to think DH is over-reacting to the kids' breakfast?

[EmGee]

Kids generally have homemade banana bread (I do add some dark choc pieces...), or other homemade cakey/bread/muffiny thing sweetened with fruit puree, a bit of brown sugar or some maple syrup. I add ground almonds and things like chia seeds or oat bran as much as possible, and try to use alternatives to white flour to vary things. Always cut down the amount of actual sugar that is given in the recipe to the absolute minimum.

I also make flapjacks and have successfully reduced the sugar content dramatically by using mashed banana for example. Kids are less keen on the banana version though.

My reasoning is that these things are homemade and I know exactly what has gone into them. The kids like them. It's quick and easy in the mornings. Is it so wrong?

They normally have water, milk or I make hot chocolate using unsweetened dark cacao powder and add a bit of brown sugar to sweeten.

He thinks weetabix is 'better' and it's ridiculous that they eat 'cake'.

AIBU or is he????

Proper maple syrup has zinc, manganese, calcium, potassium and iron. In trace amounts of course, but still better than plain sugar which has had everything stripped and bleached away. Maple syrup is around 2/3 sucrose from memory, so about 65odd grams of sugar per 100g. Not great of course, but better than many!

Rooner - do you not see that your "intervention" in the young children would only be to kidnap these children from their families and feed them your food! The problem is that these children are growing up in households where obesity is the norm and there is gross ignorance on basic food technology in many of these household. How, may I ask, do you plan on intervening in private households in younger than school-age children? The mums who post on these boards are not the problem - can you not understand this?

There are many charities and organisations around trying to do just that.

I hate those adverts because they are so clever at convincing us we can’t get through even a few hours without shoving more food in our faces. Unless we eat special high-protein breakfasts

Personally speaking, I can't get through more than about two hours without having to eat. Three meals a day just doesn't suit me.

And I do like a high-protein breakfast: eggs, fish, avocado, bacon...

IMO cereal is basically cotton wool and not great nutrition-wise.

I'm not saying kids shouldn't eat cereal, just that cereal does not make an ideal breakfast. Let them have it for supper instead.

What's the difference between eating it for breakfast or tea?? And, hold on, cereal does not make an ideal breakfast.

It bloody does.

Everyone can get through the day eating 3 or 4 meals

If I ate every 2 hours I'd be constantly snacking

I can't get through more than about two hours without having to eat.

Well, whatever works for you, in fact I'm happiest as a little-and-often eater myself.

IMO cereal is basically cotton wool and not great nutrition-wise.

It's these wild sweeping generalisations about whole groups of foodstuffs that get to me.

Everyone can get through the day eating 3 or 4 meals

Well, I could technically get though the day, but would find my concentration and energy dropping, enough to affect my work/conversation etc. Not everyone is exactly the same and different people need to eat differently. Not that radical an idea, is it?

"What's the difference between eating it for breakfast or tea?? And, hold on, cereal does not make an ideal breakfast. It bloody does."

Cereal makes a convenient breakfast not an ideal one, all down to very clever marketing. I've explained why upthread Partron. Cereals tend to be high carbohydrate, low protein, and high glycaemic load (especially as most people tend to put table sugar on it too), so blood sugar levels are high peaks and troughs (not ideal). A better breakfast, one that sustains us for longer (so kids can concentrate longer than the first hour or 2 at school for example) has more protein and a lower glycaemic load. Something like meat, fish or eggs. At the end of a school day it doesn't matter if kids find it difficult to concentrate due to a blood sugar slump, so can eat cereal no problem. I don't know about you but if I have a proper cooked breakie I can go for a lot longer than if I have a bowl of cereal. That's the protein.

It's these wild sweeping generalisations about whole groups of foodstuffs that get to me.

Yes, fair play, you're right. I should have said 'IME cereal is basically cotton wool and not great nutrition-wise.' It doesn't feel good for me personally. I know people differ.

Having said that, I'm with WhatALoad on the nutritional make-up of cereal and its effects.

I know that something high on the GI is bad for me for breakfast in particular as my blood sugar levels are very sensitive...I have to be very careful else I pass out! So something like cereal or toast in isolation would not work for me, would be hungry within 2 hrs. Something more substantial, like proper porridge, cooked breakfast, decent granola with some fruit, a decent smoothie with lots of fibre and substance and I can last until lunch. But I would normally try to have something like a piece of fruit, or a little bit of cheese or similar mid morning anyway.

Do people really, truly eat porridge with no sugar added? I genuinely think that is the most disgusting breakfast I can think of. Add some golden syrup and that is another matter of course.

The French and Italians have something sweet for breakfast as a matter of course(when they eat breakfast!). They don't generally have much other sweet stuff during the day though.

I personally have eggs and stuff and cheese and ham for breakfast (not all at once!) and toast . I steer clear of sweet things for breakfast - including granola and cereal and porridge - These all taste disgusting without some sugar of some kind in them . I mean who the the hell eats weetabix without at least a teaspoon or two of sugar one it? Not me for sure, which is why I never eat the stuff, it tastes like gloop. At least with sugar it tastes like sweet gloop which is just about bearable, but as I said I try to avoid sugar in the mornings.

