I was searching the Internet when I found this:
A new program developed by the U.S. government is tackling the obesity epidemic by helping "tween" girls and their parents make small but important changes to build a healthier lifestyle. The Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) Office on Women's Health launched BodyWorks in 2006 by training instructors in the hopes that they would bring the program home to their communities. All materials are provided free, but communities must find the resources to pay trainers and a place to offer the program...Girls 9 to 13 years old who are overweight or obese are referred to BodyWorks through their pediatrician, or by word of mouth. Parents and caregivers attend 10 weekly 90-minute sessions, and girls are expected to show up for at least three. The goal is to give parents and caregivers "hands-on tools to make small behavior changes to prevent obesity and help maintain a healthier weight"...
The goal is not for girls to lose weight, Jones and Richter say, but for families as a whole to begin making healthier choices at the grocery store, to become more active and to spend less time in sedentary activities like watching TV or playing computer games...
Sounds ok, right? Not so.
Essential to a healthy lifestyle, the girls are told to keep a food and exercise diary: "Write things down as soon as possible. Write down everything you eat, even if it's just one cookie. Be honest. Includes drinks. Write down how you were feeling." Addressing emotional eating is said to help them figure out their moods and other issues that made them want to eat. They are also told they should drink plenty of fluids and be sure to eat 19 grams of fiber every day because it will lower their risk for heart disease."When eating out, the girls are advised to limit fried foods and order the garden salads with low-fat dressings, always pick the low-fat choices, get the smallest serving or sandwich on the menu, avoid mayonnaise and use mustard or ketchup because they have less fat, order water or fat-free/low-fat milk to drink, and "try pizza without cheese.
And my favorite part, straight from the recipe book,
Breakfast recipes include those for cereals, egg white omelets, austere fruit dishes, French toast and pancakes, with an average 226.50 calories and 4.3 grams of fat per serving. Among 63 servings represented in the recipe choices, they contain a total of 5 tablespoons oil and 3 whole eggs.Lunch recipes offer a range of vegetable salads, sandwiches and soups. Each serving averages 0.25 teaspoon oil and 0.02 teaspoon salt. Lunches average 227.25 calories and 8.2 grams of total fat per serving.
Dinner is an enormous collection of vegetable-intensive recipes dishes that are equally ascetic, with a mere 1 ½ teaspoons salt total for 191 servings and 0.07 tablespoon of oil per serving. The dinner recipes average 264.2 calories and 2.18 grams of total fat per serving.
The "healthy desserts" are fruit-based, averaging 1 teaspoon added sugar per serving. Desserts average 184.5 calories per servings, with 2.69 grams total fat.
Even if the girls are allowed dessert, a full day following this "healthy" meal plan would provide them with 902.45 calories -- about one-third (37.6%) of the daily calories needed by girls this age and activity level, according the USDA/ARS Children's Nutritional Research Center at Baylor, used by the Dietary Guidelines.
As someone recovering from an eating disorder, there are WAY too many things I can say about this. I think I'm still shocked.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Goverment Diet For Young Girls?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15033
Why is this program only targeting girls? Are there no boys with obesity issues? As a matter of fact, I can think of several boys around my neighborhood right off the bat. As a matter of fact, it is usually boys who end up with a mainly sedentary lifestyle by getting addicted to video games, and constantly eating fast food. So why are they targeting girls?
I know that really bugged me too. Back in the sixth grade, there was a health journal assignment for my gym class. It only lasted a week, and was given to everyone with no difference in food requirements.
"low-fat dressings, always pick the low-fat choices, get the smallest serving or sandwich on the menu, avoid mayonnaise and use mustard or ketchup because they have less fat, order water or fat-free/low-fat milk to drink,"
Whoever came up with this should know that low-fat foods will not "save" us.
http://blogcritics.org/scitech/article/the-healthy-skeptic-low-fat-diet/
It's harder to find but even the link between saturated fat and heart disease is less strong than we've been led to believe. Why are they only targeting overweight girls? Oh right, skinny=healthy...
Lyndorr,
The link you have is not a link to a study but a opinion blog entry about a study. Here is a link to a newspaper article about the same study. Quote:
Several experts cautioned, however, that the study hints that there still may be some benefits to reducing the total amount of fat in the diet, especially for breast cancer. In addition, there is clear evidence from this and other studies that particular fats -- saturated fats from meat and trans fats from processed foods -- are unhealthful and should be avoided.
