New data: Over 20% obesity in every single state in the U.S.
Replies
-
duna_pruna wrote: »The problem is they are basing this assessment on BMI. There was a study in Britain recently that found BMI overestimates male body fat content and underestimates females. We really need to go to a waist the height ratio or similar. My own BMI is surprisingly high. 64" tall medium frame and I weigh 135lbs. But I'm at 23% body fat. Very reasonable for a 49 year old and I wear a size 4.
I do agree that just using BMI to assess the health of an individual is wrong (and this is especially bs when insurance companies us it). However, it is useful when assessing large populations because it is much easier to get large and accurate BMI data sets than it is to get large and accurate bf% data sets. Also, it is a safe assumption that the high muscle end of the bell curve would average out the low muscle end. Saying that, my hypothesis is that if bf% is used in a study the obesity rates would be much higher!0 -
How is "Ban advertising junk to kids" not more government? Who's creating and enforcing the ban?DeguelloTex wrote: »
So your answer seems to be, as is common, more government to solve what you've characterized as a problem with government. What could go wrong?DeguelloTex wrote: »
Or they're buying what their kids like to eat because it's easier.lemurcat12 wrote: »I didn't assume they were stupid, I assumed they were raised on the low fat, heart healthy whole grains message.
As was I -- whole grains are supposed to be good, along with lots of vegetables, fruit, legumes, etc.
And calories are important.
And shop the perimeter, of course, and eat whole foods.
None of these would have ever led me to think the ideal diet involved a Lean Pocket.
But thanks for illustrating that there IS a problem with saying nutrition should be taught when there's a split re what good nutrition is in that I don't think carbs in general or whole grains are foods to be avoided.Another mother fed her obese daughter cereal any time of day because she read and trusted those whole grain messages on the labels. Poor kids! No wonder they were starving all the time.
I so don't buy this. It's an excuse. By my generation (and I'm old, 45, so older than the average mother in question) -- people were cynical enough not to trust advertising as some kind of absolute truth. (In fact, to be extremely cynical about it.)
But I also don't think the kids are overeating because they are starving due to cereal. Back in the '70s and '80s (again), I didn't eat cold cereal because I have always hated it (this meant I didn't eat breakfast sometimes, because my mother said "okay, make what you want" and I was lazy, but I'm not recommending that). However, the vast majority of my friends did -- probably less nutritionally beneficial things than are now popular. Yet obesity was not an issue.
I can eat a mixing bowl full of cereal and still be hungry. That's why one size fits all is worse than nothing at all. Maybe I'm naive, maybe these parents know full well what they're doing is shortening their kids' lifespans and sickening them for perhaps a lifetime. Maybe they're all just bad parents. But I don't think so. I think they've swallowed the messages of the marketing industries and our reprehensible, corporate-owned government agencies.
I doubt our reprehensible corporate-owned government agencies are responsible for parents who raise boundary-less brats because it's easier.
There may be some connection there.
Ban advertising junk to kids. Then maybe we'll see the parent-kid dynamic. A study showed kids shown food commercials ate more while watching TV than kids who saw non-food commercials. There is a lot at play here, and just because some parents are irresponsible doesn't mean we should let government and corporations off the hook.
Not more government. Taking the government away from moneyed interests and making it respond to us instead. It might even end up being less government overall.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
How is "Ban advertising junk to kids" not more government? Who's creating and enforcing the ban?DeguelloTex wrote: »
So your answer seems to be, as is common, more government to solve what you've characterized as a problem with government. What could go wrong?DeguelloTex wrote: »
Or they're buying what their kids like to eat because it's easier.lemurcat12 wrote: »I didn't assume they were stupid, I assumed they were raised on the low fat, heart healthy whole grains message.
As was I -- whole grains are supposed to be good, along with lots of vegetables, fruit, legumes, etc.
And calories are important.
And shop the perimeter, of course, and eat whole foods.
None of these would have ever led me to think the ideal diet involved a Lean Pocket.
But thanks for illustrating that there IS a problem with saying nutrition should be taught when there's a split re what good nutrition is in that I don't think carbs in general or whole grains are foods to be avoided.Another mother fed her obese daughter cereal any time of day because she read and trusted those whole grain messages on the labels. Poor kids! No wonder they were starving all the time.
I so don't buy this. It's an excuse. By my generation (and I'm old, 45, so older than the average mother in question) -- people were cynical enough not to trust advertising as some kind of absolute truth. (In fact, to be extremely cynical about it.)
But I also don't think the kids are overeating because they are starving due to cereal. Back in the '70s and '80s (again), I didn't eat cold cereal because I have always hated it (this meant I didn't eat breakfast sometimes, because my mother said "okay, make what you want" and I was lazy, but I'm not recommending that). However, the vast majority of my friends did -- probably less nutritionally beneficial things than are now popular. Yet obesity was not an issue.
I can eat a mixing bowl full of cereal and still be hungry. That's why one size fits all is worse than nothing at all. Maybe I'm naive, maybe these parents know full well what they're doing is shortening their kids' lifespans and sickening them for perhaps a lifetime. Maybe they're all just bad parents. But I don't think so. I think they've swallowed the messages of the marketing industries and our reprehensible, corporate-owned government agencies.
I doubt our reprehensible corporate-owned government agencies are responsible for parents who raise boundary-less brats because it's easier.
There may be some connection there.
