Tag Archives: obesity

Is Carluccio right about children’s menus?

4 Replies

It was with considerable relief that I read chef Antonio Carluccio’s comments this weekend about children’s menus.

Eat up - do you like children's menus?

In case you’ve not read it, he is disdainful of the whole idea of creating special menus for children. I have to agree.

Although I couldn’t say one way or another that children’s menus make them fat, as Carluccio asserts, I have long objected to the idea that you should have food that only children should eat and another, rather more sophisticated menu, that is suitable only for adults.

OK, so you might choose for your youngster – unless he/she is incredibly adventurous – a chicken vindaloo (and, to be honest, I wouldn’t choose that either) or liver and onions (ditto).

But why is there an assumption that anyone under the age of 12 wants to eat only sausage and chips, fishfingers and chips, burger and chips, or – if you are very lucky, pasta and tomato sauce?

Don’t get me wrong, I quite like fishfingers and chips, preferably homemade, but I baulk at the idea that when if we go out for a meal, my children should be offered some sub-standard fare while I enjoy something fresher, healthier (possibly) and tastier.

Of course, mine have had fishfingers, chips and peas for their tea, but that’s because I’d eat it. I’ve only ever had a policy of feeding them food I’d eat myself.

But when you go out to eat, you can’t always be sure of the quality. Have you seen how grey and mushy some of those fishfingers are? Or how revoltingly flaccid, fatty and wan-coloured those chipolatas are?

The thing about many children’s menus, I believe, and I appreciate this cannot be levelled at every restaurant or cafe, is that they perpetuate the idea of a “fussy eater”.

“Oh, Emily/Ben wouldn’t eat this food. It’s too rich, too creamy, got too many herbs, tastes of something like proper food … let her/him have the cheap sausage and chips. That’ll shut her/him up while we enjoy our organic rack of lamb and seasonal vegetables.”

No doubt there’d be a fruity drink and a scoop of ice cream (vanilla, chocolate or strawberry) to follow.

What does this attitude towards food tell our children? That we expect them to eat rubbish? That their diet doesn’t matter? And doesn’t it create an awful lot of work if you have to make a different dinner for the adults and children?

I want my children to eat what I eat. I have never given them separate meals. If they didn’t like it, so be it. I might or might not have tried it again, but as it can take up to 20 attempts for children to get a taste for something it’s likely I did until I realised they actually did hate it …

I love restaurants or cafes that offer small portions from the standard menu for youngsters or will split a main course between two plates. I don’t even mind children’s menus that offer “proper” food and look suspiciously like a plainer version of an adult dish.

But offering up chips, chips and more chips is doing them a disservice.

What do you think? Is Carluccio right to be critical of children’s menus?

And have you been anywhere that has offered children particularly good menu choices?

Please, Sir, can I have less?

1 Reply

According to a report in the Express & Star, Walsall Council is planning to cut portion sizes of its cooked school lunches in an effort to reduce obesity among the borough’s children.

Is portion control the problem or the food that is served?

Forgive my confused face here, but this seems ridiculous.

The council claims that infants and junior school portions are the same, which is leading to fatter, unhealthier children.

Obesity is undoubtedly a problem in the borough and I wouldn’t want to underplay the seriousness of it, but surely the local authority has to look at what foods it offers the youngsters in schools rather than just cutting portion sizes?

The ultimate responsibility for a child’s eating habit lies with the parent/s. If the adults stuff their faces with junk food and drink pop, it is hardly surprising their offspring pick up equally bad habits and grab for a bag of crisps instead of an apple when they are peckish.

But for some youngsters, the school meal is the only hot meal they get a day, so it is important that school catering services provide nutritious and filling meals.

Let’s pretend for a moment that this proposal by the council isn’t an exercise in cutting costs or getting rid of the catering facilities at the borough’s schools …

Here is a snapshot of menus at a Walsall primary school last term. A school lunch costs £1.80:

For example, day 1, week 1:

beef burger in a bap with ketchup

breaded small fry with parsley sauce

creamed potatoes or smilies

peas, baked beans or salad

iced apple sponge and custard.

(So, beef burger in a bap, smilies and beans, with a pudding. Hardly a nutritious repast.)

Day four, week 3:

Cottage pie, gravy, half a baguette

Pizza

Jacket wedges

Peas, baked beans or salad

Jam feather sponge and custard

(Cottage pie – hopefully with hidden vegetables in it – and peas, with a pudding. Better. However, they’d also get some jacket wedges, too. Carb fest.)

Day 3, week 5

Roast lamb, mint sauce, gravy

Cheese pasty

Creamed or boiled potatoes

Peas, beans or mixed salad

Shortcake and custard

(There are plenty of roast dinners on offer, if that’s your thing.)

Day two, week 7:

Pasta Bolognese

Vegetarian sausage roll

Garlic gread

Creamed potatoes

Carrots, sweetcorn or salad

Toffee muffin traybake

(Veggie sausage roll AND creamed potatoes? And a sugar-laden pudding?)

