Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Schools that cut fat and sugar saw dramatic results

TRALEE PEARCE

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 10:24 PM EDT 28/04/08

Schools that overhauled nutrition policies saw a 50-per-cent reduction in new cases of overweight children in two years, study finds ...Read the full article

This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?

  1. Eric the Red from Uzbekistan writes: Is this really a surprise? No.

    The only caveat being, it would seem, is that the weight loss among children might be contingent upon the parents following similar diets / food choices at home.
  2. Kim Philby from Ottawa, Canada writes: Any nutritionist can tell you just how bad refined sugars are for the human body, yet we allow purveyors of this junk to entice kids and their parents with all these cutesy TV ads (seen that one for the Oreo cookies "lick contest"?) that equate buying this crap for your kids with showing them love. The truth is just the opposite; you do your kids serious bodily harm buying them cookies, candy, and soft drinks (not to mention all the processed food poisoned with "high fructose corn syrup").
  3. Delta J from Canada writes: Notwithstanding the huge nutritional benefits to children, the changes in their behavior will impact their school life the most.

    Children without sugar, complex lipids, and caffeine pumping in their veins aren't as hyperactive as those on less wholesome diets. As a result, they can sit still and focus on the lesson, even in their first class of the day however early in the morning it may start. This is because chances are they were able to fall asleep quickly and get a good night's rest.
  4. Terry F from Edmonton, Canada writes: It took me about 10 weeks to lose 25 pounds just by cutting out fats and sugar. Now they're reserved for a treat. It's amazing how fast your body responds even without rigorous exercise once you cut back on fats and sugar.
  5. Jake Richardson from Kingston, Canada writes: Though fairly obvious, this study can now be referenced when other districts try to make the same changes, and can be used as hard evidence to refute the claims of the purveyors of these foods. This study will have a very positive impact far beyond its obvious conclusion.
  6. H M from Canada writes: This is good- there are a number of children that are really in need of some solid nutritional advice and they are clearly not getting from home. If they spend 6 hours every day in an environment with healthy choices, it can rub off and maybe they can continue some of these choices at home.

    I am pretty sure your average 6 year old is not to blame for their obesity.
  7. tom h from Edmonton, Canada writes: Nice to see some solid research backing this up... can be used to support future bans on feeding this kind of crap to our kids.
  8. Andrew MacKinnon from Toronto, Canada writes: In any school where there are convenience stores and fast food joints nearby, a ban on junk food sales in schools would be ineffective. Kids like junk food, and would just buy their junk food outside school. My high school had 3 convenience stores and several fast food joints within a 5 minute walk and many kids went outside during lunch hour even though junk food was sold in school. If the cafeteria didn't sell junk food, it would be nearly empty.
  9. Just Asking from Canada writes: Great news -- time for a beer!
  10. PANIC! At The Ice Floe from Canada writes: We should just BAN fat kids. They are unsightly and have a larger than normal carbon footprint. Oh, and throw their fat parents in jail for child abuse too!

    Heck, seems to be the answer for everything these days!
  11. R. M. from Regina, Canada writes: I would like to see a study that also deals with behavioural problems and issues like ADD and ADHD. I would bet that a reduction in sugar would create substantial benefits.
  12. m a from Toronto, Canada writes: A step in the right direction, but it would be good if people didn't just lump "fats" all together. Trans fats are bad, saturated fat is OK in moderation (low fat milk is completely unnecessary) and unsaturated fats are healthy.

    Also, cutting out sugar is great, but not enough - the amount of starch (which acts just like sugar in your body) that Canadians consume is appalling and extremely fattening. Our current guidelines for carbs are absurd, no one should be eating that amount of bread, pasta & rice.