Ban advertising junk to kids. Then maybe we'll see the parent-kid dynamic. A study showed kids shown food commercials ate more while watching TV than kids who saw non-food commercials. There is a lot at play here, and just because some parents are irresponsible doesn't mean we should let government and corporations off the hook.
Not more government. Taking the government away from moneyed interests and making it respond to us instead. It might even end up being less government overall.
It is more government. We have to protect kids by owning our government and making it do so for us. But there are other areas we can safely tell the meddlers to get out and stay out. I don't want to get off topic, so I won't spell it all out or anything, I just know once we own our government we can come up with better food policy for adults and children. Right now it's all about greed.
0 -
At 11:22 it was, "Not more government." At 11:26, "It is more government." Your position is very confusing, though evolving at an admirable rate.DeguelloTex wrote: »
How is "Ban advertising junk to kids" not more government? Who's creating and enforcing the ban?DeguelloTex wrote: »
So your answer seems to be, as is common, more government to solve what you've characterized as a problem with government. What could go wrong?DeguelloTex wrote: »
Or they're buying what their kids like to eat because it's easier.lemurcat12 wrote: »I didn't assume they were stupid, I assumed they were raised on the low fat, heart healthy whole grains message.
As was I -- whole grains are supposed to be good, along with lots of vegetables, fruit, legumes, etc.
And calories are important.
And shop the perimeter, of course, and eat whole foods.
None of these would have ever led me to think the ideal diet involved a Lean Pocket.
But thanks for illustrating that there IS a problem with saying nutrition should be taught when there's a split re what good nutrition is in that I don't think carbs in general or whole grains are foods to be avoided.Another mother fed her obese daughter cereal any time of day because she read and trusted those whole grain messages on the labels. Poor kids! No wonder they were starving all the time.
I so don't buy this. It's an excuse. By my generation (and I'm old, 45, so older than the average mother in question) -- people were cynical enough not to trust advertising as some kind of absolute truth. (In fact, to be extremely cynical about it.)
But I also don't think the kids are overeating because they are starving due to cereal. Back in the '70s and '80s (again), I didn't eat cold cereal because I have always hated it (this meant I didn't eat breakfast sometimes, because my mother said "okay, make what you want" and I was lazy, but I'm not recommending that). However, the vast majority of my friends did -- probably less nutritionally beneficial things than are now popular. Yet obesity was not an issue.
I can eat a mixing bowl full of cereal and still be hungry. That's why one size fits all is worse than nothing at all. Maybe I'm naive, maybe these parents know full well what they're doing is shortening their kids' lifespans and sickening them for perhaps a lifetime. Maybe they're all just bad parents. But I don't think so. I think they've swallowed the messages of the marketing industries and our reprehensible, corporate-owned government agencies.
I doubt our reprehensible corporate-owned government agencies are responsible for parents who raise boundary-less brats because it's easier.
There may be some connection there.
Ban advertising junk to kids. Then maybe we'll see the parent-kid dynamic. A study showed kids shown food commercials ate more while watching TV than kids who saw non-food commercials. There is a lot at play here, and just because some parents are irresponsible doesn't mean we should let government and corporations off the hook.
Not more government. Taking the government away from moneyed interests and making it respond to us instead. It might even end up being less government overall.
It is more government. We have to protect kids by owning our government and making it do so for us. But there are other areas we can safely tell the meddlers to get out and stay out. I don't want to get off topic, so I won't spell it all out or anything, I just know once we own our government we can come up with better food policy for adults and children. Right now it's all about greed.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
At 11:22 it was, "Not more government." At 11:26, "It is more government." Your position is very confusing, though evolving at an admirable rate.DeguelloTex wrote: »
How is "Ban advertising junk to kids" not more government? Who's creating and enforcing the ban?DeguelloTex wrote: »
So your answer seems to be, as is common, more government to solve what you've characterized as a problem with government. What could go wrong?DeguelloTex wrote: »
Or they're buying what their kids like to eat because it's easier.lemurcat12 wrote: »I didn't assume they were stupid, I assumed they were raised on the low fat, heart healthy whole grains message.
As was I -- whole grains are supposed to be good, along with lots of vegetables, fruit, legumes, etc.
And calories are important.
And shop the perimeter, of course, and eat whole foods.
None of these would have ever led me to think the ideal diet involved a Lean Pocket.
But thanks for illustrating that there IS a problem with saying nutrition should be taught when there's a split re what good nutrition is in that I don't think carbs in general or whole grains are foods to be avoided.Another mother fed her obese daughter cereal any time of day because she read and trusted those whole grain messages on the labels. Poor kids! No wonder they were starving all the time.
I so don't buy this. It's an excuse. By my generation (and I'm old, 45, so older than the average mother in question) -- people were cynical enough not to trust advertising as some kind of absolute truth. (In fact, to be extremely cynical about it.)
But I also don't think the kids are overeating because they are starving due to cereal. Back in the '70s and '80s (again), I didn't eat cold cereal because I have always hated it (this meant I didn't eat breakfast sometimes, because my mother said "okay, make what you want" and I was lazy, but I'm not recommending that). However, the vast majority of my friends did -- probably less nutritionally beneficial things than are now popular. Yet obesity was not an issue.
I can eat a mixing bowl full of cereal and still be hungry. That's why one size fits all is worse than nothing at all. Maybe I'm naive, maybe these parents know full well what they're doing is shortening their kids' lifespans and sickening them for perhaps a lifetime. Maybe they're all just bad parents. But I don't think so. I think they've swallowed the messages of the marketing industries and our reprehensible, corporate-owned government agencies.
