Weezl and friends Phase 2 -giving it a whirl for Shirl! Testing meal plan for a month

Sian_the_Green

Weezl, I totally understand your rant and why it is frustrating to you.
The problem is that our Shirley and Kitty are watching the tv and reading the newspapers and believing the adverts that say that they need to cut fat down in their diet and add in lots more vitamins in this lovely fruit that is flown over from Africa or grown under lamps in greenhouses to keep their family healthy. And they want to do the right thing, they really do, so they will buy their little pots of actimel and their goji berries and their fresh orange juice because they believe what they are told.

You will blow their minds with this planner because you are asking them to POUR OIL OVER CAKE!!! How can that be healthy???? Well, we know otherwise but I have to admit you have changed a lot of my ideas on healthy food. I mean I never really thought about the need for fat in my diet at all, I always thought I needed to get as little of it as possible. And ready oats having calcium in, who knew?

So don't be too annoyed with Kitty and Shirley or the legions of other people like them (me!) who fall foul of the advertisers from time to time. You aren't just teaching them to fish, you are teaching them to stay away from sharks...

weezl74

Sian_the_Green wrote: »

So don't be too annoyed with Kitty and Shirley or the legions of other people like them (me!) who fall foul of the advertisers from time to time. You aren't just teaching them to fish, you are teaching them to stay away from sharks...

:rotfl:

I have since recanted on the oil over cake siany

Yep. It's not kitty/shirl's fault.

I do think it is an education problem.

This would ideally be best tackled in schools, with home ec being completely rebranded as boy-friendly, made compulsory, and having a focus on real staple foods (bread) rather than footling around with cupcakes and frosting (at least until later once the basics are grasped) it should also be given a nutritional edge and real economic sense too.

But I rather suspect this would only actually happen in the homes of very non-mainstream home schoolers, sadly.

artybear

weezl74 wrote: »

:rotfl:

I have since recanted on the oil over cake siany

Yep. It's not kitty/shirl's fault.

I do think it is an education problem.

This would ideally be best tackled in schools, with home ec being completely rebranded as boy-friendly, made compulsory, and having a focus on real staple foods (bread) rather than footling around with cupcakes and frosting (at least until later once the basics are grasped) it should also be given a nutritional edge and real economic sense too.

But I rather suspect this would only actually happen in the homes of very non-mainstream home schoolers, sadly.

My brother did Food Tec GCSE and was the only boy in his class-all they did was design branding for a cake box then make the cake.

He wasnt impressed.

SusanC_2

weezl74 wrote: »

so we just need to make sure there's not in excess of 4000mcg/day, so
more than 124000mcg total?

Yes. extension

Allegra

Home ec does not really exist anymore, incidentally. It's now "design technology", and it's split into "textiles", "resistant materials", "graphics" and "food technology". And the clue for what this quarter of all allocated DT lessons is dedicated to is in the name.

Mind you, when it actually came to what they were taught to cook, it could have been worse, I have to admit. All worse than useless for my DD, of course, especially as someone thought it a good idea to separate her from her peer support group in a lesson where she'd be most likely to need extra support (smell, heat, noise, danger) - but for your average NT child, there'd be worse things than teaching them how to make soup, spag bol, and fruit crumble.

weezl74

There's so much that's societally troubling in people's views isn't there? And how on earth do we tackle it?

Sian_the_Green wrote: »

The problem is that our Shirley and Kitty are watching the tv and reading the newspapers and believing the adverts

health education being provided by those with a vested interest in high-price goods.

Sian_the_Green wrote: »

that say that they need to cut fat down in their diet and add in lots more vitamins in this lovely fruit that is flown over from Africa or grown under lamps in greenhouses to keep their family healthy.

Spurious/inaccurate health information, due to- ermmm not sure, market forces?

Sian_the_Green wrote: »

And they want to do the right thing, they really do, so they will buy their little pots of actimel and their goji berries and their fresh orange juice because they believe what they are told.

