Parenting and Food: Eat Your Peas. Or Don’t. Whatever.
August 30, 2009
The New York Times
By FRANK BRUNI
The boy sneaks food. I’ve seen him. His appetite is
formidable, and he knowingly eats more than
he should or must, to the steady concern and occasional consternation of his
parents.
Sometimes they keep count: “How many pretzels?” Sometimes they vainly
suggest an apple instead. Often they look away, not wanting to aggravate an
eating-related anxiety that they can already sense in him on the cusp of
adolescence.
The girl treats food warily. Edging into
adulthood, she worries about what too many French fries — what any French fries
— could do to her, and monitors her waistline even though her own parents have
never exhorted her to. Does she
monitor it too closely and joylessly?
Can parents prevent that? They wonder. So do I.
Neither of these children, with whom I interact occasionally, comes close to
being a statistic or case study. He isn’t obese; she isn’t anorexic.
But they represent a larger group of young people between those widely
publicized (and much more complicated) extremes. And they speak to a subtler
parental challenge: how to coach children away from unhealthy eating without
sowing panic; how to make them conscious of their intake without making them too
self-conscious about its consequences.
Over recent years, worry about what and how much children eat has intensified,
in part because of the regular references to childhood obesity as an epidemic.
And right now, as children head back to school, where they graze beyond the gaze
of parents, potentially dangerous eating habits are getting fresh attention.
School cafeterias and vending areas have become ground zero in the battle
against overweight and poorly nourished children; from coast to coast this fall,
students will encounter fewer sugary soft drinks, fewer fried foods, class
birthday parties without cupcakes and class bake sales with calorie-reduced
brownies.
That may help. But it’s just one piece of a puzzle that health experts and
concerned parents are still sorting out. Conflicting information about the
fiercest culprits in child weight gain abounds. Beyond genes, which obviously
play a fundamental role, is soda pop a major factor? What about too little
sleep?
There are hundreds of studies and thousands of opinions, and Tom Baranowski, a
professor of pediatric nutrition at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston,
says they’re inconclusive. He has reviewed research suggesting that there are
viral prompts for childhood obesity and research suggesting that children fond
of fruits and vegetables aren’t any less heavy than those mad for Mountain Dew.
Dr. Baranowski’s verdict? “A lot more work needs to be done.”
Diet, it seems, is a dirty word. A Stanford University study found that a
father’s projected attention to and remarks about a daughter’s weight may
increase her risk of eating disorders. A University of Minnesota study found
that children whose parents encouraged diets were significantly more likely to
remain overweight than those whose parents didn’t.
Cynthia M. Bulik, the director of the University of North Carolina Eating
Disorders Program, explained that “diet” implies deprivation, “and deprivation
goes into that whole mindset that, ‘I deserve something when this is over, and
this is short term.’ And it can’t be. It’s got to roll right into a lifestyle.”
Those words ring true for me. As a fat boy who ate
expansively and compulsively, I went on the first of many strict
diets at age 8 — and thereby commenced decades of untenable regimens and
compensatory pig-outs, of binging and purging.
But my outsize hunger seemed flat-out chromosomal, and my insecurity about it
predated those early weight-loss schemes. Should my parents have forbidden them?
What’s the best course for today’s parent, in a society where fast-food come-ons
drown out Alice Waters, and models no thicker than swizzle sticks still rule
fashion magazines?
“We get nutrition advice, but that’s not the same as eating advice,” said
Rebecca Saidenberg, a Manhattan mother of a 16-year-old girl, referring to
child-rearing tips. She said that as her daughter went through puberty, she
worked particularly hard to encourage healthy habits — balanced meals,
restrained portions — in the hopes of minimizing the chances of a weight problem
that might follow her daughter through life.
At the same time, Ms. Saidenberg wanted to push back against “a trend of
treating food like medicine.”
“I don’t like that,” she said. “There are a lot of psychological pleasures that
come from sitting at a table and enjoying a meal.” She doesn’t want her daughter
deprived of those.
So she didn’t despair when the teenager recently returned from a summer trip to
Italy during which, it was clear, the joys of gelato were fully explored. But
she did get herself and her daughter a membership at a local gym, where they go
together.
In my conversations with Ms. Saidenberg and other parents, I was struck by just
how much thought they had given to coaxing their children toward sensible eating
and away from extreme indulgence or self-denial. They clearly saw that as a
parental responsibility akin to giving a child a first-rate education.
But their prescriptions and beliefs diverged, illustrating the elusiveness of a
ready consensus about what’s most effective.
Joan Yamini, a mother of one in Austin, Tex., said it was important not to have
unhealthy foods around the house, but Andrew Segal, a father of three in Glen
Ridge, N.J., said that children who can’t find cookies, ice cream and similar
snacks at home can always find them elsewhere — and probably will.
Every parent fretted over the right language to use with children.
