Thanks for all your research and bringing it together. Prof Seth wrote an article in the guardian the other day about the Coffer illusion.
Will have a look at how I can increase fibre in my 1 yo. I guess something I've been struggling to work out when reading these articles on food...I understand all your points on sugar and how detrimental it can be. But, how does one avoid labelling foods as good or bad / treats or sometimes foods etc in order for children to have a healthy relationship with food so don't link in to eating disorders (couldn't find a suitable synonym for feed in. Eye. Roll.). Thank you
Great question! My mum was a child psychiatrist who specialised in eating disorders, so we have had a lot of conversations over the years about setting up relationships with food.
First up – eating disorders are enormously influenced by culture: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1476179309001190 , driven by cultural changes including increased consumerism, shift from collectivist to individualist patterns, changing gender roles and increased alienation of the individual. The food environment also plays a significant role - a recent study suggested that 100% of binge eating episodes are on ultraprocessed foods, and an increasing body of evidence suggests that ultraprocessed foods genuinely are ‘bad’ foods for eating disorders (which challenges the previous philosophy that all foods fit in eating disorder management: https://jeatdisord.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40337-024-01017-9 )
So protecting children against eating disorders is more than just avoiding labelling foods as good or bad (though this is good practise), but it’s also about creating better food environments and additionally setting children up to have strong family values, sense of self, etc.
I tend to avoid labelling "good" and "bad" foods. Instead, I set up the environment so we don't eat “bad” foods. Nuance is really hard to communicate to children, so all of the food we eat together as a family could be eaten in pretty large quantities without causing harm. The children have suffered the natural consequences of enormous fruit consumption (vomiting large quantities of unripe plums, vomiting after enormous quantities of pocket-money-acquired cucumber), so they understand that certain foods have consequences.
We have an identity around sugar: "we're a family that doesn't eat sugar, because it makes our bodies sick." There's a big difference between not introducing and restricting, and I think the two are often conflated. Introducing a very palatable, very rewarding food and then telling children that they shouldn't eat it puts their brains and body in conflict, and also often puts them in conflict with their parents. It's much better to set children up to not want sugar, so they avoid it themselves and then don’t suffer that mental health problems that come with its consumption. It’s hard to develop unhealthy eating patterns around something you don’t want to eat.
I know that intermittent, high-value foods (treats) can be literally anything. My partner's father always gave him prawns as a treat, and he still buys them when he's happy.
I deliberately create a 'treat' mentality about fruit by restricting its availability – fruit is Nature’s treat for exactly the same reason. I almost never buy fruit. Instead, if the children want fruit, they either go and buy it with their pocket money or, in the summer and autumn, they go forage it themselves. Reducing supply increases demand, and getting people to work for something increases its reward value.
In conclusion, though, Jay, I know that our Western cultural attitudes to food are a major factor in increasing the risk of eating disorders. I believe that altering these attitudes in the directions I’ve described above should be protective from a first-principles standpoint. However, given the wider factors, nothing is going to be 100% preventative, we’re just looking to make small gains in lots of different areas.
This is such a helpful response and exactly what I needed to process it all. Thanks so much for taking the time to respond. I love your philosophies for raising children. My first instinct about restricting fruit is that its so good for them in terms of micronutrients, but then, how much better if they choose fruit over a UP cake... hardest part will be group settings i think. Lots to take away and reflect on.
Thanks for all your research and bringing it together. Prof Seth wrote an article in the guardian the other day about the Coffer illusion.
Will have a look at how I can increase fibre in my 1 yo. I guess something I've been struggling to work out when reading these articles on food...I understand all your points on sugar and how detrimental it can be. But, how does one avoid labelling foods as good or bad / treats or sometimes foods etc in order for children to have a healthy relationship with food so don't link in to eating disorders (couldn't find a suitable synonym for feed in. Eye. Roll.). Thank you
Great question! My mum was a child psychiatrist who specialised in eating disorders, so we have had a lot of conversations over the years about setting up relationships with food.
First up – eating disorders are enormously influenced by culture: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1476179309001190 , driven by cultural changes including increased consumerism, shift from collectivist to individualist patterns, changing gender roles and increased alienation of the individual. The food environment also plays a significant role - a recent study suggested that 100% of binge eating episodes are on ultraprocessed foods, and an increasing body of evidence suggests that ultraprocessed foods genuinely are ‘bad’ foods for eating disorders (which challenges the previous philosophy that all foods fit in eating disorder management: https://jeatdisord.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40337-024-01017-9 )
So protecting children against eating disorders is more than just avoiding labelling foods as good or bad (though this is good practise), but it’s also about creating better food environments and additionally setting children up to have strong family values, sense of self, etc.
I tend to avoid labelling "good" and "bad" foods. Instead, I set up the environment so we don't eat “bad” foods. Nuance is really hard to communicate to children, so all of the food we eat together as a family could be eaten in pretty large quantities without causing harm. The children have suffered the natural consequences of enormous fruit consumption (vomiting large quantities of unripe plums, vomiting after enormous quantities of pocket-money-acquired cucumber), so they understand that certain foods have consequences.
We have an identity around sugar: "we're a family that doesn't eat sugar, because it makes our bodies sick." There's a big difference between not introducing and restricting, and I think the two are often conflated. Introducing a very palatable, very rewarding food and then telling children that they shouldn't eat it puts their brains and body in conflict, and also often puts them in conflict with their parents. It's much better to set children up to not want sugar, so they avoid it themselves and then don’t suffer that mental health problems that come with its consumption. It’s hard to develop unhealthy eating patterns around something you don’t want to eat.
I know that intermittent, high-value foods (treats) can be literally anything. My partner's father always gave him prawns as a treat, and he still buys them when he's happy.
I deliberately create a 'treat' mentality about fruit by restricting its availability – fruit is Nature’s treat for exactly the same reason. I almost never buy fruit. Instead, if the children want fruit, they either go and buy it with their pocket money or, in the summer and autumn, they go forage it themselves. Reducing supply increases demand, and getting people to work for something increases its reward value.
In conclusion, though, Jay, I know that our Western cultural attitudes to food are a major factor in increasing the risk of eating disorders. I believe that altering these attitudes in the directions I’ve described above should be protective from a first-principles standpoint. However, given the wider factors, nothing is going to be 100% preventative, we’re just looking to make small gains in lots of different areas.
Hope that helps!
This is such a helpful response and exactly what I needed to process it all. Thanks so much for taking the time to respond. I love your philosophies for raising children. My first instinct about restricting fruit is that its so good for them in terms of micronutrients, but then, how much better if they choose fruit over a UP cake... hardest part will be group settings i think. Lots to take away and reflect on.