Childhood obesity, nutrition, and the Christian
This article on the Christianity Today blog Her.meneutics really got to me. Caryn Rivadineira is rightly concerned about children's body image, specifically that the current campaign against childhood obesity is making overweight children feel unloved and worthless. She rightly calls on Christians to make sure we are loving all children, no matter their body type, unconditionally, rather than haranguing overweight children about their appearance and diet.
Point taken.
But what left me aghast was her opening. Her seven-year-old daughter, looking at a package of cookies, inquires about how many calories they have, and the mother's reaction is: "I told her that she didn’t need to pay any attention to calories, that they were good things, that we needed them for energy to run and play." Then, angry, Ms. Rivadineira tries to identify "whoever had introduced this calorie nonsense into my home and had made my healthy, vibrant 7-year-old worry about counting calories." Her conclusion is that Michelle Obama and her Let's Move campaign are to blame, but let's back up to the cookie episode. I agree that most seven-year-olds should not be dieting (i.e., following a rigid diet for the purpose of losing weight). Nor should they be obsessively "counting calories." But I can't imagine what's wrong with noticing how many calories a cookies has and maybe deciding not to eat one - at any age. No, not all calories are created equal; they are not all "good things." There's no reason for healthy children not to have the occasional cookie, but the sooner they learn that cookies and other sweet or fattening foods are not great nutritionally and are best reserved for occasional treats, the better. That's not depriving your child of childhood; that's making sure she feels at her best while playing and doing all the things children are supposed to do. (Not to mention getting a head start on long-term health.)
The Let's Move campaign did get its start with a concern over high rates of childhood obesity in this country. But the campaign's message is that ALL children need to have access to healthy food and safe opportunities to exercise. Far from being the scold in the White House wagging her finger at families and telling them to take personal responsibility and go eat some carrots, Mrs. Obama has done more than perhaps any high-profile figure to identify systemic causes of poor nutrition, causes that are outside of many families' control: bad school lunches, the lack of availability (or prohibitive expense) of fresh produce in many neighborhoods, and the lack of safe places to exercise, especially in the inner city. I have interpreted her as challenging the message that overweight people are just bad and lazy, not confirming it. She has emphasized that good nutrition is for everybody, not just "fat children."
If Mrs. Rivadineira is looking for a culprit to blame for making overweight children feel unloved, she'd be much better off going after the advertising, fashion, and television industries than the First Lady. Inasmuch as the author identifies a real problem in our society's approach to weight loss and nutrition for children, it's that too often efforts to encourage better nutrition and more exercise have been aimed only at children who are overweight or at risk of becoming so. We have a tendency to believe that skinny is healthy and fat is unhealthy, whereas it is possible to be overweight (due to genetics) yet healthy, and plenty of thin people are at risk for heart disease or other health problems due to a variety of lifestyle factors. Weight is not an exact proxy for health, and you don't get a pass from eating well and exercising just because your weight is normal. Unfortunately, this is what we hear and see in advertisements, not to mention movies and TV generally - skinny, gorgeous people eating whatever they want. That's where kids are getting the message that if you're thin, you've got it made, and if you're fat, you don't even get screen time, except maybe for some comic relief.
For Christians, I think the message we want to project is that God loves all of us unconditionally, AND He wants all of us to take care of our bodies. Except in cases of imminent medical danger, we don't need to target obese kids. We need to target ALL kids with a positive message of feeling better, getting active, and eating great (and delicious) food. Which, if I'm not mistaken, is what Let's Move is doing. Meanwhile, if Ms. Rivadineira wants her daughter to get plenty of calories so she has energy to move and play, cookies aren't the best choice; children on sugar crashes tend to feel yucky and none too energetic - no matter their weight.
- KPE
Point taken.
But what left me aghast was her opening. Her seven-year-old daughter, looking at a package of cookies, inquires about how many calories they have, and the mother's reaction is: "I told her that she didn’t need to pay any attention to calories, that they were good things, that we needed them for energy to run and play." Then, angry, Ms. Rivadineira tries to identify "whoever had introduced this calorie nonsense into my home and had made my healthy, vibrant 7-year-old worry about counting calories." Her conclusion is that Michelle Obama and her Let's Move campaign are to blame, but let's back up to the cookie episode. I agree that most seven-year-olds should not be dieting (i.e., following a rigid diet for the purpose of losing weight). Nor should they be obsessively "counting calories." But I can't imagine what's wrong with noticing how many calories a cookies has and maybe deciding not to eat one - at any age. No, not all calories are created equal; they are not all "good things." There's no reason for healthy children not to have the occasional cookie, but the sooner they learn that cookies and other sweet or fattening foods are not great nutritionally and are best reserved for occasional treats, the better. That's not depriving your child of childhood; that's making sure she feels at her best while playing and doing all the things children are supposed to do. (Not to mention getting a head start on long-term health.)
The Let's Move campaign did get its start with a concern over high rates of childhood obesity in this country. But the campaign's message is that ALL children need to have access to healthy food and safe opportunities to exercise. Far from being the scold in the White House wagging her finger at families and telling them to take personal responsibility and go eat some carrots, Mrs. Obama has done more than perhaps any high-profile figure to identify systemic causes of poor nutrition, causes that are outside of many families' control: bad school lunches, the lack of availability (or prohibitive expense) of fresh produce in many neighborhoods, and the lack of safe places to exercise, especially in the inner city. I have interpreted her as challenging the message that overweight people are just bad and lazy, not confirming it. She has emphasized that good nutrition is for everybody, not just "fat children."
If Mrs. Rivadineira is looking for a culprit to blame for making overweight children feel unloved, she'd be much better off going after the advertising, fashion, and television industries than the First Lady. Inasmuch as the author identifies a real problem in our society's approach to weight loss and nutrition for children, it's that too often efforts to encourage better nutrition and more exercise have been aimed only at children who are overweight or at risk of becoming so. We have a tendency to believe that skinny is healthy and fat is unhealthy, whereas it is possible to be overweight (due to genetics) yet healthy, and plenty of thin people are at risk for heart disease or other health problems due to a variety of lifestyle factors. Weight is not an exact proxy for health, and you don't get a pass from eating well and exercising just because your weight is normal. Unfortunately, this is what we hear and see in advertisements, not to mention movies and TV generally - skinny, gorgeous people eating whatever they want. That's where kids are getting the message that if you're thin, you've got it made, and if you're fat, you don't even get screen time, except maybe for some comic relief.
For Christians, I think the message we want to project is that God loves all of us unconditionally, AND He wants all of us to take care of our bodies. Except in cases of imminent medical danger, we don't need to target obese kids. We need to target ALL kids with a positive message of feeling better, getting active, and eating great (and delicious) food. Which, if I'm not mistaken, is what Let's Move is doing. Meanwhile, if Ms. Rivadineira wants her daughter to get plenty of calories so she has energy to move and play, cookies aren't the best choice; children on sugar crashes tend to feel yucky and none too energetic - no matter their weight.
- KPE
posted by The Eastvold Blog at 5:12 AM
2 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
Amen & Amen Katharine! It's been forever, I hope all's well:) Thanks for adding a balanced perspective to this 'debate' (yeesh, who knew that raising healthy human beings would ever be debatable).
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home