|
READING FOR CHILD
AND YOUTH CARE WORKERS
TONGUE-IN-CHEEK Eat that chocolate! It doesn’t matter how good the relationship you build with kids –
mess with their diet and you’re in trouble. Every family magazine and academic medical journal seems to be filled
with the gloomy news that everything you could possibly like ... is bad
for you. These "facts" soon become the stuff of urban legend. Have
people around to dinner, and some doomsayer will quickly tell you that
the mayonnaise you’re mixing up is "lethal" – and will quote chapter and
verse of some "scientific experiment". Ease up on the saturated fatty
acids – or whatever.
There are no shades of grey in this. Parents know that certain foods
are bad for you, and others are good for you. And, wouldn’t you know it,
"good" in this sense is always inversely proportional to "nice". If
parents (and medical journals) had their way we would all be eating
broccoli, egg plant and whole-grain barley, washed down with skim milk
or boring plain water. But kids get you in one, whichever way you broach the subject.
There’s the foolhardy direct command "No more Coke!" which is the
ultimately unpoliceable and unenforceable law. There’s the
social-work-speak angle "Don’t you think that perhaps you would be
better off having less of of ..." or the Dreikursian choice approach of
"Would you like some orange juice or carrot juice?" Nice try. Parents
and care workers don’t stand a chance against the neighbourhood
kids’
lore, not to mention the millions thrown into their side of the battle
by the advertising corps. The area within one metre of any refrigerator
is a war zone – a war of wills. The grown-ups will always say that there
is too much sugar, too much fat, not enough greens or not enough fibre.
The kids say what the hell and eat what they want. * * * Anyway, the point of all this is that in the November 2001 issue of
the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (no arguing with such
an authoritative title) the tables are turned. Headline news here is
that (gasp!) chocolate is good for you! Read on ... "Chocolate lovers now have one more reason to indulge themselves in
the decadent confection. A new study says that dark chocolate and cocoa
powder have favorable effects on heart health. It is widely known that
chocolate, like other plant-based foods such as tea, red wine, and
apples, contains beneficial antioxidant compounds called flavonoids ...
Cocoa and chocolate provided a protective effect against heart disease
by slowing the oxidation of LDL," says Penny Kris-Etherton, PhD, lead
author of the study and professor of nutrition at Penn State University
at University Park, Pennsylvania." This is going to wreak havoc with the family cash book. Whole slabs
of expenditure are going to shift from the (illegitimate) candy budget
to the (legitimate) health budget. Allowances across the country will
come in for renegotiation. Watch out for new budget headlines like
antioxidants and flavonoids. Watch out also for new levels of blackmail
and manipulation – "I may have to tell my school doctor that you are
exacerbating the oxidation of my LDLs by this wanton slashing of the
chocolate budget." But the news is not all that good. In the fine print of the same
report we read that killjoy Harold Schmitz, PhD, visiting professor of
nutrition at the University of California at Davis (and also director of
scientific research at chocolate manufacturer Mars Incorporated!) says
that it is very important to know that not all chocolate and cocoas are
created equal. "Not all chocolate can give you this potential benefit,"
says Schmitz. Then Kris-Etherton herself crosses the floor and cautions that cocoa
and chocolate shouldn't be considered significant sources of flavonoids
in the same category as fruits and vegetables, which also have fiber,
vitamins, and minerals. Chocolate, she says, should be incorporated
sensibly and prudently in a healthy diet that emphasizes the intakes of
fruit, vegetables, whole grains, skim milk, reduced-fat dairy products,
fatty fish and lean meats, fish, and poultry. Spoilsport! We would, she
says, be remiss in endorsing unlimited quantities of chocolate. Now that’s why I prefer to read only the headlines and look at the
pictures when I am perusing scholarly journals.
|