Nutrition Classes, the Cure for Obesity?

Vorguen · Feb 18, 2009

With the increasing problem with Obesity in the United States, should schools add Nutrition classes as part of their curriculum to inform young students as to how they can live healthier lifestyles through their food choices?

Take these things into account:

-Being obese causes health problems such as: heart disease, stroke, diabetes, certain types of cancer, gout, gallbladder disease, sleep apnea, etc,

-Obese people suffer from detrimental social stigmas. Many of these people suffer from bad self esteem problems, insecurity, etc.

- If an adolescent is overweight he or she has 70% chance of being an obese adult. Also, if your parent is obese you have an 80% chance of being obese as an adult. Forty-three percent of adolescent watch two hours, or more, of television each day. (source: library.thinkquest.org)

- an estimated 97 million adults in the United States are obese. 20% of children are obese before they reach the age of 17.

- generally, people in the United States lack good information when it comes to making good eating habits and health choices. Many don't know of the negative consequences of fad dieting and healthy ways to lose weight.

Can you come up with a better alternate way for the United States to combat Obesity? (assuming if this one were to fail)

Edit: Due to the slight evolving of the debate, the thread title has been changed to include alternate ideas for curing Obesity.

SOVAman · Feb 18, 2009

Actually a lot of schools have a health class that discusses obesity, sex, drugs and so on. I don't think the class helps to much because a lot of students have a mentality that if the class is not a major grade like math, history and a foreign language then why does it matter? Because of that students either ignore the teacher, sleep or just don't care about that particular class. If the school was to make it a harder class so it affects you GPA then more students would pay attention to the class.

Vorguen · Feb 18, 2009

Okay, I am saying schools adding a Nutrition class. A full course requirement explaining everything from:

- what a calorie is and what it does in your body
- the different macronutrients (proteins, lipids, and carbohydrates) and micronutrients (Vitamins and Minerals)
- What our body needs to survive and function
- How to prepare a balanced meal
- The difference between processed foods and natural foods.
- Reading food labels, understanding what you are eating.
- Organizing your meals, how to make the most with what you have.
- How much and how often to eat.
- How food affects the different organs of your body (how carbohydrates turn into glucose which powers your brain, how saturated fats clog your arteries, etc)

And seriously, the list can go on and on. I believe schools need to add a full Nutrition course that counts for the same amount of credits as an Algebra, English, or Chemistry course.

Wrath` · Feb 18, 2009

Vorguen said:
Okay, I am saying schools adding a Nutrition class. A full course requirement explaining everything from:

- what a calorie is and what it does in your body
- the different macronutrients (proteins, lipids, and carbohydrates) and micronutrients (Vitamins and Minerals)
- What our body needs to survive and function
- How to prepare a balanced meal
- The difference between processed foods and natural foods.
- Reading food labels, understanding what you are eating.
- Organizing your meals, how to make the most with what you have.
- How much and how often to eat.
- How food affects the different organs of your body (how carbohydrates turn into glucose which powers your brain, how saturated fats clog your arteries, etc)

And seriously, the list can go on and on. I believe schools need to add a full Nutrition course that counts for the same amount of credits as an Algebra, English, or Chemistry course.

We learned this in our school health class, I hope every health class teaches this, I real don't like most of thoese statistics, specialy the obese people suffer social stigma, unless my city is really nice (Wich I know we are not), fat people in my school are not picked on, we joke with them sometime about there wieght, and they dont mind, I have a few "Obese" friends.

Anyway, the way we classify obese is invail sometimes..Clincaly obese can even be a muscular person, hell I was considered obese when I weighed 214, but I only looked 160 as most people said, i had a BMI of 34. I think we make such a big deal about, but if people want to live the way they do, let them. If the hate themselves afterwar it IS THIER FAULT. sorry if I am beign mean

Vorguen · Feb 18, 2009

The wrath of Koarin said:
We learned this in our school health class, I hope every health class teaches this, I real don't like most of thoese statistics, specialy the obese people suffer social stigma, unless my city is really nice (Wich I know we are not), fat people in my school are not picked on, we joke with them sometime about there wieght, and they dont mind, I have a few "Obese" friends.

Anyway, the way we classify obese is invail sometimes..Clincaly obese can even be a muscular person, hell I was considered obese when I weighed 214, but I only looked 160 as most people said, i had a BMI of 34. I think we make such a big deal about, but if people want to live the way they do, let them. If the hate themselves afterwar it IS THIER FAULT. sorry if I am beign mean

Unfortunately you don't make a lot of sense.

Obese people do suffer negative social repricussions. Obese people are less likely to find a suitable mate and or significant other. They are not necessarily put down or abused always, but it is unfortunate that in materialistic America being good looking takes you much farther. Want an easy example? I am in a sales business, and I used to have long hair. My job is centered around building trust and relationships with my customers. As soon as I cut my hair, my sales skyrocketed, yet I was doing the same thing to the same group of people.

