• 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


I am not sure where you are going with this...

...but from what I remember, the food was relatively tasty and was not too bad for you depending on what foods/drink you chose (though they did not sell pop or candy).
 
For children who burn thousands of calories a day? I ate the paleo diet as a child, plus carbs galore and still didn't have enough.

They shouldn't be getting all the Calories they burn from a single meal. They should be getting a good portion from breakfast, then more at dinner. If they are playing any sports, they should definitely also be getting some right after school, possibly during practice, and even after practice. What about afterschool snacks? And before anyone says anything about those families who can't afford it, those would be the most likely to eat everything they are given by the school because they know they can't get stuff later, unless they are just wanting to complain.

How to Determine the Calorie Intake for Children | Healthy Eating | SF Gate

And schools should not have to provide the extra calories required for children/teens to play sports. That really should be on the parents and/or the coaches. So average Calories for a growing 8 year old with average level of activity is going to be around 1600. The school provides 650 Calories for lunch and 500 calories for breakfast (assuming they eat breakfast at the school). That is 1150 calories of the 1600 calories that an active child needs per day, so long as they eat what is put on their plate. That means that the parents only have to provide another 550 calories between dinner and any after school snacks. Is that really unreasonable to expect parents to provide? Even at the lowest amounts, the school is still providing 500 and 350 calories, so 850 calories of the 1600. The school should probably not be providing the lowest amount though and if they are, that is on those districts and they need to shape up their program. For high school students, this increases to 1450 calories at the max being provided by the school meals each day, plus not only are at least some high schoolers allowed to leave campus for lunch, many high schools also allow a la carte options to be bought in addition to the normal meal. And the high schoolers can bring additional food from home.

Now, in addition to those school lunch menus, at least in Kindergarten, although I believe most schools do this through elementary school at least, they are required to bring in snacks as well. Although most schools say these must be brought from home, many teachers also have some just in case stashes for those kids who might not have something. That adds more calories to the count as well. So, in addition to the school provided meals, the students will also be getting a snack that can provide them with another 100-200 calories (depending mainly on the parent and what they provide) during the school day.

And if they aren't eating what is given to them, that is their issue, not the school's, especially if they are teenagers. Teenagers should know better. And I have yet to see any high schools that have a policy that they can't bring food from home, either as their meal or even to subsidize their meal from the school. Many high schools allow their students to leave campus for lunch, at least in older grades if not all grades.
 
And?

We do not need more Gov control.
We need less Gov control.

School lunches have always been government controlled in what was served by the school. The only difference now is in which government entity has how much say in what is served.

No school that I know of (K-12) bans school lunches (with the exception of that Little Academy (I think they are elementary school), which has had that policy for at least 6 years, making it a local policy of the principle there and enacted before the current federal guidelines were thought of).
 
:lamo:lamo:lamo

Actual served meals.

michelle-obama-school-lunches-665x385.jpg

At a school that is taking the lazy approach. Complain to this particular school. Other schools have no issue actually serving in accordance with the guidelines.
 
Hey, you ask. We were beasts compared to today' s lazy little nerds. We road bikes, swam, played ball and ran every day in the heat. I had a six pack at 16yrs old and was a monster of an athlete consuming huge quantities of calories.

In the past, school lunches averaged about the same as the guidelines now. Some less. This is why we have things like "after school snacks" and "a la cart" options. It is also why elementary schools have snack times.

Some people are acting like there weren't always guidelines from at least some schools for how much food a student got given to them as a regular meal. Most schools have always been "pay this regular school lunch price to get this much food". If you wanted more food, you paid more money, usually using an a la carte menu or brought more food from home. This is especially true with high school. During my sophomore year, I was swimming or working out in the weight room in the mornings before school, swimming during school (PE II for me was a class where me and 3 other students, instructed by a coach, taught 6th graders how to swim and learned how to be a lifeguard in between our classes of the younger students), and doing normal swim practice after school. My junior year I had swimming after school and then work after swim practice. I still only got what was provided by the school in a regular meal (although mine were free or reduced for my time in high school) during lunch. I made up for it in the mornings with breakfast, after school, during meets (they always had healthy options for sale for the swimmers during meets), and during or after work.

Lunches, in most schools, have always limited the quantity that students were given, and they found that this quantity calorie amount pretty much averaged right around the current calorie limits of the new guidelines.
 
... Americans are heavily over proteined. There's no general need to supply kids with more protein.

Um, Americans in general have too little protein. ESPECIALLY kids that are growing everyday. Stuffing them full of carbs is NOT a healthy meal.
 
Which would you rather your children ate for lunch?
Before:

Bean and cheese burrito (5.3 oz) with mozzarella cheese (1 oz)
Applesauce (1/4 cup)
Orange juice (4 oz)
2 percent milk (8 oz)

After:

Turkey (1 oz) and low-fat cheese (0.5 oz) sandwich on whole wheat bread
Refried beans (1/2 cup)
Jicama (1/4 cup)
Green pepper strips (1/4 cup)
Cantaloupe wedges (1/2 cup)
Skim milk (8 oz)
Mustard (9 grams)
Reduced fat mayonnaise (1 oz)
Low-fat ranch drip (1 oz)

Neither
 
Um, Americans in general have too little protein. ESPECIALLY kids that are growing everyday. Stuffing them full of carbs is NOT a healthy meal.

