|
|
#1 | |||
|
Picture of the Day Guru
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sunny San Diego
Posts: 8,756
|
Parents Don't Realize Kids Are Fat
http://my.earthlink.net/article/nat?...12241365661697
Seventeen percent of kids in the 95th percentile? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I add new pictures to my photo gallery pretty regularly. You can see them here if you are interested: http://www.pbase.com/jeffryz
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 | |
|
Vice Admiral
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: floating inside of a giant egg made of stars
Posts: 4,861
|
Quote:
![]() Someone is certainly confused.
__________________
There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal. - Friedrich Hayek |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
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 There is actually a lot of people who are saying that those charts are outdated and are working on getting the data to make new charts.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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
What's Da Pho*?
![]() ![]() |
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 | |
|
Vice Admiral
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: floating inside of a giant egg made of stars
Posts: 4,861
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 | |
|
Vice Admiral
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: floating inside of a giant egg made of stars
Posts: 4,861
|
Quote:
![]() 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. Last edited by Napoleon54 : 12-27-2007 at 08:28 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Admiral
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
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 | |
|
Admiral
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 5,054
|
Quote:
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 | |
|
Fleet Admiral
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Hahaha. No luxuries. Just a Lambo.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 | |
|
Admiral
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 6,301
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Am I alone here? Is that it? Am I the only one who sees. Maybe we can learn to be just like him. Wear a little uniform. Yes, sir. No, sir. Thank you, sir. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 | |
|
Admiral
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 5,054
|
Quote:
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 | |
|
Vice Admiral
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: floating inside of a giant egg made of stars
Posts: 4,861
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
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.
|
|
|
|