Why?

The only conclusion I could draw was my appearance changed. I looked more "decent", in fact, my skill as salesman had hardly changed at all, since it was way too sudden.

But this is about nutrition.

Alright if they really want to be obese, it is their choice and at least they are informed. It is just like the safe sex discussion, if you want to have unprotected sex, then go knock yourself out. At least, with both of these, if you are informed, you know there are alternatives.

Wrath` · Feb 18, 2009

Vorguen said:
Unfortunately you don't make a lot of sense.

Obese people do suffer negative social repricussions. Obese people are less likely to find a suitable mate and or significant other. They are not necessarily put down or abused always, but it is unfortunate that in materialistic America being good looking takes you much farther. Want an easy example? I am in a sales business, and I used to have long hair. My job is centered around building trust and relationships with my customers. As soon as I cut my hair, my sales skyrocketed, yet I was doing the same thing to the same group of people.

Well as I said where I grew might have diffrent views from where you grew up, Binghamton realy doesn't care much about midea trends as much as NYC would.

Why?

The only conclusion I could draw was my appearance changed. I looked more "decent", in fact, my skill as salesman had hardly changed at all, since it was way too sudden.

But this is about nutrition.

Alright if they really want to be obese, it is their choice and at least they are informed. It is just like the safe sex discussion, if you want to have unprotected sex, then go knock yourself out. At least, with both of these, if you are informed, you know there are alternatives.

Yes information is good, but whats a fat kid with information gonna do, ask his mom to make him a salad? To me nutrion and food values are more of home and lifestyle thing, like in college, the freshman 15, they have been educated about and some freshman in colleg get eyes bigger than their head still and the gain some wieght.

I think we need to educate parents more so the can start thier kids right.

The

Vorguen · Feb 18, 2009

Okay, and how are parents going to get their education? If we start educating children now, in a few generations they will be parents, and they themselves will be able to make smart food decisions for their children. Health and food concerns are already running rampant over the country, with trans fat and MSG being acted against already. Even more, it is always best to have our youth be educated. A nutrition class will NOT harm anyone, in fact it would do much good.

Wrath` · Feb 18, 2009

Vorguen said:
Okay, and how are parents going to get their education? If we start educating children now, in a few generations they will be parents, and they themselves will be able to make smart food decisions for their children. Health and food concerns are already running rampant over the country, with trans fat and MSG being acted against already. Even more, it is always best to have our youth be educated. A nutrition class will NOT harm anyone, in fact it would do much good.

But nutrion is part of HEALTH CLASS!!!!! and health class has benn around for a whiel, obviously previous education is not working, so what good will a seperate class be? Just another manditory class that takes away from people who are healthy elective classes, I took health, I wouldn't want to take nutrion. and it's ot like we an make all "Un-healthy" kids take it, cause that would be really sad to know you have to take it, and then people sue for hurt feelings and such. And even if you make an elective, these people will not choose to take the class.

Vorguen · Feb 18, 2009

Okay first off, health class is an elective. Second of all, in health class you hardly learn anything about nutrition.

I am talking about both making Nutrition a required course based solely on health through food. It can go as far as teaching how to cook and proper manners to cook, although it in no way should be a culinary class. It would be required for everyone to take it. I took health in high school too, and I can tell you it barely grazed the topic of nutrition and I did not learn anything.

Wrath` · Feb 18, 2009

Vorguen said:
Okay first off, health class is an elective. Second of all, in health class you hardly learn anything about nutrition.

I am talking about both making Nutrition a required course based solely on health through food. It can go as far as teaching how to cook and proper manners to cook, although it in no way should be a culinary class. It would be required for everyone to take it. I took health in high school too, and I can tell you it barely grazed the topic of nutrition and I did not learn anything.

ahh, thats were we are having a problem, in NY health is manditory to graduate from high school, and we spent 2 months souly on nutrition. Guess they do things diffrently in texas. So with this then, health classes should be federaly mandated, not state mandated, so everone gets the same level of health education

Vorguen · Feb 18, 2009

If people are so informed about food and eating choices from their health classes in high school why are they still falling for fad and trendy diets that do nothing but deprive you of proper caloric intake and nutrition, and only give you much more in rebound weight?

If people really were educated, all the companies that make foods and stamp them as "all natural" yet have trans fat, refined sugars, and a bunch of chemicals would not be selling. People still buy those products, intending to buy a healthy weight-loss product only to buy junk food in disguise. I see this everywhere, I have taught all my family members and many other people close to me how to read food labels and pick out food correctly, it is funny how many misconceptions they have about nutrition, in fact, most people know hardly anything!