I doubt our reprehensible corporate-owned government agencies are responsible for parents who raise boundary-less brats because it's easier.
There may be some connection there.
Ban advertising junk to kids. Then maybe we'll see the parent-kid dynamic. A study showed kids shown food commercials ate more while watching TV than kids who saw non-food commercials. There is a lot at play here, and just because some parents are irresponsible doesn't mean we should let government and corporations off the hook.
Not more government. Taking the government away from moneyed interests and making it respond to us instead. It might even end up being less government overall.
It is more government. We have to protect kids by owning our government and making it do so for us. But there are other areas we can safely tell the meddlers to get out and stay out. I don't want to get off topic, so I won't spell it all out or anything, I just know once we own our government we can come up with better food policy for adults and children. Right now it's all about greed.
We can stop the oil, drug, and vice wars. That is less government. We can ban junkfood advertising to kids. Net result: Still less government overall.
0 -
I'm going to miss this topic if it gets closed for politics.
Sigh.0 -
Quite the conundrum. MyFitnessPal forums are for discussing weight loss, and health involving diet. Affecting weight and health at a macro level is the field of politics to one extent or another, but politics aren't for general forum discussion in MyFitnessPal forums.0 -
Your proposed ban is still more government than in the absence of that ban. Regardless, the idea that banning advertising to kids is going to affect meaningfully obesity rates while jabbing yet another knife in the back of the First Amendment seems pretty flawed to me. And a poor "end justifies the means" decision even if it would work.DeguelloTex wrote: »
At 11:22 it was, "Not more government." At 11:26, "It is more government." Your position is very confusing, though evolving at an admirable rate.DeguelloTex wrote: »
How is "Ban advertising junk to kids" not more government? Who's creating and enforcing the ban?DeguelloTex wrote: »
So your answer seems to be, as is common, more government to solve what you've characterized as a problem with government. What could go wrong?DeguelloTex wrote: »
Or they're buying what their kids like to eat because it's easier.lemurcat12 wrote: »I didn't assume they were stupid, I assumed they were raised on the low fat, heart healthy whole grains message.
As was I -- whole grains are supposed to be good, along with lots of vegetables, fruit, legumes, etc.
And calories are important.
And shop the perimeter, of course, and eat whole foods.
None of these would have ever led me to think the ideal diet involved a Lean Pocket.
But thanks for illustrating that there IS a problem with saying nutrition should be taught when there's a split re what good nutrition is in that I don't think carbs in general or whole grains are foods to be avoided.Another mother fed her obese daughter cereal any time of day because she read and trusted those whole grain messages on the labels. Poor kids! No wonder they were starving all the time.
I so don't buy this. It's an excuse. By my generation (and I'm old, 45, so older than the average mother in question) -- people were cynical enough not to trust advertising as some kind of absolute truth. (In fact, to be extremely cynical about it.)
But I also don't think the kids are overeating because they are starving due to cereal. Back in the '70s and '80s (again), I didn't eat cold cereal because I have always hated it (this meant I didn't eat breakfast sometimes, because my mother said "okay, make what you want" and I was lazy, but I'm not recommending that). However, the vast majority of my friends did -- probably less nutritionally beneficial things than are now popular. Yet obesity was not an issue.
I can eat a mixing bowl full of cereal and still be hungry. That's why one size fits all is worse than nothing at all. Maybe I'm naive, maybe these parents know full well what they're doing is shortening their kids' lifespans and sickening them for perhaps a lifetime. Maybe they're all just bad parents. But I don't think so. I think they've swallowed the messages of the marketing industries and our reprehensible, corporate-owned government agencies.
I doubt our reprehensible corporate-owned government agencies are responsible for parents who raise boundary-less brats because it's easier.
There may be some connection there.
Ban advertising junk to kids. Then maybe we'll see the parent-kid dynamic. A study showed kids shown food commercials ate more while watching TV than kids who saw non-food commercials. There is a lot at play here, and just because some parents are irresponsible doesn't mean we should let government and corporations off the hook.
Not more government. Taking the government away from moneyed interests and making it respond to us instead. It might even end up being less government overall.
It is more government. We have to protect kids by owning our government and making it do so for us. But there are other areas we can safely tell the meddlers to get out and stay out. I don't want to get off topic, so I won't spell it all out or anything, I just know once we own our government we can come up with better food policy for adults and children. Right now it's all about greed.
We can stop the oil, drug, and vice wars. That is less government. We can ban junkfood advertising to kids. Net result: Still less government overall.
0 -
Quite the conundrum. MyFitnessPal forums are for discussing weight loss, and health involving diet. Affecting weight and health at a macro level is the field of politics to one extent or another, but politics aren't for general forum discussion in MyFitnessPal forums.
I know, I'll behave in this thread from now on. There are other forums for that.
0 -
Still disagree that it is anyone's responsibility but ourselves as parents and individuals, to teach our kids good habits, and to take responsibility for our life choices including diet and exercise.
As a parent, some of the best advice I received, was 'Start as you mean to go on'. If you don't want your kids to crave sweets for breakfast, then don't feed them sweets for breakfast when they are little. (If offered a choice, of course they will pick the sweet item, it takes darn good!) Don't want them to turn to food for emotional comfort when they are older? Then don't offer them a cookie when they are upset! Give them the tools they need to make good choices.0 -
The Centers for Disease Control use data from their Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System to track prevalence and changes in factors affecting health, morbidity, and mortality in the U.S. ("prevalence" means the number of cases that currently exist).
