0

Obesity in children has been a major issue and parents seem to have very little interest or concern in this issue. This was shared by a health and wellness graduate assistant at Indiana University. The news detail is as follows:

A new poll released today shows a large a gap between parents’ perceptions of their children’s weight and expert definitions. According to their parents, 15 percent of children are a little or very overweight, while national data suggest more than twice as many, or 32 percent of all children, are overweight or obese. The poll was conducted by NPR,the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), and Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH).

For more detail, view ht.ly/i6N5D

Edited by pritaeas: Removed name.

14
Contributors
45
Replies
190
Views
4 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by Reverend Jim
Featured Replies
  • In my house we taught our children to eat well (lots of vegetables and lots of variety) and to limit junk food. 99% of our meals were made from scratch. People who claim they don't have the time are wrong. My wife and I both worked and we managed with … Read More

  • Dawn of the computer age is mostly responsible for obese children, all they want to do is sit playing on a computer or texting. Even their brains are getting fat due to lack of use, such as learning to do math in their head instead of on a calculator. Some … Read More

  • 3

    > Despite all the above claims, average IQ (at least countries where we have the records) has been increasing year on year since the 1930s. IQ scores are supposed to measure your intelligence relative to the average intelligence for people of your age, so the average IQ is always supposed … Read More

  • In order to demonstrate this, years ago when I was taking statistics in university, a statistician demonstrated that the major cause of divorce was importing apples from New Zealand. The two things had the highest correlation of all things studied. As he went on to say, (at that time) only … Read More

  • I've always hated that saying about "it takes a village to raise a child". As far as I can tell it has been interpreted as "Great. Let the village raise my kids". Too many parents have abdicated their roles and let their children be raised by teachers, TV, movies and/or … Read More

1

In my house we taught our children to eat well (lots of vegetables and lots of variety) and to limit junk food. 99% of our meals were made from scratch. People who claim they don't have the time are wrong. My wife and I both worked and we managed with no trouble. Precooked and overly processed food (here in Winnipeg) is also more expensive than buying the raw goods (on sale) and preparing it yourself.

Votes + Comments
This is the key to better health. Parents need to understand that fast foods and other processed foods are killing our new generation. And if there is something left, it is now being overcome by Xbox and Playstation stuff.
1

I'm luckly I live in Ireland - there are so much activities available for kids to do in the local community for free on next to nothing. For example my son's weekly activities break down as follows Monday & Wednesday nights 1 hour class BJJ (Brazilian Jujistu) €5 per class (€10 for the week), Thursday night 1 hour Judo €5, Friday Night 1 hour hurling training free, Saturday morning 1 hour football (or soccer for you barbarians,) free, 2 hours Theatre studies €15 and 1 hour Judo €5. He could have also done Gaelic Football for an hour for free but it clashes with his Theatre studies.

Despite all this at his recent health check the health nurse expressed concerns over him being in the upper 2% for body weight at his age! - I pointed out she had just said he was also in the upper 10% for height for his age, he carried out all these activites and had a six pack and defined muscles at age 6!

Votes + Comments
What you are doing seems to be according to the ideal cases. However, nobody can do such a hard work i bet.
1

Dawn of the computer age is mostly responsible for obese children, all they want to do is sit playing on a computer or texting. Even their brains are getting fat due to lack of use, such as learning to do math in their head instead of on a calculator. Some day in the future man will evolve without brains due to lack of use.

1

Prepare yourself. Are you sitting down? Here it comes...

I completely agree with you.

There. I said it. And it felt good.

Some day in the future man will evolve without brains due to lack of use.

Future? I've seen plenty of examples around already.

0

Some day in the future man will evolve without brains due to lack of use.

It's not just a joke. It might actually happen. We evolved our brains thanks to the survival of the fittest in prehistoric times when we needed a large amount of cleverness just to get by, but thanks to civilization we now have far more cleverness than we need and survival of the fittest doesn't exist for us anymore. Since we have no selection for good traits, undesirable traits are bound to rise to prominence in the long term. As a species we will probably lose all of our cleverness after many generations without needing cleverness, and still we will suffer no selection because we have machines to do our thinking for us. Ultimately humanity might survive on life-support as our vestigial brains very slowly disappear generation by generation.