Wrath` · Feb 18, 2009

Vorguen said:
If people are so informed about food and eating choices from their health classes in high school why are they still falling for fad and trendy diets that do nothing but deprive you of proper caloric intake and nutrition, and only give you much more in rebound weight?

If people really were educated, all the companies that make foods and stamp them as "all natural" yet have trans fat, refined sugars, and a bunch of chemicals would not be selling. People still buy those products, intending to buy a healthy weight-loss product only to buy junk food in disguise. I see this everywhere, I have taught all my family members and many other people close to me how to read food labels and pick out food correctly, it is funny how many misconceptions they have about nutrition, in fact, most people know hardly anything!

Ok, if a health class that touches on the subject for 2 months can't cut it, what makes you think an all year class dedicated to it will do any better?, kid will still goof off, fail or not pay atention, and the smart ones who pass are probably health or know what to do anyway

Edit: man i need to proof read these things.

Vorguen · Feb 18, 2009

By that standard education should be optional. Only the kids who really want to learn are going to sign up, and if everyone is forced to go all other kids wouldn't learn anyway.

Wrath` · Feb 18, 2009

Vorguen said:
By that standard education should be optional. Only the kids who really want to learn are going to sign up, and if everyone is forced to go all other kids wouldn't learn anyway.

You can bring the horse to water...............

Anyway, the kids that wouldn't sign up would be the dropouts that you see now, so not much would change.

The proposed class might help 2 people, wich yes could multiply to 4 then 16, but I highly doubt it would happen.

Vorguen · Feb 18, 2009

So then you simply believe the education system itself is flawed and there is no point in educating children at all since it doesn't make a difference.

Wrath` · Feb 19, 2009

Vorguen said:
So then you simply believe the education system itself is flawed and there is no point in educating children at all since it doesn't make a difference.

............no........................

Yes some school systems are indeed flawed(But thats not the topic here), But based on my state and having health MANDITORY and that covers nutrition FAIRLY WELL, It has done little to help. Other educational fields do help, especialy to those who pay attention, If we force a manditory class on someone, the good student will pass, the student that doesn't care or could potinetialy feel hurt because a "social stigma" has forced him into this class) will fail, and even if you make it manditory to graduate, they will just never graduate, or they will barley pass with a 65, wich I hope it's 65% of the information that will help them in life, or in your case, eat healthy, lose wieght, ect...

Vorguen · Feb 19, 2009

That makes absolutely no sense. I am clearly telling you that high school health class does little to teach a person about Nutrition. In fact, if I can I am going to find my high school health book, I might still have it around. There are plenty of gaps of information that a high school health class leaves. If a high school health class covers everything, then why are there Nutrition careers in colleges? If everyone knew absolutely everything about Nutrition, we wouldn't need Nutritionists now would we?

Wrath` · Feb 19, 2009

Vorguen said:
That makes absolutely no sense. I am clearly telling you that high school health class does little to teach a person about Nutrition. In fact, if I can I am going to find my high school health book, I might still have it around. There are plenty of gaps of information that a high school health class leaves. If a high school health class covers everything, then why are there Nutrition careers in colleges? If everyone knew absolutely everything about Nutrition, we wouldn't need Nutritionists now would we?

Did you not get the fact NY teaches it diffrently than in Texas, I was refering to how it has little helped my state when we have more in depth teaching about it.

And with that, what says a whole class dedicated to it will help The US any better?

Vorguen · Feb 19, 2009

If you are so adamant in believing that nothing will be learned from a Nutrition class then why don't you give me an alternate solution that the United States could implement to combat Obesity?

And you underestimate how broad the subject of Nutrition is. I told you how little people really know about this and the many misconceptions there are about Nutrition. In fact there are many 300+ page books written on it. There could easily be an entire course dedicated to this. Nutrition is a very large and encompassing subject, it has taken me over three years of study on it to master it, and still to the day I learn things that surprise me.

This is a review on one of my favorite Nutrition books that I read in the past. I learned a lot from this and from my many years of study on Nutrition I have gathered from many sources, trial and error, past experience, and studies that everything in this book is quality information. It also incorporates Nutrition into some exercise.

Review on Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle:

http://www.bestquickweightlossprograms.com/burn-the-fat-feed-the-muscle-review.html

Wrath` · Feb 19, 2009

My alternitive to a nutriton class, would be to extend health from a half semester to a full semester. (In NY state it is currently half a semester). That way we can cover more topics abut nutrtion/sex ed(other thread), and they will get all the nessasary basics one would need to be "Healthy".

