To be irritated with parents forcing children to sit and eat at soft play

[SrAssumpta]

I spent the morning in a play centre with a few other mums and our 3-4 year olds, met at half 9 and stayed about two hours.
The children weren't even playing five minutes when the other parents were calling them back over "Simon, would you like a yogurt? Come down and have some grapes", "Lucy have some crisps", "Oh darling I've gotten you a slush puppy come down and have it before it melts"
I just don't get it? We met up to let them play, why couldn't they eat at home, it's an expensive play centre why can't they make the most of it? Then a huge platter of nuggets and chips was ordered and they were made sit and eat all the greasy food on their plate and coaxed with "Go on just two more nuggets then you can go back and play"

I find it so irritating, we could have just met up for breakfast or lunch but why take children somewhere they're supposed to have fun and force them to sit down and eat?

Lurked- Agreed!

Snacking is surely a recent phenomenon. As is the childhood obesity issue, plus sized uniforms and fucking massive levels of tooth decay. Why can't people see what they are doing to their children by feeding them sugar and processed food half a dozen times a day?

Then when you say "your child has eight teeth that need to be taken out under GA" they lie and say they don't eat sugar! 10min on this website gives you every excuse under the sun that people use to feed their children constantly.

OP, YANBU.

It's all about the stephan curve I will post this until I can no longer use my fingers.

I'm the total opposite of a helicopter parents more like benign neglect but my dd will eat a lot at soft play as she gets very hungry.

She is a skinny minny but eats like a horse. For this reason I always arm myself with a selection of snacks. She still eats well at meals. I don't force her to eat however, she runs around then potters back to me when hungry.

mrsmorton snacks are not necessarily associated with obesity, sugar, processed food, or tooth decay.

Dd snacks on fruit, nuts or cheese mostly. She is a healthy weighr, and has no tooth decay. There is no way she would cope without snacks between meals with her level of activity.

We had friends round, my child had a biscuit, they gave their 18 month old a biscuit, he took one bite and spat it out refused any more.
When he then asked for raisons was given them, which surprise surprise he didn't eat, he was then given the raisons Again which he still didn't eat. AGHHH

I wouldn't mind but it was all dropped on my floor/ sofa.

Toysrlov, yeah it does fuck me off when strangers or well meaning folk completely undermine me in front of my children.

It's like when well meaning folk think it's ok to say it's ok when my little ones start being a bit heavy handed with furniture or when they run around people's legs when they are carrying hot drinks. They say it to me/the kids immediately after I've told them not to do it and started to pull the kids away. It completely confuses the kids and makes it harder for me.

Why can't people respect my parenting? It's not them who has to deal with a toddler on a bus high on sugar is it? or a child with hot tea on them because they've just been tripped over because they were messing about.

People who undermine me now get a polite reminder that there is a reason why I don't allow it. But please do keep your nose out of other people's parenting. I may Think people are daft for loading their kids up with snacks, but I don't go up to them and say, 'your kid looks a little podgy why not lay off the fruit shoots and crisps?' How is that any different to ignoring mum and pushing chocolate at my kid?

These people are maybe just trying to say that they are not bothered or offended even if DC do something a bit silly or impolite. It's kind human interaction to say "don't worry-it's ok!" if a small child bumps into you in a cafe, etc. - It is not necessarily said undermine you. Sure, there is safety to be considered, so, then even if someone says it's fine DC forgot themselves and ran into their path in the cafe, you still tell DC off and repeat to them that it can be dangerous, so you forbid running (or not being careful) in a cafe regardless, after/before you thank the other person for being understanding and forgiving on this occasion.

With food, I understand being super vigilant when DC has allergies etc., but otherwise, again, I think it is simply human, sociable and kind to want to share what treats you have with someone you like. I remember in my childhood being offered things by friends and, a few times, also boiled sweets or chocolate by grannies from their handbags, and it felt nice. Didn't make me obese or shun my dinner. Also, "sugar high" (from a finger of KitKat, nevertheless?) has been found out to be a myth.

Fine, I guess, also if you just prefer DC not to have anything at all between meals (even though I don't agree), but prepare DC for this food sharing situation (if it is that common to you and your lot). Then, if food is really pushed on DC, and the offering people will not take your or your DC's polite no as an answer (because they think you are just, again, trying to teach DC politeness and manners, or "stranger danger" and they do not see themselves as "strangers"), maybe just take the food and put it away in your bag for "later", then deal with any way you see fit.

toysrlov, you'd push a treat on a kid even if the mum said no. In that situation with the kitkat DD had actually had a bit of cake in the hospital café for getting finally discharged from consultant care. we were going to meet my family for lunch a kitkat would have meant lunch completely ruined.

In the café, my kids running around like lunatics, darting inbetween old people and hot drinks. It's not OK, it is unsafe and no they did not just say it to be polite, they said it after I had started to tell them off, and felt the need to butt in. Like telling off your child in public is worse than them running about in coffee shops it seems.

we need to respect each other as parents and listen to what the parent is saying and honour it. We do not know a child better than their parents do.

Im the opposite. Dd now 8 will come up after a little while - can i have - a slush, shiny chocolate bar spied behind the counter (or in my bag), money for the machine etc. My standard response is after you have played a bit longer.

Great post, op. Had never thought of it like that , just assumed it must be those children's "time" to eat or whatever.

Defo have been guilty of ordering food for children to justify having something myself.

With ds (dc2) I am more confident and was happy to go to soft play with him yesterday and just have a coffee myself. As you say, he was there to play, not to eat.

Maybe it is lack of confidence in their own parenting makes people do this? Feeling they are not looking after their children unless making them eat, iyswim.