Lifestyle branding. Health misinformation swallowed whole due to glamorisation through advertising?

Sian_the_Green wrote: »

You will blow their minds with this planner because you are asking them to POUR OIL OVER CAKE!!! How can that be healthy???? Well, we know otherwise but I have to admit you have changed a lot of my ideas on healthy food. I mean I never really thought about the need for fat in my diet at all, I always thought I needed to get as little of it as possible.

dieting turned from a short-term deprivation of key nutrients to fulfil a specific purpose (to combat obesity) into a longterm persuit, leading to actually overconsumption of other nutrients, causing more health problems than the obesity it was designed to cure (and actually not tackling weight, because people put the weight back on again and then begin another diet)

Sian_the_Green wrote: »

And ready oats having calcium in, who knew?

So don't be too annoyed with Kitty and Shirley or the legions of other people like them (me!) who fall foul of the advertisers from time to time. You aren't just teaching them to fish, you are teaching them to stay away from sharks...

I'm not annoyed with shirl.

I'm annoyed that we have so little joined up thinking that the govt is happy to collude with the media dressing up our sharks in sheep's clothing

SusanC_2

weezl74 wrote: »

thank you

oh dear! I have given her 3 possibles but it's more like 5 citrus, 1 banana and 1 pear unless she goes to the market.:o (all smartprice, all hand picked for largest number of items in a bag)

Is this a deal breaker? I'm giving her 10p per person per day for fruit (but was actually hoping to go lower!)

That was only an example of the top of my head. I figure 3/2/2 gives a good variety and I picked banans as the three because of being higher in calories (since calories are an issue). I don't think it actually matters too much what specific combination you assume as long as the assumed combination is stated but I do think it need to be either 3/2/2 or 3/3/1 because people have an issue with variety and I think the people who want the piece of fruit are more likely to be bothered about this. I think 5/1/1 will sound a bit too much like the same thing all the time for those who are looking for variety.

I should add that I am a person who would quite happily eat the same fruit every day - when I was at school I used to eat two bananas every day. At one point I also had the same thing in my sandwiches in my packed lunch every day for two years. I am describing what I perceive to be the views of other people rather than what my own personal views are IYSWIM.

SusanC_2

Sian_the_Green wrote: »

Weezl, I totally understand your rant and why it is frustrating to you.
The problem is that our Shirley and Kitty are watching the tv and reading the newspapers and believing the adverts that say that they need to cut fat down in their diet and add in lots more vitamins in this lovely fruit that is flown over from Africa or grown under lamps in greenhouses to keep their family healthy. And they want to do the right thing, they really do, so they will buy their little pots of actimel and their goji berries and their fresh orange juice because they believe what they are told.

I agree. Until I started reading up about nutrition I hadn't really appreciated the nutritional value of meat. I had always thought of it as meat=protein, potato/paste/rice/etc=carbohydrate, fruit/veg=vitamins/fibre and fat=bad because that is what I had been taught.

SusanC_2

weezl74 wrote: »

Yep. It's not kitty/shirl's fault.

I do think it is an education problem.

This would ideally be best tackled in schools, with home ec being completely rebranded as boy-friendly, made compulsory, and having a focus on real staple foods (bread) rather than footling around with cupcakes and frosting (at least until later once the basics are grasped) it should also be given a nutritional edge and real economic sense too.

But I rather suspect this would only actually happen in the homes of very non-mainstream home schoolers, sadly.

:whistle: ...

weezl74

ahem...


anyway, back to B12- dare we lose the marmite?

It can be dangerous under rare conditions to have insufficient even in the presence of dietary folate.

so that says, keep the marmite!

But as we've already seen, NO-ONE at all is going to follow this to the letter! And the weirder we make it (so as to compensate for not losing the marmite) the even less likely we are to achieve compliance. (which isn't even our marker of success as folk keep reminding me!)

Aaaaargh, what to do?