I do know nutrition is broad, but a simple calss like health is not ment to be in depth, thoese in depth class are ussaly ones you on your own choose and are not forced into. And if we have a nutrition class, what would you include in a normal 180 day Curriculum that encompasses enough nutrion to your standards? I am preety sure we could do it in a half semester or less.

.Marik · Feb 19, 2009

Are Family Studies/Health classes along the lines you were thinking?

They do teach you about proper nutritional diets and healthy lifestyles.

People never listen anyways, but at least they tried.

*Edit* Most people never listen, anyways. American fast-food is just too tempting.

Vorguen · Feb 19, 2009

Even fast-food chains are starting to have healthier choices, even if they aren't very good. So what do you suggest then Marik, if informing people won't work?

Now, why are people constantly fooled by food companies advertising their food as healthy when they are just as bad as junk food?

Look at Subway for example, which is supposed to be a healthy fast food.

Their "healthy" choice bread, the wheat bread has these ingredients:

9-GRAIN WHEAT Enriched wheat flour (wheat flour, barley malt, niacin, iron, thiamin mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid), water, yeast, high fructose corn syrup, whole wheat flour, wheat gluten, contains 2% or less of the following: oat fiber, soybean oil, salt, wheat bran, rolled wheat, rye nuggets, dough conditioners (DATEM, sodium stearoyl lactylate), yeast nutrients (calcium sulfate, ammonium sulfate), degermed yellow corn meal, rolled oats, rye flakes, caramel color, triticale flakes, parboiled brown rice, refinery syrup, honey, barley flakes, flaxseed, millet, sorghum flour. Contains wheat.

Source: The subway home page: http://subway.com/subwayroot/MenuNutrition/Nutrition/frmUSIngredients.aspx

If you notice, the first ingredient (which means it is the ingredient it contains in the highest quantity) is enriched wheat, which, for those who don't know, is White bread. So they are giving you white bread under the disguise of "healthy" wheat bread. Their bread also has High Fructose Corn Syrup. For those who don't know what that is, here is an article written by a nutritionist:

High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) had previously been the cheapest ingredient in the American food chain (profit factor) after air, water and salt.

Fructose from HFCS is NOT the same molecule that is in sucrose, or for that matter fruit leveulose.

There are over 35 years of HARD empirical evidence of refined man-made fructose metabolizing to triglycerides and adipose tissue (thats FAT!), UNLIKE the fructose molecule linked to a glucose molecule, found in sucrose (cane or beet), which is converted to blood glucose.

Sucrose raises blood glucose and then crashes it, below fasting baseline, within 25 minutes of ingestions.

HFCS or crystalline fructose or hydrolyzed fructose from inulin, convert to triglycerides and adipose tissue (FAT), within 60 minutes of ingestion, not blood glucose.

If your goal is lean-ness or fat loss HFCS is NOT your friend.

Some other facts:

In 1970, zero pounds of HFCS existed in the U.S. food chain, or the SEMANTICALLY legislated equivalent in the EU, 'iso-glucose,' which is High Fructose Wheat Or Beet Syrup. Today HFCS is about 68 pounds per year per person in the USA.

In 2005, if one looks at the actuarial curve on cardiovascular disease, obesity, hypoglycemia, and diabetes, they all parallel HFCS increase in the food chain.

Corn starch converted to a man-made molecule falsely called 'fructose' is NOT sugar from cane or beet nor is it metabolized the same.

MDs have no nutritional or metabolic training in med school.

MDs have no methodology in their teaching to prevent illness, as opposed to only treat illness.

Does HFCS significantly contribute to ill health in the food chain? Yes.

Now follow the insurance companies scrambling in actuarial panic, with a sudden and unexplained spike in heart attack death pay-outs among baby boomers ingesting too much HFCS, and telling MDs to warn patients to get off soda and HFCS-laden prducts.

Why is "sugar diabetes" no longer a term in the medical lexicon?

The answer is western medicine has known since 1924 that sugar and refined sweeteners cause or trigger diabetes, yet the AMA cut 'sugar' out of the diabetes description in the early '60s because they knew they could make more money on treatment, not prevention or cure ...

They have betrayed The Hippocratic Oath -- "First, Do No Harm ... "

To move on (instead of pointing out other bad ingredients from Subway's bread, take a look at their chicken:

CHICKEN BREAST PATTY Chicken breast with rib meat, water, seasoning (corn syrup solids, vinegar powder [maltodextrin, modified corn starch & tapioca starch, dried vinegar], brown sugar, salt, dextrose, garlic powder, onion powder, chicken type flavor [hydrolyzed corn gluten, autolyzed yeast extract, partially hydrogenated soybean oil and cottonseed oil, thiamine hydrochloride, disodium inosinate & disodium guanylate]), sodium phosphate.