I think it's done down to lack of knowledge, for want of a less patronising word, about what actually constitutes a healthy attitude to food and therefore healthy eating habits, i.e eating what you need when you need it. And in all honesty the majority of toddlers aren't overweight so no reason a parent that doesn't understand the above would think they were getting it wrong. It's from about school age and particularly round puberty it starts showing physical evidence. Plus the fact as a nation we have a skewed idea of what is a healthy weight.
All the focus appears to be on what food you should eat, which you shouldn't, how much, regular bmis etc, rather than the basic cause, eating for the wrong reason. And in the face of all that, with a healthy weight toddler (or one that to you looks healthy in the case of the overweight parents and toddlers) the basic desire to nurture your young is going to manifest as over feeding, and therefore teaching bad habits

I agree with the general shift towards the 'wrong' type of snacking and eating for the sake of it.

I have awful trouble trying to stem the tide of 'treats' from grandparents. For example, if they visit just before lunch and bring a cake or doughnut, then I would have no trouble with them having it afterwards, or even mid way as a treat, but they want to have it just before, and sometimes they've even sneaked them a chocolate covered doughnut while I'm making the lunch. That is passing on a really weird and damaging attitude to food, and I can't see how they can justify that sort of behaviour. My children don't miss out on cakes and ice creams, they have it in moderation. Some people have lost sight of what moderation actually means in relation to food, and see people who practise it as being treat-misers, when it's not the case.

However, the habit of snacking between meals (but at regular times) is not a new one - 'elevenses' and 'afternoon tea' and Winnie the Pooh's 'little smackerel of something' attest to that

Snacking isn't a recent phenomenon, no. It's true that in this country, for the past couple of centuries until recently, people have tended to eat three meals a day (except when they couldn't afford it obv) and not much inbetween. Not always, of course: for example people commonly went to the cinema a couple of times a week in the first half of the century and, rationing and money allowing, would often have a sweet treat while they were there. But mostly.

However, there's no evidence this three meal pattern has been universal in human history and cross-culturally. It's just been the way in the UK lately. And things like cheap, very easily available sugary drinks, chocolate, crisps etc are a fairly new phenomenon. They're also sold in much bigger portions than they were even a couple of decades ago. People buying sweets at the cinema now likely buy much bigger portions than they would've in the 30s.

I think a lot of money gets put into shaping new ways to consume and the child 'snack market' has been heavily marketed to the last few years - it is the star of new markets.

When my first child was born 8 years ago I was pretty clueless. I did buy some Organics Carrot snack things for her. They were about the only purpose baby/toddler snack you could buy beyond raisins, rice cakes and fruit. I thought them convenient, though really they made her orange :)

In the years since then the entire snack for babies market has exploded. I finally caught on and realised it was all a bit silly an unnecessary and I didn't have to participate. By the time the 2nd child came along I was much wiser.

The whole snack food, healthy snack food, convenient snack food, baby snack food market is still growing. Not to mention all the pre-exisiting snacks that aren't targeting a particular age group - chocolate bars, crisps etc.

You can be sure where there is lots of money there is lots of marketing and where there is lots of marketing there is lots of manipulation. It's up to us to wise up and step outside of the machine.

God who gives a shit how often people feed their children? I think parents are better placed to assess whether their own kids need a snack (perhaps to prevent future blood sugar falls and consequent grumpiness) at any particular moment than random strangers. Of all the things to be 'irritated' about...

Constant snacking is a behaviour that has changed over recent years though.

Now I see it at sport activities where in the breaks a majority of the kids are given snacks as well as taking a drink. I don't know why their parents think it's a good idea. (Marketing I suppose?)

I "look" like one of those parents, but it is for a specific reason. DD has a metabolic disorder and can develop severe hypoglycaemia without warning (and yes, she really DOES require food every 90 minutes).

She is nearly 10 years old now, under 4 stone and 4'1" - it is hardly like I am feeding her into overgrowth and obesity.

But of course, OP, you know the full medical history of all your acquaintances' DCs, right?

I genuinely don't get this 'my kids get irritated and tantrummy if they're hungry so I give them a snack every hour' thing. Surely by constantly giving your children snacks you're creating a situation where they're not hungry at meal times, refuse to eat much, then get hungry an hour later and start getting cross and so on and so on.

By not allowing constant grazing in between meals they'll eat what they need at meal times and will be able to manage until the next meal without getting cross and difficult?

Not, obviously, talking about children with medical issues.

Nursery you are absolutely correct. By constantly feeding the children, parents are also reducing the tolerance for blood sugar fluctuations, which lays the groundwork for disordered eating down the road.

Also, when a child is constantly satiated, they don't learn to recognize and appropriately respond to hunger - leading by again to disordered eating in later life (when parents are no longer guiding intake on some arbitrary schedule).

I would have agreed with you too about unnecessary snacking, until DD came along...

If my DC were cars, DS has a huge fuel gauge that needs a lot of filling, but he is fine until he is really really on empty. DD has a reasonably sized fuel gauge but if the needle drops below about half she cannot function, and needs a top up to get back over the line.

How do you suggest I break the cycle, Nursery, beyond what we already do (gradually lengthening the gaps between snacks)? It's very easy to say "Oh but you are reinforcing bad habits", but breaking them is incredibly difficult indeed

But you are trying to break the cycle Closer, that's the point.

And you are doing it the right way - smaller snacks, less frequent snacks, offer a large glass of water before a snack is even an option.

The habits took a long time to develop, they will take at least as long to eradicate. Patience will be your best tool.