My husband and son probably have a chocolate or almond croissant or something similar for breakfast 3-4 times a week if not more. I usually sit there with my "healthy" scrambled eggs and one toast (no butter) or ham and toast, while they have this.

Yet who is the one who is overweight and who cannot eat just one cake or a couple of biscuits, not them for sure. They have their daily sweet thing and they don't overdo it. My son who is 11 years old regularly turns down dessert if he is too full or if he has had other sweet stuff that day and does not fancy it. Given that he is slim and seems to have no problem eating sugar in moderation, I can't get worked up over the fact that he eats something sweet for breakfast the majority of days. I on the other hand with my "healthy breakfasts" am obese so I am not sure I would recommend my mode of eating to anyone "healthy " or not, I eat too much regardless of what the food it and whether it is healthy or not.

OP are your children overweight? do they constantly ask for sweet things? do they eat lots of other sweet stuff during the day ? If the answer to these things is no, then I am sure they are fine. If the answer to any of the questions is yes then maybe they should have less sugar for breakfast, only you can know whether this is Ok for your children

I've explained why upthread

Well, nearly. Not sure if you were clear on the difference between starch and sugar. Starch is slow release and (eventually) all glucose. Sugar (and maple syrup etc) is quick release and (eventually) a mix of glucose and fructose. Fructose seems to be an additional concern.

if I have a proper cooked breakie I can go for a lot longer than if I have a bowl of cereal.

And a proper cooked breakfast makes me feel a bit tired and queasy for the rest of the morning. So what? (Well I don’t usually just have cereal by itself but anyway.)

That's the protein.

It might turn out to be the protein but so far that’s not proven. Yes there have been a couple of experiments that go that way but last I heard the evidence wasn’t fully conclusive.

And I don’t think anyone’s done a proper comparison of different breakfasts on kids in school. The really big difference seems to be made by eating any kind of proper breakfast at all, including cereal or tea-bread, and not just buying packet of sweets on the way in. The rest is gilding the lily.

My kids are most definitely not overweight. Neither am I. Nor DH.

They do like sweet things but they also love chomping on a bit of camembert for their 'gouter' (afternoon snack). They get sweets from parties which get put in a sweetie tin. And then they promptly forget about them. I am also quite mean - they get one sweet when they eat them, not a pack. Even if it's just one haribo. I've told them that too much sugar isn't good for their teeth.

No sugar added to weetabix or bran flakes; just eaten plain.

They eat lots of vegetables. Also fruit but generally apples, pears and kiwis.

They get a pretty good meal when they eat at the cantine. It's a set menu with a vegetable starter, meat or fish with rice, couscous, pasta or potato and generally a green veg. Then cheese and often yoghurt as a dessert. Chips are served once a month or so. 'Treat' desserts e.g. chocolate mousse maybe once a week. My kids now eat beetroot, green beans, olives, goat's cheese and camembert thanks to the cantine. So I think it's superior to some school meals available in UK schools.

On balance, it's not bad. Yes, it could be better - they could have porridge for breakfast but they will not eat it. Hence the homemade cakes breads, which I make the day before so I am not up at 6am making them! I meant it's quick as I just have to cut it into pieces and serve it on a plate. So it's quicker than making toast or scrambled eggs.

To reiterate the hot chocolate is made from unsweetened dark cocoa powder so it needs sweetening but again, I can choose how much sugar goes in and it is brown which I think tastes nicer than white rather than giving Nesquick or Banania which is already sweetened and tastes unbearably sweet in my opinion.

My argument with DH was that although the kids are eating sugar ( as they are when they eat weetabix), I am trying to control the amount they are getting and trying to make the breakfast as nutritious as I can.

I take on board from this thread the helpful comments re introducing variety and trying savoury breakfasts :) So thank you for that.

Your kids' diet sounds great. Balanced without being restrictive.

Wouldn't change a thing if I were you

EmGee I totally envy your school meals! Ours are so poor.

So I think it's superior to some school meals available in UK schools.

My children's school (in Hertfordshire) has a FANTASTIC range of foods. They eat beetroot every day. The school has more than 95% uptake of school dinners over packed lunches so the council award them for that and provide a larger range of choices, massive salad etc. It is £2.15 ?? I could be wrong as it changes regularly) and I could do it cheaper with packed lunch but this is something that is worth paying for, definitely.

Sorry, gone off topic!

I do things like that for breakfast on Sundays. The rest of the time it's porridge, eggs, fruit etc. I do see your DH's point of view on this.

Overall the OP's diet is probably fine at the end of the day. Just because there is a sugar hit first thing, doesn't mean the rest of the day is like that.

We eat quite a lot of carbs in the way of rice etc. Yesterday the kids had muffing and banana for breakfast, ham and egg for lunch and HM soup with seedy (shop bought) bread and butter.

I think we redeemed ourselves by tea time.

I'd cry with happiness if my children would eat that. They have had jammy dodgers this morning :(