There are always baked potatoes (with cheese or coleslaw; no butter) and a pasta dish – called smart pasta, for some reason – bread (no butter), yoghurts and fruit available. Children can also buy fruit juice (30p), milk (16p) or milkshakes (35p).

I’m neither a dietitian nor a nutritionist and I’m not a person who would deny a child their pudding, but some menus appear to be less balanced than others.

School cooks I have spoken to about also complain that the menus are overloaded with carbs and there is not enough emphasis on freshly-cooked meals and vegetables. Smilies may be baked nowadays and not fried (making them lower in fat and therefore acceptable, say the authority’s catering service) but are they the best choice? Some school cooks think not* (*caution: not a scientific piece of research.)

There has also been a return to the menu of burgers and sausage rolls, but no doubt the ketchup that is served with them is low in sugar, so that’s all right … And are the sausage rolls/vegetarian sausage rolls high in fat? If not,

Traditional Sunday lunch by adactio (http://www.flickr.com/photos/adactio/10098413/)

I’d love the recipe, please.

There have been a number of occasions over these past few years – even before the Jamie Oliver revolution – that I tried to get some information out of the council’s catering service about the nutritional content of the menus.

Occasionally, I have been successful with information: for instance, I was told that the sausages contained 80 per cent plus meat, more than the premium supermarket ones. Hurrah for that.

Other requests for information have not been given (ie: does each meal have to be nutritionally balanced or is it a menu over a week that has to be balanced?).

I know the council staff have worked very hard to try to improve the menus over the years, introducing salad bars and making meals at primary schools more colourful, but there have been accusations from some parents (including me) that the standards seem to be dropping again, following the Jamie Oliver campaign.

Smaller portions of cheese pasties, bacon baguettes, doughnuts and chocolate crunch cake are not going to save the children from obesity. Bigger portions of healthier food might. Oh – but what of the cost implications?

Now, excuse me, as I have to go and decorate a chocolate cake I’ve just made…

Why do we need video games to enjoy exercise?

8 Replies

I had mixed feelings – I often do – when I read that children were more likely to get their daily quota of exercise when it was combined with video games.

The University of Cumbria in England, which carried out a study into children’s exercise habits, found that youngsters can get their daily exercise if they combine it with CERTAIN video games.

It found that 90 per cent of the children interviewed said they wanted to play video games at the same time as exercising because it helps to reduce the boredom factor.

But, and there is always a big BUT with these types of research, the sample was only 50 children aged between 11 and 12 and they used exercise equipment combined with a set of video games provided by Gamercize.

Hardly a massive poll of children, is it? And just the one kind of video game provider? Smacks of a bit of desperate marketing to me.

The research said that children could play their games only while they maintained movement on the fitness machines. If they stopped exercising, the games paused.

From the small sample of children who took part in this research, it was found that only one in five of them managed to fit in one hour of exercise a day, while more than 75 per cent played video games found that their 60 minute gaming sessions were easily accommodated into their busy daily schedules.

But combining the two, it is suggested in this study, offers the best of both worlds.

So why do I have mixed feelings about this?

I’d agree that this gaming-with-exercise model is better than nothing. Even the National Obesity Forum acknowledged that when he was asked to comment about the study.

The clinical director Dr David Haslam said that physical inactivity in children was a major cause of the obesity epidemic.

 “This study begins to show that by providing more novel opportunities, it is possible to increase a child’s activity in a painless and effective way,” he said.

Video games and so on certainly have their place in our lives and we are lucky to have many forms of media at our disposal. Children are fickle creatures; their attention spans are short and, from my experience, need not so much caring and nurturing on a daily basis, but constant access to activities and diversions.

Parents are taking on the role of entertainment managers: they are frightened to let their children get bored. If they are not ferrying them hither and thither to an organised activity (academic or otherwise) then they are parked in front of their gaming consoles. At least, the argument goes, we know where they are and they are safe.

That is fair comment to a point, but we parents are culpable in this, surely?

It’s up to us to get them out and about. If we slob around, watching TV, playing on the PlayStation and pretending that doing Wii sport is a physical activity to replace “proper” exercise or even a brisk walk in the park, is it any wonder that’s what the children do? They model their behaviour on what the adults do.

And before you ask, I’m as guilty as the next parent. I don’t go to the gym, but I do limit the use of the DS/Wii and whatever other small screen there is to occupy them.

And if they do kick up a fuss about leaving the DS behind so they can take part in a family bike ride, then remember who is in charge. I’m rather hoping it is the adult in the family.

It is our duty as parents to go out and enjoy some sport; to take them to the swimming pool; even to take a walk to the park and feed the ducks. It is all exercise.

So while Gamercize et al have their place (and even Derbyshire Sport introduced Gamercize equipment into schools this year), we must put it into perspective.

We don’t need the help of machines to have fun exercising. Just see any child running around a park with their friends.

You never know, I might even take up my own advice …