It is a misrepresentation to say that the study completely throws out the notion that eating healthy is good for you and eating crap is bad.
"It is a misrepresentation to say that the study completely throws out the notion that eating healthy is good for you and eating crap is bad."
I...don't think I ever said this. There IS more written about how low-fat diets aren't better for you and may have even lead people to eat more calories and refined grains in the end. Someone could easily find more through google.
If saturated fat is so bad, why aren't Inuits less healthy than we are?
I agree trans fats are harmful. Thus government should be focusing on things like healthier school lunches rather than reducing obesity.
I agree with Lynne C.- why not target boys? I see just as many overweight boys as girls. Of course, boys' bodies are not considered public property to the same extent that girls' and women's bodies are.
I have also had an eating disorder- and mine included many of the features of the above program, including the food diary. That is not to say that food diaries will cause eating disorders, but it can be the first step down a dangerous path, especially for those who already have some obsessive traits.
I wish the government would focus on programs that create safe spaces in the community for exercise, require gym daily in schools and fund a real healthy lunch program that isn't a servant of big agriculture. Those are simple things that would make a big difference to the health of all kids. This program's focus on girls and the weight of girls, along with the food diary and its encouragement of eating too few calories is frightening and has the potential to create eating disorders in young women.
Joan
I also wish there was more emphasis on physical activitiy for non-competitive girls (like me!). I realized after I got tired of basketball in 7th grade that except for gym class I never really exercised (and even in gym - standing around avoiding the volleyball isn't really the best workout). Why not fund some classes for yoga, dance, and whatever else there is out there. Physical activity is good for you whether or not you are losing weight.
I totally agree! I was pretty inactive for years after grade 9 gym class. Gym class really turned me off being active. But there are so many possibilities out there for being active. I still don't think I'm active enough but I bike everywhere I go that's close which means I won't be completely inactive.
YES. I hated sports in gym because they were so male-dominated and aggressive. And I just don't enjoy that atmosphere at all so i usually just stood there hoping not to get trampled. And somehow that make me a bad person in my gym teacher's eyes. I really do want to get some physical activity, seriously... I just don't want to get trampled and die! I agree with your suggestion completely.
Something I found:
Statistics for children ages 6 to 11 are as follows:
- 22.1 percent of black girls and 11.9 percent of boys are overweight.
- 27.3 percent of Mexican American boys and 19.6 percent of girls are overweight.
- 12.0 percent of white girls and 11.9 percent of boys are overweight.
Statistics for children ages 12 to 19 are as follows:
- 25.7 percent of black girls and 20.5 percent of boys are overweight.
- 27.5 percent of Mexican American boys and 19.4 percent of girls are overweight.
- 13.0 percent of white boys and 12.2 percent of girls are overweight.
From the local school directory:
http://www.localschooldirectory.com/k-12-articles/57
I don't know how true the statistics are or how they came about them, but if they are accurate, I don't see a major difference between boys and girls here. And just for the record, I have run across more obese boys than girls in my lifetime, when it comes to children. How a government program can strictly target girls in this case is beyond me.
More statistics for adults:
Almost two-thirds (about 66%) of U.S. adults age 20 or older are overweight -- about 62% of women and around 71% of men. Nearly one-third (about 31%) of American adults are so overweight that they are considered obese, meaning they have a BMI greater than 30; that breaks down to about 33% of women and 30% of men.
From:
http://weightloss.about.com/od/obesityhealth/f/americastats.htm
And:
Number of overweight adults: 97.1 million
Number of overweight men: 50.2 million
Number of overweight women: 46.9 million
Number of obese adults: 39.8 million
Number of obese men: 16.8 million
Number of obese women: 23 million
% of obese persons in U.S. population: 22.3%
% increase in obesity prevalence between 1991 and 20001: 61%
% of overweight African-American women: 65.8%
% of overweight African-American men: 56.5%
% of overweight Mexican-American women: 65.9%
% of overweight Mexican-American men: 63.9%
From:
http://www.ideafit.com/fitness-library/fast-factsobesity-amp-overweight-statisticsmdashthe-supersizing-epidemic-of-america
Again, not a big difference, or even much of one between obese men and women across the scale. Neither in children or adults. So I will ask again: Why are they ONLY targeting women? Is there a similar program for BOYS and their families? Why can't there just be a program to stop obesity in general? And not one that is so misleading and tends to concentrate on appearance, like acne (which happens to be more common among boys)?
