To think your child doesn't need a snack in a 30-minute toddler class?

[Mummyreindeerlegz]

Sorry for the long title.

Why is it some parents give their one year old snacks during really short classes (or at all during classes!)? A one year old wandering around with a soggy rice cake, dropping bits is grim. Wait half an hour or give them a snack before you come.

Please tell me why people think this is ok? Fully prepared to be told I am being unreasonable.

Having said that, not tidying up after yourselves is just bad mannered. And I would always make ds sit to eat when out in public, not run around with his food.

"we still sing the songs my son learnt at music group when he was 2, he's now a hulking great teenager

confused I have visions of mum and teen son belting out "Wind The Bobbin On" at the dinner table. grin"

OK, it's a family joke on those hard to get up teenage mornings. "Good morning" / "Good morning" / "How are you today?" / "I'm .... [insert adjectives, printable or otherwise, the initial song had 'fine']"

It did, quite genuinely, start us off on a love affair with music for DS, though I agree that family renditions of 'wind the bobbin up' would be weird!

Ffs, no toddler is going to starve due to having to wait 20 minutes for a rice cake If they're so much more focussed on where their next rice cake is coming from than they are on doing the activity, I'd question whether they should be there at all.

If you know a child has eaten a decent amount or finished their last meal, then they won't be that hungry that they can't wait. There is nothing wrong with feeling peckish whilst waiting for a meal, it won't harm them.

^ This

I just disagree can't, ds had a good lunch at 12 and won't have tea until 5.30 ish if he says he's hungry at 3.15 he can have a snack. Sure it won't kill him to wait but I think it would be unpleasant and, well, I don't think it's nice to leave a toddler hungry. It's not the same as all this 'stuffing their faces every 30 minutes' pp seem to be seeing everywhere. I don't think I've ever seen this happening, the over feeding of unwilling, full up children I mean, I assume other parents know their dc better than I do and that if they're feeding them it's because they're hungry.

I obviously wouldn't ever let mine make a mess everywhere though, or expect anyone else to pick food up after them.

I just disagree can't, ds had a good lunch at 12 and won't have tea until 5.30 ish if he says he's hungry at 3.15 he can have a snack

That IS a long time to wait - At his age mine had tea at 4.30 pm after lunch at 12.30 or 1 pm. I wouldn't have left them five and a half hours at that age.

My dc are 2 and 4 and their mealtimes are

7 am breakfast

1pm lunch

6pm dinner

8 bed

Most days they have a snack mid morning and mid afternoon. I think that's normal. At the weekend we have breakfast later and they don't have morning snack then.

My DD has tea at 4:30. Since lunch at 12 she has already eaten two yoghurts, half a mango, some cheese and crackers, a handful of grapes and the half a banana she didn't eat this morning.
She's not eating out of boredom, she asks for food then runs back to playing as soon as she's done.

Honestly, would just sit and let her cry until mealtimes? I did try it, she cried from half an hour after breakfast until lunch. I took her out, walked her around, tried to distract her, she just cried.

I really don't know how you can tell if another human isn't genuinely hungry though

When out and about with my toddlers, I used to carry an emergency banana (or two), just in case we got held up anywhere. If they were genuinely hungry they would eat the banana. If they wanted crisps or a chocolate bar and not the banana, they weren't. At home I would offer "a piece of toast to keep you going till you have a lovely tea!"

I may now be judged as a strict disciplinarian mother - but to this day both my DDs and myself carry an 'emergency' banana to save ourselves from chocolate and peanuts when hunger pangs strike. DH doesn't, but only because he knows I have one.

I meant pp who say children don't need to snack (fwiw I give her food in groups or we'd be housebound/deaf)

Maybe all these starving dc are really just bored of music group

A banana or piece of toast is a snack though! So if your dc were hungry between meals you gave them a snack.

Maybe they are using food as a comforter, rather than thinking the kid is actuallyhungry

Gotta but then they would be going even longer between tea and breakfast wouldn't they? Just don't think that eating more than 3 times in 24 hours is a bad thing and I call thing eaten outside meals snacks.

NickyEds

Mine managed with tea at 4.30 then a milky drink before bed at 7.30...until breakfast.

Yes of course I would give them the banana if we'd got held up somewhere and were late eating, or the piece of toast if they were genuinely hungry hours before a meal. My point was that this was standby and not a snacking habit. What child wants toast for a treat?
Day after day after day?
I didn't starve the poor little buggers, but we made it through playgroups and music sessions and doctors appointments and bus journeys and walks to the park without a bag full of goodies. Just the emergency banana.

Just look at the baby 'snack' aisle, or the reminders we need a 'baby bag' to keep 'snacks' in, and a snack pot too, and we should also buy this, and that, and maybe a snack alarm so we always know when it's time for the child's twice-an-hour snack time. Toddler group starts at 9am, well, best have a 'snack' children, it's not like you just had breakfast or anything. 1pm session? Well, you just had lunch but every time is snack time...

Marketing bollocks. Convince people their toddlers need to eat every few minutes and you sell more 'snacks', usually dried fruit (very bad for teeth) and biscuits and flapjacks and crisps. Also filling the child's stomach with junk and then, come mealtimes? "Oh, such a fussy eater, never eats a thing."

The sooner you let go of the 'snack' regime, the cheaper and easier it is - and mealtimes are a lot better too.

This reminds me of a thread not so long ago where there was a reasonably short class/activty (less than an hour I think) where they actually had snack time as part of.

Alot of people agreed that was also ridiculous as you okay fir the kids to do something and the time is wasted throwing food at them rather than doing the activity.

Of course there are situations where perhaps you missed your bus or roadworks meant you were held up a long time or you had an appointment which ran late meaning making it home or being able to sort lunch/tea wasn't possible and it's all going to be a bit late. In those instances a snack is perfectly understandable.

But all these kids who apparently can't make it through 30 mins on a bus or a music class, well it's ridiculous.

Of its got to a point where parents are literally being ripped off in groups where half of it must be spent setting up/clearing up food then I think the discussion about whether we do feed our kids too often and don't see a problem when these things happen, is a very useful and important one to have

Hmmm, I'm a bit on the fence with this one.

Dd is almost 4 and has always eaten a good breakfast. Ds is 18 months and a breakfast refuser. This means by 10 -10:30 he is crying with hunger so I have to feed him snacks if we are out. He does not like sitting still so trying to contain him in a toddler class would be very difficult.

On the other hand, I am not someone who provides constant snacks when we're out and I expect them to manage between meals.

Do lots of people carry an Emergency Banana?

It's not the healthiest snack; around 18g of sugar.