Everyday Systems

This snacking thing starts young doesn't it?

What's with the modern parenting habit of plying toddlers with a constant stream of snacks and drinks?

When did this start?

It was not the norm in my childhood. I see parents everywhere (including CHURCH ) rummaging around in bags for little tupperware tubs of grapes, blueberries , crisps,sweeets, or whatever. The kiddie takes a bite and then starts fidgeting for something else. It makes no sense to me at all. I'm not talking about kids with specific health or dietary needs. Just your everyday kid whose parents cram them with snacks and are then surprised when they don't eat their meals.

This is just the way I see it.
It's always all-you-can-eat when we meet at the playing ground. And being/feeling an absolute spoilsport if you do not bring anything/tell your children not to eat too much.
Just how did we survive the afternoons when we were children?

Jonas ( what a great name) glad I am not alone in my view. I realise posting stuff about how people raise children can be a sensitive topic.

Delayed gratification is an important principle( and in the case of food it directly impacts one's health ) and it's never too early to learn it .

Hi there,
I think Jasper is even better
Good question when did it start? When grazing became fashionable?
But I have to admit that I rarely leave the house without a small bottle of water when we will be away for let's say two hours at least. Habit. They may become dehydrated
I can't remember bringing something to drink to school, at least to primary school which wasn't probably too healthy either but we had lunch at home then. And I do think that it is important to drink (regularly) but sometimes I think we'll overdo a bit when it comes to encouraging them to drink.
A venial sin maybe.

This is soooo true! I am guilty of this myself. My 5-year-old is now programmed to snack...and barely eats at meals. It took me some time to figure this out. Now I am trying to UNtrain his snacking...along with mine!!

I've been curious about this topic too. The other day I was at the car shop having my oil changed, and was in the waiting room, which is separate but still attached to the shop itself (so it smelled like oil and was in general very "stale" feeling), and someone brought in a toddler and immediately set out a bunch of food on a little tray for him. My first thought was "to each their own, but what about this place makes someone think of eating?" I wonder if he was enjoying his snack in that atmosphere, or if he's just used to eating everywhere he goes.

I don't have kids, though, and really have never gotten close to anybody under the age of about 5, so I figured maybe toddlers need more food or something and that's why I see a lot of snacking little ones.

I remember when my kids were infants being eager for them to get to the point that they didn't require feeding every few hours. Why on earth would I then want them to snack every few hours? I did let them have water or juice whenever they wanted, but that was it. Now, I probably would encourage water only. I think there are too many calories in juice.

Should Kids Be Allowed to Randomly Snack? is from Karen Le Billon's blog. She is the author of French Kids Eat Everything.

What I think is sad is now that her family is back in North America, her kids only eat the French way on weekends. There were so many snacking occasions during the week (at school and so on) that Le Billon relented and let her kids eat the way others do during the week. Oh, another reason was that her kids have 10 minutes for lunch at their school in Canada while they had 90 minutes (or maybe two hours) in France with at least 30 minutes at the table.

I'll confess, I'm guilty of that, too, especially with my older son, who's 5.

My daughter is 15 months old. Sometimes she eats at mealtimes, sometimes she doesn't. Although she is my first, I'm pretty sure this is common behavior amongst the toddler set. So I do offer her snacks at other times throughout the day, mostly fruit.

Also, we take public transportation all the time and I always pack a small container of something like blueberries or baby biscuits because they keep her happy and quiet. Sure, we bring books and toys along too, but as a parent, when you need to keep your kid busy, happy, and not disturbing everyone around you, you just sometimes gotta do what you gotta do. However my child is not even 2 so just a toddler. I don't think I will need to do this when she is 5, but no judgments to those who do as I dont know their circumstances.

I agree with Crystal that snacks for toddlers can be appropriate and even neccessary. The best stuff I have ever read about feeding kids comes from www.ellynsatter.com. Ellyn satter is a nutritionist who specializes in child feeding problems - but her methods are brilliant for all kids. She advocates what she calls "division of responsibility". It's up to the parents to provide a child with consistent, nutritious snacks and meals, but up to the child to decide if they want to eat it when it's served. She has a great section on the website called "How to Feed Children" that cuts through a lot of the mumbo jumbo we hear about child obesity and restricting kids from normal foods.

But as far as snacking for kids goes, she does talk about snacking as a sceduled sit down event. Not the mindless anywhere eating that we do seem to observe kids engaged in at times.

