Childhood Obesity

[JMohegan]

I think so. It makes it so those students who are already athletically fit and able are the only ones playing sports and getting exercise. The rest of the students are left to sit in tech class or whatever (do they even still have that?) and then cheer on their betters at games.

The non-athletic kids in my high school class wrote for the newspaper, contributed to the art/literary publication, played an instrument in the band, acted in plays, worked on campaigns in the Democratic or Republican clubs, and so on.

Sports teams were viewed as extracurricular activities, not health programs.

 

[WriterDom]

Football is more of a business. The gate funds all the other programs that don't bring in enough money to even cover the program.

 

[JMohegan]

I think it's bogus that arts and PE have to compete for budget.

This is an interesting fact though -

arts programs targeting at-risk youth consistently, CONSISTENTLY outperform midnight basketball, teams, sports, fresh air fund, and every other kind of program, in terms of how many kids involved have improved overall quality of life, school test scores, self-esteem, diversion from criminal activity, etc. etc.

Arts are usually the first cut in funding cuts. NYC is an anomaly.

Bodily health is definitely not an afterthought, shouldn't be. But team sports also don't do for a majority of kids all the things proponents feel they do as widely and as well.

A lot of people who excelled at team sports in school enter adulthood with knee, back, or other injuries that nag them for the rest of their lives. Or they end up like some of my buddies, fighting lifelong weight battles after bulking up to perform on the line.

And by definition, many team sports require a bunch of other people (not to mention equipment and space) to play. Logistics alone make continuation of these activities unrealistic once the kid leaves school.

 

[00Syd]

The non-athletic kids in my high school class wrote for the newspaper, contributed to the art/literary publication, played an instrument in the band, acted in plays, worked on campaigns in the Democratic or Republican clubs, and so on.

Sports teams were viewed as extracurricular activities, not health programs.

Well, you were lucky enough to go to a school with the money/space for extra-curricular activites like a school newspaper, band, theatre club, or whathave you. We didn't have that. We had basketball and nothing. Now there is music though, which is nice.

 

[Netzach]

A lot of people who excelled at team sports in school enter adulthood with knee, back, or other injuries that nag them for the rest of their lives. Or they end up like some of my buddies, fighting lifelong weight battles after bulking up to perform on the line.

This is true. It makes the phenomenon WD alluded to even creepier to me, the funding of schools via the use of young meat.

 

[WriterDom]

A lot of people who excelled at team sports in school enter adulthood with knee, back, or other injuries that nag them for the rest of their lives. Or they end up like some of my buddies, fighting lifelong weight battles after bulking up to perform on the line.

My brother blew out his knee on the first kickoff of the first game he played in the 10th grade. Million dollar wound. Kept him out of Vietnam. My other brother had a knee replaced. I don't know how much of that was due to high school football but he was a two way starter.

 

[JMohegan]

Well, you were lucky enough to go to a school with the money/space for extra-curricular activites like a school newspaper, band, theatre club, or whathave you. We didn't have that. We had basketball and nothing. Now there is music though, which is nice.

Yes, I was very fortunate. But the point I was trying to make is that sports teams are not always viewed as health programs. Nor should they be, in my opinion.

Sports teams are extracurricular activities, and each school district should decide on allocation of extracurricular money and space according to the needs of its students. How are the majority of students best served, in terms of personal development, self esteem, opportunities for leadership, college admissions?

Health and training for lifelong fitness are totally separate issues.

 

[WriterDom]

This is true. It makes the phenomenon WD alluded to even creepier to me, the funding of schools via the use of young meat.

In a county of just over 20,000 people they can bring in 80,000 dollars for a big overflow football game. Some of that is shared with the other team but still a lot of money. For one night. And that doesn't count all the hog dogs and cokes they sell.

 

[FizzledSub]

You assume a lot.

A lot of parents don't know or care where their children are, let alone what they weigh and if it's bad, who their friends are, or how to make pasta on a stove. I know it's depressing to always have to assume worse when you're thinking about tailoring things to the public, but the levels of dysfunction that have to be addressed are amazing.

I'm not in favor of this because I think it's pointless to weigh kids and then feed them chips and fishsticks and quarter water and call it food. Which the school is doing.