    Finally, all the chemicals in processed foods need to go - they all contribute to ill health. Ensuring kids have access to the phyto-nutrients they need from fresh fruit and vegetables is essential.
  13. Gord Lewis from yucky!, Canada writes: Instead of the War on Drugs (a 30-year failure) and the War on Iraq (a 16-year debacle), the Yanks should declare a War On Sugar - in all its ubiquitous forms. Only when we begin to look at sugar as an addictive drug or a hazardous chemical can we make a dent in epidemic obesity, diabetes and ADHD. Not to mention tooth decay. This War would not cost much; in fact the savings in health care costs would be in the many billions. But it would mean an overhaul of government policies on agribusiness and subsidies. Translation: an end to the institutional corruption of western governments. Food labelling needs to be improved and consumers educated (it is better in the USA than Canada). For example, learn the difference between 'juice', 'drink', and 'blend'. The marketing euphemisms on packaging are rampant. I recently picked up a bottle of berry juice (drink?) which advertised "no sugar added'; however, a scan of the ingredients revealed 'glucose-fructose' as the first (and therefore biggest) ingredient. Take your reading glasses; the most important print is very tiny. I saw a fascinating documentary on PBS this week, which said that corn has been altered to maximize the sugar yield when it is process into corn sugar. The protein content has declined correspondingly, which again affects us indirectly when the fat content of beef increases due to feedlot operations. Too long on an all-corn diet burns holes in the cow's stomachs, causing a lot of suffering. Another of the end products of this corn is soda pop, described as 'liquid candy'. Here is the link: http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/kingcorn/ Enjoy your popcorn . . . ;)
  14. Joe Canada from Kingston, Canada writes: PANIC! At The Ice Floe from Canada writes: We should just BAN fat kids. They are unsightly and have a larger than normal carbon footprint. Oh, and throw their fat parents in jail for child abuse too!

    Heck, seems to be the answer for everything these days!

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Who needs sound parenting and the promotion and enforcement of healthy choices when you can have it done for you by the state.

    A good day for fat kids and stupid parents, a great day for fascism.
  15. Gord Lewis from yucky!, Canada writes: ummm, Joe Canada from Kingston, what has fascism got to do with anything? You obviously need some help with PANIC! At The Ice Floe's comment, so I will spell it out for you: he was being flippant. That is approximately the opposite of serious. You need to adjust your rant threshold setting.

    Why can't the G&M filter out the repeat offenders at almost all of the discussions here . . . you know, the "every-issue-is-right-or-left/nanny-state/fascist-government-prying-into-our-private-lives/etc." crew, who continue their slanging contests from one thread to the next? (If this is a high-brow paper, what are readers talking about over at the Sun? Sheesh . . . )
  16. lotusland maritimer from Canada writes: Phys ed should not be a weekly subject but compulsory daily activity either half an hour twice a day or an hour daily. I remember a fat kid in school who got doctors exemption. Au contraire he should have been given a special rigorous double exercise program.
    I heard from an ex Marine fatsos got half rations skinny riuts got double rations. No arguments. In a few weeks there were no fat or underweight marines.
    I agree about the misbehaviour badly called HAADD. No food additives no refined CHO double phys ed. Milk is a mistake, even low fat milk has lactose galactose and a lot of undigestible protein, Plain yogourt makes more sense or unsalted cottage cheese if its available. If anyone brings in a medical excuse, double whatever they are excused from.
    The whole stress of school sports is absolutely idioitic. Its not the jocks who need to be on the school teams but the fatsos couch potatoes losers wimps. They are the ones who need vigorous physical exercise and team sports not the automatic joiners and winners.
    Same for food , no need to preach to the converted and the popular perfects but the others. They need the reeducation ands the support and the example.
    Obviously harmful junk must be eliminated from schools.
  17. Just Me from Canada writes: As children don't understand statistics, studies, etc, I decided to elaborated my own "study"
    Few years ago, my daughter started with some (serious) health problems, and they happened only on certain days, specially on weekends.
    Her MD asked to keep a register with the days she was sick, the type of food, etc. Then I crossed this register with my other databases. Guess what?.... Mc D's was present on all the days she became sick!!
    Now my daughter understands
  18. Josiah Smith from Japan writes: Joe Canada from Kingston, Canada writes: Who needs sound parenting and the promotion and enforcement of healthy choices when you can have it done for you by the state.

    A good day for fat kids and stupid parents, a great day for fascism.

    I agree! We should be totally free to make the choices that we know are wrong!!!

    Joe Canada, this isn't banning junk food from the lives of children, it's removing junk food from school property, which administrators have the right to do. And, the sad truth is a lot of people don't make wise choices, for themselves or their children. And even with schools getting rid of this unhealthy crap, I'm sure many parents will express their own rights to feed whatever toxic waste they want to the kids. It's win-win! Let's order some of the Colonel!
  19. barny p from Canada writes: Oh! Is this something new??