Why? I think more of us need to start asking these questions.
And here is the article from Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSKEN77041920080627?sp=true
Notice the lovely picture they chose to attach to the article. More degradation of women. As if there are no men walking around that are overweight.
Here is there website:
http://www.womenshealth.gov/bodyworks/
Yes, because addressing the obesity problem in America has to start with women.
This particular program was put together by the Office on Women's Health. That's why this program is geared towards girls. Women's health issues do not exist in a vacuum. Health care for women is essential from childhood on to maintain healthy lifestyles into adulthood and to have healthy births and healthy children down the road. It is a chain reaction.
Obesity is an important issue in the area of healthy births, which is a big problem in the US where our stats are very poor. A good deal of research links poor birth outcomes to obese and overweight mothers because of increased risk for hypertension, gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, and increased risk for birth defects, including neural tube defects such as spina bifida, heart problems, and cleft palate and lip.
The Office On Maternal Health recognizes that healthy lifestyle choices need to start early. That's the only way to reverse negative outcomes for women and their children over their life span.
I'm horrified by this. But even more horrifying is to see commentators on a feminist blog talk about 'needing to tackle the 'obesity' problem.' Body weight is not a 'problem' in need of a 'solution'. This program would be no better if it 'targeted' boys as well. It still suggests that fat children are less healthy and are active or eat more/differently than thin children, and that children's natural bodies can and should be altered in these ways -- but research has dispelled all of these myths.
Nor have weights (including those of children) changed very dramatically over time -- although the criteria for weight-categories have, driven by corporate profit-concerns. What *has* decreased is the incidence of childhood diseases (that stunt growth and proper weight gain), as well as rates of smoking among young people (which artificially lowers body weight). Earlier puberty also contributes to children reaching their natural adult weights earlier in life.
Please, please, please stop using phrases like "stop obesity." It is frighteningly sizist and ableist. You are talking about the elimination of an entire human community.
I agree that weight loss should not be the goal of government programs. But I do think the government should encourage healthy behaviors, including exercise and healthy eating. Three ways to do so are safe spaces in the community for people to exercise, a better school lunch program and required gym time for kids in schools.
People can be healthy at any size- but to be healthy, a person must practice healthy behaviors. The government should be encouraging those behaviors, for the good of all citizens.
Joan
Agreed that people can be healthy at any size and that regular activity (not necessarily 'exercise', which is quite a class- and ableist- privileged category) 'healthy' eating (whatever that means -- opinions differ greatly; I'll stick with veganism, thanks) is good.
I disagree, however, that the government should be in the business of promoting these things. I side with Foucault and Agamben on the destructive consequences of biopolitics. Government-mandated 'healthism', even if it takes a 'health at every size' approach, still stigmatizes certain embodied subjects as less-worthy of full respect and freedom, by virtue of their choices. What one does with one's own body is not the government's business.
Sorry, I fail to see how encouraging activity is classist or ablist; exercise is simply exerting one's muscles, the defination doesn't say it has to be done in a certain way. Gardening is exercise, as is walking to the bus stop, as is running marathons or doing adaptive exercises in the pool. I work with people with disabilities and they exercise to the best of their abilities with staff assistance. It is considered part of keeping up the quality of life, as people who move their muscles daily live longer.
I have to disagree that the goverment shouldn't encourage healthy behavior - the government has a duty to the health of its citizens, particularly those under the government's care for much of the day- i.e. children. Children should have safe spaces to play (a form of exercise), food that is healthy and gym classes that encourage movement. I'm not suggesting the government round adults up and force them to exercise, but children who are in the care of the government in public schools should get healthy food and exercise. I would also support government programs to create park for adults to exercise in to support their living a healthy lifestyle. Health is important and healthy citizens are more productive and happier.
Joan
Many studies that measure 'exercise' only include leisure activities, not work- or transportation-related ones. You've defined 'exercise' much differently that such studies do, and your definition is fine. It's the former that's problematic, as well as the 'popular' use of the term exercise to mean only voluntary, leisure activities which is classist and often ableist.
