School Lunch Headed for Repeal

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Crown@club

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1893936.html

Nick Blohm, is a 6-foot-3, 210-pound linebacker on the school football team. He lifts weights in the morning and practices football for three hours after school, burning up some 3,000 calories before he heads home for dinner.

His school lunches are now limited to 850 calories.

Last year, lunch favorites at the school included chicken nuggets and mini corn dogs. Now the super nacho plate offers just eight tortilla chips.

Forgoing school lunches, Blohm has been packing his own lunch from home, according to the Journal Sentinel. One day this week he had a bag of raw carrots, two ham sandwiches on wheat bread, two granola bars, an apple, and three applesauce cups. Estimated total: 1,347 calories.

"I've already told my mom we might be packing my lunch for the rest of the year," he said.

Pam Harris, the district food service supervisor and a registered dietitian, also isn't happy with the new guidelines.

"Limiting calories in school lunch is not going to help the overweight kid," she said. "What happens at home is a major piece of that puzzle."

Touting the new school lunch policy, Michelle Obama said in January: "When we send our kids to school, we expect that they won't be eating the kind of fatty, salty, sugary foods that we try to keep them from eating at home."

now, that's funny.


here's another issue. used to be that schools did their best to provide a decent meal at lunch, because for too many kids, they don't eat meals away from school.
so, take a kid who gets breakfast and lunch at school, and no dinner, and tell me what the lowered calories at his two meals will mean?

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

now, that's funny.


here's another issue. used to be that schools did their best to provide a decent meal at lunch, because for too many kids, they don't eat meals away from school.
so, take a kid who gets breakfast and lunch at school, and no dinner, and tell me what the lowered calories at his two meals will mean?

^^^^Ignoring the fact Mackwonago WI is not a poor community.

It would be nice if parents who are not poor would pack lunches for their own kids instead of piggybacking on their neighbors in the form of property taxes. In other words pay for your own shiat! If you can't afford children for God's sake don't have them. Grow up!

And to think this was a republican idea to serve unlimited calories probably in some misguided attack on Mrs. Socialist's ideas is sickening.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

^^^^Ignoring the fact Mackwonago WI is not a poor community.

It would be nice if parents who are not poor would pack lunches for their own kids instead of piggybacking on their neighbors in the form of property taxes. In other words pay for your own shiat! If you can't afford children for God's sake don't have them. Grow up!

And to think this was a republican idea to serve unlimited calories probably in some misguided attack on Mrs. Socialist's ideas is sickening.

Ever consider for a second that they had GREAT jobs when they had the kids but those jobs are gone?

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by jms62

Ever consider for a second that they had GREAT jobs when they had the kids but those jobs are gone?

^^^ ignoring the fact that long before they lost those great jobs they were given and in many cases expected free lunches.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

^^^ ignoring the fact that long before they lost those great jobs they were given and in many cases expected free lunches.

^^^ As usual replying to voices in his head and not addressing the post that I made which was calling him out for the below.

"If you can't afford children for God's sake don't have them. Grow up!"

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

In other words pay for your own shiat! If you can't afford children for God's sake don't have them. Grow up!
.

So you are against the many laws trying to be implemented by the Republican party overturning birth control? Good to know!

[Cannon Shell]

Perhaps they are just hoping to keep kids in a weakened state so they cant beat up the teachers

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/10/01...mty_twitter_fn

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Perhaps they are just hoping to keep kids in a weakened state so they cant beat up the teachers

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/10/01...mty_twitter_fn

the new damien?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

so, take a kid who gets breakfast and lunch at school, and no dinner, and tell me what the lowered calories at his two meals will mean?

Eliminating 500 extra calories in fried breading isn't exactly a bad thing - it's a good thing.

The caloric counts of the lunches are based upon the caloric needs of children that age. Obviously a 200lb senor football player has different caloric needs than a 100-lb freshman girl.

But they both need good nutrition, not crappy "food like substances".

If a kid isn't getting dinner at home at all due to poverty, and that fried breading was providing "dinner" calories, the solution isn't going back to adding fried breading back into his nutrition plan (giving him obesity, cholesterol problems, etc).

It's getting the kid a nutritious dinner.

Something the GOP has turned against for those "47% moocher class who will never take responsibility for their own lives", which is why I'm currently voting Democratic.

[Crown@club]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IB7NDUSBOo

[dellinger63]

And today we find we have the lowest test scores for HS grads in 40 years.

57% of HS grads not fit to enter college.

More food, music, social studies, foreign languages, P.E. bad teachers and art should boost those math and english scores right up.

[Clip-Clop]

As athletes in my school district growing up (borderline poverty for most in my school BTW), we were fed very differently than the other students meal plans. There was science behind it and it was good.
No one is being critical of the First Lady's initiative to prevent fat kids, it is making broad, general sweeping regulations that do not take any individuality into account. Better food, sure that's a great idea, no one will argue it. Mandating the total amount of calories anyone can eat, that is too simple.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

As athletes in my school district growing up (borderline poverty for most in my school BTW), we were fed very differently than the other students meal plans. There was science behind it and it was good.
No one is being critical of the First Lady's initiative to prevent fat kids, it is making broad, general sweeping regulations that do not take any individuality into account. Better food, sure that's a great idea, no one will argue it. Mandating the total amount of calories anyone can eat, that is too simple.

if schools wanted to help, they'd have recess. we used to have that. then, it would also help if people didn't feed their kids junk, and let them sit and play xbox all night.

[GenuineRisk]

This article is a piece of sh*t (oh, it's HuffPo. How surprising). The football player's lunch isn't limited to 850 calories; the lunch the school provides is. He can eat as much as he wants, and he can eat as much crap as he wants; he just has to pack it himself. Jesus Christ on a pogo stick; no one is forcing him to buy the school lunch. The only kids getting "deprived" of corn dogs and chicken nuggets are the ones too poor to buy their own lunch. And if the government is providing the food, free of charge, to the kids, I would hope the government would try to regulate WHAT IT IS PROVIDING FOR FREE to make sure the food is marginally healthy.

No one is forcing these kids to eat, or not eat, anything. The ones getting something for free are the only ones affected, as they don't have a choice about what to eat for lunch. And, unfortunately, when you are poor, you don't get to have many choices. But at least the kids are getting fed.