28 month old son's diet

In article ,
(Catherine Woodgold) wrote:


Some people don't have the option of choosing which foods
to eat, due to lack of money or similar restrictions.
However, others do, and if one has the ability to do
something that promotes health and contributes to long
life, why not do it?

It depends on how far you go with this. One of the early phrases my
kids had to understand was, "Mom is not a short order cook." Especially
with three kids, I was not interested in making sure that every kid had
a favorite food at every meal, or in waiting on them hand and foot. I
tried to make sure that every kid had at least one dish they liked --
and for breakfast we had a variety of hot and cold cereals -- but dinner
was pretty much take it or leave it. I knew no one was going to starve.
If they were hungry later, they could have a piece of fruit or a carton
of yogurt -- but I was not going to cook anything else.

My MIL, on the other hand, would go NUTS if a kids didn't eat at a meal,
and spend lots of time trying to entice them with something else.
(Fortunately, she didn't live close, so I only had to deal with this, at
most, one week a year.) And she continues with this, no matter how old
the kids are. I remember serving turkey tetrazzini (something I make
VERY well!) and her 14 yo son didn't like it, so she popped up from the
dinner table, and let her dinner get cold while she fixed him a couple
of hamburgers so the poor dear wouldn't go hungry. If she sees that DH
is not eating much at a meal, she will offer to cook him somthing he
likes better than what I've served -- and he's 50 and overweight!

I never wanted to be like that; my kids are pretty grown, but they know
how to sit at a table and not make a point of the fact that they don't
like what's been served -- and fix something else for themselves later.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

In article ,
(Catherine Woodgold) wrote:

Just because someone refuses to eat something does NOT
necessarily mean they are not hungry or don't need food to
maintain health. The same goes with drinks. A person
can get into a drastic health situation because they're
offered only one type of drink which they're refusing for
one reason or another.

Yes, if a child is obviously underweight or has other health issues
related to not getting enough calories, it would be appropriate to find
some way to make sure they get what they need.

But we are not talking about people with health issues here -- or at
least, most of us are not.

As long as a child is basically healthy, the worst that will happen when
you don't fix them something different when they don't care for what
you've already prepared is that they'll get a bit hungry.

It seems pretty obvious, for example, that if you have a child who
refuses to eat any form of meat (and a friend of mine has one like that
-- she has never eaten meat, and won't) then you need to educate
yourself about the nutritional needs of a vegetarian, and make sure
she's getting adequate nutrition. If you have a child who HATES
cornflakes, then you won't serve only cornflakes for breakfast -- you'll
have a box of something else for them. If you have a child who doesn't
like fish, then you avoid fixing fish several nights in a row; and,
depending upon how generous you're feeling and what else is going on,
you might even fix him a hotdog or something he DOES like while you're
fixing the fish.

But the idea that every time you put a meal on the table, if one of the
kids doesn't like it you are obligated to offer them something else just
seems to me a recipe for spending LOTS of time in the kitchen!
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

dragonlady ) writes:
But the idea that every time you put a meal on the table, if one of the
kids doesn't like it you are obligated to offer them something else just
seems to me a recipe for spending LOTS of time in the kitchen!

I don't remember anybody expressing that particular idea in this thread.
--
Cathy

Catherine Woodgold wrote:

dragonlady ) writes:

But the idea that every time you put a meal on the table, if one of the
kids doesn't like it you are obligated to offer them something else just
seems to me a recipe for spending LOTS of time in the kitchen!

I don't remember anybody expressing that particular idea in this thread.

But nor has anyone suggested that kids need to
subsist on a diet of foods they hate, either. Your
advice seems to be that one should offer foods until
the child has something he or she wants to eat. You
said:

I don't understand. I don't see how it's wasteful
to give a child something to eat. If the child doesn't
want the first thing offered, someone else can eat it.
That isn't wasting it. Here's a motivation to put
something else in front of the child: to promote the
child's health.

To be perfectly frank, while I'm sure that the health
issues you cite are occasionally the basis for food
refusal, I think it's overwhelmingly preferences or
even pure risk avoidance (I don't know it, I won't
try it--it might be yucky). There are *plenty* of
kids out there who are on the "white foods diet"
(mashed potatoes, plain chicken, mac & cheese,
white bread, etc. with nary a fruit or veggie in
sight). Those aren't kids whose tastes are driven
by allergy avoidance or a need for specific nutrients.
And the rest of the family shouldn't have to live
on that diet, nor should the cook have to produce
those foods for every meal so that picky eater has
something he or she likes at every meal.