Look at the fact that they also have corn syrup, and they have amongst other junk, partially hydrogenaed soybean oil. For those of you who don't know, that is Trans fat, and absolutely the most dangerous thing thing to consume in your diet. Nutritionists have compared it to drinking motor oil out of your car.

Now, do people know they are eating a meal this terrible and extremely unhealthy when they walk into Subway? No. In fact, with all the "Jared lost weight" advertisement they actually make you believe that Subway is an extremely healthy choice for a fast meal. The truth is, they feed you garbage just like everyone else, and mask it under lies and false promises.

Why do people fall for this? Because they don't know.

shlike · Feb 19, 2009

Yeah that reminds me of what I heard about McDonalds. My friend worked there, and he said they used to bathe the lettuce from the salads in water that was full of refined sugar, this would cause the lettuce to swell up so they wouldn't have to give you as much, and so it was more addicting.

Vorguen · Feb 19, 2009

There are tons of cases of restaurants or food companies trying to fool their customers into believing they are eating healthy food. Think about it, will these companies be making profit if they actually help you lose weight, or if they keep you trying to lose weight?

In fact, the only time you can be certain that you are eating something completely healthy (unless you can recognize every individual ingredient) is if the food is labeled organic. That label is approved by the USDA and not the FDA (food and drug administration) which is much more lenient with what companies can or can't say on their labels. Look at nutritional supplements in stores like GNC, you can notice at the bottom in the back of their products they always say in small letters "These statements have not been approved by the FDA."

In fact, there are many conspiracy theories centered around food companies, drug companies, and the FDA (due to many incidents like I was stating about the lying on food labels) but we won't get into this now since it is way too off topic.

ArcPoint · Feb 19, 2009

How are these companies like McDonalds fooling you if they have their nutritional information up on display to the public? If people took the time to read this, they would realize that some of their salads have 20 GRAMS OF FAT. I think people are intelligent to make the assumption that they're doing SOMETHING to it.

Should there be health classes? Certainly, it's always nice to inform people about the amazing wonder that is the human body, and this curriculum should include nutritional information. It might help people question (And maybe do a little research) as to what they are eating.

Wrath` · Feb 19, 2009

It's good and all that nutrtion should be taught a bit more in depth, but what about those people who know what they are eating, but don't give a rats azz?

Some people don't care what they are eating, they just like the taste. I am 50/50 with regulating what ingrediants Fast Food chains can use, I mean some changes are good, like free range chicken, or actual beef and not leftovers from who knows where....., but trans fat? Mabey some people like the taste, to me that one infringes on our rights to eat what we want. Yes it is proven to lead to a bunch of health issuses, but some people don't eat at Mcdonald every dang day (I only go mabey 1 or 2 times a month), it's the masses makeing the few who dont indulge way to much lose rights.

Vorguen · Feb 19, 2009

ArcPoint said:
How are these companies like McDonalds fooling you if they have their nutritional information up on display to the public? If people took the time to read this, they would realize that some of their salads have 20 GRAMS OF FAT. I think people are intelligent to make the assumption that they're doing SOMETHING to it.

Should there be health classes? Certainly, it's always nice to inform people about the amazing wonder that is the human body, and this curriculum should include nutritional information. It might help people question (And maybe do a little research) as to what they are eating.

Not most people know what 20g of fat does to you. And most people can't tell the difference between a healty mono-unsaturated or poly-unsaturated fat vs a saturated or trans fat.

Also, how many people go online and look up the nutritional information of the restaurants they go eat in? I doubt that it would be a large number. People don't take the time to investigate what they eat. At least if they were informed they would be aware that not everything that says "salad", "all natural", or "healthy choice" is actually healthy, and would probably be skeptical enough to do the research.

Restaurants like McDonalds have their nutritional information available online because they have to by law show it to anyone who requests it that is eating there, but they don't actually expect people to do so.

The wrath of Koarin said:
It's good and all that nutrtion should be taught a bit more in depth, but what about those people who know what they are eating, but don't give a rats azz?

Some people don't care what they are eating, they just like the taste. I am 50/50 with regulating what ingrediants Fast Food chains can use, I mean some changes are good, like free range chicken, or actual beef and not leftovers from who knows where....., but trans fat? Mabey some people like the taste, to me that one infringes on our rights to eat what we want. Yes it is proven to lead to a bunch of health issuses, but some people don't eat at Mcdonald every dang day (I only go mabey 1 or 2 times a month), it's the masses makeing the few who dont indulge way to much lose rights.

First of all if people seriously like the taste of trans fat (which I doubt because it is virtually the same as another oil) they can eat it. Either way these restaurants are not letting us know adequately what is on their food. They are not about to put up a sign that says "we serve trans fat for those who like to eat it."