The 2014 data was updated as of September 21, and while I thought I had a good reality-based perspective on the trends, even I am dismayed. Every state now reports obesity rates of at LEAST 20%.
If you are a data nerd like me, there's a lot to look at (links below with pretty pictures included). Here's just a snapshot from the CDC Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity and Obesity:
* 5 states and the District of Columbia had a prevalence of obesity between 20% and <25%.
* 23 states, Guam and Puerto Rico had a prevalence of obesity between 25% and <30%.
* 19 states had a prevalence of obesity between 30% and <35%.
* 3 states (Arkansas, Mississippi and West Virginia) had a prevalence of obesity of 35% or greater.
* The Midwest had the highest prevalence of obesity (30.7%), followed by the South (30.6%), the Northeast (27.3%), and the West (25.7%).
Two points are especially upsetting. One is that in 1990, the most obese state in America (Mississippi, 15%) still had a lower rate than the least obese state in America today (Colorado, 21%). In other words, the entire U.S. is now more obese than the most obese state was in 1990.
In terms of population biology, the time from 1990 to the present is trivial. The fact that the obesity rate has gone up so drastically is really disturbing.
The second distressing fact is that 31.8% of children in the U.S. are either obese or overweight. That statistic is obscene.
Links if you want to explore the data further:
CDC page: cdc.gov/obesity/data/prevalence-maps.html
Excellent and detailed analysis by the Robert Wood Johnson foundation (explore all of the links at the top of the page):
stateofobesity.org/
Blessings, strength, motivation, and success to all of us trying to turn these trends around in our own lives and through supporting our families and loved ones in their efforts.
Yea except you're forgetting what I like to dub "The Great BMI shift of 1998" http://www.bigfatblog.com/bmi-change-1998
Edit: To elaborate on my point, you cannot compare these obesity statistics to time before 1998 because the government essentially redefined obesity (by redefining BMI to make once "healthy" ranges into obese ranges. BMI is what all these statistics are based on, which is bad to begin with but that's another topic entirely). Therefore, comparing 1990 to today is misleading.
If you adjust for the changes made, you find in many cases obesity rates have stayed relatively stable.0 -
http://www.worldobesity.org/aboutobesity/world-map-obesity/
So, comparing other countries, of industrialized nations, I note Japan has rates of 3.4% (men) / 3.8% (women) and Korea has 1.6% (men) / 3.0% (women). Now, there is a suggestion that BMI thresholds for Asians should be lower because of things like average lower bone density, but even if so, I think we have to ask, what are Korea and Japan doing different?
I'd posit that at least part of it comes from how much urbanization Japan has and the associated foot traffic.
And I'll add on that in both those cultures it is not generally acceptable to be overweight and it is perfectly acceptable to point out in general conversation changes in someone's weight.
Social pressure is a powerful force.0 -
The Centers for Disease Control use data from their Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System to track prevalence and changes in factors affecting health, morbidity, and mortality in the U.S. ("prevalence" means the number of cases that currently exist).
The 2014 data was updated as of September 21, and while I thought I had a good reality-based perspective on the trends, even I am dismayed. Every state now reports obesity rates of at LEAST 20%.
If you are a data nerd like me, there's a lot to look at (links below with pretty pictures included). Here's just a snapshot from the CDC Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity and Obesity:
* 5 states and the District of Columbia had a prevalence of obesity between 20% and <25%.
* 23 states, Guam and Puerto Rico had a prevalence of obesity between 25% and <30%.
* 19 states had a prevalence of obesity between 30% and <35%.
* 3 states (Arkansas, Mississippi and West Virginia) had a prevalence of obesity of 35% or greater.
* The Midwest had the highest prevalence of obesity (30.7%), followed by the South (30.6%), the Northeast (27.3%), and the West (25.7%).
Two points are especially upsetting. One is that in 1990, the most obese state in America (Mississippi, 15%) still had a lower rate than the least obese state in America today (Colorado, 21%). In other words, the entire U.S. is now more obese than the most obese state was in 1990.
In terms of population biology, the time from 1990 to the present is trivial. The fact that the obesity rate has gone up so drastically is really disturbing.
The second distressing fact is that 31.8% of children in the U.S. are either obese or overweight. That statistic is obscene.
Links if you want to explore the data further:
CDC page: cdc.gov/obesity/data/prevalence-maps.html
Excellent and detailed analysis by the Robert Wood Johnson foundation (explore all of the links at the top of the page):
stateofobesity.org/
Blessings, strength, motivation, and success to all of us trying to turn these trends around in our own lives and through supporting our families and loved ones in their efforts.
Not to mention what this does to our nation's health care costs. Of course there are other factors but the high obesity levels contribute to a per person health care cost that is double what the rest of the industrialized world spends.0 -
Great post, thanks for sharing.Blessings, strength, motivation, and success to all of us trying to turn these trends around in our own lives and through supporting our families and loved ones in their efforts.
Yes, we should help the individuals in our orbit, but there is no way this problem can be addressed without serious changes from the top. It is clearly the opposite of an individual problem.
Is the President and/or members of Congress holding people down and shoving food in their mouths?