I'm relatively lucky. My kids have their food
issues, but on the whole it's pretty easy to put food
on the table that they'll eat. I don't seriously
complain about picky eaters. I can put together a week's
worth of menus where even if everyone doesn't have their
favorites every night, no one will go to bed hungry and
I won't have to be a short order cook. As a general rule,
each family member gets to pick one dinner a week
(within health and budgetary constraints), so everyone
gets a turn at having what they really like. But there
are lots of folks out there whose choice is short order
cook, feed everyone an unbalanced and unhealthy diet,
or allow a child to go away from the table hungry. If
you're in that situation, by hook or by crook, I don't
see that offering the child different foods until he or
she is willing to eat one is an acceptable solution in
the long run (or even the short run, really). I think
that pretty much translates to short order cook in any
situation where there's a real picky eater issue.
So, while there may be folks who are
imposing an unnecessary restriction on their children
by refusing to offer alternatives even when they
could afford and procure them, I doubt any of them
are serving endless rounds of child-unfriendly foods
out of spite. I suspect that the most anyone wants
is just to be able to have a reasonable variety of
reasonably healthy, family friendly foods without
having menus dictated by a small tyrant who will only
eat five different foods, almost none of them healthy.

Best wishes,
Ericka

Ericka Kammerer wrote:

Catherine Woodgold wrote:

dragonlady ) writes:

But the idea that every time you put a meal on the table, if one of the
kids doesn't like it you are obligated to offer them something else just
seems to me a recipe for spending LOTS of time in the kitchen!

I don't remember anybody expressing that particular idea in this thread.

But nor has anyone suggested that kids need to
subsist on a diet of foods they hate, either. Your
advice seems to be that one should offer foods until
the child has something he or she wants to eat. You
said:

I don't understand. I don't see how it's wasteful
to give a child something to eat. If the child doesn't
want the first thing offered, someone else can eat it.

What someone else? If you are counting on the mom to eat it that's a
pure recipe for me (if I'm the mom) to get fat. I got in the habit of
finishing up what everyone else left, and gained weight exponentially.
I still do it to a certain extent especially at restaurants. I've had
to really concentrate on not finishing up what other people leave on
their plates.

That isn't wasting it. Here's a motivation to put
something else in front of the child: to promote the
child's health.

The problem is that sometimes the child doesn't like what the cook
feels is healthy.

To be perfectly frank, while I'm sure that the health
issues you cite are occasionally the basis for food
refusal, I think it's overwhelmingly preferences or
even pure risk avoidance (I don't know it, I won't
try it--it might be yucky). There are *plenty* of
kids out there who are on the "white foods diet"
(mashed potatoes, plain chicken, mac & cheese,
white bread, etc. with nary a fruit or veggie in
sight). Those aren't kids whose tastes are driven
by allergy avoidance or a need for specific nutrients.
And the rest of the family shouldn't have to live
on that diet, nor should the cook have to produce
those foods for every meal so that picky eater has
something he or she likes at every meal.

If the food is served family style (i.e. in serving dishes which are
passed around and everyone takes some), then inevitably there will be
leftovers. Sometimes the leftovers can be recycled into food for
another meal. But if they were passed up the first time around, it's
going to be old mom again - or else you'll throw food out. Throwing
food out IS a waste, but it's not necessary to have the kid belong to
the clean plate club either.

I agree with those that say - for reasonably healthy children, don't
be a short order cook. It's part of bringing up civilized children.