1

Thousands of years ago the attributes that improved your chances of survival were things like intelligence, speed, agility, visual acuity, etc. Once we started to form communities the attributes that improved your quality of life, and therefore your chances of reproducing related to your usefulness to the community. If you were a superior flint knapper or spear maker then you could trade your wares for things you needed to survive. Throughout all this, your genetic makeup was, of course, also critical. If you were born with defective body parts or genes that manifested before or during your procreative years then you were less likely to continue your line. So I suppose a fair measure of your "survivability" would be the number of offspring you bore or sired.

So looking at today's society using the same measure it would seem that the attribute that improves survivability is poverty (at least in North America). Without doing a serious study, my understanding is that those close to the bottom of the economic ladder are the ones having the most babies. There are exceptions of course but for every ultra-rich megafamily there are a hundred octo-moms. Intelligence no longer seems to be a factor.

0

Well hasn't it always been so that there is an "intellectual few" and a "following mass"? "Intellectual" here does not mean "morally just" or anything like that, just clever people. Relatively, do you think there has been any change during "all" those centuries? I don't think that we've either become smarter or dumber, we have just discovered new ways of looking at things and doing things. The next thing to do is not to get more intelligent, but to use your intelligence and to motivate other people to do so as well :). We don't need to get any smarter, we just need to become aware of what we can do already. As Einstein said: Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.

Edited by minitauros

1

Civilization has always been a few very gifted people making advances and dragging the rest of us along behind. If you want to see a great commentary similar to what I said earlier, watch the first 10-15 minutes of the movie, Idiocracy. Th rest of the movie is pretty lame but the opening is spot on. I also suggest the short story, The Marching Morons by C. M. Kornbluth.

Edited by Reverend Jim

0

Remember that "experts" have by now redefined "obese" to be "not anorexic", so it's little surprise that "experts" find that almost the entire population of the planet except those living under a famine are obese.
Sells a lot of dietary supplements and expensive consults with dieticians, and gives CPS an excuse to steal any child they want claiming the parents are "negligent" for not "preventing their children from becoming obese", the same CPS who steal children from parents who let them play outdoors and work off that excess energy and calories rather than doping them on ritalin and dumping them on the couch with their playstation controllers.

0

Despite all the above claims, average IQ (at least countries where we have the records) has been increasing year on year since the 1930s.

PS Idiocracy was a mediocre sci-fi hollywood movie not a documentary.
PPS I've never heard of a single case of CPS taking children because they were running wild outdoors, it is the media instilled fear and a culture of disengagment which causes parents to restrict their children to the digital world.

Edited by Agilemind

0

PS Idiocracy was a mediocre sci-fi hollywood movie not a documentary.

I didn't claim it was a documentary, or even a good film. I just said I liked the opening sequence.

it is the media instilled fear and a culture of disengagment which causes parents to restrict their children to the digital world.

Do you really believe that kids are glued to their game consoles because of their parents' fears? Granted, the media serves up fear and dread like a 24 hour all-you-can-eat buffet but let's not claim that "I only play video games because Mom & Dad won't let me go outside to play".

However, I agree with you about the "culture of disengagement".

Edited by Reverend Jim

3

Despite all the above claims, average IQ (at least countries where we have the records) has been increasing year on year since the 1930s.

IQ scores are supposed to measure your intelligence relative to the average intelligence for people of your age, so the average IQ is always supposed to be 100. If the average IQ has been going up, that suggests a failure in testing technique more than an increase in intelligence.

Also, the 1930s is less than a hundred years in the past and evolutionary change happens generation by generation. Intelligence isn't something you can easily measure like height, so I wouldn't expect a change to be measurable in so few generations.

Votes + Comments
Yes! IQ=MA/PA - it is a q
0

IQ scores are supposed to measure your intelligence relative to the average intelligence for people of your age, so the average IQ is always supposed to be 100. If the average IQ has been going up, that suggests a failure in testing technique more than an increase in intelligence.

They have to change the IQ test/scoring method every few years to account for it, the trend is even being used to argue death-row cases since IQ tests from when a defendant was young will have reported a higher score than one given today : http://nashvillecitypaper.com/content/city-news/killer-s-iq-center-arguments-over-death-sentence

0

Also, the 1930s is less than a hundred years in the past and evolutionary change happens generation by generation. Intelligence isn't something you can easily measure like height, so I wouldn't expect a change to be measurable in so few generations.

And yet people on this tread are claiming there has been a noticable decrease since the rise of the computer/internet age which was far more recent.

1

Perhaps what we are seeing is a proliferation of people who don't bother to think for themselves rather than people who can't think. Without getting into a whole political/religious debate here, my impression (which to my knowledge hasn't been tested scientifically) is that too many people believe what they are told without bothering to think about whether the facts support what they are told. There have been scientific studies, however, that indicate that when people are shown irrefutable proof that contradicts what they believe, they dig in their heels and believe even more strongly.

Four words that always make me cringe when I watch the news are a new study shows. When every few months a new study shows exactly the opposite of what the last new study showed, I can understand why most people just give up.

Edited by Reverend Jim

0

Intelligence vs Education vs Do I give a Fig

If healthy diets were down to intelligence, I don't think there'd be much difference in obesity rates.
If healthy diets were purely down to education, I think there'd be slightly fewer obesity cases.
If healthy diets were down to "I know it's bad for me, but I don't care"...

Obviously it's not just one factor but a mixture of many, including external factors like advertising, marketing, cheap processed foods, lack of interest in fitness activities, f*ckwit parents and social pressure.

I reckon obese people (I'm on the cusp) should be force-fed their own fat from weekly liposuction sessions. Then slowly wean them off it with salads. Also a fat tax should be imposed. This could be used to offset the high price of fresh foods (very high in the UK). In addition, those claiming genetic or metabolic excuses for their obesity should be offered mandatory sessions of ECT, until they accept responsibility for their own situation.

All that mamby-pamby, awww pity... bleeding-heart nonsense. Look - you're obese - it's your fault (especially if you're over 18) - get a grip, stop being a drain on society. I'm stopping - another rant coming on. Can't be good for my high cholesterol.

Edited by diafol

1

I heard about one airline that is going to start charging fares by the pound. If you weigh 200 (pounds) you get one fare. If you weigh 400 then you pay double.

0

I heard about one airline that is going to start charging fares by the pound. If you weigh 200 (pounds) you get one fare. If you weigh 400 then you pay double.

Why not? These obesitees are hiking up everybody else's air fares. Who the hell ends up being over 400 pounds anyway? What's that in stones? 28 and a half stones!! They wouldn't get up the stairs anyway would they? Or would they get through the door? However, having watched Goldfinger and himself getting sucked through a tiny window as the airplane depressurizes, I reckon you'd need a real fat sod to plug the hole. So I reckon one token obesitee should be allowed to ride for free as a would-be-plug. All others pay quadruple. After all thy eat too many square meals a day. "Square" - get it? Double the size, quadruple the price?? Oh never mind.

//EDIT

On a serious note. Obese people should HAVE to sit in the window seat, that way they don't block everybody else in if there's an emergency. That should be a in the terms of travel. Oh - and they'd be in situ for that ever-present danger of depressurization from a broken window. Two birds with one oven.

Edited by diafol

1

Four words that always make me cringe when I watch the news are a new study shows. When every few months a new study shows exactly the opposite of what the last new study showed, I can understand why most people just give up

I completely agree, I detest how the media portray and 'explain' science. Some of that is because the dedicated science writers are first to go when the company downsizes, and like it or not a BA does not qualify you to interpret scientific papers for the general public. Its at the point where I know several scientists who flatly refuse to speak to the media because they always misrepresent what the scientist actually says.

My advice is to go to public science talks given by actual research scientists, don't waste your time reading/watching news stories about science.

0

Science communication is an area that has been devoid of talent for too long. Scientists often find it difficult to articulate their work and their findings. Journalists often find the emotionless writings found in a scietific journal to be beyond their innate comprehension. Neither would they be aware of the background to the work nor the details behind any competing hypotheses. No, a journalist hasn't really the time to research all that - that's a PhD's work! Most of the journalists I know would quite willingly post an article based on the notes and research of somebody else. So, the info contained in an article may be third- or fourth-hand at least. I'm not even touching on the journalist's ambition to make the front page or the pressure put upon them to sensationalize every snippet of info going.

The truly gifted science communicator is a rare beast. Even in New Scientist, only a handful of regular contributors put me at ease.

0

The media never says whether the new study is by a serious scientist, a quack, or a group with an agenda. We all know (or should know) what happened with the whole vaccination/autism debacle. I also love how the media reports things like "doing x doubles your risk of y" without giving the numbers. Who cares if I double my risk from 1 chance in 10,000 to 2 chances in 10,000.

And while I am ranting, I wish people would learn the difference between possible and probable.

By the way, all of those ads pushing powerful anti-oxidants are misleading you. Consuming massive anti-oxidant foods is not healthy and may actually pose a health risk.

0

I also love how the media reports things like "doing x doubles your risk of y" without giving the numbers.

Funny, they seem to make the best of casual links making them out to be causal.

'Living in the North gives you lung cancer'.

2

In order to demonstrate this, years ago when I was taking statistics in university, a statistician demonstrated that the major cause of divorce was importing apples from New Zealand. The two things had the highest correlation of all things studied. As he went on to say, (at that time) only people with snotloads of money would pay the expense of imiporting apples from New Zealand, and the divorce rate among the wealthy was higher (at least at the time of the study) than the non-wealthy. As he went on to say, correlation does not imply causation. The lesson stuck with me.

0

Not only do both my wife and I work, we make most (not all) of our meals from scratch. Some days we have to prepare "premade" food but very rarely. We don't eat at fast-food places anymore and my kids only eat at fast-food joints when their Nana takes them out.

As a side note, we believe in eating supper together as a family, which is another one of those little factoids out there that doesn't happen with a lot of families.

0

and it hardly matters. Most "dieticians" and their publications promote a lifestyle almost designed to produce obesity.
A diet high in carbohydrates, low in proteins and fats, combined with a sedentary life (and that's what society ever more prescribes, replacing outdoors activities with playstations and televisions, even going so far as to send the police to arrest parents who dare to let their children play outside sometimes) is the real problem (and a diet that's not tailored to the individual, but rather decided on as a one size fits all solution).

0

A diet high in carbohydrates, low in proteins and fats, combined with a sedentary life (and that's what society ever more prescribes, replacing outdoors activities with playstations and televisions, even going so far as to send the police to arrest parents who dare to let their children play outside sometimes) is the real problem (and a diet that's not tailored to the individual, but rather decided on as a one size fits all solution).

1) Fats will make you obese just as easily as carbs, the only exception might be sugar/fructose which is promoted/supported by the food industry (who have every interest in making the world obese) not dieticians.
2) Where is the reference for this supposed police arrest/children taken away story???? It smells of BS or insane misinformation to me. There is no law requiring children to be inside!
3) Where is the idea of a one size fits all prescribed diet coming from? Last time I checked hardly any schools teach ANYTHING about diet/nutrition and most gov't dietary guidlines clearly say they are GUIDELINES and usually just suggest ranges of broad food types sufficient to prevent you from being malnourished (many of them date from WWI or WWII when malnourishment was a problem).

0

Last time I checked hardly any schools teach ANYTHING about diet/nutrition

Really?

It's in nearly every science programme KS2-4. Here's a snippet from just one module in one specification taken at random:

understand that different foods have different energy content and understand that energy from food, when it is in excess, is stored as fat by the body.
Investigate experimentally the comparative energy content of different foods
by burning. (Peanuts should not be burned due to the risk of allergy.)
Explore and discuss available data, e.g. from ICT searches and food labelling, about the sugar, fat and additives in foods and the implications, particularly for health.
Understand that some conditions are affected by lifestyle choices and investigate information/data about the effects that alcohol and drug abuse have on the chemical processes in people's bodies. Examine and consider data about the incidence of diabetes (type 2 ) and the possible relationship with lifestyle.

I've been teaching science to KS3-5 for about 20 years and can honestly say that nutrition has always featured in every Programme of Study. In addition, we have PSE lessons which deal with nutrition too. I'd be shocked to learn that schools in the UK were not delivering info on nutrition. My school cannot be the odd one out. The quote above comes from GCSE Science, Biology 1 Unit 7 (WJEC Board).

I'm pretty fed up with quotes about schools not teaching ANYTHING about this or that.

  • It's the school's fault I got pregnant.
  • It's the school's fault I'm obese.
  • It's the school's fault I didn't get immunized against measles.
  • It's the school's fault I'm a racist.
  • It's the school's fault I smoke.
  • It's the school's fault I jack up 6 times a day.

We are given a curriculum to teach. Have a look. You may be surprised. BTW - Education has been devolved in Wales (thank Dog), so the National Curriculum will be different (slightly) there in England.

0

Wow that's quite impressive. In Ontario I think we spent one class of Gym talking about nutrition, in Highschool we did one science experiment on artificial sweeteners but basically nothing about health implications. I didn't mean to blame the teachers at all, but I've been greatly disappointed with the curiculum taught in many places in N America.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.