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Your proposed ban is still more government than in the absence of that ban. Regardless, the idea that banning advertising to kids is going to affect meaningfully obesity rates while jabbing yet another knife in the back of the First Amendment seems pretty flawed to me. And a poor "end justifies the means" decision even if it would work.DeguelloTex wrote: »
At 11:22 it was, "Not more government." At 11:26, "It is more government." Your position is very confusing, though evolving at an admirable rate.DeguelloTex wrote: »
How is "Ban advertising junk to kids" not more government? Who's creating and enforcing the ban?DeguelloTex wrote: »
So your answer seems to be, as is common, more government to solve what you've characterized as a problem with government. What could go wrong?DeguelloTex wrote: »
Or they're buying what their kids like to eat because it's easier.lemurcat12 wrote: »I didn't assume they were stupid, I assumed they were raised on the low fat, heart healthy whole grains message.
As was I -- whole grains are supposed to be good, along with lots of vegetables, fruit, legumes, etc.
And calories are important.
And shop the perimeter, of course, and eat whole foods.
None of these would have ever led me to think the ideal diet involved a Lean Pocket.
But thanks for illustrating that there IS a problem with saying nutrition should be taught when there's a split re what good nutrition is in that I don't think carbs in general or whole grains are foods to be avoided.Another mother fed her obese daughter cereal any time of day because she read and trusted those whole grain messages on the labels. Poor kids! No wonder they were starving all the time.
I so don't buy this. It's an excuse. By my generation (and I'm old, 45, so older than the average mother in question) -- people were cynical enough not to trust advertising as some kind of absolute truth. (In fact, to be extremely cynical about it.)
But I also don't think the kids are overeating because they are starving due to cereal. Back in the '70s and '80s (again), I didn't eat cold cereal because I have always hated it (this meant I didn't eat breakfast sometimes, because my mother said "okay, make what you want" and I was lazy, but I'm not recommending that). However, the vast majority of my friends did -- probably less nutritionally beneficial things than are now popular. Yet obesity was not an issue.
I can eat a mixing bowl full of cereal and still be hungry. That's why one size fits all is worse than nothing at all. Maybe I'm naive, maybe these parents know full well what they're doing is shortening their kids' lifespans and sickening them for perhaps a lifetime. Maybe they're all just bad parents. But I don't think so. I think they've swallowed the messages of the marketing industries and our reprehensible, corporate-owned government agencies.
I doubt our reprehensible corporate-owned government agencies are responsible for parents who raise boundary-less brats because it's easier.
There may be some connection there.
Ban advertising junk to kids. Then maybe we'll see the parent-kid dynamic. A study showed kids shown food commercials ate more while watching TV than kids who saw non-food commercials. There is a lot at play here, and just because some parents are irresponsible doesn't mean we should let government and corporations off the hook.
Not more government. Taking the government away from moneyed interests and making it respond to us instead. It might even end up being less government overall.
It is more government. We have to protect kids by owning our government and making it do so for us. But there are other areas we can safely tell the meddlers to get out and stay out. I don't want to get off topic, so I won't spell it all out or anything, I just know once we own our government we can come up with better food policy for adults and children. Right now it's all about greed.
We can stop the oil, drug, and vice wars. That is less government. We can ban junkfood advertising to kids. Net result: Still less government overall.
You're double fisting an argument there.
It is certainly true that advertisement viewing by kids is correlated with children's diet. It could be a more complex relationship, but I doubt companies are spending money on advertising for giggles.
As far as the first Ammendment, no one has a First Amendment right to television or radio advertising - those both involve use of public goods.0 -
I maintain that there is not enough hard data to start blaming anyone just yet (parents, children, laziness, big pharma, the industrial-food complex, government). Blaming without determining root cause will only hinder progress on this important issue. I also suspect there are several causes which all have to be dealt with to make a significant impact on this epidemic.
http://www.drsharma.ca/how-effective-is-obesity-treatment-in-children
http://www.drsharma.ca/childhood-obesity-treat-the-parents
The role of schools in obesity prevention
For sure I don't want to see any government-funded fat shaming ads.0 -
That the advertising works doesn't mean it causes obesity.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Your proposed ban is still more government than in the absence of that ban. Regardless, the idea that banning advertising to kids is going to affect meaningfully obesity rates while jabbing yet another knife in the back of the First Amendment seems pretty flawed to me. And a poor "end justifies the means" decision even if it would work.DeguelloTex wrote: »
At 11:22 it was, "Not more government." At 11:26, "It is more government." Your position is very confusing, though evolving at an admirable rate.DeguelloTex wrote: »
How is "Ban advertising junk to kids" not more government? Who's creating and enforcing the ban?DeguelloTex wrote: »
So your answer seems to be, as is common, more government to solve what you've characterized as a problem with government. What could go wrong?DeguelloTex wrote: »
Or they're buying what their kids like to eat because it's easier.lemurcat12 wrote: »I didn't assume they were stupid, I assumed they were raised on the low fat, heart healthy whole grains message.
As was I -- whole grains are supposed to be good, along with lots of vegetables, fruit, legumes, etc.
And calories are important.
And shop the perimeter, of course, and eat whole foods.
None of these would have ever led me to think the ideal diet involved a Lean Pocket.
But thanks for illustrating that there IS a problem with saying nutrition should be taught when there's a split re what good nutrition is in that I don't think carbs in general or whole grains are foods to be avoided.Another mother fed her obese daughter cereal any time of day because she read and trusted those whole grain messages on the labels. Poor kids! No wonder they were starving all the time.