I'm relatively lucky. My kids have their food
issues, but on the whole it's pretty easy to put food
on the table that they'll eat. I don't seriously
complain about picky eaters. I can put together a week's
worth of menus where even if everyone doesn't have their
favorites every night, no one will go to bed hungry and
I won't have to be a short order cook. As a general rule,
each family member gets to pick one dinner a week
(within health and budgetary constraints), so everyone
gets a turn at having what they really like. But there
are lots of folks out there whose choice is short order
cook, feed everyone an unbalanced and unhealthy diet,
or allow a child to go away from the table hungry. If
you're in that situation, by hook or by crook, I don't
see that offering the child different foods until he or
she is willing to eat one is an acceptable solution in
the long run (or even the short run, really). I think
that pretty much translates to short order cook in any
situation where there's a real picky eater issue.
So, while there may be folks who are
imposing an unnecessary restriction on their children
by refusing to offer alternatives even when they
could afford and procure them, I doubt any of them
are serving endless rounds of child-unfriendly foods
out of spite. I suspect that the most anyone wants
is just to be able to have a reasonable variety of
reasonably healthy, family friendly foods without
having menus dictated by a small tyrant who will only
eat five different foods, almost none of them healthy.

Best wishes,
Ericka

grandma Rosalie

Ericka Kammerer ) writes:
Your advice seems to be that one should offer foods until
the child has something he or she wants to eat.

It may seem so to you, but I have not given anyone
that advice, nor even suggested that as an idea.
I stand by what I actually said. You're free to
jump to your own conclusions, but please don't attribute
them to me.

Catherine Woodgold wrote:
I don't understand. I don't see how it's wasteful
to give a child something to eat. If the child doesn't
want the first thing offered, someone else can eat it.
That isn't wasting it. Here's a motivation to put
something else in front of the child: to promote the
child's health.

I understand that there are reasons to offer a child a
second food if the child doesn't want the first thing
offered, and I also understand that there are reasons
not to offer a child a second food. Since I was
replying to someone who said she couldn't imagine any
motivation for putting something else in front of a
child, I was explaining some examples of those motivations.
I wasn't talking about motivations for not putting
something else in front of a child. Just because I
don't talk about something in a particular post
doesn't necessarily mean I don't understand or agree
with it. I can't fit my entire philosophy into
every post.
--
Cathy

Rosalie B. ) writes:
I don't understand. I don't see how it's wasteful
to give a child something to eat. If the child doesn't
want the first thing offered, someone else can eat it.

What someone else? If you are counting on the mom to eat it that's a
pure recipe for me (if I'm the mom) to get fat. I got in the habit of
finishing up what everyone else left, and gained weight exponentially.
I still do it to a certain extent especially at restaurants. I've had
to really concentrate on not finishing up what other people leave on
their plates.

There are other possibilities besides getting fat.
For example: occasionally, when going to a restaurant with
one or two small children, I ordered a regular meal for
the child and either nothing, or a small appetizer or
soup, for me. When the child (rather predictably)
didn't finish the meal, I was happy to finish it and
it wasn't too much for me. In other words: with some
planning ahead, it's possible to finish someone else's
meal without getting fat. I shouldn't have to say this,
but to try to prevent people from reposting misinterpretations
of my words: I understand that there are also reasons
not to do that. I happened to find it worth doing sometimes
in my particular situation, and I'm not the only one
who's done that.

The problem is that sometimes the child doesn't like what the cook
feels is healthy.

If the cook believes that it's very important for the
child to eat one particular food, then I think the cook
probably needs to be more open-minded. Otherwise: there
are tricks to encourage children to eat, such as using
bright colours and interesting shapes, serving small
amounts, being aware of the precise time of the day
the child is most hungry and serving (only) the particular
important foods at that time, etc.

If the food is served family style (i.e. in serving dishes which are
passed around and everyone takes some), then inevitably there will be
leftovers.

I disagree. The food can be cooked in smallish amounts
and served in that style. Family members can show self-discipline
by not taking more than a fair share until everyone has had
a first helping. The overall amounts can be such as to
leave everyone slightly hungry at the end of the meal,
and the foods can be selected in the first place using
knowledge of the family's preferences. Under those conditions,
it's very likely that the last bit will be eaten up from
each container. I shouldn't have to say this, but to
try to avoid people posting misinterpretations of my words: I am
not saying that anyone ought to do it this way, and I am
not saying anything that is not actually contained in the
actual sentences I'm posting.

Sometimes the leftovers can be recycled into food for
another meal. But if they were passed up the first time around, it's
going to be old mom again - or else you'll throw food out.

If the amounts were chosen carefully in the first place,
then mom can eat the leftovers over the next one or two
meals without getting fat (provided she doesn't eat too
much of other stuff too). It's also possible to freeze
leftovers. I like having lots of leftovers, actually.
I like leftovers in the freezer, in single-serving meals.
I bring them to work and microwave them for my lunch.
I find them delicious. Some people don't like frozen food.
I purposely cook huge meals so I'll have lots of leftovers
in the freezer.