    It's like saying we just found out the world is not flat.
  20. Murray Braithwaite from Canada writes: We had so-called junk food always available in school and few fat kids. The difference, it seems, is that we were all fed well at home, so the junk food was a treat and not a staple. As for fats, fats only make you fat if you eat excess carbohydrates. Carbohydrates keep your body from burning fats, which is the preferred fuel for most cells. That is why the body stores fat, for use as fuel. Eating lots of carbohydrates generates lots of insulin which blocks the release of fats by adipose tissue and blocks the intake of fats for fuel by muscles. Reducing elevated blood sugar from carbohydrates, which damage body tissues, is the metabolic priority of the body. This is why experiments have shown that obese mice on very low calorie but high carbohydrate diets will starve to death and remain fat--the insulin generated by the high carbohydrate diet prevents fat loss. Cutting out refined sugar is step 1 for a carboholic.
  21. Rae Vandenberg from Canada writes: I don't think any changes here in Ontario will show such a dramatic change. Schools in the States serve lunch and breakfasts to kids. They have cafeterias. Thus, a large proportion of what the child eats is via the school. The schools in Ontario largely offer drinks or snacks from a vending machine plus they odd pizza lunch.
  22. Mani Pulated from Bymedia, Canada writes: Although the facts reported were known over 40 years ago; the process food and sugary drink industry have lobbied politicians, dominatated childrens' television and subsidized school programs to maintain a foothold in the Canadian diet.

    People who promoted a healthy diet back then, were dismissed as health food nuts, even by their doctors.

    I am glad to see that their lobbying efforts are getting as weak as their credibility.

    My one hope is, that one day, the same occurs to big oil.
  23. Raymond P from Canada writes: Schools should be forced to sell high fat foods and nutritionally empty, sugar snacks. Serving sizes should be increased so that by age 10 no child is left behind the 150 pound mark. This upsurge will lead to larger school desks, the need for stronger chairs, and when combined with slashing funding for physical education, we've set a course for evolutionary suicide.

    Sadly, if a school board in Canada banned a certain food type, companies could sue them under NAFTA infringement clauses. NAFTA, keeping kids fat since 1994.
  24. Gogh Forit from Canada writes: Has anyone recently eaten in a hospital cafeteria. Go to your local hospital and visit the cafeteria for lunch. You'll be surprised/shocked to learn that all those cardiac threatening foods can be had easily. French fries, heaps of fatty, starchy foods priced cheaper than the fruit and veggie choices. If as much effort were put into marketing healthy choices and priced them just a little lower than the slab of pizza or "grilled" cheese sandwiches (fat, fried in fat between two sheets of starch) and lots of encouragement signs, then people will begin their own migration from fatty foods to foods that flatten and flatter. With better foods available at competitive prices, people will eat the good foods, realize more energy and be naturally motivated to do more activities aka exercise. It takes some effort but what in life that is beneficial, doesn't.
  25. B H from Toronto, Canada writes: In response to the poster who spoke of kids going down the street to the convenience store -- I think this highlights the difference between high school and elementary school. In high school you can make healthy alternatives cheap and tasty, but ultimately the young adults decide what they eat and many will just go down the street and get something else. But I don't know about you, but this was NOT the case when I was in elementary school. A seven year old is in a totally different situation than a seventeen year old. A seventeen year old is ultimately the person most responsable for their own diet and health. It's totally the opposite with a seven-year old. The ADULTS have to take responsibility for the little kids.
  26. Placido Durango from Here to Eternity, Canada writes: "Schools that cut fat and sugar saw dramatic results"

    Hmmmmm. Can we put this in the "duh" category?
  27. Kim Philby from Ottawa, Canada writes: Gord Lewis: I saw that corn documentary on POV on PBS. I had to laugh when the film makers had their hair analyzed and were told that, basically, they're now made of corn. Also amusing (in a grim sort of way) was the description of ground beef made from corn-fed cows as "fat disguised as meat", and the farmer who declared he wouldn't eat the corn he grows.

    And I, too, am more than a little fed up with all the ranters exclaiming "fascism!"and "nanny state!" every time a government decides to draft a new law or ban something found to be harmful. Just look at the responses to the story about Ontario banning the cosmetic use of weed and bug killers; the way some posters are carrying on, you'd think the government had just ordered people with lawns shipped to a gulag on Ellesmere Island. Maybe the G&M needs to install a key-word filter that automatically rejects any post with the phrase "nanny state."
  28. Darrin Duell from Canada writes: processed refined sugars are BAD, BAD, BAD... if it wasn't for lobby groups our government would be looking after OUR interests. Restaurants would be required to post the nutritional profiles of the foods they serve (liberal private members bill voted down by the CPC last year in parliment), advertisers would be required to state the sugar content of the foods they push. Food is the number 1 killer in Canada, abuse of food can lead to heart disease and stroke the leading causes of death in this country.
  29. Mike M from Toronto, Canada writes: I often hear it cleaimed that "refined" sugars are bad for you. However, I have never seen any convincing evidence to back this up.