I so don't buy this. It's an excuse. By my generation (and I'm old, 45, so older than the average mother in question) -- people were cynical enough not to trust advertising as some kind of absolute truth. (In fact, to be extremely cynical about it.)
But I also don't think the kids are overeating because they are starving due to cereal. Back in the '70s and '80s (again), I didn't eat cold cereal because I have always hated it (this meant I didn't eat breakfast sometimes, because my mother said "okay, make what you want" and I was lazy, but I'm not recommending that). However, the vast majority of my friends did -- probably less nutritionally beneficial things than are now popular. Yet obesity was not an issue.
I can eat a mixing bowl full of cereal and still be hungry. That's why one size fits all is worse than nothing at all. Maybe I'm naive, maybe these parents know full well what they're doing is shortening their kids' lifespans and sickening them for perhaps a lifetime. Maybe they're all just bad parents. But I don't think so. I think they've swallowed the messages of the marketing industries and our reprehensible, corporate-owned government agencies.
I doubt our reprehensible corporate-owned government agencies are responsible for parents who raise boundary-less brats because it's easier.
There may be some connection there.
Ban advertising junk to kids. Then maybe we'll see the parent-kid dynamic. A study showed kids shown food commercials ate more while watching TV than kids who saw non-food commercials. There is a lot at play here, and just because some parents are irresponsible doesn't mean we should let government and corporations off the hook.
Not more government. Taking the government away from moneyed interests and making it respond to us instead. It might even end up being less government overall.
It is more government. We have to protect kids by owning our government and making it do so for us. But there are other areas we can safely tell the meddlers to get out and stay out. I don't want to get off topic, so I won't spell it all out or anything, I just know once we own our government we can come up with better food policy for adults and children. Right now it's all about greed.
We can stop the oil, drug, and vice wars. That is less government. We can ban junkfood advertising to kids. Net result: Still less government overall.
You're double fisting an argument there.
It is certainly true that advertisement viewing by kids is correlated with children's diet. It could be a more complex relationship, but I doubt companies are spending money on advertising for giggles.
As far as the first Ammendment, no one has a First Amendment right to television or radio advertising - those both involve use of public goods.
Show me where the First Amendment makes a public goods exception.
0 -
The Centers for Disease Control use data from their Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System to track prevalence and changes in factors affecting health, morbidity, and mortality in the U.S. ("prevalence" means the number of cases that currently exist).
The 2014 data was updated as of September 21, and while I thought I had a good reality-based perspective on the trends, even I am dismayed. Every state now reports obesity rates of at LEAST 20%.
If you are a data nerd like me, there's a lot to look at (links below with pretty pictures included). Here's just a snapshot from the CDC Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity and Obesity:
* 5 states and the District of Columbia had a prevalence of obesity between 20% and <25%.
* 23 states, Guam and Puerto Rico had a prevalence of obesity between 25% and <30%.
* 19 states had a prevalence of obesity between 30% and <35%.
* 3 states (Arkansas, Mississippi and West Virginia) had a prevalence of obesity of 35% or greater.
* The Midwest had the highest prevalence of obesity (30.7%), followed by the South (30.6%), the Northeast (27.3%), and the West (25.7%).
Two points are especially upsetting. One is that in 1990, the most obese state in America (Mississippi, 15%) still had a lower rate than the least obese state in America today (Colorado, 21%). In other words, the entire U.S. is now more obese than the most obese state was in 1990.
In terms of population biology, the time from 1990 to the present is trivial. The fact that the obesity rate has gone up so drastically is really disturbing.
The second distressing fact is that 31.8% of children in the U.S. are either obese or overweight. That statistic is obscene.
Links if you want to explore the data further:
CDC page: cdc.gov/obesity/data/prevalence-maps.html
Excellent and detailed analysis by the Robert Wood Johnson foundation (explore all of the links at the top of the page):
stateofobesity.org/
Blessings, strength, motivation, and success to all of us trying to turn these trends around in our own lives and through supporting our families and loved ones in their efforts.
Yea except you're forgetting what I like to dub "The Great BMI shift of 1998" http://www.bigfatblog.com/bmi-change-1998
Edit: To elaborate on my point, you cannot compare these obesity statistics to time before 1998 because the government essentially redefined obesity (by redefining BMI to make once "healthy" ranges into obese ranges. BMI is what all these statistics are based on, which is bad to begin with but that's another topic entirely). Therefore, comparing 1990 to today is misleading.
If you adjust for the changes made, you find in many cases obesity rates have stayed relatively stable.
That is a change to the classification of overweight, not to the classification of obese.
The person also makes a poor argument in saying overweight shouldn't be applicable to the average person. That's actually what the problem has become, the average person is overweight. They are overweight not because they are over the average, they are overweight in that their weight is over the amount that is free of associations with negative health outcomes.0 -
blankiefinder wrote: »Still disagree that it is anyone's responsibility but ourselves as parents and individuals, to teach our kids good habits, and to take responsibility for our life choices including diet and exercise.
As a parent, some of the best advice I received, was 'Start as you mean to go on'. If you don't want your kids to crave sweets for breakfast, then don't feed them sweets for breakfast when they are little. (If offered a choice, of course they will pick the sweet item, it takes darn good!) Don't want them to turn to food for emotional comfort when they are older? Then don't offer them a cookie when they are upset! Give them the tools they need to make good choices.