--
Cathy

wrote in message
ups.com...

Stephanie Stowe wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
I totally understand what you're saying, but I find it hard
to translate into practice personally.

It just sort of seems to me that kids are smart enough to
know when you're giving them food they don't like
because that's what's in the cupboard and there just
isn't anything else, as opposed to giving them food
they don't like because it suits your own agenda.


It rather depends what the agenda is. What is wrong with the agenda
of
minimizing the work for mom and dad of getting the food on the table?
Or
living frugally by minimizing waste? Or good eating habits? Certainly
my son
won't choose a fruit or vegetable over an empty food. Or easing the
transition for the inforseen day when we do not have the luxury we
have
today. This is teaching.

The only one of these potential goals I'm really in tune with is
minimizing waste.

I'm okay with minimizing work for me getting food on the table, but
most of the things my toddler would rather eat require only a
few seconds of prep (cold cereal being the main one). I'm somewhat
dubious of the value of instilling good eating habits by giving a
child food he strongly dislikes; I know an awful lot of adults who
now exercise their adult freedom to eat only starch and meat who
were forced to eat other things as kids. My child happily chooses
fruit and vegetables at some occasions, but not others, so I'm
not really afraid he's going to grow up a profoundly picky eater
if left alone.

I'm not necessarily arguing that people should feed
their toddlers whatever the toddlers want, but it's
hard to translate values from one culture to another
without the underlying reality.

I don't understand this. This culture used to value frugality, of
which
waste not want not is a common expression. Instead now we value
pumping food
our children do not need into them. If a child is not hungry enough
to eat
something reasonable that is put in front of them, I cannot think of
a
motivation to put something *else* in front of them. It is wasteful.

Again, though, I think this only makes sense if frugality is an
main value of your household. It sounds like to you this is a
major value, and I think kids can sense that and will be more
compliant if the value being enforced is a core value of the family.
If it's a big priority that every scrap of food gets used up by
someone, then wasting some of that is a problem. If some leftovers
are going to get tossed anyway, then insisting that the child not
add a few mouthfuls to that waste is harder.

Absolutely. To ask your child to do what you do not do is
hypocritical.
Tonight we are having veggie beef soup, which I do not like at all
but which
is a good way to use up veggies before they go south. DH like it well
enough. DD likes... everything she is a walking garbage disposal. It
is
likely that DS and I will eat very little.

So on nights when there's a meal you dislike, you go to bed hungry?

Yup. Unless I sucked it up and ate and adequate portion of that which I did
not like.

I'm not doubting you, just curious. I know very few adults who would
act this way with more appealing food in the house, so if that's how
you act you are definitely living by your principles.


That's what we do. Perhaps its weird.

and
although I know that childrearing may require that I
seem to stand firm on values I don't necessarily live
up to myself,


When does it do that? That is one of my first yard sticks. Is this
important
enough for me to model it properly? If not, it is not valuable enough
to
insist from my kids.

Okay, then, Pop Tarts for all in my household. :-)

Seriously, I do model willingness to try new foods and enthusiasm
for vegetables, so all is not completely lost for my child. What
I don't model is willingness to choke down parts of a dinner I
don't like in situations where I have other choices.

Sure, we never put one thing on the table that we know DS will hate and
force him to eat it. But in the final analysis, choosing not to eat IS a
choice. And while I might perfer to have a chunk of butter dipped in sugar,
it is no better for me than it is for my son. So I eat what we made for
dinner.

I can model
politeness in refusing food cooked for me that I won't eat, and
willingness to eat what I hate when I have to, but when I don't I just
don't.


Me neither. Sometimes I choose not to eat or not to eat much.

Certainly. If you do not agree with my attitudes, it would be
complete
foolhardiness to attempt to do it. Your kids would think you were a
sham.
Though why would the toddler be screaming?

Well, in our house, it's because he's hungry, and all he's being
offered is food he doesn't like. ('Screaming' isn't really accurate,
'whining' would be closer.)


Different strokes for different folks. And since it sounds like your little
man already has positive eating habits, I cannot think of a single reason to
modify.