    Granted, sugar is (relatively) high in calories and has no nutritional benefits. But if it is eaten in moderation calories are not a problem. Similarly, a lack of nutirtional benefits is only a problem if you aren't getting your vitamins from some other source. I personally am not overweight and suffer from no nutritional deficiencies. I thoroughly enjoy the taste of sugar. I brush regularly and haven't had a cavity in over 20 years.

    Can anyone provide me with a good reason to stop eating refined sugar? Does my body react any diferrently to sugar than any other carbohydrate with a high glycemic index?
  30. B H from Toronto, Canada writes: "Can anyone provide me with a good reason to stop eating refined sugar? Does my body react any diferrently to sugar than any other carbohydrate with a high glycemic index?" I believe it's the high glycemic index combined with the lack of vitamins (which are hard enough to get enough of that it counts if you waste your caloric budget on vitamin-free foods), which to me are reasons that are good enough to make me want to limit them. "Refined sugars" should probably more accurately be "unnaturally high glycemic index foods with all the vitamins stripped from them". So yeah, I think you're right that the body reacts no differently to white sugar and white flour (at least that's what all the diabetic handbooks and biology texts say), but they both kind of mess up the system in terms of blood sugar and lack of vitamins. I would keep them in small quantities and watch how I felt after (usually kind of bad, but different people will vary).
  31. Jim Bradley from Ottawa, Canada writes: Now that I have a daughter in middle school I'm saddened to learn that Phys Ed teachers continue to make cruel and demeaning comments to anybody, including her, that isn't perfectly slender and athletic. I hated phys ed because of the teacher's comments and teacher-sanctioned teasing. I'm going to have to confront the teacher in front of the principal to put and end to it but I shouldn't have to - we should be teaching some basic courtesy and sensitivity to the teachers!
  32. al goguen from victoria, Canada writes: As we all know there are a lot of parents who do not know much about eating healthy. They themselves have been eating junk food since they are teenagers, and after they got married, they sit around the TV and eat chips and more chips.
    So schools shoud take over and eudcate their children. They should be told the value of good eating. First of all they cafeteria should onoy serve healthy food. If someone knows how to cook, it`s not more difficult to cook healthy food. So schools everywhere get on the band wagon and help our children. There are too many overweight kids around our school yards.
  33. Bill Jones from Pgh, United States writes: Progress is progress. My one concern is, are kids really learning useful habits, or just being prevented from buying what they well immediately start buying as soon as they move on to their next school/workplace? I.e., is the benefit illusory? After all, obesity rates have skyrocketed, and you can't say it's all people that have grown up in schools with junk food machines and greasy cafeterias. Besides, is it really true that adverse health effects really hit people while they're still teenagers? I used to eat a whole bag of potato chips back then, and still stay skinny.

    I wonder if it wouldn't be more effective to bring back home ec courses, where they teach you how to use a stove. Sadly I'm sure kids from all sorts of backgrounds would be the first in their families to know how.
  34. Sydney R from Canada writes: Better still , let infants be passed over to schools the day after they are first brought home from hospital. Let schools discontinue the odious job of educating children and take over instead all child- rearing tasks previously allotted to parents.
  35. Matthew Zadow from Brussels, Belgium writes: Talk about stuff you know already. I can't believe this article is being published here, I expect it in something satirical, like "The Onion".

    This just in!
    "Couples who had more frequent sex report more children"
    "People who drink alcohol drunk more frequently"