And also, speaking as a parent of older children (9 and 14) I know that even older kids need a snack sometime. I know we love to gush about the "French" no snacking culture, but if I took snacks away from my very thin (ridiculously high metabolism) nine year old daughter she would get very uncomfortably hungry between meals. She is barely at a healthy BMI as it is - a few pounds less and she would be underweight.

There is snacking and there is perma-snacking and I think the former can definitely have a healthy place in a growing kid's life.

JustForToday wrote: And also, speaking as a parent of older children (9 and 14) I know that even older kids need a snack sometime. I know we love to gush about the

When I was a kid (early eighties), everyone I knew had snacks when they came home from school. You picked out your snack, sat down, and that was it until dinner. I think kids and adults metabolisms are different--they seem to get more famished without such a snack.

I've continued that style with my four children (5, 7, 9, 9) and they range from normal to underweight. I'd second JustForToday's contention that it's the "permagrazing" that's the real problem. And that's a problem for children and adults alike.

Bill

There is snacking and there is perma-snacking and I think the former can definitely have a healthy place in a growing kid's life.

Absolutely, my children also carry their little boxes around when it kids's gymnastics time and they will get a snack after kindergarten when they're hungry but I do not offer an extensive buffet the whole day long. Many others do, at least here in Germany.

exactly , Jonas.
It's the extensive day long buffet that worries me regards lifetime habits.
Especially followed by the parental head scratching that happens when the kiddie ( inevitably ) becomes fussy around mealtimes.

A "health food" proponent back in the '80's was famous for saying you should wait to eat until you had "the keenest desire for the plainest food." None of us will get to that if we eat too much too often.

It really seems a shame because if there is anyone who should be able to fill the time between eating events with pleasure, it's children. In fact, a little food just to get enough energy to go back to active play is the perfect reason for snacking. It certainly shouldn't be competing as entertainment.

I very much agree that children should not be snacking all the time. I like the idea that previous posters mentioned of one snack after school for example. Maybe. But the title of this thread mentions toddlers, and i really do think there is a BIG difference between a 1-3 year old and a school age child. Toddlers are infamous for being the world's pickiest eaters. Sometimes they simply do not eat at mealtimes and no, it has nothing to do with whether or not they had snacks. Again, if this thread was about school age children, i would feel differently, but I think toddlers present unique challenges when it comes to eating, and withholding snacks for a toddler who does not eat much at mealtime is not a good idea.

Of course, I'm not talking about constant grazing, and the snacks would preferably be healthy. I think it's a good idea to give toddlers a wide variety of healthy "adult" fare so they will learn to eat many things, not just cheerios.

Interesting article that addresses children's snacking: French Kids Eat Everything: applying the methods at home.

Both French Kids Eat Everything and Bringing up Bébé address the French approach to children's snacking. I want to say that the eating schedule starts when children are quite young -- maybe two months old -- but certainly by the time they start eating solid foods. French kids eat at approximately 8-12-4-8 from that time at least through their school years. I'm not sure exactly when this routine stops.

When I grew up in the 1970's, at least in my neighborhood, we ate three meals a day, and I was allowed to grab whatever I wanted between meals, but there wasn't any "snack" food, so I rarely did. Miraculously, I never seemed hungry enough for an apple, except after school when I might make myself some toast or something. Had there been chips or "snack bars" around I know I'd have eaten them every day. With my kids, I let them eat between meals, but only if they were hungry enough to have fruits or vegetables. If they were only "hungry for" certain things, I knew they weren't hungry, just bored or pleasure seeking or whatever.

Unfortunately the world had changed by the time my kids got old enough to go do things -- every activity, from scouts to sports to school, means we take turns bringing snacks so our little darlings don't starve after 45 minutes kicking a ball around or gluing beads onto paper. Some parents bring "healthy" snacks like sugary gatorade and gloppy bars, but never a bag of apples.

I also distinctly remember taking French in 7th grade, and learning that they had a word for a little after school meal! (petite lunch or something like that). I remember feeling surprised and jealous that they had an official, sit down, after school meal. It seemed like such a good idea. It still does, for kids, after school, but only if they're hungry enough for real food and interested enough to sit down at a table with others and not plop in front of the tube.

I consider rules like "real food" and "sitting down at table" to be really good tests of whether a kid is hungry.

