Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

to think that junk food as a reward is really harmful

94 replies

brt100 · 27/05/2014 19:09

Currently looking after dn and on the most part it's a delight.

However picked her up from school and she was very proudly showing me a sticker she earnt, was so excited that she forgot her coat and bag!

I congratulated her etc but when we got home she said that mummy usually gives her a kinder egg when she does well. Idont want to wear my judgey pants, but I hate the idea of harmful addictive junk food as a treat.

I've said I will make her a lolly instead, this will just be frozen fruit on a stick.

Aibu not to give junk food?

OP posts:
thebodylovesspring · 27/05/2014 20:08

I want wine as a treat and would punch dh in the face if he offered me a pear instead.

I think issues with food are far far more complicated than giving sweets as a treat in a generally good diet.

I do know parents who had banned all junk food and as soon as the kids were old enough to walk to the shops they gorged themselves.

Teaching control and moderation is sensible, banning stuff is counterproductive.

MamaMary · 27/05/2014 20:16

I gave DD chocolate every time she did a pee in the potty when potty training.

Now she has chocolate about once a fortnight. It didn't make her addicted or wanting it every time she did something right.

However, in your DN's case, I don't think I'd give a reward since that what the sticker was for, isn't it? I'd just give lots of verbal praise.

JackShit · 27/05/2014 20:21

Oops.

4yo DD would probably never have shat on the toilet if it hadn't been for chocolate.

So shoot me.

TheNewSchmoo · 27/05/2014 20:27

Body your first line made me laugh out loud (am yet to grasp the art of highlighting posts)
Grin

DoJo · 27/05/2014 21:00

brt100
Norma have you ever read pure white a d deadly? It was banned by the sugar industry.

How do the sugar industry have the power to ban a book? And why is there no mention of it being banned in the reviews or anywhere else online (unless you have a link?).

SpringBreaker · 27/05/2014 21:03

You sound like you have issues OP. No need to pass them on to your poor niece.

HoneyDragon · 27/05/2014 21:12

Do you know, the more I read Mumsnet the more I realise the only we we aren't going to fuck our children's brains up is if we stop birthing the wee buggers and just give the fuck up breeding.

HoneyDragon · 27/05/2014 21:13

*way

Nomama · 27/05/2014 21:18

BRT, if by Norma you mean me.... yes, I have, as part of my training with the county dietitians. Written all the way back in the early 70s and rekindled by the ever sainted Lustig about 5 years ago.

Give me a couple of hours and I will burst many of Lustigs propositions and point out just where he goes wrong - same thing every time really, expect us to forget that the human body is a combination of many systems, most of which check and balance each other. No one food is a poison it is the imbalance that kills. Sadly his perfectly true core message is often lost in his 'cult pf personality'.

So yes, campaign for added sugars to be taken out of foods, but please, stop kidding yourself if you think you could survive without a sugar of any type - that would be impossible, give how your body breaks down all foodstuffs. Lustig forgets the golden rule of physiology, there is no one rule, there is no one system. As an endocrinologist he should know better - ask yourself why he is giving such a one sided message.

Sorry, but Lustig and his ilk REALLY annoy me, and quoting 40 year old nascent science to prove a point, when there is a far deeper understanding of dietetics these days, is disingenuous, at the very least. It is a pity as the basics of Lustig's rant are perfectly true. But he obfuscates the truth with his somewhat strained extrapolations - many of which there is an enormous body of science that disagrees. If he stuck to the less sensational message he would gain more kudos within the scientific community, but less adoration from the wider, less informed public. I find his version of science by charisma, if I say it often enough you must believe me politicking science to be intensely irritating... though in today's ever more soundbite society, he may be right, it may work, he may eventually get the crux of his message across.

Yudkin was right, Keys was wrong, and the book was not banned, just discredited and Coca Cola brought pressure where it could to get him blacklisted. The shame in the UK was that the British Nutrition Foundation was sponsored by Tate and Lyle.... but don't get hung up on that. It still happens to day... think of Olympic sponsors...

And Yudkin, like Lustig even now, couldn't always explain how... he could show correlations but not causality, there was a lack of knowledge of some hormones at that time. These days we know better and some of Yudkin's observations can now be proven... if someone will do the science.