... that flies in the face of the studies I've read and everything I know about the U.S. market on meat and whole grains, but alright.

This argument is pointless. Whether or not you're eating too many whole grains is relative to what you are eating in the rest of your meals. Studies (and market) say Americans don't eat nearly enough whole grain or dietary fiber and way too much meat.
 
... that flies in the face of the studies I've read and everything I know about the U.S. market on meat and whole grains, but alright.

This argument is pointless. Whether or not you're eating too many whole grains is relative to what you are eating in the rest of your meals. Studies (and market) say Americans don't eat nearly enough whole grain or dietary fiber and way too much meat.

In addition, if the "before and after" meals that someone posted earlier are to be believed, the new meals are less carb heavy and the carbs they do have are more complex carbs.

It would be nice if one of the whiners posted some actual nutrition information instead of "Not enough calories!", "Too many calories!", "Not enough protein!"
 
You criticized it because the fruits can be high in calories

Huh?


And high in certain vitamins. And, yes, we should be mindful of the carb content in fruit just as in any other food.


Who said otherwise? This is why we eat protein sources in addition to fruits/veggies. Y'know....a balanced diet.

No one said it was. Please address what's actually being said, not strawmen.

"long term calorie nutrition"?

1/2 cup of cantaloupe is "too much fruit"?

ahh, now I see! You're just making crap up


You guys are just being picayune to obfuscate the fact that the gov't went overboard with the school lunch program in cutting calories from sources that would benefit children like healthy fats, proteins and some carbs. Kids hating the radical food change and not getting enough to feel full is not a success.

It's a benefit to alter the junk they were primarily eating and limit soda's and sweets, but a growing child's diet is not the same as an adults.
 
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.

Apparently Michelle was right!
 
Administrators from Chicago area schools state that their students like Mo'bamas offerings. I. AM. SHOCKED!!!

Well one study done in Obama's back yard proves it empirically. The act of throwing away perfectly good food = We like it. No arguing about that! :mrgreen:
 
You guys are just being picayune to obfuscate the fact that the gov't went overboard with the school lunch program in cutting calories from sources that would benefit children like healthy fats, proteins and some carbs. Kids hating the radical food change and not getting enough to feel full is not a success.

It's a benefit to alter the junk they were primarily eating and limit soda's and sweets, but a growing child's diet is not the same as an adults.

I see that instead of posting some facts, you've chosen to continue making stuff up and posting it
 
I see that instead of posting some facts, you've chosen to continue making stuff up and posting it

Post some facts that say a majority of children like those new meal guidelines?
 
If not junk then at least not as healthy. Fat kids don't need more fat in their diets ...they need less.




The government / public schools has a duty to teach what foods are healthier choices. If by example ...all the better.
That is teaching, not indoctrination.
Stop and think for a moment ...You are arguing that the schools should feed kids less healthy food...
Is that really who you want to be?
Just to be anti-Obama?
Really?

Why the assumption that every kid in America is fat?
 
Being someone that has two kids in Public School I am so glad my wife takes the time to pack my children a lunch each day. This is one headache I don't have to think about.
 
I cannot tell you how many pounds of green beans, corn and carrots I've seen that are dumped into the trash in the school cafeteria everyday.

Then I hope they went hungry and didnt have other options.
 
Not so sure I'd consider these lunches to be all that healthy. They are very carb-heavy, and not a whole lot of legitimate proteins(meat is rather scarce in the diet). Granted they are probably better than some of the stuff parents have been known to pack, but I'm not particularly comfortable with praising them either. I'm also extremely uncomfortable with some recent policies that allow some schools to override parental judgement when it comes to meals.

Then parents can send their own food with their kids.


If it's on my dime, I believe it should be healthy. PLenty of other times and meals for the kids to eat at home. And if not, then what little healthy food is available should be taken advantage of.
 
These meals might be nutritionally deficient, if they don't provide enough protein, minerals and overall calories.

I think the goal is probably complete nutrition but again, is it the school's job to provide complete nutrition for lunches or just healthy food?

Again, school is not the only source of food for kids. If they get little food or junk food elsewhere, at least this is a boost.
 
so you're saying the meals do not provide enough calories?

Would it be inappropriate for me to ask you to provide some facts to back that up?

Not to mention that he said nutrition. Nutrition and caloric intake are 2 different things.
 
Then parents can send their own food with their kids.

I understand that. Not really my point. I simply stated that, imo, the new lunches weren't really all that "healthy" even if they were a step up from the previous menu. Too many carbs.
 
I understand that. Not really my point. I simply stated that, imo, the new lunches weren't really all that "healthy" even if they were a step up from the previous menu. Too many carbs.

How were they unhealthy?
 
Back
Top Bottom