Not too hard to figure out if you aren't blinded by partisan beliefs.
 
I haven't read one supporter of the new lunch meal guidelines that'll admit it might be slightly overboard?

There's nothing wrong with improving the diets of a bunch of over weight, sedentary kids but there's a common sense, middle ground, without torturing them with bunny rabbit food. But god forbid anyone critize precious Michelle and her looney initiative extremes.


View attachment 67170116



^^ You wouldn't give this to your dog more less a kid.

What is that a picture from?
 
You know, kids are supposed to grow, right? There aren't enough calories for one. For another, though I hate that it's true, most of the kids today seemingly cannot handle real milk like that. The nuts are very hard to digest. The carrots and celery are diet foods for a reason, takes more calories to chew than are gotten from them. And even prisoners get a whole sandwich.

There are plenty of calories for that single meal for the average students in each age group. Those students who need more are free to buy more or bring more from home, just as they have always been.
 
You can't answer the question

I'm shocked!!

You haven't offered a question worth answering. Amazing! Not really....lol



Many kindergarteners can't eat more than that, preschoolers even less. That is a healthy amount for many elementary school age children. It's insane to believe that what you posted isn't good enough for elementary age kids. And I'm willing to bet that is closer to preschool lunch.

That is in fact more than what is recommended (and I know from experience) that most Kindergarteners and preschoolers will eat at a lunch if you can get them to eat the fruits and vegetables (if they are hungry, they will eat them). It all depends on the child.

Healthy Meal Planner: How Much Does My Kid Need to Eat?

When I sent my son to school just about a month ago with his lunches, he normally came back with half a sandwich, no matter which one I sent because a whole sandwich was too much for him to eat. And he didn't have that much extra. With a lunch like this, he would barely be able to eat it even if he liked vegetables. But if he's hungry, he'll eventually eat it. Plus, if teachers introduce different fruits and vegetables to the class as part of classroom learning activities (the Kinders in Cali taste tested various fruits and later various specific apple types to graph who liked which ones), they would likely encourage kids to like even more types of foods. Younger kids are generally eager to please adults, and recognize that eating what adults want you to eat (or at least trying to) pleases us.



I was never talking about preschool, only school ages for the meal program.
But most kids at the ages of 7-15 yrs old, need between 1500-3000 calories a day.
That plate is fine, if it's for a 300lb adult trying to lose weight.
 
So it's from nowhere at all then.

This thread is extraordinary.


I wouldn't call her 'nowhere at all' but that's close. :lol:


I'm sure the extraordinary is all your posts. ;)
 
As this picture proves, the new nutritional guidelines are resulting in superior school lunch meals.

zxh-thanksgiving-111401.jpg
 
There are plenty of calories for that single meal for the average students in each age group. Those students who need more are free to buy more or bring more from home, just as they have always been.

No, the meal pictured is NOT as it has always been. Nor are there plenty of calories. Do you understand what is meant by "negative calories"? Unless there is a double slab of meat hidden in that half sandwich, there aren't enough calories there to keep an active kid going through recess.
 
that looks like a high school lunch or middle school.
most of that will be thrown into the garbage which is what is worse.


we pack our kids lunches and they never complain about being hungry. i would be ticked off if i knew i was spending money on that.


We feed illegal immigrants better than that. Hell, the bugs in my house eat more.
 
Bull. That is obviously an elementary or lower lunch tray. Not too hard to figure out if you aren't blinded by partisan beliefs.

And to confirm, yes it was from a second grade mother.

Food and Politics: New School Lunch Rule and Organics - Beyer Beware

Plus, most schools still give second graders snack time.

High school students or really any students who play sports are their parents' responsibility to provide extra for their lunch. The school should not be subsidizing food for your kid's above average activity level, especially when it comes to high schoolers. If your kid plays sports, it is your responsibility to ensure they have enough to eat, not the school's, and certainly not the federal government. They are basing their guidelines off of what the calorie needs are of a child with an average activity level, not the super star athlete (you think food waste is high now, it would be much higher if that was what everyone was served).
 