^^^^^
Absolutely!!!0 -
Am I missing something. The report originally linked to in this thread says "self reported."0
-
Do you honestly think you have a right to broadcast a pirate radio station into the airwaves? If you don't, you're already acknowledging the public good has enforceable rules that limit free speech on them.DeguelloTex wrote: »
That the advertising works doesn't mean it causes obesity.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Your proposed ban is still more government than in the absence of that ban. Regardless, the idea that banning advertising to kids is going to affect meaningfully obesity rates while jabbing yet another knife in the back of the First Amendment seems pretty flawed to me. And a poor "end justifies the means" decision even if it would work.DeguelloTex wrote: »
At 11:22 it was, "Not more government." At 11:26, "It is more government." Your position is very confusing, though evolving at an admirable rate.DeguelloTex wrote: »
How is "Ban advertising junk to kids" not more government? Who's creating and enforcing the ban?DeguelloTex wrote: »
So your answer seems to be, as is common, more government to solve what you've characterized as a problem with government. What could go wrong?DeguelloTex wrote: »
Or they're buying what their kids like to eat because it's easier.lemurcat12 wrote: »I didn't assume they were stupid, I assumed they were raised on the low fat, heart healthy whole grains message.
As was I -- whole grains are supposed to be good, along with lots of vegetables, fruit, legumes, etc.
And calories are important.
And shop the perimeter, of course, and eat whole foods.
None of these would have ever led me to think the ideal diet involved a Lean Pocket.
But thanks for illustrating that there IS a problem with saying nutrition should be taught when there's a split re what good nutrition is in that I don't think carbs in general or whole grains are foods to be avoided.Another mother fed her obese daughter cereal any time of day because she read and trusted those whole grain messages on the labels. Poor kids! No wonder they were starving all the time.
I so don't buy this. It's an excuse. By my generation (and I'm old, 45, so older than the average mother in question) -- people were cynical enough not to trust advertising as some kind of absolute truth. (In fact, to be extremely cynical about it.)
But I also don't think the kids are overeating because they are starving due to cereal. Back in the '70s and '80s (again), I didn't eat cold cereal because I have always hated it (this meant I didn't eat breakfast sometimes, because my mother said "okay, make what you want" and I was lazy, but I'm not recommending that). However, the vast majority of my friends did -- probably less nutritionally beneficial things than are now popular. Yet obesity was not an issue.
I can eat a mixing bowl full of cereal and still be hungry. That's why one size fits all is worse than nothing at all. Maybe I'm naive, maybe these parents know full well what they're doing is shortening their kids' lifespans and sickening them for perhaps a lifetime. Maybe they're all just bad parents. But I don't think so. I think they've swallowed the messages of the marketing industries and our reprehensible, corporate-owned government agencies.
I doubt our reprehensible corporate-owned government agencies are responsible for parents who raise boundary-less brats because it's easier.
There may be some connection there.
Ban advertising junk to kids. Then maybe we'll see the parent-kid dynamic. A study showed kids shown food commercials ate more while watching TV than kids who saw non-food commercials. There is a lot at play here, and just because some parents are irresponsible doesn't mean we should let government and corporations off the hook.
Not more government. Taking the government away from moneyed interests and making it respond to us instead. It might even end up being less government overall.
It is more government. We have to protect kids by owning our government and making it do so for us. But there are other areas we can safely tell the meddlers to get out and stay out. I don't want to get off topic, so I won't spell it all out or anything, I just know once we own our government we can come up with better food policy for adults and children. Right now it's all about greed.
We can stop the oil, drug, and vice wars. That is less government. We can ban junkfood advertising to kids. Net result: Still less government overall.
You're double fisting an argument there.
It is certainly true that advertisement viewing by kids is correlated with children's diet. It could be a more complex relationship, but I doubt companies are spending money on advertising for giggles.
As far as the first Ammendment, no one has a First Amendment right to television or radio advertising - those both involve use of public goods.
Show me where the First Amendment makes a public goods exception.
Advertising doesn't cause lung cancer, but banning tobacco advertising has certainly been associated with decreases in lung cancer.0 -
blankiefinder wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »and will DEFINITELY hate the idea of their kids being taught nutrition at school. Personal responsibility etc.
Nutrition and what's considered the best source of nutrition (and in what percentages) is a controversial subject to be mandated into a public school curriculum.
Some parents think anything goes as long as calories are restricted to maintain or obtain a healthy weight. Some swear by milk/egg vegetarianism. Some are vegan for religious or ethical reasons. Others bristle at the idea that the kids might be taught that eating whole grains is "healthy", others think that low fat is the way to go, others swear that high fat, low carbohydrate is the best way to develop a healthy brain, etc.
There's no agreeing on these things universally and it's much more combustible when teaching kids is involved. Allegedly, we're all adults here at MFP and look how we go at it when it comes to food religion, LOL.
Yeah. Not hopeful about that strategy. People freaked out with Jamie Oliver and his healthy school lunches. I think also there was a thing about people getting very angry about pop machines being taken out of schools (somewhere, can't remember where this happened).
There is a serious danger is getting your understanding of how people in the US react or what we know based on "documentaries" with a pre-set message.
