• 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

roguenuke said:
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.
Click to expand...

Been a while since you've been to an elementary school hasn't it? First, many elementary schools don't allow peanut butter anymore, because for the few with nut allergies it can be fatal. No, there aren't plenty of calories there at all, unless you're on a diet.
There are recesses before and after lunch. In fact lunch time IS a recess time.
 
ludin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Check my post above. I showed where it came from. It was posted from a mother who claims that was the lunch her second grader got. Definitely not a high schooler or even middle schooler.

Many kids would eat most of the stuff on that tray. Mine used to bring home half of that because he simply couldn't eat it all, especially not when he had a snack earlier in the day.
 
clownboy said:
Been a while since you've been to an elementary school hasn't it? First, many elementary schools don't allow peanut butter anymore, because for the few with nut allergies it can be fatal. No, there aren't plenty of calories there at all, unless you're on a diet.
There are recesses before and after lunch. In fact lunch time IS a recess time.
Click to expand...

IOW, the lunch you claim doesn't provide enough calories is a lunch you claim is not allowed to be served!!
 
grip said:
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.
Click to expand...
excactly.

i ate at school plenty of times as it was sometimes cheaper. i think we were allowed 2. pizza day or cheeseburger day was usually 2x.
I know me and my brother would eat 2 weeks of groceries out in a week and we were never fat.
 
clownboy said:
Been a while since you've been to an elementary school hasn't it? First, many elementary schools don't allow peanut butter anymore, because for the few with nut allergies it can be fatal. No, there aren't plenty of calories there at all, unless you're on a diet.
There are recesses before and after lunch. In fact lunch time IS a recess time.
Click to expand...

Wrong. I went just a couple of months ago every day for my son. Both schools I have been to the last school year allow peanut butter. They have separate tables for those students who are severely allergic. Try again.

Yes, there are plenty of calories there for many younger students.

It depends on the school as to whether lunch time is part of recess, before, or after. That is where the "should" comes in there. Many schools are learning to rearrange their schedules so that lunch time does come after recess to encourage children to eat more.

You seem to be the one that isn't used to children or schools, particularly elementary age.

But in reality, that isn't even the normal meal being served to elementary age students. There are plenty of school menus out there to prove that, some I have already posted.
 
clownboy said:
Been a while since you've been to an elementary school hasn't it? First, many elementary schools don't allow peanut butter anymore, because for the few with nut allergies it can be fatal. No, there aren't plenty of calories there at all, unless you're on a diet.
There are recesses before and after lunch. In fact lunch time IS a recess time.
Click to expand...

it is useless trying to even talk to them. they refuse to see they are so sold out into their ideology.
they have the same Let them eat cake attitude that obama has.

i posted a link on here that showed what high schoolers and middle school kids are getting. it is garbage. it doesn't even look appealing.
 
sangha said:
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?
Click to expand...

Yeah, in fact all of those things are rather common knowledge. That you don't know those things makes you a bit sheltered. But if you want links, here you go:

Negative-calorie food - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nut and Peanut Allergy
Please Stop Asking Your Children to Finish Their Milk - US News
 
sangha said:
Since I asked about what you said, you're probably right
Click to expand...

Let's try this again without the political bias and lean.

Why can't there be a diet with a little more variety, like extra carbs and meat?

Maybe even a small dessert with natural sweeteners?

My niece grew up eating literally whatever she wanted, now she's a lard ass. There could've been some middle ground, where they offered better choices without going full hippy diet.
 
ludin said:
no they get
BBQ sandwhiches
roasted chicken
ice cream
meatball subs
and a whole slew of other

elitism at its finest
Click to expand...
These are the points the complainers are bringing up...
1) the complainers hate that kids are being fed celery, carrots, apples, milk, nuts and a peanut butter sandwich.
2)they're complaining that Obama's kids are insinuating that Obama's kids are being fed extravagant meals of meatball subs, roasted chicken etc
3) they're complaining that there's not enough calories in the meals,
4)they're complaining that our kids are too damn fat.
5)they're complaining that the kids are throwing away the healthy meals anyway.

Yes, the complainers want to make sure they hit every possible point, which means as usual they have to engage in mental gymnastics to justify their contradictory points. I haven't read the thread thoroughly but I take it that the concept of parents taking personal responsibility for their kids has been absent from the discussion from these complainers?
 
clownboy said:
Yeah, in fact all of those things are rather common knowledge. That you don't know those things makes you a bit sheltered. But if you want links, here you go:

Negative-calorie food - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nut and Peanut Allergy
Please Stop Asking Your Children to Finish Their Milk - US News
Click to expand...