We feed illegal immigrants better than that. Hell, the bugs in my house eat more.

No no.... "undocumented refugees" not illegal immigrants. :mrgreen:
 
Somewhere Sheriff Arpaio has seen this and is saying, "I'm not looking so bad now, eh?" :mrgreen:
 
As this picture proves, the new nutritional guidelines are resulting in superior school lunch meals.

View attachment 67170117

Now that's a parent who really knows how to lay out a spread.

Funny, our parents fed us well and we weren't over weight. It's a big mystery.

No it's not, it just takes some common sense, which isn't on some peoples menu.
 
No, the meal pictured is NOT as it has always been. Nor are there plenty of calories. Do you understand what is meant by "negative calories"? Unless there is a double slab of meat hidden in that half sandwich, there aren't enough calories there to keep an active kid going through recess.

I never said that it was "as it has always been". Maybe you should reread what was typed.

There are plenty of calories there. You can't prove there aren't. All you have is your personal opinion on what they should be eating. Most young children get a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for lunch almost daily (and many bring good portions home with them or simply throw some away).

They should go through recess before lunch. But there are also things such as snack time during elementary school (in most elementary schools anyway) and parents should be providing breakfast for their children as well.
 
Bull. That is obviously an elementary or lower lunch tray. Not too hard to figure out if you aren't blinded by partisan beliefs.
proof or evidence or more baseless liberal ideology?

i think i will go with baseless ideology.

she wouldn't and doesn't feed her kids that slop elitism is great.

all that stuff on that plate is calory neutral or calory negative not good for growing kids. more so when most of it will end up in the trash.
 
If a critic of the new federal guidelines wants to make a convincing case against them they should quote the language they disagree with and point out exactly what is wrong with that particular rule. All I have seen on this thread is ignorant misconceptions about nutrition, speculation and kneejerk anti-government and and anti-Obama rhetoric.

Here, I'll even help you:

"...In summary, the January 2011 proposed rule sought to improve lunches and breakfasts by requiring schools to:

•Offer fruits and vegetables as two separate meal components;

•Offer fruit daily at breakfast and lunch;

•Offer vegetables daily at lunch, including specific vegetable subgroups weekly (dark green, orange, legumes, and other as defined in the 2005 Dietary Guidelines) and a limited quantity of starchy vegetables throughout the week;

•Offer whole grains: half of the grains would be whole grain-rich upon implementation of the rule and all grains would be whole-grain rich two years post implementation;

•Offer a daily meat/meat alternate at breakfast;

•Offer fluid milk that is fat-free (unflavored and flavored) and low-fat (unflavored only);

•Offer meals that meet specific calorie ranges for each age/grade group;

•Reduce the sodium content of meals gradually over a 10-year period through two intermediate sodium targets at two and four years post implementation;

•Prepare meals using food products or ingredients that contain zero grams of trans fat per serving;

•Require students to select a fruit or a vegetable as part of the reimbursable meal;

•Use a single food-based menu planning approach; and

•Use narrower age/grade groups for menu planning..."

Nutrition Standards in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast
Programs; Final Rule http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-01-26/pdf/2012-1010.pdf

Which of those rules is unreasonable or not scientifically valid?
 
Last edited:
You know, kids are supposed to grow, right? There aren't enough calories for one. For another, though I hate that it's true, most of the kids today seemingly cannot handle real milk like that. The nuts are very hard to digest. The carrots and celery are diet foods for a reason, takes more calories to chew than are gotten from them. And even prisoners get a whole sandwich.

Do you have any evidence to support your claims that there aren't enough calories, that children can't handle milk or nuts, and that kids burn more calories eating carrots and celery than they contain?

Or are you just making **** up?
 
Back
Top Bottom