    and my favorite:
    "Globe and Mail prints the obvious, again"
  36. Comments closed, censored, deleted or made to disappear from Mini Bushland, Canada writes: Schools are a g....m shame! Have been for years, if not decades.
  37. Cycling Commuter from Canada writes: Andrew MacKinnon writes: "In any school where there are convenience stores and fast food joints nearby, a ban on junk food sales in schools would be ineffective." You're wrong about that. In a University of B.C. study done a few years ago, bowls of sweets were placed on a group of office secretaries' desks within easy reach. A second group had to get up from their desks and cross the room to reach a bowl of sweets. The secretaries who were able to reach the sweets while seated ate twice as many on average compared to those who had to cross the room. I have never even once in my life made a trip to a corner store specifically to buy chocolates or other sweets. But if someone else in my household buys them and leaves them laying around under my nose, I will snack on them. Another interesting study showed that people with strong willpower who were able to resist junk food placed under their noses lost some ability to concentrate at their work compared to those who didn't have such a distraction under their noses. Just because you are so addicted to sugar that you'll go far out of your way to get a fix, don't assume everyone else is the same way! The science is very clear that different people have varying degrees of vulnerability to addictive substances, but reduced availability/temptation helps everyone to some degree. Of course some people are so buzzed-out on their sugar highs all the time that they are incapable of reading and understanding scientific literature, so they just pluck opinions out of thin air and treat them as fact.
  38. Cycling Commuter from Canada writes: lotusland maritimer writes: "Phys ed should not be a weekly subject but compulsory daily activity..." PhysEd is a massive waste of time and money. If all the billions of dollars piddled-away on PhysEd and organized sports were reallocated to building pedestrian/bike overpasses/underpasses and providing walking school buses (supervised walks to school) so that kids and adults could safely walk or cycle to school, work, shopping etc., that would do far more good for the public health. Colorado has the lowest rate of obesity in the U.S. Boulder, Colorado's 100,000 residents have 360 miles of bike paths and 64 underpasses, so cyclists need not stop when they reach an intersection. See http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet.fitness/08/27/obesity.colorado/index.html When I was a kid, I delivered a newpaper route before school and two more routes after school - including one on the side of a steep hill. I also walked or biked to school instead of taking a bus. This made me a lot fitter and healthier than those who relied on PhysEd exercise. There was no risk of multiple concussions from delivering newspapers as there is with contact sports. A single knee trauma sustained in youth under 18 while playing soccer triples their risk of getting osteoarthritis later in life. Kids who receive multiple concussions from contact sports are 37% more likely to suffer from Alzheimers or other neurodegenerative conditions in their old age. I generally skipped PhysEd and spent the time studying. As a normal teenage boy, I was already VERY interested in girls. I had zero interest in rubbing up against other sweaty teenage boys. All the people I know who were heavily into organized sports as kids spend huge amounts of time sitting in front of TV watching spectator sports as adults. They seldom get much exercise. Those who picked up the healthy walking habit as kids maintain the habit throughout their lives.
  39. j wilson from vancouver, Canada writes: Cycling Commuter, congrats on your self-aggrandizing rationale for how "...PhysEd is a massive waste of time and money."
    If concussions are a problem, or indeed, joint injuries, then those issues need to be addressed. Those things are not reasons for not teaching physical education.
    Phys Ed may well have become, with the current epidemic of obesity and diabetes, the most important thing we need to teach our children.
    They need to learn how to exercise and why, and the effect of foods and exercise on their bodies while theyre young enough to set their lifestyles.
    Your theory is no more valid than arguing that teaching reading is a waste of time and money, and then going on a diatribe on how the money could better be spent building libraries.
    Libraries and reading classes go together: they're not at loggerheads. Neither are bike paths and physical education.
  40. Jorly fuster from Canada writes: what an amazing breakthrough, you meant to tell me that if I cut out sugary and other fatty foods I can lose weight? AND I'M JUST HEARING ABOUT THIS!!!!
  41. Martin Bernstein from LonG BEACH, United States writes: Say what you will about individuals having the right to eat all the junk they can stuff into their fat faces, but what pray tell is caffeine doing orange pop? Orange I thought was a kid's drink.

    I'm sure now that kids are getting wired not just on those drinks which boast caffeine, but even those which are more devious. Parents (and adults who don't wish to get hopped up on caffeine) better read those labels. I'm betting, using a quote from a science fiction story read many years ago, ". . . a mild but addicting alkaloid" is coming to a drink unannounced.

    Yep, there's the sugars, the fats and the caffeine - all gateways to an obese, wired kid.
  42. Melissa Wiebe from Canada writes: But these schools are also going to see a sharp reduction in the amount of money that comes into their schools as a result of replacing food.
  43. guy tozer from Saskatoon, Canada writes: The extent that some drink bottlers go to "hide" ingredients is amazing. I read on a bottle of "juice" the other day that it contained "dehydrated cane juice". Just another word for SUGAR. Do they think people are that dumb not to figure this one out??

Join the Conversation, Leave a Comment

This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?

You must be logged-in to submit a comment — login now!

Not registered with globeandmail.com? Register now. It is quick and free.

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top