Janis Azarela, a mother of three in Sudbury, Mass., recalled the upset her
husband caused a few weeks ago when he questioned their 16-year-old daughter’s
decision to eat ice cream immediately
following a three-mile run.
“He asked because she’d just worked so hard to run and be healthy — why not make
a healthier choice?” Ms. Azarela recalled. “And she said, ‘Dad, are you calling
me fat?’ ” The teenager abandoned the ice cream, stomped out of the kitchen and
didn’t speak to him for a good long while.
Ms. Azarela said that her daughter is, in fact, slim, and gravitates naturally
toward less fattening foods. Her 7-year-old son, on the other hand, has the
fiercest sweet tooth in the brood. A budding problem? Time will tell, and
meanwhile she has vowed to “keep reintroducing foods, because palates change so
quickly.”
That’s consistent with advice from diet and nutrition experts, who agree, for
the most part, on a few prudent strategies.
They say parents can and should encourage sensible eating and vigorous physical
activity by engaging in both themselves; children are likely to imitate those
behaviors.
Whether parents allow junk food or not, they should make sure healthier
alternatives are even more available — and should promote them. They should also
make time for family dinners, the nutritional content of which they can monitor
more carefully than they can a quick meal in an economical restaurant.
And by actually involving children in the shopping for, and cooking of,
meals, some parents have successfully given them a consciousness about food —
and a way to think about it — that guards against an abuse or disregard of it.
When it comes to overeaters who clearly thrill to that gluttony, it’s vital for
parents to try to find some replacement activity — a hobby, say — that affords
similar emotional gratification.
“Food lights some people up more than it lights other people up,” Dr. Bulik
said. “We’re not born the same.”
I see that in the boy and girl. If they were merely emulating their parents,
he’d be the measured eater and she the exultant one. That the opposite is true
underscores the mysteries of appetite — and the tricky task parents face in
trying to regulate it.
Frank Bruni is the author of a new memoir, “Born Round: The
Secret History of a Full-Time Eater.”
When President Bush spoke in the months and years after Sept. 11, 2001, we
often — chillingly — felt as if we didn’t
recognize the United States. His vision was of a country racked with fear and
bent on vengeance, one that imposed invidious choices on the world and on
itself. When we listened to President Obama speak in Cairo on Thursday, we
recognized the United States.
Mr. Obama spoke, unwaveringly, of the need to defend the country’s
security and values. He left no doubt that he would do what must be done to
defeat Al Qaeda and the Taliban, while making it clear that Americans have no
desire to permanently occupy Afghanistan or Iraq.
He spoke, unequivocally, of the United States’ “unbreakable” commitment
to Israel and of why Iran must not have a nuclear weapon. He was also clear that
all of those listening — in the Muslim world and in Israel — must do more to
defeat extremism and to respect the rights of their neighbors and their people.
Words are important. Mr. Obama was right when he urged leaders who privately
speak of moderation and compromise to dare to say
those words in public. But words are not enough. Mr. Obama, who, after all, has
been in office for less than six months, has a lot to do to fulfill this vision.
So do others.
Like many people, we were listening closely to how the president would
address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He did not shy away from pressing
Israel’s new government, insisting that the construction of settlements must
stop, the existence of a Palestinian state cannot be denied, and “the situation
for the Palestinian people is intolerable.”
In the same stern tone, he pressed the Palestinians to reject violence and said
that Arab states must stop using the conflict “to distract” their people from
other problems. They must recognize Israel and do more to help Palestinians
build strong state institutions.
We couldn’t have agreed more when he said that the elements of a peace formula
are known. We are now waiting to hear his strategy to move the process forward.
On Iran, Mr. Obama warned that its pursuit of nuclear weapons could set off a
dangerous arms race in the Middle East. He also renewed his offer of serious
negotiations. We are waiting to see what Mr. Obama will propose and how he plans
to persuade Russia, China and the Europeans to support a credible mix of
punishments and enticements to try to change Tehran’s behavior.
Mr. Obama challenged the conspiracy-minded who questioned, and those who
justified, the Sept. 11 attacks. He said the war in Afghanistan was one of
necessity and insisted that despite the high cost, in lives and treasure,
America’s commitment will not weaken.
At the same time, Mr. Obama said the war in Iraq was a war of “choice that
provoked strong differences in my country and around the world.” Mr. Obama, who
said Iraq is better off without Saddam Hussein, missed a chance to urge Iraq’s
neighbors to do all they can to help hold the country together as American
troops withdraw.
The audience was undoubtedly waiting to hear
how Mr. Obama handled the issue of democracy — and its depressing scarcity in
the Islamic world. He avoided President Bush’s hectoring tone and did not
confront his host, President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. But we suspect everyone in
the hall knew whom he was talking about (they applauded at key moments) when he
said that governments must maintain power “through consent, not coercion” and
that “elections alone do not make true democracy.” We hope he made those points
directly when he met Mr. Mubarak and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.
