The Group Home

Post Reply New Topic

Is it right to put anyone on a diet without telling them? These people put the people that live here on a diet, they are not overweight. They give us small meals, too small a meal for dinner.

I am not sure. I do know that the prevailing opinion today seems to be that humans can survive on a lot less food than what most of us eat. I could probably eat half as much as I eat now and survive. I might lose a lot of weight and go from 180# to 150#, but my health would likely improve. Most people eat the amount they do because eating is pleasurable.

Our ancestors spent a lot of time foraging for food, that was the foremost thing in their minds. Having abundant food anytime you want it is a luxury.

What happens when people eat less is that they conserve energy. I guess it is a way to control people, by limiting their calories you are limiting their activity levels. It makes the job of running a group home easier. High calories, high activity levels, high potential for drama and for stirring up mischief.

Are they smaller than is needed to provide adequate nutrition or just smaller than you'd like/smaller than you're used to?

Strictly speaking, they're obliged to have a diet plan, meaning a way to ensure everyone's nutritional requirements are met. That's not the same as a diet in the sense of restricting caloric intake with the goal of causing weight loss.

I wouldn't assume they're restricting your food intake explicitly as a control mechanism, rather cost-cutting is probably the main concern.

Kitty, do you know how many calories they're providing you in a day? Do you know how many you actually need for your age, size and activity level?

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-life ... t-20402304

You can use that tool to calculate your needs.

These pictures are from dinner, I don’t have breakfast, way toooo early to get up, I should be getting more food, I get 2 meals & ask for snack. Lunch is not too much either.

I can't see the pictures.

It sounds like part of the problem might be because you skip breakfast. Their planning would be on the assumption that all provided meals are being consumed.

How do you put pics on here?

TBH, the serving sizes in the US are typically far, far larger than what are necessary, or safe. Without being there, it's hard to say whether it's an appropriate size or not, but often times Americans are shocked to find out how little you actually need to meet your nutritional needs.

It's also worth noting that the size of the plates can also mess with the sense people have of just how much they're eating. I'd need more information to have any idea what's going on.

Without pics and references over the US norm, with no comparison if the OP's meals are more or less than she's usually used to, I'd assume budget cuts.

I'm assuming from your profile and post that you are a resident of a California group home. I had to stay at a couple different similar Washington residencies in the past so can somewhat relate. My residencies weren't my decision as I was considered underage and thus my desires were typically ignored.

In my state, and I assume Cali as well, most group home type facilities are governed by and often ran by the states DSHS. There are many privately run facilities but they must still adhere to DSHS rules and policies. The ones ran by DSHS are all kept to very tight budgets, especially for the underaged facilities whose residents desires aren't viewed as important.

In my day it was some state government dietician that dictated the general dietary guidelines for all state governed institutions, such as prisons, schools, and DSHS facilities to implement and follow. The state dietician would usually follow USFDA guidelines almost always on things such as the serving sizes and basic nutritional requirements. I'm not exactly sure who sets the menus for each facility, but the ones I was at had a monthly menu that they followed over and over and over.....

The why is probably because the state usually has a contract with one of the big food distribution service companies, such as Sysco or Food Services of America, who they contract to mass produce the food required for as cheap as possible and then distribute it to the various institutions. Since this food is being prepared by a for-profit corporation and sold to one of cheapest buyers, government, the food is always mediocre at best and portions are always miniscule.

My first home was more like a foster home with only 8 people when I was there, the second was a facility with several buildings. The facility I would get more food but it was almost always disgusting slop for lunch and dinner. The small home had better food but tiny portions. The woman running it was always complaining about how much of a burden we were but always happy about the DSHS check she got because of us. Luckily for me we were able to leave during the day so a few of us would go out and do odd jobs for our own $$$ that the wicked witch didn't know about.

Thats gotta be a b***h...! sorry but just sometimes am alittle outspoken

That sounds a lot like the same thinking that goes into the school lunch program. There's only about $1.25 after labor and other costs to pay for food. And the food has to be both nutritious and purchased by the students because the school only gets paid for the meals that are actually sold.

Really, as a country, we just need to do better. It's not like we don't collectively have the money, it's that the people with the money were permitted to buy government officials to makes sure they didn't have to give any of it back to the poors.