• Food in between

    Use common sense. Many young children and some older people need a "snack" between regular meals. If the food is healthy, given on time and in a properly prepared form, it will not interfere with regular meals and will not cause problems with food.

    Fruits, fruit and vegetable juices are quickly absorbed and less likely to cause tooth decay. Milk remains in the stomach much longer and therefore rather contributes to the deterioration of appetite before the next meal. Sometimes, however, there are children who eat very little at the dinner table and are therefore very tired and hungry for the next meal;it is good for such a child to give milk in the gaps. His slowed down digestibility helps the child to hold out, and the next meal he has better appetite, because he is not tired.

    Cakes and other confectionery and sweets have three drawbacks: they are rich in calories, poor in other valuable components and destructively affect the teeth. Even crackers and bread stick to the teeth for a while and are therefore not ideal for taking between meals.

    buy instagram followers

    Most children should have a snack at noon and not earlier than an hour and a half before the next meal. But even here there are exceptions. There are children who drink juice in the middle of the morning, but by lunchtime they are so hungry and irritable that they are capricious and generally refuse to eat. If you give them a glass of orange or tomato juice

    immediately after they returned home, even before lunch 20 minutes, they will improve their mood and appetite. As you can see, the question of when and how to feed the child in between is decided with the help of common sense and in accordance with the individuality of the child. Most children do not have "snacks" at all, and this is much better for their teeth.

    A mother may complain that her child does not eat well, but always asks for a snack between meals. The problem arose not because the mother willingly gave the child a snack in between. Just the opposite. In all cases that I know, the mother forced the child to eat at the right time and did not give anything in between. When a child is forced to eat, his appetite disappears. In a few months, it's enough for him to see the dining room to make him sick. But when the food safely stayed behind( although he ate very little), the baby's stomach again experiences a natural famine. And soon begins to behave like a normal healthy, but empty stomach, that is, asks for food. So, it is necessary for such a child not to refuse food in between, but to give it so that his mouth will run salivating. For lunch or dinner, specially prepared food is given. It should be more appetizing than the one the child receives in the intervals. If a child finds it less appetizing than a "snack", something is wrong.