Sorry..I'm jumping in here. It isn't always the parents fault the child is overweight. I have an overweight son due to prolonged steroid use when he was born...he was premature and the steriods basically saved his life. He will grow out of it during puberty....but it still irritates the crap out of me when people assume it's his eating habits. Yes, there are some parents that don't care....but for those of us that do, this kind of assumption that we just don't care, really doesn't help. Yes, we do need to be more health conscious as a society, but we also need to be more tolerant to those that have these issues.

 

[Netzach]

Sorry..I'm jumping in here. It isn't always the parents fault the child is overweight. I have an overweight son due to prolonged steroid use when he was born...he was premature and the steriods basically saved his life. He will grow out of it during puberty....but it still irritates the crap out of me when people assume it's his eating habits. Yes, there are some parents that don't care....but for those of us that do, this kind of assumption that we just don't care, really doesn't help. Yes, we do need to be more health conscious as a society, but we also need to be more tolerant to those that have these issues.

I was on pred for a year 50+ mgs. I'm sorry he's going through this as a kid.

Weight in and of itself is pointless to obsess on in the presence of serious health problems. People do need to be educated on um, round appearance possibly being a symptom of some chronic illnesses and not assume, but in a lot of cases one can and should assume, also. There are people with health problems which make them heavy, but there are people who are heavy who are courting health problems.

 

[00Syd]

Yes, I was very fortunate. But the point I was trying to make is that sports teams are not always viewed as health programs. Nor should they be, in my opinion.

Sports teams are extracurricular activities, and each school district should decide on allocation of extracurricular money and space according to the needs of its students. How are the majority of students best served, in terms of personal development, self esteem, opportunities for leadership, college admissions?

Health and training for lifelong fitness are totally separate issues.

I completely agree that sports teams should not be viewed as health programs, but unfortunately they are sometime the only option. I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that we seem to be talking about the need for PE programs with the assumption that they are possible, but overlooked. I just want to interject that they aren't always possible everywhere, and in those cases, the parents need to take responsibility the way FurryFury did. Or at least make an effort to change the way their schools are funded and run instead of just sitting there and saying "my child's school isn't doing enough!"

 

[JMohegan]

This is true. It makes the phenomenon WD alluded to even creepier to me, the funding of schools via the use of young meat.

I benefitted from team sports in every possible way. Physically, socially, in college admissions, in terms of character and self esteem, and in a god-it's-great-to-be-alive perspective. I thrived on the competition, the drive, the camaraderie.

So I don't necessarily see all of that "young meat" as being used. For kids who just plain love it, the opportunity for athletic competition can be a tremendous gift.

However, I definitely agree that money perverts the high school and collegiate athletic systems. The incentives are such that kids who don't thrive on athletics are pushed to participate beyond the point of personal enjoyment or fulfillment, and often pushed to train beyond the point of actual physical health. Money also perverts coaching in many cases, and thereby has a negative impact on the quality of the athletic experience itself. There's a big creep factor to a lot of this, yes.

 

[JMohegan]

My brother blew out his knee on the first kickoff of the first game he played in the 10th grade. Million dollar wound. Kept him out of Vietnam. My other brother had a knee replaced. I don't know how much of that was due to high school football but he was a two way starter.

Sports medicine has become big business, and it's not just due to the obvious - like skiing or football.

My niece ran cross country for 4 years in high school. At every meet, there were multiple kids on the sidelines in tape. I remember one of the parents wryly noting: "What they gain in cardiovascular strength and speed, they lose in trips to the orthopedist."

 

[JMohegan]

I completely agree that sports teams should not be viewed as health programs, but unfortunately they are sometime the only option. I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that we seem to be talking about the need for PE programs with the assumption that they are possible, but overlooked. I just want to interject that they aren't always possible everywhere, and in those cases, the parents need to take responsibility the way FurryFury did. Or at least make an effort to change the way their schools are funded and run instead of just sitting there and saying "my child's school isn't doing enough!"

If I recall correctly, FF's son excels at tennis. Hats off to her for encouraging fitness, absolutely. But not everyone has the money for lessons and equipment, or access to courts.