Before Thursday’s speech, and after, Mr. Obama’s critics complained that he has
spent too much time apologizing and accused him of weakening the country. That
is a gross misreading of what he has been saying — and of what needs to be said.
After eight years of arrogance and bullying that has turned even close friends
against the United States, it takes a strong president to acknowledge the
mistakes of the past. And it takes a strong president to press himself and the
world to do better.
Google appears to be throwing down the gauntlet in the e-book market.
In discussions with publishers at the annual BookExpo convention in New York
over the weekend, Google signaled its intent to introduce a program by that
would enable publishers to sell digital versions of their newest books direct to
consumers through Google. The move would pit Google against Amazon.com, which is
seeking to control the e-book market with the versions it sells for its Kindle
reading device.
Google’s move is likely to
be welcomed by publishers who have expressed concerns about Amazon’s
aggressive pricing strategy for e-books. Amazon offers Kindle editions of most
new best sellers for $9.99, far less than the typical $26 at which publishers
sell new hardcovers. In early discussions, Google has said it will allow
publishers to set consumer prices.
“Clearly, any major company coming into the e-book space, providing that
we are happy with the pricing structure, the selling price and the security of
the technology, will be a welcome addition,” said David Young, chief executive
of Hachette Book Group, which publishes blockbuster authors like James
Patterson, Stephenie Meyer and Nicholas Sparks.
Google’s e-book retail program would be separate from the company’s settlement
with authors and publishers over its book-scanning project, under which Google
has scanned more than seven million volumes from several university libraries. A
majority of those books are out of print.
The settlement, which is the focus of a Justice Department inquiry about the
antitrust implications and is also subject to court review, provides for a way
for Google to sell digital access to the scanned volumes.
And Google has already made its 1.5 million public-domain books available for
reading on mobile phones as well as the Sony Reader, the Kindle’s largest
competitor.
Under the new program, publishers give Google digital files of new and other
in-print books. Already on Google, users can search up to about 20 percent of
the content of those books and can follow links from Google to online retailers
like Amazon.com and the Web site of Barnes & Noble to buy either paper or
electronic versions of the books. But Google is now proposing to allow users to
buy those digital editions direct from Google.
Google has discussed such plans with publishers before, but it has now committed
the company to going live with the project by the end of 2009. In a presentation
at BookExpo, Tom Turvey, director of strategic partnerships at Google, added the
phrase: “This time we mean it.”
Although Google generates a majority of its revenue from ad sales on its search
pages, it has previously
charged for content. Three years ago, it opened a
Google video store, and sold digital recordings of N.B.A. games as well as
episodes of television shows like “CSI” and “The Brady Bunch.” This year, Google
said it might eventually
charge for premium content on YouTube.
Mr. Turvey said that with books, Google planned to sell readers online access to
digital versions of various titles. When offline, Mr. Turvey said, readers would
still be able to access their electronic books in cached versions on their
browsers.
Publishers briefed on the plans at BookExpo said they were not sure yet how the
technology would work, but were optimistic about the new program.
Mr. Turvey said Google’s program would allow consumers to read books on any
device with Internet access, including mobile phones, rather than being limited
to dedicated reading devices like the Amazon Kindle. “We don’t believe that
having a silo or a proprietary system is the way that e-books will go,” he said.
He said that Google would allow publishers to set retail prices. Amazon lets
publishers set wholesale prices and then sets its own prices for consumers. In
selling e-books at $9.99, Amazon takes a loss on each sale because publishers
generally charge booksellers about half the list price of a hardcover —
typically around $13 or $14.
Mr. Turvey said that Google would probably
allow publishers to charge consumers the same price for digital editions as they
do for new hardcover versions. He said Google would reserve the right to adjust
prices that it deemed “exorbitant.”
The occasionally severe American alto-saxist Steve Coleman is the man who
invented the m-Base tag to describe the influential New York jazz/avant-funk
movement of the late 1980s. He's recently been energising his
enigmatically counter-melodic, dynamically narrow ensemble music with
adventurously Latin-funky grooves - and Weaving Symbolics, despite its
title, develops that inviting vein. An ambitious double-CD with a big cast and a
movie of Coleman playing a Charlie Parker tribute and explaining his work, it
might contain a shade too much contemporary-classical vocal gymnastics and long,
entwining group improv for regular jazzers - but it's full of surprises,
stunning playing, and an idiomatic breadth that reflects contributing sessions
conducted in Brazil, New York and Philadelphia. The classically-trained
Taiwanese singer Jen Shyu is a remarkable presence, so are star flautist Magic
Malik and two terrific trios involving Coleman. The merging of Coleman's
impassive, pattern-twisting approach with jazz brass and the rhythms and sonics
of a Brazilian percussion section ends up almost vivacious. Coleman is a
formidable contemporary-jazz brainiac, but he can appeal to the feet, too.