You are skipping the whole issue of being informed. Yeah if you know about nutrition and healthy eating and simply don't care, then by all means eat what you like. However there are countless of Obese people fighting against it every day not being able to overcome it. It literally becomes a lifelong battle for them, and many of them have very low self-esteems.

ArcPoint · Feb 19, 2009

I would then argue that lack of information isn't the problem, but the lack of initiative towards finding information that is readily available. And I'm not sure that nutritional classes are the answer, because the lack of initiative also applies there, if they don't care enough about the material, then they won't learn it. Are they still a product of misinformation?

Though yes, I agree that it is dumb how things can have the label of "all natural" and still not be all natural. But how do you make people more skeptical?

Of course, nutritional classes are beneficial, no arguing that.

Vorguen · Feb 19, 2009

Yes nutritional classes do serve a purpose. If you understand what you are saying, then you realize you are saying people don't want to find this information. But why? If you grab a random person and make him read an ingredients label, he will probably make a confused face. Chances are many people don't do that simply because they wouldn't even be able to understand it.

ArcPoint · Feb 19, 2009

I made an edit there at the last second saying that nutrition classes do benefit, there's no arguing that. My point was that the problem doesn't lie within the lack of a nutritional class. For example, I personally have never taken a nutrition class, but I can still understand what the ingredients label means. However, I do concede that it must be taught somehow. I learned through my parents, I suppose some people aren't as lucky to have informed parents.

Wrath` · Feb 19, 2009

Vorguen said:
First of all if people seriously like the taste of trans fat (which I doubt because it is virtually the same as another oil) they can eat it. Either way these restaurants are not letting us know adequately what is on their food. They are not about to put up a sign that says "we serve trans fat for those who like to eat it."

You are skipping the whole issue of being informed. Yeah if you know about nutrition and healthy eating and simply don't care, then by all means eat what you like. However there are countless of Obese people fighting against it every day not being able to overcome it. It literally becomes a lifelong battle for them, and many of them have very low self-esteems.

Well based on your original post logic, we will now need manditory self-esteem classes...........

And the reason they continue down the road they do is caused by an addiction to food, and we can relate addiction to ciggarettes, now I KNOW, your health class must have covered ciggarettes extensively, if not, then wow, but we teach alot about not smoking and not to drink, hell, we even have comercials saying not to, but does it stop people? No. Look at how much we educate people in thoese regions, and yet people will still do the dumb deed and start it anyway, foods can become addiciting, and apparently education doesn't prevent that. So if education doesn't stop people from doing other addictive things, how will it change this paticualr addictive thing?

Vorguen · Feb 19, 2009

Arcpoint's post:

I made an edit there at the last second saying that nutrition classes do benefit, there's no arguing that. My point was that the problem doesn't lie within the lack of a nutritional class. For example, I personally have never taken a nutrition class, but I can still understand what the ingredients label means. However, I do concede that it must be taught somehow. I learned through my parents, I suppose some people aren't as lucky to have informed parents.

Yes I understand. I myself learned through methods that weren't as conventional either. As soon as I was exposed to that I seriously was in shock as to how badly informed I was and how little most people know, and how much junk is seriously put into our heads out there from food companies, diet companies, and restaurants.

The Wrath of Koarin's post:

Well based on your original post logic, we will now need manditory self-esteem classes...........

And the reason they continue down the road they do is caused by an addiction to food, and we can relate addiction to ciggarettes, now I KNOW, your health class must have covered ciggarettes extensively, if not, then wow, but we teach alot about not smoking and not to drink, hell, we even have comercials saying not to, but does it stop people? No. Look at how much we educate people in thoese regions, and yet people will still do the dumb deed and start it anyway, foods can become addiciting, and apparently education doesn't prevent that. So if education doesn't stop people from doing other addictive things, how will it change this paticualr addictive thing?

Self-esteem classes are not pheasable nor an intelligent thing to do. First off if people are not Obese they wouldn't have self-esteem issues related to their weight. Education is supposed to help students reach higher levels of self-actualization which in turn helps them have a healthier self-esteem, so self-esteem classes are kind of pointless. Besides what would you do? Talk about how to love yourself for a semester? Yes people have food addictions mostly because of the chemicals and modified food. If people were interested in their health and wouldn't have eaten that to begin with, then they wouldn't be addicted would they?

Yes education doesn't change all patterns of behavior but at least those who desperately want to find a solution will have the means to do so. Education is about options too, not just change.

GwJ · Feb 20, 2009

This shouldn't be the school's responsibility. Parents should be handling this matter.

Wrath` · Feb 20, 2009

Vorguen said:
Arcpoint's post:

Yes I understand. I myself learned through methods that weren't as conventional either. As soon as I was exposed to that I seriously was in shock as to how badly informed I was and how little most people know, and how much junk is seriously put into our heads out there from food companies, diet companies, and restaurants.