Families with the money to do so can pay for ballet lessons, baseball camps, participation in non-school-affiliated soccer or swimming leagues, etc. But those who can't afford outside lessons or training are SOL, and unfortunately, they are also often the voices with the least power to change the school system.

I'm not trying to make excuses for parents. I agree that abdication of parental responsibility is responsible for the poor health of children, in some cases. All I'm saying is that the issues are often much more complicated.

 

[00Syd]

If I recall correctly, FF's son excels at tennis. Hats off to her for encouraging fitness, absolutely. But not everyone has the money for lessons and equipment, or access to courts.

Families with the money to do so can pay for ballet lessons, baseball camps, participation in non-school-affiliated soccer or swimming leagues, etc. But those who can't afford outside lessons or training are SOL, and unfortunately, they are also often the voices with the least power to change the school system.

I'm not trying to make excuses for parents. I agree that abdication of parental responsibility is responsible for the poor health of children, in some cases. All I'm saying is that the issues are often much more complicated.

I don't disagree at all. But I think there is always SOME option. The Y, The Boys and Girls clubs, public parks, etc. You don't need money to buy equipment to go run around a park. And if people live somewhere where there aren't any of these options, than I'm assuming that they live somewhere with a lot of open space anyway.

 

[BiBunny]

I think for a lot of poor people, particularly in rural areas, it's not a matter of not exercising because you're lazy or an abdication of parental responsibility. I can remember, when I was in high school, many of my classmates in a very small public school having to leave school and go straight to work. And they would work there until the state-mandated "off-time" for students. Then, they would go home, do homework, and fall into bed.

These were not cute little part-time after-school jobs for little suburban bitches to have extra spending money to buy designer handbags or to look good on college applications. These people had to work in order to support their families. They couldn't just quit work if their studies or their sleep cycles suffered.

I remember some of my friends having to cut class a lot because they were so damned tired from getting up at 6 am, going to school until 3 pm, and working until 10 or 11 pm. Then, it wasn't like they were just a couple minutes from their houses, either. For most it was a 30-45 minute drive back home.

But what could they do? Their families had to eat. They had to keep their lights on. Or maybe some poor soul in their families was sick and didn't have insurance. Someone had to make sure Grandma could get her medicine, or she might die. And how the hell were they supposed to pay for the funeral?

Outside exercise was a luxury for these people. Hell, where I'm from, team sports were a luxury. I was very lucky that I was not one of these people. I was able to ride horses on my own and play softball in both the summer league until I was too old and the high school team (once they finally started one, in my 9th grade year). But I did have friends who were in that boat. My own father started work when he was 12 years old, and he hasn't really had a rest since.

It is SO sad. The poor stay poor because they don't have any other opportunities.

 

[Julian]

Ding-ding!

http://i18.tinypic.com/7xnqtkh.jpg

Wow ... that's all I can say with this thread. There's a lot of ways we can go and at the same time, there are limited realities we have to abide by. I think we're gonna have to see if something changes soon.

I hated being the fat-kid in middle and high school. I still feel like the fat adult so some days I work out and some days I rush to get donuts.

One day I'll find the happy medium.

Blessings,



Julian​

 

[Netzach]

I benefitted from team sports in every possible way. Physically, socially, in college admissions, in terms of character and self esteem, and in a god-it's-great-to-be-alive perspective. I thrived on the competition, the drive, the camaraderie.

So I don't necessarily see all of that "young meat" as being used. For kids who just plain love it, the opportunity for athletic competition can be a tremendous gift.

However, I definitely agree that money perverts the high school and collegiate athletic systems. The incentives are such that kids who don't thrive on athletics are pushed to participate beyond the point of personal enjoyment or fulfillment, and often pushed to train beyond the point of actual physical health. Money also perverts coaching in many cases, and thereby has a negative impact on the quality of the athletic experience itself. There's a big creep factor to a lot of this, yes.

You had a good coach. You didn't wind up bulimic or with blown out hips. I know it's not ALL bad or ALL that but, well, let's put it this way, we're really good on identifying girl warning signs as a culture not so much with the boys.