Wanted to add that Satter recommens the sit-down snacks and meals for toddlers, too. As stated above, parents choose the food and offer it at relatively set times. The child chooses how much or whether to eat at all at those times. If it's mealtime and the child chooses not to eat, Satter recommends just asking her to sit with everyone for the meal. (Children can choose not to eat at snack time, too, but then they wait for the next meal.) Food is not offered at times other than meals and snack times. If the child isn't hungry at a meal after a snack, she recommends offering the snack sooner. But she says on page 101 of [i]How to Get Your Child to Eat...But Not Too Much[/i] "As with meals, you child should have a snack and be done with it. He shouldn't be allowed to run with food or get handouts. That kind of eating tends to be less nutritious and leads to misuse of food for entertainment or distraction. If you give a child a cookie (or even carrots), he will soon learn that strong feelings are not to be tolerated or dealt with and that eating can be used as a panacea."

Her book is interesting reading even as an adult with no children.

Her advice for picky eaters or children who aren't developing well is a little too involved to go into, but she pretty much doesn't believe in feeding anyone beyond infancy on demand.

Finallyfull, you make excellent points.

finallyfull, the snack time is called "le gouter."

Pushing snacks on children - It's all about placating your children so they don't cause a scene. If they're forcing something down, they're distracted and less likely to yell, cry, wiggle, hit anyone, or run off.

JustForToday wrote:I think kids and adults metabolisms are different--they seem to get more famished without such a snack.

I don't think the metabolisms are different. I think that children have no self-control, and it's acceptable for them to whine and cry about wanting a snack. Try doing that as an adult.

Even Reinhard talks about your appetite being a dumb beast that has to be tamed. That's how children's appetites are if they have not been trained.

If children's metabolisms are different enough from adults to require a snack, then the French children would be emaciated.

leafy_greens wrote:If children's metabolisms are different enough from adults to require a snack, then the French children would be emaciated.

I think someone quoted the French system though as breakfast, lunch, after school snack and dinner, so probably never more than 3 - 4 hours without eating. Metabolism or whatever aside, small children have small stomachs and can only eat a small amount at one sitting. Getting them something to eat every 3 or 4 hours seems reasonable to me. I'm sure making a small child wait 6 - 7 hours between meals (the way I and many adults do) would be overly harsh.

Permasnacking I agree is different, and not necessary for kids or adults. I must admit I don't like giving my son food except for at the dining table in his chair, but that is partly because at his age eating makes a huge mess, and I can't think of anything worse that trying to contain the mess while out and about.

Children have self control / impulse control at different levels of ability, depending on their age and stage of development. How parents deal with that, especially in public, is a personal call for that family.

If children have smaller stomachs doesn't that mean they expend fewer calories, thereby needing fewer calories? I still don't buy that they "need" a snack. It may be what they are used to, so they will complain if they don't get it. Parents probably feel guilty that they are starving their children, if they don't give them a snack. If snacking isn't good for adults, then why is it acceptable for children?

leafy_greens wrote:If children have smaller stomachs doesn't that mean they expend fewer calories, thereby needing fewer calories?

I think that's backwards. Look at an infant, for example. They have the smallest stomachs, but need more calories per unit of body weight because they are growing so rapidly. The same goes for a growing child. They don't need as many calories more per unit of body weight as an infant, but more than an adult who has stopped growing.

However, I agree that permasnacking isn't a good thing for anyone to do.

When I was a kid we were sent outside with a popsickle and got sun burnt. Now it's nori wraps and sun screen. And pardon me, but I still find a nice tan sexy, not dangerous per se.

The food industry has become what the tobacco industry did, start them young and you have them for life.

Sorry, but it doesn't matter whether people think a tan is sexy or not. Overexposure causes skin cancer; I saw it with my mom and now with my sister. Both of them got most of their exposure as teenagers.

I don't know if it was unusual, but I distinctly remember babysitting a bunch of kids for a weekend when I was in my late teens. I handed out all the food and they sure didn't eat very much. I've always remembered it and wondered at how much energy I've seen parents put into getting their kids to eat. It just seems to me they don't actually need that much. I find it hard to believe that the majority of kids would eat too little unless prodded.

leafy_greens wrote:Pushing snacks on children - It's all about placating your children so they don't cause a scene. If they're forcing something down, they're distracted and less likely to yell, cry, wiggle, hit anyone, or run off.

Couldn't agree more.

Playing outside - yes. Tanning/sunburn - no.

People used to take up smoking to look sexy. Bet some still do.