Yes, schools should provide nutritious foods for children, although the fact that they now don't is a function of the economic system (cheap meat and dairy products from the subsidized farm industry), not a lack of desire for healthy and tasty foods. But this initiative goes far, far beyond that, in ways which are frightening.
You mention that governments shouldn't 'round up' people and force them to exercise -- but similar things are already happening in the UK, where the homes of fat children are visited by medical personnel and their parents are pressured to send their kids away to diet-camps. In the US, too, a young boy's mother was recently arrested for refusing to allow the government to commit her fat son to an out-of-state residential weight-loss clinic. This is what occurs when biopolitical management of bodies meets fat-hatred.
"In the US, too, a young boy's mother was recently arrested for refusing to allow the government to commit her fat son to an out-of-state residential weight-loss clinic."
That is very bizarre and effed up if that really happened. If you could provide a link, I would appreciate it, as I am very curious to read more about that.
Here's an article on it, though it's very biased (I read better articles at the time, but can't locate them now -- the mother *had* sought medical treatment, but the child had no detectable illness):
http://wjz.com/local/custody.order.son.2.1019161.html
Here's a similar UK case, where the state's attempt to take the child was only thwarted after his mother bowed to threats: http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=31&art_id=vn20070303085921687C464014
These are just two recent cases; similar cases have occurred in the US and UK sporadically over the past few years.
I agree that the cases you cited are going too far. But I don't consider teaching the basics of healthy lifestyle in schools to be that extreme. In the cases you cited, the government was more concerned with weight than with health. I support a program that is focused on health, not on weight.
While the school lunch program is a big concern, I don't think it is too extreme to suggest that the program could be reformed; as someone who has volunteered in schools, the school lunches I have seen are not conducive to either healthy living or learning. Big agriculture should not have a say in the program. If their was political will to reform the school lunch program it could be done. But the will is lacking. Sad really.
Joan
The most disturbing thing for me was the low amount of calories, which doesn't strike me as a 'healthy habit' at all. It's hard not to lead a sedentary lifestyle if you don't have the energy to get up and actually do anything.
Wow. Body weight is definitely a problem if it puts your life and health at risk such as being very overweight or very underweight. Is it "sizeist" to send food to starving children in third world countries? No, because it's not the visual aspect that is the problem--it is what's going on inside that can cause long-term damage and premature death.
You are under a delusion if you don't think that obesity can lead to equally serious health issues. Obesity is the leading cause of preventable death worldwide! Obese children are at much greater risk for diabetes, high blood pressure, sleep apnea, joint problems, and heart disease, not to mention long-term cumulative effects of continuing unhealthy lifestyles into adulthood.
You are right that the standard for obesity has changed for adults, but it obesity is not measured the same way for children, and the standard HAS NOT changed in the past 46 years. And yes, there has been a dramatic increase in childhood obesity by the same consistent standards over the past 30 years.
I too have recovered from an eating disorder. I would have gotten sick with or without the encouragement to keep a food diary. These things can be triggers for the condition you are already predisposed to, but if it's not one trigger, it's another.
The solution, to me, is less emphasis on weight, size, and appearance for girls (seriously why is this just for girls?), and more emphasis on making healthy choices for food and exercising in a healthy manner.
It's a complex issue. I think this is the wrong approach.
Wow, just wow!
Seriously, that is pretty fucked up..
I think there is something fundamentally wrong with these sorts of programs. You can't ask children to make healthy choices when the vast majority of decisions are made for them. What a hopeless situation to put a child in! Tell them they are fat and tell them to make changes they are not empowered to make. We (society, parents, schools, the government, etc., etc.) need are the ones who need to make the changes.
I have to also ask "why is it focused on girls and why the emphasis on weight loss?" A lot of kids in general regardless of size need to learn good eating habits. I can get behind meal plans and ideas and recipes, since saying "okay you need this amount of grains everyday and this amount of fruit and veg" and so on, it really would be great for people trying to get in the habit of eating well, but the way they are presenting it is worrisome.
