Research into eating behaviour of children has found that the more time a parent spends cooking at home, the more likely they are to choose healthier food options.
The main findings showed that children whose parents reported more time spent on food preparation at home independently chose to eat meals that were lower in energy density (a measure of calories per gram) than children whose parents reported less food preparation time. In other words, the children whose parents reported more time on food preparation tended to make healthier food choices in the lab than children whose parents spent less time at home on food preparation, even without parental supervision.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Time Spent Preparing Food at Home Affects Children's Eating Behaviour
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 17 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 01 2014, @12:03AM
I'm totally willing to believe it.
But it also sounds like yet another thing to make working moms feel guilty.
So I have to wonder if the effect might be exaggerated.
(Score: 3, Funny) by sjames on Friday August 01 2014, @12:18AM
Don't worry, the family values politicians won't do anything about it because it would mean improving the peons standard of living so they have time to cook at home with their kids.
(Score: 0) by oldmac31310 on Friday August 01 2014, @07:48PM
Only mothers prepare food? In which century?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Bill Evans on Friday August 01 2014, @12:27AM
Correlation is not the same as causation, right? And it could even be reverse correlation: if kids make healthier eating choices, that might goad their parents into higher-quality food preparation. Ya never know.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Kell on Friday August 01 2014, @12:35AM
Likewise, if you have lots of time to spend cooking meals it's easier to take the time to choose healthy options. If you have so little time that you can't do anything but the most basic 'fast' option, then it's no surprise that it's not going to be the healthiest choice available.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Magic Oddball on Friday August 01 2014, @01:51AM
"Correlation is not causation" is what went through my mind as well. I think that it's more of an income issue -- stats (which I can attest are right) show that the poorer a family is, the more likely they are to live in a food desert, not have the money to afford high-quality or fresh foods, have parent(s) working exhaustingly long hours, and be under a lot of fatigue-inducing stress just by being poor. The result is kids raised by adults that don't have enough mental/physical energy to cook and very little food that's not cheap & pre-prepared.
(Score: 1) by Buck Feta on Friday August 01 2014, @12:51AM
These guys clearly haven't seen my cookin'.
- fractious political commentary goes here -
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday August 01 2014, @03:24AM
Based on the resonances your nick creates in my mind**, I'm absolutely positive I don't want to see your cooking
.
** (feta cheese by milking bucks)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by Buck Feta on Friday August 01 2014, @04:08AM
Well, there's some a' that, but mostly I participate in lard-based cookin'.
- fractious political commentary goes here -
(Score: 2) by DrMag on Friday August 01 2014, @01:44PM
From one of my heroes, Alton Brown [goodeatsfanpage.com].
Regathering to be on-topic, that's another reason why environment can play a big role in food choice--people who are educated (which isn't caused by, but can be supported by, wealth) are going to be armed with the knowledge of what is good for you and why. Knowing what teaches you what to choose, knowing why influences the desire to make good choices.
(Score: 2) by khchung on Friday August 01 2014, @02:10AM
The linked article did not mention them correcting for SES.
To put it bluntly, "children whose parents reported more time on food preparation" meant "children whose parents who can afford more time on food preparation".
Parents living at the edge of poverty can't afford more time on food preparation. For a meaningful correlation between time spent of food preparation and food choices, they need to correct for SES so they are actually comparing parents that have the extra time to spend, optionally on food preparation.
(Score: 2) by lhsi on Friday August 01 2014, @07:21AM
This is true; the article mentions that the report is to be presented sometime soon, so is something to look out for (I don't know whether it will get another press release about it or not though).
(Score: 2) by lhsi on Friday August 01 2014, @08:29PM
Just noticed This is at the bottom of the press release:
(Score: 2) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Friday August 01 2014, @11:05AM
They ate "meals that were lower in energy density"? I wish I cared enough to figure out what that means, but I don't. Lower density compared to what? What is the baseline for energy density in food? Are pizza rolls high or low in energy density?
(E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
(Score: 1) by modest on Friday August 01 2014, @07:07PM
It's probably a simpler way of saying "meals that were more filling, and had fewer calories".
For example, carrots are fibrous and are roughly 41 calories per 100 grams. Compare this to America's most popular hamburger weighing in at 550 calories (rather energy dense). I could easily cram that burger down my gord, but I'd have a tough time packing in 3 pounds of carrots (less energy dense) to get the same number of calories.
(Score: 2) by lhsi on Friday August 01 2014, @08:26PM
From the press release:
There was different foods to choose from, so it would be lower compared to what else was on offer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 01 2014, @07:08PM
The implication of the article is that high energy density foods are unhealthy. This is so wrong.
Pecans or walnuts have higher energy density than a candy bar, but are arguably healthier. Grilled salmon has double the energy density of a baked potato, 15 times that of lettuce. That does not mean salmon is a less healthy food than potato or lettuce (by the way baked potatoes especially al dente ones are arguably a healthier food than apples[1] ;) ).
Energy dense food have valid uses - if you are physically active, you aren't going to get enough calories from eating low energy density foods like lettuce (unless you spend the whole day eating and pooping).
A healthy _diet_ may include high energy density foods. What you're supposed to do is eat stuff that helps you meet your calorie and nutrient needs while meeting your satiety and enjoyment goals.
I remember another stupid article that said subway sandwiches were unhealthy because they had the same or more calories than burgers! You're supposed to get calories from food- that's how you stay alive!
Lastly on a related note of getting kids to eat healthy stuff: http://www.ted.com/talks/ron_finley_a_guerilla_gardener_in_south_central_la [ted.com]
[1] Potato vs apple: http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2770/2 [self.com]
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fruits-and-fruit-juices/1809/2 [self.com]