And even Yudkin didn't ban sugar or deprive his kids from sweets.... his message then was moderation and more research. Well, we have the research, we just need to re-learn the idea of moderation.

So again, campaign and join the WHO in getting food manufacturers to reduce hidden sugars (and salt whilst you are at it) but don't peddle the tut that sugar is poison. It is not!

And I do apologise. But, outside the day job, I work with county dietitians and the bariatric team... it is utterly depressing. We spend 90% of our time trying to de-programme people who have internalised the weirdest of information as true!

brt100 · 27/05/2014 21:24

don't peddle the tut that sugar is poison

I didn't even say that. Sugar has no place in a healthy diet and is void of any nutrient.

OP posts:
DoJo · 27/05/2014 21:27

But not fruit sugar though right?

brt100 · 27/05/2014 21:29

Sugar as in pure refined processed.

Dietions are always spouting that fruit from an apple is the same as white sugar for the body.

OP posts:
MiniatureRailway · 27/05/2014 21:32

This op made me make a funny noise to myself. Kind of like squeeee.

grocklebox · 27/05/2014 21:35

Sugar is nice though, you big bloody killjoy.
do you really imagine that by banning all sugar your kids will grow up not eating any? Are you on sugary glue?

notachicken · 27/05/2014 21:38

Kinder eggs are on a par with crack cocaine for addictiveness.

HoneyDragon · 27/05/2014 21:40

Yes but unlike cocaine

It chocolate, a treat and a surprise. Grin

Cocaine, not so much.
Although it does turn you into a surprising twat.

notachicken · 27/05/2014 21:41

Perhaps offer her lentils?

HygieneFreak · 27/05/2014 21:41

Havent read the whole thread, however i just wanted to say...

I was given sweets, junk food etc as a child to cheer me up, reward me etc etc

The result?

I now have issues with food

Big issues!

I reward myself with around 2000 calories worth of junk if for example i ve had a good day and completed all the stuff that needed doing.

I consume around 6000 calories a week by treating myself with sugary food.

Im 5 stone over weight and struggling to shift it.

picnicbasketcase · 27/05/2014 21:41

Fucks sake. There are three people I know who were forbidden all sweets, crisps, junk food etc, they all went mad when they were old enough to eat what they wanted and are now all very overweight. Denying children treats can be just as unhealthy as allowing them.

CoffeeTea103 · 27/05/2014 21:49

Op it's seems it's you who has issues with food. Going by your other threads, you come across as obsessive over what people should eat. Give it a break, you must not be very enjoyable to be around.

SpringBreaker · 27/05/2014 21:53

Well I was given sweets and chocolate as treats when I was a child.. the result? I am now 44, not overweight, and still dont really have a sweet tooth or any issues with food.

An adult should have the self control not to shovel ridiculous amounts of junk food into their gob then blame it on their parents.

squoosh · 27/05/2014 21:57

How po faced are you OP? Hmm

You must such a FUN auntie to spend time with.

HygieneFreak · 27/05/2014 21:57

Spring

Its a psychological issue, that stems from childhood

Whathaveiforgottentoday · 27/05/2014 22:24

Everything in moderation.

The development of our attitudes to eating behaviour is extremely complex that the odd kinder as a reward will have minimal effect as long as the majority of your niece's diet is healthy.

You are correct in that using sugary treats makes that food seem more desirable and there is evidence to support this, however as long as this is an occasional treat, I can't see the problem. In fact, I would think you could argue that it emphases that these foods are treats and not everyday foods.

In fact, banning sugary treats altogether is just as likely to develop poor eating behaviour (effects of denial and all that).

Nomama - your post is spot on.

Waltonswatcher1 · 27/05/2014 22:57

Ffs
Guys we have never spent so long dissecting our diets , our relationship with food and yet we have never been so fat .

Too much yabbering and formulating strategies .

It's simple ; cook meals with real ingredients and stay away from processed shit .

Teach kids how to cook in schools and tax the bastard highly for producing and selling junk .

I love how people on this thread are blaming childhood associations for their obesity now . When will some people take responsibility for their own actions ?