It's focused on girls because it's a program created by the Office on Women's Health who realizes that healthy women start with healthy girls. It's not like there are no government funded/researched programs focused on different age groups, demographics, and genders. This isn't the ONE government health program for kids! And the focus is not on weight-loss, it is on weight maintenance, as it mentions in the article.
not surprising considering the mysoginistic ass who is running the HHS at this point. I battled an eating disorder from the time I was 10 until I was 13, when I almost died from the condition. The government absolutely needs to promote healthy eating habits and healthy amounts of exercise (there is a such thing as too much this is another type of eating disorder) but this is not healthy. The program needs to be for both boys and girls and needs to either include recipes that have a higher fat content (which girls need at this critical point in body development) or encourage them to eat 5 or 6 smaller (which all of these seem to be) meals to meet their daily caloric requirements. Encouraging these young girls to starve themselves is rediculous. All it is for is to keep these girls looking like little girls so that they can be obsessed over and keep up with this creepy fetish american culture has with little girls bodies. These girls are going through puberty at these ages which means they are naturally going to gain a rapid amount of weight and its going to make them look more like grown women. This is completely natural and maybe if we embraced that as a good thing girls would have more self esteem and a better body image
Now, while I do agree that they should not be focusing on girls, and that the food diary is a little over the top for more than a week...I think that at least it is good that something is being done. I was always overweight as a child, and it turned in to obesity. I recently lost 50 pounds and have about 30 more to go...but I am running into binging problems that I realize I've had since I was in middle school. I know that I need counseling and that it is an addiction, but perhaps if someone had had us take a look at what we were eating someone would have noticed my problem and helped me get counseling. Food addiction (I will eat anything when I need a fix...anything and I won't stop till I"m sick) is just as bad as anorexia or bulemia...it isn't just a "I'm lazy and need to eat better thing".
However, if what is being done is ill informed than it really is not helping. Having growing girls eat less that 1000 calories a day and focus on eating low fat foods rather than trying to reduce very processed foods is setting them up for bingeing and other eating disorders. Healthy fats were one of the best things to help me eat normally. I eat healthiest when I focus on eating fresh foods that are nutritious, getting lots of nutrients into my body including a balance of fat and protein and of course fruit veggies and minimally processed grains and exercising in moderation. Oh, and I also eat something not as healthy if I really want it. Choosing to have kids focus on calories and avoiding fat and writing down every item eaten is not going to help them grow into healthy adults. It is going to set them up for an unhealthy relationship with food. I, like you, wish I had been better informed and had some guidance when I was young. Perhaps if I knew more about nutrition and how the body works I would not have developed my anorexia. (I am not sure, but it could not have hurt). I thought eating all fat free foods (even if they had no nutritional value like snack well cookies) and writing down everything I ate was a good way to loose weight and that I would only lose fat, not muscle, and that the faster I lost weight and less I ate the better. I knew nothing about the metabolism either, by the way. This "diet" led to anorexia at one point in my life and bingeing at another. This program is not what girls (and boys) need. I agree that educating the parents on nutritious foods to serve and getting exercise in some form and healthy foods into the schools is the best place to start. (I also can't believe they are actually advocating pizza without cheese. Cheese is no worse than that overly processed and refined white flour in the crust. Not to mention that there can be a place for a regular slice in a kids diet if most of the foods they eat are healthy. The only time I ever knew anyone not lactose intolerant to pick the cheese off their pizza was two twin sisters who had eating disorders when I was a teenager. Talk about a way to set up a kid for feeling deprived!)
The calories you added-up don't count any beverages like milk or juice, or any snacks throughout the day. I'm sure this plan does not recommend only water and no snacking. Add one cup of low-fat milk, one class of orange juice, and just two snacks like a yogurt and piece of fruit, and the calories are easily in healthy recommended range.
This plan would not be endorsed by pediatricians without adequate calories since the goal is not to lose weight, but to maintain until BMI and age reach a point that coincide healthily.
Nutrition and health plans that are gov. programs are created, researched, and implemented by physicians. A lot of work goes into programs like this on the part of trained medical professionals. They don't have any underlying policy motives, they just want kids to be healthy.
