Six-year-old schoolboy suspended for having Mini Cheddars in his lunchbox...

Haggisman said:
I must have missed that part?

The only "meeting" mentioned in the article, is the one where they were told "that the meeting cannot take place", which was arranged after he was suspended
Click to expand...

The school had a very detailed policy in the first place, they sent out a passive-aggressive reminder letter to all parents in January followed by an actual meeting with Riley's folks prior to issuing a 4 day exclusion. The meeting which was cancelled (as a result of the parents' comments in the press) was a return-to-school meeting following the exclusion.

Source: The Independent

Also worth noting that Riley's standard lunch included such nutritionally positive snacks as "yoghurt tubes" (WTF?) and Dairylea Dunkers
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
A bit aside from the safety aspect but I find artificial sweetners tend to give me headaches and while its more a problem with artificial colorings some flavorings also used to (as a child) make me hyper-active and temporarily completely change my disposition.
Click to expand...

You are perfectly entitles to make personal decisions on what you eat, but the evidence suggests that it's not the aspartame giving you headaches. It could be a whole host of other correlative factors. Same for the hyperactivity.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
Well, lets look at a systematic review of the evidence:



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2951976/

Lets look at the key conclusion here: "Based on these criteria, causality is far from established with regard to artificial sweetener use and weight gain in children."

So lets look at your next statement:



And? Just because it's chemically similar to sugar doesn't mean it has even widly similar effects.



Again, and? Table salt is made from Sodium and Chlorine both nasty elements in their own right but it's crucial to the body as an electrolyte. There is simply no relevance whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Table Salt I thought was just refined salt, salt that is found naturally? Sure salt has chemical compounds, everything does but what i am talking about is taking different compounds that don't usually exist together to create a synthetic sugar.

Source? Is it a causal relationship or just soemthing that roughly happened in the same timeframe.


I'm not even going to look at those links. Give me proper science and I'll evalutate it on it's merits. Youtube vids and press articles are nowhere near good enough.
Click to expand...

The first video was the source for the australia story. The second link was a cbs article about studies that found the synthetic sugars are causing weight gain.

My sister put on loads of weight and ive been telling her for years that its the diet coke she drinks. But she never believed me and then she finally stopped drinking diet coke every day and she has now losing weight.

And that's completely your choice, but I like to make choices based on reliable evidence rather than pure specualtion.
Click to expand...

Why is it speculation? The synthetic sugars are relatively new so we don't realy know what sort of effects this will have on people on 80 years of daily usage. Interestingly we are seeing sharp increases in cancer, but that is a big debate as to what is causing that.
 
cheesyboy said:
The school had a very detailed policy in the first place, they sent out a passive-aggressive reminder letter to all parents in January followed by an actual meeting with Riley's folks prior to issuing a 4 day exclusion. The meeting which was cancelled (as a result of the parents' comments in the press) was a return-to-school meeting following the exclusion.

Source: The Independent

Also worth noting that Riley's standard lunch included such nutritionally positive snacks as "yoghurt tubes" (WTF?) and Dairylea Dunkers
Click to expand...

Which still begs the question, why was a meeting with the parents not arranged before the exclusion?
 
anything I don't mind said:
Table Salt I thought was just refined salt, salt that is found naturally? Sure salt has chemical compounds, everything does but what i am talking about is taking different compounds that don't usually exist together to create a synthetic sugar.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but that's a huge basic science fail, so big I'm even sure where to start.

anything I don't mind said:
The first video was the source for the australia story. The second link was a cbs article about studies that found the synthetic sugars are causing weight gain.

My sister put on loads of weight and ive been telling her for years that its the diet coke she drinks. But she never believed me and then she finally stopped drinking diet coke every day and she has now losing weight.
Click to expand...

Again, correlation does not equal causation. As for the study, I linked to a systematic review. This looks at all the studies avalaible, looks at their strengths and weaknesses and makes a conclusion based on ALL THE EVIDENCE. One study proves nothing, not that you actually looked at the original study anyway.

anything I don't mind said:
Why is it speculation? The synthetic sugars are relatively new so we don't realy know what sort of effects this will have on people on 80 years of daily usage. Interestingly we are seeing sharp increases in cancer, but that is a big debate as to what is causing that.
Click to expand...

New? Aspartame was first synthesized in 1965, so we have nearly 50 years of data.
 
Freefaller said:
Fats aren't the evil people think - fats from nuts and oily fish, avocados for example and medium chain triglycerides are vital to good health.
Click to expand...

Fats are necessary (even more so if you are female).

I used to have to maintain a particular weight for sport and aimed for fat to be about 10% of my calorie intake. One week, I inadvertently dropped below 5% fat intake and felt like ****. Realised the mistake, upped my fat intake and felt fine again.
 
School meals are retarded. I have a 13 year old sister and they send all these letters home saying they can't have butter in the bread and crap like that.

And then when we ask her what she had for lunch it's always things like:

Pizza
Sausages and bacon
*insert unhealthy crap here*
 
grumpysculler said:
Fats are necessary (even more so if you are female).

I used to have to maintain a particular weight for sport and aimed for fat to be about 10% of my calorie intake. One week, I inadvertently dropped below 5% fat intake and felt like ****. Realised the mistake, upped my fat intake and felt fine again.
Click to expand...