The Wrath of Koarin's post:

Self-esteem classes are not pheasable nor an intelligent thing to do. First off if people are not Obese they wouldn't have self-esteem issues related to their weight. Education is supposed to help students reach higher levels of self-actualization which in turn helps them have a healthier self-esteem, so self-esteem classes are kind of pointless. Besides what would you do? Talk about how to love yourself for a semester? Yes people have food addictions mostly because of the chemicals and modified food. If people were interested in their health and wouldn't have eaten that to begin with, then they wouldn't be addicted would they?

Yes education doesn't change all patterns of behavior but at least those who desperately want to find a solution will have the means to do so. Education is about options too, not just change.

You missed then main point of the post, anyway, yes you have now said hat food can be addiciting, ok, and you have said if people were interested in thier health they would not of started.

To the main part of what I was saying, addictions have been around for a long LONG time, we have known cigarrettes are bad for you scince the 80's, and started to teach kids that it is bad, this has been tought for 20+YEARS, AND HAS YET TO DO MUCH. People still smoke, so if we teach nutrition for 20+years, beign an addiction in some way, it proabably won't work.

And for the self-esteem thing, it was a joke, it was to show that your original logic was flawed, aka saying if we have a problem throw a class at it.

And here is something else I would like you to awnser, If a manditory nutrition class is to be passed into law by federal government, how will you know all is being taught? Based on our previous bouts we have discovered the state to state diffrence in teaching health, what if say Montana kinda skims over nutrion label reading, or Florida barley covers much on diffrent types of fats? We will run into the same problems as we are arguing now. Some people wont get sufficent knowledge.

Vorguen · Feb 20, 2009

GwJumpman said:
This shouldn't be the school's responsibility. Parents should be handling this matter.

Why should it be the responsibility of our parents? Are not schools designed to educate us? Then for that matter why do schools teach anything outside of math, english, and science? Why do they teach us health, physical, and sexual education?

The wrath of Koarin said:
You missed then main point of the post, anyway, yes you have now said hat food can be addiciting, ok, and you have said if people were interested in thier health they would not of started.

To the main part of what I was saying, addictions have been around for a long LONG time, we have known cigarrettes are bad for you scince the 80's, and started to teach kids that it is bad, this has been tought for 20+YEARS, AND HAS YET TO DO MUCH. People still smoke, so if we teach nutrition for 20+years, beign an addiction in some way, it proabably won't work.

And for the self-esteem thing, it was a joke, it was to show that your original logic was flawed, aka saying if we have a problem throw a class at it.

And here is something else I would like you to awnser, If a manditory nutrition class is to be passed into law by federal government, how will you know all is being taught? Based on our previous bouts we have discovered the state to state diffrence in teaching health, what if say Montana kinda skims over nutrion label reading, or Florida barley covers much on diffrent types of fats? We will run into the same problems as we are arguing now. Some people wont get sufficent knowledge.

That is why they design standards of education. Like I have said over and over you obviously don't make classes for every problem in the United States but for something so large that is mostly centered around people's misinformation, a class would be quite suitable. I understand it won't work for everyone, but eating is a much different thing than smoking. Eating is something we HAVE to do, every day, many times a day. Smoking is not. Smoking is an addiction you consciously get yourself into because you choose to smoke. You don't choose to eat or not, you do it because you need to for your survival. If it turns out all you are being fed is extremely unhealthy and addicting, yeah you may develop addictions. Most of those times though, the kid doesn't know any better, and neither does the parent.

My whole point is with a more informed America if parents cared about their kids health hey would be buying the appropriate foods and then try their best to pass on their knowledge to the kid as well until he learns it in school.

I have yet to see a significantly valid reason as to why Nutrition shouldn't be in school other than "people won't really learn anything anyway" which invalidates the purpose of all education to start.

And like I said before, propose a better solution for solving the problem of Obesity in the United States.

ArcPoint · Feb 20, 2009

Vorguen said:
Arcpoint's post:

Yes I understand. I myself learned through methods that weren't as conventional either. As soon as I was exposed to that I seriously was in shock as to how badly informed I was and how little most people know, and how much junk is seriously put into our heads out there from food companies, diet companies, and restaurants.

Interesting, so if nutritional classes weren't the one that made YOU informed, how can you say that nutrition classes are the answer?

Interesting change of question. I believe that nutrition classes are A cure, not THE cure. The single cure that will fix obesity is to have parents that care about their childrens' health. If an obese teen takes a class but still has parents that buy them horrid food, then what'd be the use? Whereas if you have parents that care about health, but no classes, then people end up not being obese.

Vorguen · Feb 21, 2009

ArcPoint said:
Interesting, so if nutritional classes weren't the one that made YOU informed, how can you say that nutrition classes are the answer?