 

[bruisedangel]

While I agree with childhood obesity is an issue, I don't necessarily agree as to what obesity is. I'm unsure as to what the rest of the worlds view on this issue. I do know that American's have a very poor scale to judge obesity. We use a rather outdated, and inaccurate scale in order to judge what obesity is. BMI was/is a mathematical equation developed around 175 years ago by Adolphe Quetelet, in the course of researching social physics. It wasn't developed for studies of an individual, but for that of a population study. I find it to be grossly inaccurate when used against the individual person. For example, let's say we have identical twins. They're identical in every way, save for weight. The thinner of the two, the idealized standard, has a stagnant, sedentary lifestyle, while the heavier of the two, who would be viewed as overweight, even obese by BMI standards, leads an active lifestyle. Putting aside the scale, putting aside what is physically seen from a photograph, it's entirely possible that the heavier of the two is much healthier.

A good deal with this goes hand in hand with social class. The poor have, well, poor access to healthier food. They have less access to good doctors. They also have less access to good education. All of this can lead to obesity. It's cheaper to buy the junk. It's cheaper to buy the refined food products. It's also easier for the over-worked parent, the one who is struggling to provide the basic necessities, such as shelter, warmth, clothing, to stop at the local fast-food place and purchase a hamburger for a dollar. As much as the mother and father want the best for their child, as much as they want their child to be as healthy as possible, it's just easier to go to the drive-thru, and go home, to spend the scant hours left available with their child, before stress and exhaustion overtake everyone.

Yes, there are individual cases where the parent is at fault. Yes, there are cases where the child is just lazy, where the parents don't enforce proper diet and exercise. There is also far more to this issue than a black and white argument. I don't think it's something that can be eradicated. I also don't think that childhood obesity is the central issue. Poor health care, poor 'good' food access, poor mindsets...All of these are contributing factors. The education of people is necessary, and it's been pushed to the back-burner, in favor of preaching and finger-pointing.

 

[SimonBrooke]

A good deal with this goes hand in hand with social class. The poor have, well, poor access to healthier food. They have less access to good doctors. They also have less access to good education. All of this can lead to obesity. It's cheaper to buy the junk. It's cheaper to buy the refined food products. It's also easier for the over-worked parent, the one who is struggling to provide the basic necessities, such as shelter, warmth, clothing, to stop at the local fast-food place and purchase a hamburger for a dollar.

I'm not denying this is true, but I don't think it's the reason. I think the reason is much simpler. I think the reason is the motor car.

My father, aged five, walked four miles to school every day, and four miles back. Eight miles, every day, aged five. No-one thought that was unusual. That's what farm kids did. He didn't get fat, and neither did anyone else - if you look at school photographs from the 1920s, when my dad was at school, you don't see any fat kids. It's not because they were rich. Farm kids were not rich in the twenties. They were poor. They may have had better nutrition than poor urban kids. But the big difference is not in what they ate, it's in what they did. They walked, and they cycled.

For that matter I've just looked up on Google maps the distance I walked to school every day when I was six. It's a bit more than three quarters of a mile, each way. I can remember my mother sometimes walked me to school, but I can also remember for certain that sometimes I walked it on my own. It was still normal, then. I don't recall any kids being driven to school in cars.

Here in the village a few of the kids from the outlying farms still cycle into school most days, and the kids who live in the village walk past my window every morning. But most kids in western countries aren't allowed to walk or cycle these days. They also don't get to 'play out' nearly as much as we did. Computer games and television have led kids to spend far more of their lives indoors and sitting relatively still.

The equation is still the same - more energy consumed than energy burned, you get fat. More energy burned than energy consumed, you get thin. But we burn far less these days, because we go everywhere in motor cars. We don't eat far less. So we get fat.

 

[BiBunny]

I'm not denying this is true, but I don't think it's the reason. I think the reason is much simpler. I think the reason is the motor car.

My father, aged five, walked four miles to school every day, and four miles back. Eight miles, every day, aged five. No-one thought that was unusual. That's what farm kids did. He didn't get fat, and neither did anyone else - if you look at school photographs from the 1920s, when my dad was at school, you don't see any fat kids. It's not because they were rich. Farm kids were not rich in the twenties. They were poor. They may have had better nutrition than poor urban kids. But the big difference is not in what they ate, it's in what they did. They walked, and they cycled.

