to have your cake and eat it

Recently, a question have been raised on one of my homeschooling board: should we limit the intake of sweets by our children? Someone cited the Sandra Dodd's website and her True Tales Of Kids Turning Down Sweets.

Being fully plugged into a homeschooling community, one gets to see that there is a wide range of opinions about how to approach homeschooling. The website above is an example of what some people call 'radical unschooling'.

Radical unschoolers subscribe to a child centered, respectful way of living. For many, it translated into having no restrictions or rules in the house. Rules are thought to constrict chlid's spirit; absence of rules promotes the developemnt of children;s natural ability to figure things ou for themselves. It appears that radical unschoolers apply their fundamental beliefs to all aspects of chlidrearing, including the sugar issue.

According to SD and her followers, children can have their cake and eat it, and be better humans for it.

Yet, I see quite a few problems with the permissive attitude towards sugar. IMO thereis also a larger issue with this whole approach, but I'll cover it in another posting (stay tuned!).

Back to the sugar issue. I have a sweet tooth -- or rather I should say 'had'
until it caught up with me in a form of various dental problems and candida infection.

Yet, I only gathered up will power to give up sweets when I read a book by Dr. Weston Price, 'Nutrition and Physical Degeneration'. You can look at pictures in
this book and see the results of sweet tooth in action. One look was enough for me not to be able to eat sweets again. I had two dental check-ups since
and passed with flying colors, first time since I was 17.

Interestingly, a yeast infection on my skin resolved itself soon after I cut sweets out of my diet. I got it after my root canal saga (long story); it
manifested itself in a itchy rash. Nothing else I did helped permanently.

Banning sugar and white flour is the only common theme in all diet systems, from low fat to Atkins to macrobiotics to whatever. Some people are blessed
with good control of their blood sugar levels and yeast, and better dental health, and thus can withstand more abuse than others. But even those people's bodies will give thanks many times over when sweets are ditched.

Proponents of permissive attitude towards sugar consumption say that letting their kids eat what they want, whenever they want teaches their children to be in control of their bodies, and helps them learn to naturally regulate themselves.

The problem with this idea is that both animals and humans have evolved (or were created, whichever you prefer) and lived for thousands of years in the environment where food of any kind was scarce. And there is nothing in nature that is as sweet as refined sugar.

As a result, our bodies signal hunger reliably, and have countless adaptations for a lack of food (blood sugar adjustments, ketogenesis, protective changes in stomach lining to help protect it from the acid, etc).

Yet, there is virtually no mechanisms to signal satiety. Both humans and animals will eat everything that's on the plate. We basically stop eating when we feel out stomach bursting or when our jaws get tired of chewing, whichever comes first. Or we throw up if we disregard the above SOS messages. Chemical signals of satiety come much later.

Plus, we have plenty of ways to encourage us to eat more (endorphine production in response to sugars especially, stomach stretching to accommodate more food, stomach acid production and enzyme composition changing).

The bottom line is, our bodies are hard-wired to overeat.

This is also why I wasn't impressed by the account of a child who leaves half a donut unfinished. A half a donut is a size of a child's palm, is nutritionally worthless, and is pure sugar and fat. Eating it gives the body no real nutrients, but puts in motion the above SOS type response (stretching of a stomack, may be even nausea from all the fat) in the body. Refusing a second half of a donut is not what I'd call 'natural regulation', it is rather like setting aside a cup of poison while already feeling quite sick from it.

When people talk about moderation in eating, it almost appears that moderation is subjective and means differet things to different people. For some, going to McDonalds couple of times a week is 'moderation', for others, it's once a month. Whereas in naturopathic tradition and other sources from times long gone, 'moderation' means a very precise thing: a portion a size of your cupped hands, of natural, mostly low calorie food. That translates into about 1000-1300 calories a day for a grown person (still less for children).

In our society, RDA is 2000 calories a day. The 1000-1300 cal/day regimen is called a 'restricted calorie diet', which sounds really austere. Yet, it is this exact diet that increases life span of lab animals by 50-60% and keeps them free of degenerative diseases. And it is called 'restrictive' not because it causes malnutrition, but because the scientists in the study had to restrict animal's food intake, giving them precisely measured portions. Otherwise the animals would have continued eating.

To make things even more difficult, we often eat to fill emotional void and other unrelated reasons. In such case though, I would suggest that the primary issue is in the need to control, which would probably manifest itself on many different levels. This is apparently an issue that many of SD's followers on this subject struggle with, or so it appears fom the numerous testimonies on her website.

When that's dealt with, and the food is stripped of any attached meaning, value judgement such as 'good food /bad food', feelings of guilt over eating this and that, feeline either weak or 'healthier than thou' or whatever, we find ourselves back at square one -- the objective facts. Not all food is created equal. Some food is nutritious and other isn't. We live in the environment where food is plentiful, which we are ill adapted to. And biology alone offers no way to cope with it.

Many traditional cultures adjusted by incorporating various rituals in food preparation and consumptions. Ancient Egyptians fasted 3 days every month. Ayurveda has recommendations of foods to eat at certain time of the year, and food combinations for different body types. Traditional Russian culture utilised prolonged lenten fasts. There were a few throughout the year, linked to CHristian Orthodox holidays. The Lent was the longest one, 6 weeks of strict plant based diet with a small amount of fish thrown into it. There were a couple of days of total water fasts, and a few days of water fasts and vegetarian days throughout the year. There were other smaller 'lents' at other times of the year. E.g., on 'Apple Savior' holiday in August, people ate only fresh apples for a few days (this 'apple fast' or a 'grape fast' is now recommended by naturopaths for a wide range of ailments). Everyone followed this regimen, including young children (sick people could get exemptions from the priest).
Sadly, these time-tested methods are no longer in use.

Yet, we have record of these traditions and our modern understanding of human biology. One good thing about being a modern human is that we have a wealth of knowledge at our disposal and a capacity for critical thinking.

This is why I think we should use this strength of ours and arm ourselves and our children with knowledge, rather than rely on nature alone.

A solution for my family is not to have any sweets in the house. WE find that if it's there, we don't miss it. And I lead by example by passin on a cookie or a birthday cake outside of the home, too.