There Are No Negative-Calorie Foods - Debunking 10 Myths About Dieting - TIME

You may have heard that some foods, because they are difficult to digest, will make you lose weight. Dubbed "negative-calorie foods," citrus fruits and celery have both basked in this flattering light in fad diets over the years. The problem is that it's not true. The calories your body burns in fueling the digestive cycle are minuscule compared with the calories in the food itself. Although chewing celery might seem like a strenuous activity, it burns about the same amount of calories as watching grass grow.
Click to expand...
 
clownboy said:
Yeah, in fact all of those things are rather common knowledge. That you don't know those things makes you a bit sheltered. But if you want links, here you go:

Negative-calorie food - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

From your link:
Foods that are claimed to be negative in calories are mostly low-calorie fruits and vegetables such as celery, grapefruit, lemon, lime, apple, lettuce, broccoli, and cabbage.[2] There is no scientific evidence to show that any of these foods have a negative calorific impact.[3][4] Celery has a thermic effect of around 8%, much less than the 100% or more required for a food to have "negative calories". A stalk of celery provides 6 kcal to the body, but the body expends only half of a single calorie digesting it.[2][5] Even proteins, which require the most energy to digest, have a thermic energy of only 20%–30%.[2]
Diets based on negative-calorie food do not work as advertised, but can lead to weight loss because they satisfy hunger by filling the stomach with food that has a lower calorie count per volume.[2]
Click to expand...

Your own link contradicts you. Can you say "self-pwnage"?

Nut and Peanut Allergy
Click to expand...

That links doesn't support your claim that kids can't handle nuts


Please Stop Asking Your Children to Finish Their Milk - US News
Click to expand...

That links doesn't support your claim that kids can't handle milk

Thanks for answering my question (and the answer is you are making **** up)
 
clownboy said:
Yeah, in fact all of those things are rather common knowledge. That you don't know those things makes you a bit sheltered. But if you want links, here you go:

Negative-calorie food - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nut and Peanut Allergy
Please Stop Asking Your Children to Finish Their Milk - US News
Click to expand...

From your Wikipedia link:
"Foods that are claimed to be negative in calories are mostly low-calorie fruits and vegetables such as celery, grapefruit, lemon, lime, apple, lettuce, broccoli, and cabbage.[2] There is no scientific evidence to show that any of these foods have a negative calorific impact.[3][4] Celery has a thermic effect of around 8%, much less than the 100% or more required for a food to have "negative calories". A stalk of celery provides 6 kcal to the body, but the body expends only half of a single calorie digesting it.[2][5] Even proteins, which require the most energy to digest, have a thermic energy of only 20%–30%.[2]

Diets based on negative-calorie food do not work as advertised, but can lead to weight loss because they satisfy hunger by filling the stomach with food that has a lower calorie count per volume.[2]"
 
roguenuke said:
Wrong. I went just a couple of months ago every day for my son. Both schools I have been to the last school year allow peanut butter. They have separate tables for those students who are severely allergic. Try again.

Yes, there are plenty of calories there for many younger students.

It depends on the school as to whether lunch time is part of recess, before, or after. That is where the "should" comes in there. Many schools are learning to rearrange their schedules so that lunch time does come after recess to encourage children to eat more.

You seem to be the one that isn't used to children or schools, particularly elementary age.

But in reality, that isn't even the normal meal being served to elementary age students. There are plenty of school menus out there to prove that, some I have already posted.
Click to expand...

you evidently don't understand what neutral calories and negative calories are. please go look them up and then get back to us. about the only thing with any substance is that sandwhich. that depends on what is in it.

the milk? little to none it is skim milk
the carrots and celery take more calories to consume than they give back so negative.
the nuts are the same. it takes more to consume them than what they give.

the apple is the same way.

just to show the success of the program for the first time schools have seen a decline in the school lunch program.
 
Last edited:
reinoe said:
These are the points the complainers are bringing up...
1) the complainers hate that kids are being fed celery, carrots, apples, milk, nuts and a peanut butter sandwich.
2)they're complaining that Obama's kids are insinuating that Obama's kids are being fed extravagant meals of meatball subs, roasted chicken etc
3) they're complaining that there's not enough calories in the meals,
4)they're complaining that our kids are too damn fat.
5)they're complaining that the kids are throwing away the healthy meals anyway.

Yes, the complainers want to make sure they hit every possible point, which means as usual they have to engage in mental gymnastics to justify their contradictory points. I haven't read the thread thoroughly but I take it that the concept of parents taking personal responsibility for their kids has been absent from the discussion from these complainers?
Click to expand...

if you had a bigger field of hay you couldn't build a bigger strawman.
yep the parents are involved because they are complaining that their kids are going hungry during the school day and not getting enough to eat.

a burrito shell with a slice of ham and a slice of cheese does not a lunch make.

here is what obama's kids get to eat.

This week, for example, they might enjoy meatball subs, BBQ wings and ice cream, in addition to chicken curry, deviled egg salad and the “Chef’s Choice.” Other options on the exclusive menu include:
▪ Crusted tilapia
▪ Herb roasted chicken
▪ Pesto cream & garden-fresh marinara sauce
▪ Roasted edamame & ****ake mushrooms
▪ BBQ sliders
▪ Pesto pasta
▪ All-natural rosemary chicken
▪ All-natural beef nachos
▪ Baked three-cheese lasagna
▪ Pepperoni flatbread pizza

all of which is outside the restrictions that she put on public school kids.
Let them eat cake. it is good to be elite.
 