Interesting change of question. I believe that nutrition classes are A cure, not THE cure. The single cure that will fix obesity is to have parents that care about their childrens' health. If an obese teen takes a class but still has parents that buy them horrid food, then what'd be the use? Whereas if you have parents that care about health, but no classes, then people end up not being obese.

There are many solutions to a problem. You need money? You can work for it, steal for it, beg for it, etc.

Do they all solve your problem? (theoretically speaking), yes. Were all the best choices? Of course not.

I didn't learn all my nutritional information through school because of the point I am making that school does not teach nutrition well at all. And yes, I took some in-depth college level Nutrition classes, but at this point I was very well informed already.

You are right, but don't you agree that this parent would have to be informed? They would have to know either way. The cause and effect pattern begins at the lack of education in Nutrition. If parents knew 100% what they were doing, many of them might not be as comfortable feeding junk food to their children (some might not care, but we are hoping those wouldn't be many). So yes, you are right, but what you say still leaves a huge gap. I can assure you that there are many very loving parents that simply do not know that they aren't feeding their children the highest quality foods. Even if the parents had the best intentions, they need to know what they are doing. So if we teach students now, every generation from there on would not have the problem at that level of severity.

Wrath` · Feb 21, 2009

Vorguen said:
Why should it be the responsibility of our parents? Are not schools designed to educate us? Then for that matter why do schools teach anything outside of math, english, and science? Why do they teach us health, physical, and sexual education?

That is why they design standards of education. Like I have said over and over you obviously don't make classes for every problem in the United States but for something so large that is mostly centered around people's misinformation, a class would be quite suitable. I understand it won't work for everyone, but eating is a much different thing than smoking. Eating is something we HAVE to do, every day, many times a day. Smoking is not. Smoking is an addiction you consciously get yourself into because you choose to smoke. You don't choose to eat or not, you do it because you need to for your survival. If it turns out all you are being fed is extremely unhealthy and addicting, yeah you may develop addictions. Most of those times though, the kid doesn't know any better, and neither does the parent.

My whole point is with a more informed America if parents cared about their kids health hey would be buying the appropriate foods and then try their best to pass on their knowledge to the kid as well until he learns it in school.

I have yet to see a significantly valid reason as to why Nutrition shouldn't be in school other than "people won't really learn anything anyway" which invalidates the purpose of all education to start.

And like I said before, propose a better solution for solving the problem of Obesity in the United States.

Vorgen, you have skipped some of my post

And here is something else I would like you to awnser, If a manditory nutrition class is to be passed into law by federal government, how will you know all is being taught? Based on our previous bouts we have discovered the state to state diffrence in teaching health, what if say Montana kinda skims over nutrion label reading, or Florida barley covers much on diffrent types of fats? We will run into the same problems as we are arguing now. Some people wont get sufficent knowledge.

But to respond to you later post. Yes, we do not choose to eat, but WE CAN CHOOSE WHAT WE WANT TO EAT. Like we can choose a habit, you can be dumb and SMOKE, or chew gum.
So the food addiciton is something you can get yourself into.

And to me not knowing any better is kinda lame, I mean an un-educated person might not understand why Fast food is bad, but with all the media puting stigmas about fast being bad, you'd have to live under a rock to not know Fast food is bad in abundence.

And the signifigant purpose for why we dont need a seperate nutrition class is: WE CAN EXPAND THE CLASS WE ALREADY HAVE!!, why have health and nutrition? when you can just expan health.

Vorguen · Feb 21, 2009

Call the class whatever you want. Call it "human lifestyles" class if it makes you happy. In the end the important issue is the material, not the class. What I am trying to say is the federal government places requirements for schools to teach certain things in their curriculum, so they can provide the standard for every State's nutrition class. Yeah you are right, for the most part many people already know fast food is bad. But many people don't know the salads in McDonalds are unhealthy, as well as other foods intended to be healthy.

fsdfsdgsgdf · Feb 21, 2009

Call it P.E

Nutrition Classes, the Cure for Obesity?

Smash Champion

Smash Hero

Smash Champion

Smash Master

Smash Champion

Smash Master

Smash Champion

Smash Master

Smash Champion

Smash Master

Smash Champion

Smash Master

Smash Champion

Smash Master

Smash Champion

Smash Master

Smash Champion

Smash Master

Smash Champion

Smash Master

is a social misfit

Smash Champion

Smash Ace

Smash Champion

Smash Lord

Smash Master

Smash Champion

Smash Lord

Smash Champion

Smash Lord

Smash Master

Smash Champion

Smash Hero

Smash Master

Smash Champion

Smash Lord

Smash Champion

Smash Master

Smash Champion

Smash Champion

Information

Network