Beth

"Catherine Woodgold" wrote in message
...

"Stephanie Stowe" ) writes:
It rather depends what the agenda is. What is wrong with the agenda of
minimizing the work for mom and dad of getting the food on the table? Or
living frugally by minimizing waste?

Nothing wrong with those! I believe I have an instinctive
horror of wasting food, and I don't mind trying to teach others
to avoid wasting too.

Or good eating habits?

That will mean different things to different people,
depending on their physical needs, beliefs and values.

Certainly my son
won't choose a fruit or vegetable over an empty food.

I think it makes sense to restrict cookies and stuff, unless
maybe the kids don't tend to eat them much.

Or easing the
transition for the inforseen day when we do not have the luxury we have
today. This is teaching.

I don't respond very well to somebody telling me
"I'm taking this away from you now just to get you
used to it, in case I have to take it away some day."
It makes me angry. It doesn't make much sense to me.

Makes sense to me. I certainly do not lecture them about the want that they
someday must face. But nor do I see any particular reason to go to extreme
measures to have every member of the family have their favorites at every
meal.

Maybe it depends on how it's presented. If the child
feels like a willing partner in a project, like
"let's see if we can go all day without eating,"

I never said anything about not feeding him! Yeeeks. I meant that he will
not always have the luxury of thinking he can chose to like what sustains
him.

maybe the emotional reaction is very different.

I don't understand this. This culture used to value frugality, of which
waste not want not is a common expression. Instead now we value pumping
food
our children do not need into them. If a child is not hungry enough to
eat
something reasonable that is put in front of them, I cannot think of a
motivation to put something *else* in front of them. It is wasteful.

I don't understand. I don't see how it's wasteful
to give a child something to eat.


Hmmm. I am often accused of being very unclear in usenet. Did I say I did
not feed my child? That's cruel. I defintely do. I give choices among
several things. He does not choose to like anything but mac and cheese and
pizza. I do not bring out mac and cheese and pizza at every meal. He then
has to choose between what is present and being hungry.

If the child doesn't
want the first thing offered, someone else can eat it.
That isn't wasting it. Here's a motivation to put
something else in front of the child: to promote the
child's health. Examples: the child may be allergic
to the first food (without knowing it consciously).

Sure. He is allergic to everything but mac and cheese. And pizza. And
cookies.

The child may have a nutritional deficiency and be craving
only foods that satisfy the deficiency. The child may
have an aversion to a certain food

Or all foods in my son's case.

but may need to eat to avoid hypoglycaemia
symptoms over the next few hours (including whining and
stuff that are hard for parents to take). The child may
be experiencing digestive problems, possibly from an
incipient virus, and be unable to digest well certain
types of food.

Some people don't have the option of choosing which foods
to eat, due to lack of money or similar restrictions.
However, others do, and if one has the ability to do
something that promotes health and contributes to long
life, why not do it?


In our case, it simply does not promote health.

Tonight we are having veggie beef soup, which I do not like at all but
which
is a good way to use up veggies before they go south. DH like it well
enough. DD likes... everything she is a walking garbage disposal. It is
likely that DS and I will eat very little.

That's one way to organize your eating. Eating little can have
advantages such as not gaining too much weight. That's fine, but
not everyone does it that way -- I certainly don't. I try hard
to avoid waste, but I don't find it necessary to eat things I
don't like. If nobody likes it, we don't buy it. If others like
it, I let them eat it. Maybe eating very little at a meal is
a lot harder for me than for you, due to hypoglycemia. Maybe your
method of doing things works fine for you but wouldn't work so
well in a family with multiple food allergies and hypoglycemia.
I don't see the motivation for not getting out the raisin bran. :-)

Practicing self-discipline is good, but I think there are enough
opportunities to do it in a way that actually does some good, without
having to manufacture situations for the sole purpose of
practicing self-discipline.

Taht was weird. I think you put an awful lot of things in my mouth that were
not there.

--
Cathy

"Catherine Woodgold" wrote in message
...

dragonlady ) writes:
But the idea that every time you put a meal on the table, if one of the
kids doesn't like it you are obligated to offer them something else just
seems to me a recipe for spending LOTS of time in the kitchen!

I don't remember anybody expressing that particular idea in this thread.


I thought that is exactly what were talking about.

--
Cathy