For that matter I've just looked up on Google maps the distance I walked to school every day when I was six. It's a bit more than three quarters of a mile, each way. I can remember my mother sometimes walked me to school, but I can also remember for certain that sometimes I walked it on my own. It was still normal, then. I don't recall any kids being driven to school in cars.

Here in the village a few of the kids from the outlying farms still cycle into school most days, and the kids who live in the village walk past my window every morning. But most kids in western countries aren't allowed to walk or cycle these days. They also don't get to 'play out' nearly as much as we did. Computer games and television have led kids to spend far more of their lives indoors and sitting relatively still.

The equation is still the same - more energy consumed than energy burned, you get fat. More energy burned than energy consumed, you get thin. But we burn far less these days, because we go everywhere in motor cars. We don't eat far less. So we get fat.

This neglects the obvious point that bad-for-you convenience food was not widely available then, either. Poor people ate what they could grow, not the cheapest thing they could buy in the grocery store. It was cheaper to eat fresh produce and meat than it is now, and that's not simply because of inflation. I don't doubt that you have a point, but I don't think correlation necessarily equals causation here.

 

[SimonBrooke]

This neglects the obvious point that bad-for-you convenience food was not widely available then, either. Poor people ate what they could grow, not the cheapest thing they could buy in the grocery store. It was cheaper to eat fresh produce and meat than it is now, and that's not simply because of inflation. I don't doubt that you have a point, but I don't think correlation necessarily equals causation here.

No, you're right. My father was poor, but they had their own pigs, and they had their own hens, so they had good meat sometimes and fresh eggs regularly. And although I don't know this for certain I'm fairly sure they grew their own vegetables (certainly dad did when I was a child - and, indeed, for most of his life). They certainly made their own jams and preserves. My grandfather farmed mainly wheat, so I'm sure they weren't short of fresh bread. Overall they probably had reasonable access to quality food most of the time.

So on the quality food issue, you're certainly right - and on the convenience food issue. But that's partly because of motor cars, too. My nearest convenience food is eight miles away - but with a motor car that's not an impossible distance to go and get a quick meal (and even with European fuel prices it isn't an impossible cost, either). If I didn't have a motor car, I'd never have convenience food.

 

[YourCaptor]

Back in Germany they had us running the track, swimming, climbing rope, jumping hurdles, walking on our hands, and playing all sorts of indoor sports. That was from the very start, first grade.

In America we walked around the field for 40 minutes.

No joke.

 

[BiBunny]

No, you're right. My father was poor, but they had their own pigs, and they had their own hens, so they had good meat sometimes and fresh eggs regularly. And although I don't know this for certain I'm fairly sure they grew their own vegetables (certainly dad did when I was a child - and, indeed, for most of his life). They certainly made their own jams and preserves. My grandfather farmed mainly wheat, so I'm sure they weren't short of fresh bread. Overall they probably had reasonable access to quality food most of the time.

So on the quality food issue, you're certainly right - and on the convenience food issue. But that's partly because of motor cars, too. My nearest convenience food is eight miles away - but with a motor car that's not an impossible distance to go and get a quick meal (and even with European fuel prices it isn't an impossible cost, either). If I didn't have a motor car, I'd never have convenience food.

Yep, that's true, too.

Back in Germany they had us running the track, swimming, climbing rope, jumping hurdles, walking on our hands, and playing all sorts of indoor sports. That was from the very start, first grade.

In America we walked around the field for 40 minutes.

No joke.

Dude, what you did in Germany would've actually been fun.

 

[YourCaptor]

Dude, what you did in Germany would've actually been fun.

It wasn’t that great. I was a weak kid, it was so hard just being adequate.

Plus the rivalry. That locker room possibly had the clearest pecking order I ever encountered. Even I took part. It wasn’t just, slam, ha you suck, it was conniving. For example, putting a snowball in someone’s bag so that during PE it would melt and cause the ink on all their assignments to run. In Germany you have to write in ink so that you can’t erase your mistakes.

Swimming also scared me, every time a class started swimming an ambulance would show up. I remember the first time that happened, everyone rushed the windows to see, and we all got detention cause apparently ambulances are no big deal.