The food cals add up to 902. That is roughly 1,498 cals short. I don't think some low fat yogurt or fruit and milk is going to get them there. Ignoring the need for healthy fats which are essential and instead simply telling girls to try to avoid fat is also a big error. Though I think the underlying motive is good I also disagree that nutritional guidelines promoted by the government are not influenced by the food industry. Just look at the joke that was the food pyramid which we learned about in school. If I had a daughter one of my personal concerns would be feeding her milk and meat free of growth hormones and other crap but I doubt you are going to see that advice show up in a government program.
After looking at the actual cookbook and curriculum, the original article is ridiculous and misleading.
The reason that the "calorie averages" for "meals" are so low is because it's set-up like most cook books. Breakfast includes recipes for breakfast FOODS, not stand-alone meals. There are recipes for smoothies, pancakes, biscuits, omelets, etc. If you actually look at it, most recipes are over 300 calories. The average is thrown off by something like the 90 calorie melon drink, which is not going to be a meal. The actual parent guide portion that talks about breakfast emphasizes including multiple components of a balanced meal using ideas from the recipe book if you need healthy recipes.
Before the recipes are listed in the cookbook, there is a description of all the important nutritional components. The section on fat begins by stating,
"Fat is an important nutrient that keeps your body functioning properly. However, not all fats are the same. It is important to understand which fats you should limit and which fats you can eat in moderation."
I was very impressed with the curriculum itself. It's amazing how despite a chapter on the dangers or putting kids on diets and emphasizing over and over that the importance is balance and healthier choices, that it still spawns articles entitled "Government Diet for Young Girls" by people who have never read it.
Read: http://www.womenshealth.gov/bodyworks/toolkit/toolkit.parents.pdf
There is a program for boys. You can find both programs here:
http://www.womenshealth.gov/BodyWorks/toolkit/
The information is similar in both, but the boys version contains pictures of boys, and the girls version contains pictures of girls. They aren't egregiously gendered.
It's interesting that so many commentors assumed that there was no program for boys just because it wasn't mentioned. I found the page above by googling, not because I had some prior knowledge. I think we could have better and stronger discussions if we fact checked some of our assumptions.
Um, where can we complain?
After looking through the guide, it is actually a reasonable proposition. It encourages both FAMILY and CHILD to eat healthier and exercise more. By "healthier" it means eating more fruits, vegetables, whole grains and other nutrient rich foods instead of fast-food, snacks, and other crap. The food diary mentioned in the post is really only used for about a week and is meant to help recognize how much food (and what types) everyone in the family eats and their moods as they eat them. It provides ideas for how to eat healthy quickly (as opposed to fast food...it recommends making a large batch of food on one day when you have time and then reheating it on days when there isn't so much time for food).
The menus and ideas provided in the book are the way that my family and I have eaten since before I can remember (normal sized portions with at least one starch, one protein, and one vegetable or fruit). It encourages cooking your own food instead of buying pre-processed food which have a tendency to be higher in sodium, calories and "bad" fats than what you would cook for yourself. It also gives ideas for finding the nutrients necessary for teenage growth in foods by listing the nutrients, what they do, and what foods provide them. Most home-made meals are only 500-600 calories anyway which is why most people eat 3 meals a day and snack a little around that to reach the 2000 calories necessary for most normal people.
The recipe guide gives recipes that are healthful and high in nutrients. Some of them are a little lower on the calorie end, but I would consider that as a side...for example in the lunch section there is a recipe for a "grilled vegetable and cheese sandwich" which is 290 calories...but seriously? who ever eats just a sandwich for lunch? In addition to the sandwich I would have some pretzels and maybe one of the other salads that they have recipes for (90-150 calories each) which would round out the meal to approximately 500 calories. The recipes (yes) are low on the calorie end, but they're not full meals, and I honestly don't think are intended to be because NO recipe book gives you one recipe for a full meal unless it is something like "one-pot dinners" or whatever. We eat burgers and fries, but we're supposed to assume that we only have one thing from the recipe book for a whole meal? Not logical.
The only problem that I have with this is that the two resource for teens are called "Body Works for Teens" and "Body Works for Guys." I don't understand the inconsistency between the titles (I would think one resource entitled "Body Works for Teens" would suffice, or two-one for "guys" and one for "gals"), but otherwise, I don't see any issue with a publication intended to help you choose healthier foods (there's even a section that helps you make healthier choices at fast-food restaurants) with an emphasis on making sure that teens get the nutrients they need to grow.