Last edited:
ludin said:
you evidently don't understand what neutral calories and negative calories are. please go look them up and then get back to us. about the only thing with any substance is that sandwhich. that depends on what is in it.

the milk? little to none it is skim milk
the carrots and celery take more calories to consume than they give back so negative.
the nuts are the same. it takes more to consume them than what they give.

the apple is the same way.
Click to expand...

Already debunked.

Redress said:
There Are No Negative-Calorie Foods - Debunking 10 Myths About Dieting - TIME
Click to expand...
 
reinoe said:
Wouldn't feed that to your dog? This implies you have a problem with the quality of the meal above. What is wrong with that lunch?
Click to expand...

95 apple
4 celery
4 carrot
103 milk
21 almond
92 bread
70 peanut butter
50 jelly
___________

439 calories
 
sangha said:
From your link:


Your own link contradicts you. Can you say "self-pwnage"?
Click to expand...

Try actually reading for comprehension. The issue with the so-called negative calorie foods is that they are used for dieting FOR A REASON.

but can lead to weight loss because they satisfy hunger by filling the stomach with food that has a lower calorie count per volume
Click to expand...

You were saying there were plenty of calories on that plate?

sangha said:
That links doesn't support your claim that kids can't handle nuts




That links doesn't support your claim that kids can't handle milk

Thanks for answering my question (and the answer is you are making **** up)
Click to expand...

Then you've lost your ability to read. And put the semantic BS away. Milk and nut allergies are much more prevalent today. Both links point that out.
 
Hard Truth said:
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?
Click to expand...

what you left out is that elementary students cannot be served more than 550 i think.
middle school is like 650
and high school is 750 calories at lunch.

there is also restrictions on things like salt, butter and other staples that it takes to actually cook food.

if that was just it then i doubt you would see a problem, but there is more to it that what you posted or better yet didn't post.
there is nothing wrong with whole milk it is way better for you than skim milk that has little nutrion in it.
 
Redress said:
Already debunked.
Click to expand...

no not debunked there is a reason that people on diets are urged to take in low calorie foods such as fruits and vegtables. the reason is that they will expend more energy to consume digest and they break down quicker when exercising.

that is why when you eat a bowl of celery 10 min later you are hungry again. there was little to no nutrition in the food to fill you up. more so if you are active in any type of activity like most kids are at recess.

so no not debunked.
 
clownboy said:
Try actually reading for comprehension. The issue with the so-called negative calorie foods is that they are used for dieting FOR A REASON.
Click to expand...

You said carrots and celery burn more calories to eat than they provide.
 
ludin said:
no not debunked there is a reason that people on diets are urged to take in low calorie foods such as fruits and vegtables. the reason is that they will expend more energy to consume digest and they break down quicker when exercising.

that is why when you eat a bowl of celery 10 min later you are hungry again. there was little to no nutrition in the food to fill you up. more so if you are active in any type of activity like most kids are at recess.

so no not debunked.
Click to expand...

Well, you know, I am somehow going to take the word of actual reporting than the word of some guy on the internet for it.

Here are more:

Negative Calorie Foods: Fact or Fiction? | Ask The Fitness Nerd : Answer Fitness®: Practical Fitness Advice for Everyone
The Truth Behind Negative Calorie Foods | LIVESTRONG Fitness Blog
Does Eating Celery Really Result in Negative Calories? | Mental Floss
 
jamesrage said:
Apparently not all kids are spoiled brats whose parents let them eat what ever they want and many other kids do like healthier food.

Study Finds Elementary Students Like New Healthier Lunches - WSJ
When the federal government implemented new school-meal regulations in 2012, a majority of elementary-school students complained about the healthier lunches, but by the end of the school year most found the food agreeable, according to survey results released Monday.
The peer-reviewed study comes amid concerns that the regulations led schools to throw away more uneaten food and prompted some students to drop out of meal programs.
Researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago surveyed administrators at more than 500 primary schools about student reaction to the new meals in the 2012-2013 school year. They found that 70% agreed or strongly agreed that students, by the end of the school year, generally liked the new lunches, which feature more whole grains, vegetables and fruits, and lower fat levels.
Click to expand...



From the article:

"Participation in the school-meal program has declined in recent years, fueling questions about the regulations' impact.

"Our big concern is that participation continues to slide," said Diane Pratt-Heavner, spokeswoman for the School Nutrition Association, which represents 55,000 school-nutritional professionals. The group seeks a relaxation of the rules, and says it believes they play a role in the decline in students participating.

Nationwide, participation in the school-lunch program fell by 1.2 million students, or 3.7%, from the 2010-2011 school year through the 2012-2013 year after having steadily increased for many years, according to a Feb. 27 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office. State and local officials reported the drop was due in part to the new standards".

With the students liking new healthier lunches, shouldn't the participation be increasing?
Instead students are dropping out of the program completely, that in itself speaks volumes.
Along with nutritional professionals seeking changes of the rules, which doesn't say much for the current guidelines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom