Need Advice on Discipling Little Kids

[kennedy]

Date: 6/24/2009 12:57:59 PM
Author: swingirl

Date: 6/21/2009 11:02:46 PM

Author: princesss

Silly question and kind of a threadjack, but how do you teach a child delayed gratification? I feel like that should be fairly easy to reason out, but I''m drawing a blank. Is it just kind of a ''No, Timmy, you can have that toy after you''re done eating your vegetables'' or is there something more?

One thing I see a lot of people do is feed their kid in the grocery store. It encourages a real lack of delayed gratification. I see goodies, I whine, I get goodies before they are even bought. If your kid is starving don''t take him grocery shopping but my guess is most people do it just to keep little Jr. quiet and busy. Actually I see people shoving food in kids hands all the time. Kids can''t be outside the house without a juice box and a snack. When I was growing up we ate breakfast, lunch and dinner. I didn''t know what a snack was. But today moms are made to feel guilt if Jr. is hungry for 15 extra seconds. Look at the flack Kate got for not giving her parched kid a drink (her bigger mistake was taking one herself in front of them). But really, no one in the US is so starved or thirsty that they can''t wait.


I''ve always heard using food as a reward is bad news, especially for girls. It sends the message that if you are good you get to eat more. Even dessert should be looked as the end of a meal (I never even serve dessert. My kids consider dessert as party food or a special-occasion treat) not a reward for eating. It really creates food wars and control issues but so many people were raised with it they don''t want to give it up. When you look around at people''s waistlines---well, there is a lot of rewarding going on.


Another place to practice is at the table. Asking for permission to leave, waiting until everyone is done eating. And I don''t go to church but as a kid I did. Talk about delayed gratification! After standing, sitting, kneeling and listening to Latin for an hour, I learned I could be hungry (couldn''t eat before church), thirsty, uncomfortable (patent leather shoes) and bored and amazingly enough SURVIVE!!

I agree with you that food shouldn''t be used as a reward nor do I think it should be used to teach delayed gratification. I think we do our kids a real disservice by not responding to their natural hunger cues. I have a 2 year old daughter and I can''t imagine telling her she can''t eat for another hour or two because it isn''t noon or six o''clock. Seems to me that would only interfere in her innate ability to listen to what her body needs. Moreover, research has shown that eating three square meals a day with no snacks in between is not necessarily very healthy or natural. If left to their own devices, children will eat exactly how much they need when they need it. My job as a mother is to provide my daughter with healthy food and her job is to decide when and how much to eat. I realize this isn''t the point of this thread, but I wanted to respond because I think it''s a bit unfair to characterize mothers who give their children snacks as indulgent. Ok, threadjack over!

 

[KimberlyH]

Date: 6/25/2009 10:08:37 AM
Author: kennedy

Date: 6/24/2009 12:57:59 PM
Author: swingirl

Date: 6/21/2009 11:02:46 PM

Author: princesss

Silly question and kind of a threadjack, but how do you teach a child delayed gratification? I feel like that should be fairly easy to reason out, but I''m drawing a blank. Is it just kind of a ''No, Timmy, you can have that toy after you''re done eating your vegetables'' or is there something more?

One thing I see a lot of people do is feed their kid in the grocery store. It encourages a real lack of delayed gratification. I see goodies, I whine, I get goodies before they are even bought. If your kid is starving don''t take him grocery shopping but my guess is most people do it just to keep little Jr. quiet and busy. Actually I see people shoving food in kids hands all the time. Kids can''t be outside the house without a juice box and a snack. When I was growing up we ate breakfast, lunch and dinner. I didn''t know what a snack was. But today moms are made to feel guilt if Jr. is hungry for 15 extra seconds. Look at the flack Kate got for not giving her parched kid a drink (her bigger mistake was taking one herself in front of them). But really, no one in the US is so starved or thirsty that they can''t wait.


I''ve always heard using food as a reward is bad news, especially for girls. It sends the message that if you are good you get to eat more. Even dessert should be looked as the end of a meal (I never even serve dessert. My kids consider dessert as party food or a special-occasion treat) not a reward for eating. It really creates food wars and control issues but so many people were raised with it they don''t want to give it up. When you look around at people''s waistlines---well, there is a lot of rewarding going on.


Another place to practice is at the table. Asking for permission to leave, waiting until everyone is done eating. And I don''t go to church but as a kid I did. Talk about delayed gratification! After standing, sitting, kneeling and listening to Latin for an hour, I learned I could be hungry (couldn''t eat before church), thirsty, uncomfortable (patent leather shoes) and bored and amazingly enough SURVIVE!!

I agree with you that food shouldn''t be used as a reward nor do I think it should be used to teach delayed gratification. I think we do our kids a real disservice by not responding to their natural hunger cues. I have a 2 year old daughter and I can''t imagine telling her she can''t eat for another hour or two because it isn''t noon or six o''clock. Seems to me that would only interfere in her innate ability to listen to what her body needs. Moreover, research has shown that eating three square meals a day with no snacks in between is not necessarily very healthy or natural. If left to their own devices, children will eat exactly how much they need when they need it. My job as a mother is to provide my daughter with healthy food and her job is to decide when and how much to eat. I realize this isn''t the point of this thread, but I wanted to respond because I think it''s a bit unfair to characterize mothers who give their children snacks as indulgent. Ok, threadjack over!

I''ll participate in the hijack some more (until Allison comes and says "Knock it off!", sorry Allison). My belief is that if a children is going to snack it should be either a piece of fruit or some veggies. I don''t think it''s indulgent to give a child a banana or some carrots when it isn''t mealtime, but I think giving kids handfuls of salty crackers, or cookies, or other useless foods is indulgent. It''s so important to teach kids healthy eating habits, and snacking needs to be a part of that. As a child if I said I was hungry my mom''s response was "Have a piece of fruit" and if I chose not to she said "Then you must not be very hungry." Usually I wasn''t, I just wanted junk. A young child I know eats all day long, and his parents don''t discourage him from doing so. I guarantee this little guy is going to be obese. She argues eats because he''s hungry, but there is no way that a child (3) is hungry enough to consume more calories than I do in a day. It makes me very sad for him, because in the long run he''s the one who loses. As a society we revolve our lives around food, much more so than in generations past it seems, and I think it''s important that children learn food is meant for energy, not satisfaction.

 

[Allisonfaye]

Date: 6/25/2009 3:24:26 PM
Author: KimberlyH

Date: 6/25/2009 10:08:37 AM
Author: kennedy

Date: 6/24/2009 12:57:59 PM
Author: swingirl

Date: 6/21/2009 11:02:46 PM

Author: princesss

Silly question and kind of a threadjack, but how do you teach a child delayed gratification? I feel like that should be fairly easy to reason out, but I''m drawing a blank. Is it just kind of a ''No, Timmy, you can have that toy after you''re done eating your vegetables'' or is there something more?

One thing I see a lot of people do is feed their kid in the grocery store. It encourages a real lack of delayed gratification. I see goodies, I whine, I get goodies before they are even bought. If your kid is starving don''t take him grocery shopping but my guess is most people do it just to keep little Jr. quiet and busy. Actually I see people shoving food in kids hands all the time. Kids can''t be outside the house without a juice box and a snack. When I was growing up we ate breakfast, lunch and dinner. I didn''t know what a snack was. But today moms are made to feel guilt if Jr. is hungry for 15 extra seconds. Look at the flack Kate got for not giving her parched kid a drink (her bigger mistake was taking one herself in front of them). But really, no one in the US is so starved or thirsty that they can''t wait.


I''ve always heard using food as a reward is bad news, especially for girls. It sends the message that if you are good you get to eat more. Even dessert should be looked as the end of a meal (I never even serve dessert. My kids consider dessert as party food or a special-occasion treat) not a reward for eating. It really creates food wars and control issues but so many people were raised with it they don''t want to give it up. When you look around at people''s waistlines---well, there is a lot of rewarding going on.


Another place to practice is at the table. Asking for permission to leave, waiting until everyone is done eating. And I don''t go to church but as a kid I did. Talk about delayed gratification! After standing, sitting, kneeling and listening to Latin for an hour, I learned I could be hungry (couldn''t eat before church), thirsty, uncomfortable (patent leather shoes) and bored and amazingly enough SURVIVE!!

I agree with you that food shouldn''t be used as a reward nor do I think it should be used to teach delayed gratification. I think we do our kids a real disservice by not responding to their natural hunger cues. I have a 2 year old daughter and I can''t imagine telling her she can''t eat for another hour or two because it isn''t noon or six o''clock. Seems to me that would only interfere in her innate ability to listen to what her body needs. Moreover, research has shown that eating three square meals a day with no snacks in between is not necessarily very healthy or natural. If left to their own devices, children will eat exactly how much they need when they need it. My job as a mother is to provide my daughter with healthy food and her job is to decide when and how much to eat. I realize this isn''t the point of this thread, but I wanted to respond because I think it''s a bit unfair to characterize mothers who give their children snacks as indulgent. Ok, threadjack over!

I''ll participate in the hijack some more (until Allison comes and says ''Knock it off!'', sorry Allison). My belief is that if a children is going to snack it should be either a piece of fruit or some veggies. I don''t think it''s indulgent to give a child a banana or some carrots when it isn''t mealtime, but I think giving kids handfuls of salty crackers, or cookies, or other useless foods is indulgent. It''s so important to teach kids healthy eating habits, and snacking needs to be a part of that. As a child if I said I was hungry my mom''s response was ''Have a piece of fruit'' and if I chose not to she said ''Then you must not be very hungry.'' Usually I wasn''t, I just wanted junk. A young child I know eats all day long, and his parents don''t discourage him from doing so. I guarantee this little guy is going to be obese. She argues eats because he''s hungry, but there is no way that a child (3) is hungry enough to consume more calories than I do in a day. It makes me very sad for him, because in the long run he''s the one who loses. As a society we revolve our lives around food, much more so than in generations past it seems, and I think it''s important that children learn food is meant for energy, not satisfaction.

I don''t mind.

But you will laugh at this one. My younger daughter eats SO much healthy stuff that I actually have to find some stuff that isn''t so healthy sometimes. She loves fruit and will always eat healthy snacks but her love of fruit and her love of bran cereal has resulted in a bit of diarrhea. ( I know I spelled that wrong but I am too lazy to spellcheck it). So I am giving her some goldfish crackers. lol

 

[KimberlyH]

Date: 6/25/2009 5:22:59 PM
Author: Allisonfaye

Date: 6/25/2009 3:24:26 PM
Author: KimberlyH

Date: 6/25/2009 10:08:37 AM
Author: kennedy

Date: 6/24/2009 12:57:59 PM
Author: swingirl

Date: 6/21/2009 11:02:46 PM

Author: princesss

Silly question and kind of a threadjack, but how do you teach a child delayed gratification? I feel like that should be fairly easy to reason out, but I''m drawing a blank. Is it just kind of a ''No, Timmy, you can have that toy after you''re done eating your vegetables'' or is there something more?

One thing I see a lot of people do is feed their kid in the grocery store. It encourages a real lack of delayed gratification. I see goodies, I whine, I get goodies before they are even bought. If your kid is starving don''t take him grocery shopping but my guess is most people do it just to keep little Jr. quiet and busy. Actually I see people shoving food in kids hands all the time. Kids can''t be outside the house without a juice box and a snack. When I was growing up we ate breakfast, lunch and dinner. I didn''t know what a snack was. But today moms are made to feel guilt if Jr. is hungry for 15 extra seconds. Look at the flack Kate got for not giving her parched kid a drink (her bigger mistake was taking one herself in front of them). But really, no one in the US is so starved or thirsty that they can''t wait.


I''ve always heard using food as a reward is bad news, especially for girls. It sends the message that if you are good you get to eat more. Even dessert should be looked as the end of a meal (I never even serve dessert. My kids consider dessert as party food or a special-occasion treat) not a reward for eating. It really creates food wars and control issues but so many people were raised with it they don''t want to give it up. When you look around at people''s waistlines---well, there is a lot of rewarding going on.


Another place to practice is at the table. Asking for permission to leave, waiting until everyone is done eating. And I don''t go to church but as a kid I did. Talk about delayed gratification! After standing, sitting, kneeling and listening to Latin for an hour, I learned I could be hungry (couldn''t eat before church), thirsty, uncomfortable (patent leather shoes) and bored and amazingly enough SURVIVE!!

I agree with you that food shouldn''t be used as a reward nor do I think it should be used to teach delayed gratification. I think we do our kids a real disservice by not responding to their natural hunger cues. I have a 2 year old daughter and I can''t imagine telling her she can''t eat for another hour or two because it isn''t noon or six o''clock. Seems to me that would only interfere in her innate ability to listen to what her body needs. Moreover, research has shown that eating three square meals a day with no snacks in between is not necessarily very healthy or natural. If left to their own devices, children will eat exactly how much they need when they need it. My job as a mother is to provide my daughter with healthy food and her job is to decide when and how much to eat. I realize this isn''t the point of this thread, but I wanted to respond because I think it''s a bit unfair to characterize mothers who give their children snacks as indulgent. Ok, threadjack over!

I''ll participate in the hijack some more (until Allison comes and says ''Knock it off!'', sorry Allison). My belief is that if a children is going to snack it should be either a piece of fruit or some veggies. I don''t think it''s indulgent to give a child a banana or some carrots when it isn''t mealtime, but I think giving kids handfuls of salty crackers, or cookies, or other useless foods is indulgent. It''s so important to teach kids healthy eating habits, and snacking needs to be a part of that. As a child if I said I was hungry my mom''s response was ''Have a piece of fruit'' and if I chose not to she said ''Then you must not be very hungry.'' Usually I wasn''t, I just wanted junk. A young child I know eats all day long, and his parents don''t discourage him from doing so. I guarantee this little guy is going to be obese. She argues eats because he''s hungry, but there is no way that a child (3) is hungry enough to consume more calories than I do in a day. It makes me very sad for him, because in the long run he''s the one who loses. As a society we revolve our lives around food, much more so than in generations past it seems, and I think it''s important that children learn food is meant for energy, not satisfaction.

I don''t mind.

But you will laugh at this one. My younger daughter eats SO much healthy stuff that I actually have to find some stuff that isn''t so healthy sometimes. She loves fruit and will always eat healthy snacks but her love of fruit and her love of bran cereal has resulted in a bit of diarrhea. ( I know I spelled that wrong but I am too lazy to spellcheck it). So I am giving her some goldfish crackers. lol

That''s fantastic, but definitely not the norm! The kids I teach like to share their snacks with me (or try to bring them in and finish them after recess by bribing me): oreo cookies, snowballs, cheezits, etc. It makes me crazy! I wish we could give lessons in nutrition to all parents. And goldfish crackers aren''t bad, not compared to the other junk kids are fed.