Fat makes up over 1/3rd of my calorie intake. :)
 
Freefaller said:
Actually the way your body metabolises fruit sugars doesn't cause the massive insulin spikes that is caused by poor refined carbohydrates/sugars.
Click to expand...

That's not really relevant to the energy content of the food, which is what causes obesity.

Research has proven overall carbohydrate intake is far more important than the type of sugar in terms of insulin response anyway. The whole "refined sugar" thing is a myth in this regard.
 
Last edited:
Hotwired said:
That sounds like loads but then fat has more calories than rabbit food so in terms of % mass of stuff you eat it won't be nearly 1/3.
Click to expand...

Actually I keep track of my macros and I can assure you my fat intake is around 1/3 of my diet. It's not a lot at all, I eat a well balanced diet. I eat a lot of vegetables and fruit, but my diet is far from rabbit food.

I know a thing or two about nutrition though don't worry. :)

Before you quiz me about cholesterol, it's well under any risks and my LDL to HDL ratio is well below average.

Energize said:
That's not really relevant to the energy content of the food, which is what causes obesity.

Research has proven overall carbohydrate intake is far more important than the type of sugar in terms of insulin response anyway. The whole "refined sugar" thing is a myth in this regard.
Click to expand...

Of course that's my point. High insulinogenic foods are more dangerous than fat - but it's the right fats and eating a varied diet with plenty of antioxidants as well that makes a lifestyle good. The odd treat now and again is not the end of the world. Carbohydrates aren't the enemy though - as long as you eat good quality complex carbs.
 
bitslice said:
:o

I was just about to... :(



Jebus Christ Freefaller, I just eat food :confused:
Click to expand...

I do too :) I just choose to eat foods which suit my needs and ultimately that I enjoy. I actively do not enjoy sweet or "cheap" foods. I eat a LOT - I LOVE food :D

I'm just pointing out that there is a lot of incorrect information out there in the world, and the reliance on cheaper options actually isn't necessarily that good. I say to myself "Can I afford NOT to eat well" - taking a longer term look at my life.

That said, I'll probably keel over in a few years and I'll have egg on my face (that I was trying to eat).

You don't have to be as fastidious as me, but people just need to learn what food/nutrition behaves like for your body. Everyone is of course, different. Different goals and amount of activity - and you just need to tailor it accordingly.

Going back to the topic, the school has no idea what the boy eats at home, and if school lunches are a time for him to have a little treat then fine. Personally it would not be what I'd offer - and whilst these snacky foods aren't great, they're not the end of the world either.
 
This story reeks of bad reporting. Kind of like when the headlines of "10,000 DIE OF BIRD FLU" came around and all had a tiny bit at the end that said "(All 10,000 died of unrelated diseases but may have had bird flu too)".
 
MadMossy said:
Try getting a child to willingly eat a carrot on its own lol
Click to expand...
Never had a problem when I was a lad, seriously, I ate everything and I still do. Always liked vegetables, ate tomatos off my grandfather vines.

Wouldn't dream of leaving my plate any other way that empty - fussy eating is bred into the children by the parents. If your kids won't eat carrots that's largely your fault.
 
Energize said:
That's not really relevant to the energy content of the food, which is what causes obesity.

Research has proven overall carbohydrate intake is far more important than the type of sugar in terms of insulin response anyway. The whole "refined sugar" thing is a myth in this regard.
Click to expand...

I agree regarding obesity. There is another factor in the insulin response, though, and that is rate of absorption by the gastroenteral tract. I am given to understand that certain foods' carbs are much more easily digested and absorbed (foodstuffs with a high glycaemic index). Thus the pancreas has to deal with a big spike of insulin-based jiggery pokery. Imagine a teaspoon of a sugar with X calories and enough sunflower seeds to provide the same calories. The sugar is absorbed quickly in the stomach but the energy from the seeds takes time (it is hidden inside stout plant material) and is extracted gradually as the seeds pass through the intestines. I know the sugars are likely to be different but just imagine they are the same. We might have packed the same sugar inside some bran pellets or similar...

I imagine most pancreases (!) prefer a more regulated workload. I know I do.

Thoughts ?
 
How does school find what pupil's lunchbox contains? Do they get searched?
 
Zethor said:
Political corectness has nothing to do with this.

The parents refused to follow the school's rules and they went to the media to give them bad press. The school's reaction was normal and yes, the kid will suffer the consequences but that's the parents' responsability.

There's nothing wrong with teaching children good eating habits along with mathematics, punctuality etc. Many parents feed their children rubbish, which is borderline child abuse (although in this case it's more about the principle), good for the school for having rules on the matter.
Click to expand...

OK, what if a school decided that no children should believe in God?

That they would start expelling children whose parents raised them in any religion?

There would be people here applauding such a move - saying 'it's good for the children and it's the parents fault for being religious, which is stupid and backwards.'

So why wouldn't that be acceptable? If it's acceptable to take most other aspects of the child's upbringing away from the parents? For the school to enforce its will over the will of the parents?

What if they started saying 'your child has to stop doing rugby and take up tennis instead.'

Or 'your child has to attend after school class as he's falling behind - this is not optional.'

How much power do we want to relinquish to the authorities? All of it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom