Parents Don't Realize Kids Are Fat

zippyjuan · 12-24-2007, 12:37 PM

http://my.earthlink.net/article/nat?...12241365661697
Seventeen percent of kids in the 95th percentile?

Quote:

When a child's BMI was higher than the 95th percentile for children who are the same age and gender, the child was considered obese.

Quote:

National estimates indicate about 17 percent of U.S. children are obese under the standard used by the researchers.

Quote:

By DAVID RUNK (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated Press
December 24, 2007 1:54 PM EST
DETROIT - A startling number of parents may be in denial about their youngsters' weight.

A survey found that many Americans whose children are obese do not see them that way.

That is worrisome because obese children run the risk of diabetes, high blood pressure, cholesterol problems and other ailments more commonly found in adults. And overweight children are likely to grow up to be overweight adults.

"It suggests to me that parents of younger kids believe that their children will grow out of their obesity, or something will change at older ages," said Dr. Matthew M. Davis, a University of Michigan professor of pediatrics and internal medicine who led the study, released earlier this month.

"When I see a child that is obese at these younger ages, I take that as a sign of ways nutrition can be improved, a child's activity level can be improved."

Among parents with an obese, or extremely overweight, child ages 6 to 11, 43 percent said their child was "about the right weight," 37 percent responded "slightly overweight," and 13 percent said "very overweight." Others said "slightly underweight."

For those with an obese child ages 12 to 17, the survey found more awareness that weight was a problem. Fifty-six percent said their child was "slightly overweight," 31 percent responded "very overweight," 11 percent said "about the right weight" and others said "slightly underweight."

Dr. Goutham Rao, clinical director of the Weight Management and Wellness Center at Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, said obesity in children isn't as easy to identify as in adults. "Plus, because of the social stigma, it's not something that parents are willing to admit to readily," Rao said.

The survey of 2,060 adults, conducted over the summer by Internet research firm Knowledge Networks, collected height and weight measurements on the children from their parents, then used that to calculate body mass index.

When a child's BMI was higher than the 95th percentile for children who are the same age and gender, the child was considered obese.

Based on what the parents reported, 15 percent of the children ages 6 to 11, and 10 percent of the children ages 12 to 17, were obese.

The Michigan researchers said that, too, suggests parents underestimate their children's weight. National estimates indicate about 17 percent of U.S. children are obese under the standard used by the researchers.

Dr. Reginald Washington, a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics and part of the AAP's committee on childhood obesity, noted that in about half of cases where a child is obese, one or both parents are overweight, too - and parents can take a pediatrician's concerns as a personal affront.

Experts said doctors need to help parents better understand the health risks of childhood obesity.

"Obesity isn't just something that affects the clothes that you buy or how you are perceived by your friends and your schoolmates," Davis said. "It is something that can have health effects, not only in adulthood but in childhood."

---

On the Net:

C.S. Mott Children's Hospital: http://www.med.umich.edu/mott

Knowledge Networks: http://www.knowledgenetworks.com

molecularfire · 12-24-2007, 01:28 PM

A lot of cultures still consider fat children to be synonomous with healthy children. That, and a lot of parents have trouble saying no to their children so self-delusion is just easier for them than actually raising their children.

Napoleon54 · 12-26-2007, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zippyjuan

Seventeen percent of kids in the 95th percentile?

Someone is certainly confused.

molecularfire · 12-26-2007, 09:35 PM

Nah, the way we measure what normal weights in kids are is based on charts that were made from measuring many, many kids many, many years ago. There is actually a lot of people who are saying that those charts are outdated and are working on getting the data to make new charts. Basically all that means is that kids now weight a heck of a lot more than they did several decades ago.

zippyjuan · 12-26-2007, 11:07 PM

Body mass index is a pretty good measure for kids. They do not work very well for body builders who have a lot more pounds per square inch but low body fat. Kids still need to get outside and play more instead of being in watching TV and video games. And cut down on the sodas and snacks all day.

bachviet · 12-27-2007, 09:29 AM

My little girl is lucky if she's in the 25 percentile of her age group.

BMI is not a good measuring tool for the military either since some of them are built but they are considered overweight.

Napoleon54 · 12-27-2007, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molecularfire

Nah, the way we measure what normal weights in kids are is based on charts that were made from measuring many, many kids many, many years ago. There is actually a lot of people who are saying that those charts are outdated and are working on getting the data to make new charts. Basically all that means is that kids now weight a heck of a lot more than they did several decades ago.

So you're saying that what they realy mean is that 17% of kids today would've been in the 95th percentile X years ago? That would make sense, but it should be stated differently. If read literally, as written, it's wrong.

ray · 12-27-2007, 06:22 PM

I think the main point of the article is we're all getting fatter and it's beginning at earlier ages compared to the past. Physical Education has become much more important recently, than when I was a kid. Sure, I had PE classes, but it's nothing like what they are today.

I would argue that part of this trend is a result of parents not thinking about what they are feeding their children, and the other reason for this trend is the ridiculous portion sizes when you go to a restaurant (think: Cheesecake Factory).

If parents did a better job cooking for their children (so they know exactly what their kids are eating) and eating out less (or at least eating out in moderation) then we'd all be better off.

Napoleon54 · 12-27-2007, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ray

If parents did a better job cooking for their children (so they know exactly what their kids are eating) and eating out less (or at least eating out in moderation) then we'd all be better off.

I agree with the whole post, but especially this part.

Unfortunately many/most parents have decided that both of them should work. The argument they use is that they can't afford to have one parent stay home to care for the kids and the home. They "don't have time to cook" and thus rely heavily on prepared foods and eating out, rather than good old-fashioned home cooking.

This is a very unwise trade-off IMO. Most families do not HAVE to have two working parents. Very few would literally starve if they chose to live on just one income. They'd just rather not live frugally... they'd rather have two incomes and a houseful of fancy stuff, rather than one income, quality time with their children, and a good meal on the table every night. Serious priority problem IMHO.

This all ties into my outright contempt for consumerism. I think we'd all be a lot healthier, happier, and a whole lot less stressed if we could reinvent the practice of living simply.

chrissy · 12-27-2007, 09:01 PM

I stay at home, I cook. We eat out... maybe 2-3 times a month if we have something to celebrate and we only eat half of what is served to us.

zippyjuan · 12-27-2007, 09:58 PM

Food and TV have become the babysitters. Kid starts whining- give them something to eat. No time to fix anything so just grab a snack. Chips. Soda. Cookies. As long as the kids are quiet. No time to watch them? Plop them in front of the TV. At least they are out of my hair for a little while.
We didn't drink sodas much. We could have one on Saturday night while we watched some TV with Mom and Dad. Watching was limited. We were sent outside to keep busy and out of her hair. Mom cooked meals every day too. An old fashioned stay at home. Eating out was only on special occasions- even if it was to the cheap pasta place with the wonderful homemade sauces and meatballs and fresh pasta.

Houdini · 12-27-2007, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Napoleon54

This all ties into my outright contempt for consumerism. I think we'd all be a lot healthier, happier, and a whole lot less stressed if we could reinvent the practice of living simply.

I agree. As long as I can purchase a decent house and have one 25th anniversary Countache in my garage. I don't really require luxuries, but having a pic on my wall as a kid for many, many years has made me covet that one particular item.

That, and a bunch of old magic books and collectibles.

H

ShawnLee · 12-27-2007, 11:46 PM

Hahaha. No luxuries. Just a Lambo.

cruelpupet · 12-28-2007, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Napoleon54

So you're saying that what they realy mean is that 17% of kids today would've been in the 95th percentile X years ago? That would make sense, but it should be stated differently. If read literally, as written, it's wrong.

I still think you are reading it wrong. The way i read it is the literal way, which does make sense. There is no problem with saying that there is a population of 17% in the upper 5% range. It only means that the population sampled does not fit where you want the curve to be, ie. more kids are fatter then they are supposed to be.

Houdini · 12-29-2007, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShawnLee

Hahaha. No luxuries. Just a Lambo.

Heh...compared to most modern cars, older Lambos aren't that luxurious I hear...pretty bare bones, but exotic, fast, and fun.

Sure, a new M5 or something much less expensive than even that beast can blow the doors off of it, but, come on...which would be more fun to wash and wax? Plus, they occasionally sell for a lot less than one would anticipate, I hear.

But first, I need to pay off med school loans, my car, perhaps buy a house, etc. Damn priorities...why can't I just win the powerball?

H

Napoleon54 · 12-30-2007, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cruelpupet

I still think you are reading it wrong. The way i read it is the literal way, which does make sense. There is no problem with saying that there is a population of 17% in the upper 5% range. It only means that the population sampled does not fit where you want the curve to be, ie. more kids are fatter then they are supposed to be.

95th percentile means that you're fatter than 95% of the population. It simply makes no sense to say that 17% of the population is fatter than 95% of the population.

The only way that could be true is if you're talking about two different populations (like MF suggested)- one for which the stats were developed (study done a few years ago), and a second one which was done more recently and then compared to the previous one. That would essentially mean that previously the top 5% of kids weighted X pounds, whereas now 17% of kids weigh X pounds.

molecularfire · 12-31-2007, 04:29 PM

I don't know when the data was originally collected but the growth charts currently in use were published by the CDC in 2000.

12-24-2007, 01:28 PM	#2
molecularfire Admiral Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Walking through a lemon grove looking for one good orange Posts: 6,134	A lot of cultures still consider fat children to be synonomous with healthy children. That, and a lot of parents have trouble saying no to their children so self-delusion is just easier for them than actually raising their children. __________________ Disclaimer - The above opinion should not be taken as medical advise. My only advise is to talk to your doctor. If you are stupid enough to take anything I say seriously, you have nobody to blame for your cranio-anal inversion but your stupid self. I may not be smart enough to do everything but I am dumb enough to try anything. - Beastboy.

12-27-2007, 09:29 AM	#6
bachviet What's Da Pho*? Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: SoCal (714) Posts: 13,296	My little girl is lucky if she's in the 25 percentile of her age group. BMI is not a good measuring tool for the military either since some of them are built but they are considered overweight. __________________ Dell Dimension 9200 \| Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 (2.4GHz) \| 4x1GB DDR2 \| 256MB nVidia GeForce 8800GT Dell Studio 17 \| Intel Core i7-720QM (1.6GHz) \| 2x2GB DDR3 1066MHz \| 1GHz ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4650 Intel P4-C 3.0GHz \| ECS 865PE-A \| 3x512MB PC3200 \| 128MB PNY GeForce 6600GT

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

12-26-2007, 09:35 PM	#4
molecularfire Admiral Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Walking through a lemon grove looking for one good orange Posts: 6,134	Nah, the way we measure what normal weights in kids are is based on charts that were made from measuring many, many kids many, many years ago. There is actually a lot of people who are saying that those charts are outdated and are working on getting the data to make new charts. Basically all that means is that kids now weight a heck of a lot more than they did several decades ago.

12-26-2007, 11:07 PM	#5
zippyjuan Picture of the Day Guru Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Sunny San Diego Posts: 8,756	Body mass index is a pretty good measure for kids. They do not work very well for body builders who have a lot more pounds per square inch but low body fat. Kids still need to get outside and play more instead of being in watching TV and video games. And cut down on the sodas and snacks all day.

12-27-2007, 06:22 PM	#8
ray captain awesome Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 7,054	I think the main point of the article is we're all getting fatter and it's beginning at earlier ages compared to the past. Physical Education has become much more important recently, than when I was a kid. Sure, I had PE classes, but it's nothing like what they are today. I would argue that part of this trend is a result of parents not thinking about what they are feeding their children, and the other reason for this trend is the ridiculous portion sizes when you go to a restaurant (think: Cheesecake Factory). If parents did a better job cooking for their children (so they know exactly what their kids are eating) and eating out less (or at least eating out in moderation) then we'd all be better off.

12-27-2007, 09:01 PM	#10
chrissy Admiral Join Date: May 2000 Location: OKC Posts: 5,046	I stay at home, I cook. We eat out... maybe 2-3 times a month if we have something to celebrate and we only eat half of what is served to us.

12-27-2007, 09:58 PM	#11
zippyjuan Picture of the Day Guru Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Sunny San Diego Posts: 8,756	Food and TV have become the babysitters. Kid starts whining- give them something to eat. No time to fix anything so just grab a snack. Chips. Soda. Cookies. As long as the kids are quiet. No time to watch them? Plop them in front of the TV. At least they are out of my hair for a little while. We didn't drink sodas much. We could have one on Saturday night while we watched some TV with Mom and Dad. Watching was limited. We were sent outside to keep busy and out of her hair. Mom cooked meals every day too. An old fashioned stay at home. Eating out was only on special occasions- even if it was to the cheap pasta place with the wonderful homemade sauces and meatballs and fresh pasta.

12-31-2007, 04:29 PM	#17
molecularfire Admiral Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Walking through a lemon grove looking for one good orange Posts: 6,134	I don't know when the data was originally collected but the growth charts currently in use were published by the CDC in 2000.

User Name
Password
Remember Me?