For example (as we have discussed before), while I'm sure it's possible to find some person who will claim she thought Lean Pockets were a super nutritious choice for her family and didn't know that calories were a thing printed on the box (or that vegetables are generally good to eat), this is not normal. It's not a reasonable assumption about the population. The problem isn't that people are stupider than ever before (and yes, I'm sorry, the assumptions being made assume people are really, really stupid). I mean, yes, it's easy enough to find someone who doesn't know who the vice president is, so you can find someone to represent any level of ignorance, but it doesn't make sense to base public policy on some anecdote in a biased movie.
Similarly, the Jamie Oliver thing was from a very specific population, even assuming -- and I don't -- that the changes were handled in the most encouraging way. I happen to know that in my city -- which has a major problem with both obesity and income inequality (and where I'd bet good money that there's an income element to where the obesity problem is centered), there have been major efforts and positive changes to the nutritional content of school lunches (and breakfasts -- a lot of kids get a lot of their basic nutrition from the school) and nutrition IS taught. The problem is that -- like reading and math -- a lot of these cannot work without better support in the homes, and there are structural issues (among other things). And, most crucially, knowledge is likely not the issue -- I continue to believe that most know darn well what a healthy diet is and is not. People just also like to use food for other purposes, especially (I expect) when life isn't that great in lots of ways.
I am skeptical that banning large size servings is going to make a difference, and the broader problem is that these are profitable options for the sellers -- which has to do with US food culture, among other things.
But it's not like it wasn't tried (and isn't being tried in a variety of places): here's an article about one aspect of the NYC ban (http://nonprofitquarterly.org/2013/03/21/lessons-from-the-naacp-s-public-opposition-to-new-york-city-s-big-soda-ban/). There was also a discussion here about a northern CA ban on selling soda with a child's meal, if memory serves.
Personally, one reason I like federalism and that we have many levels of government is that places can try things (including things I personally don't think would help) and we can see how it works.
The idea that we know what would fix things but just refuse to do it is flat out false, obviously.
If you disagree, maybe Canada should fix the problem and show us how it's done, rather than making annoying generalizations about Americans based on poor sources.
Did I miss something? How did Canada get dragged into this?
Tomatoey is Canadian and I perceived her as snarking about US serving sizes and US dumbness (Lean Cuisine -- ed. Lean Pocket, of course I meant) and in particular alleged resistance to taking pop out of schools or teaching nutrition in the US based on Jamie Oliver's efforts in (I think) Appalachia. Especially due to the comments about us thinking it was about personal responsibility.
If it wasn't meant to be a dig at Americans and American laws (or lack thereof), my mistake.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
That the advertising works doesn't mean it causes obesity.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Your proposed ban is still more government than in the absence of that ban. Regardless, the idea that banning advertising to kids is going to affect meaningfully obesity rates while jabbing yet another knife in the back of the First Amendment seems pretty flawed to me. And a poor "end justifies the means" decision even if it would work.DeguelloTex wrote: »
At 11:22 it was, "Not more government." At 11:26, "It is more government." Your position is very confusing, though evolving at an admirable rate.DeguelloTex wrote: »
How is "Ban advertising junk to kids" not more government? Who's creating and enforcing the ban?DeguelloTex wrote: »
So your answer seems to be, as is common, more government to solve what you've characterized as a problem with government. What could go wrong?DeguelloTex wrote: »
Or they're buying what their kids like to eat because it's easier.lemurcat12 wrote: »I didn't assume they were stupid, I assumed they were raised on the low fat, heart healthy whole grains message.
As was I -- whole grains are supposed to be good, along with lots of vegetables, fruit, legumes, etc.
And calories are important.
And shop the perimeter, of course, and eat whole foods.
None of these would have ever led me to think the ideal diet involved a Lean Pocket.
But thanks for illustrating that there IS a problem with saying nutrition should be taught when there's a split re what good nutrition is in that I don't think carbs in general or whole grains are foods to be avoided.Another mother fed her obese daughter cereal any time of day because she read and trusted those whole grain messages on the labels. Poor kids! No wonder they were starving all the time.
I so don't buy this. It's an excuse. By my generation (and I'm old, 45, so older than the average mother in question) -- people were cynical enough not to trust advertising as some kind of absolute truth. (In fact, to be extremely cynical about it.)
But I also don't think the kids are overeating because they are starving due to cereal. Back in the '70s and '80s (again), I didn't eat cold cereal because I have always hated it (this meant I didn't eat breakfast sometimes, because my mother said "okay, make what you want" and I was lazy, but I'm not recommending that). However, the vast majority of my friends did -- probably less nutritionally beneficial things than are now popular. Yet obesity was not an issue.
I can eat a mixing bowl full of cereal and still be hungry. That's why one size fits all is worse than nothing at all. Maybe I'm naive, maybe these parents know full well what they're doing is shortening their kids' lifespans and sickening them for perhaps a lifetime. Maybe they're all just bad parents. But I don't think so. I think they've swallowed the messages of the marketing industries and our reprehensible, corporate-owned government agencies.
I doubt our reprehensible corporate-owned government agencies are responsible for parents who raise boundary-less brats because it's easier.
There may be some connection there.
Ban advertising junk to kids. Then maybe we'll see the parent-kid dynamic. A study showed kids shown food commercials ate more while watching TV than kids who saw non-food commercials. There is a lot at play here, and just because some parents are irresponsible doesn't mean we should let government and corporations off the hook.
Not more government. Taking the government away from moneyed interests and making it respond to us instead. It might even end up being less government overall.
It is more government. We have to protect kids by owning our government and making it do so for us. But there are other areas we can safely tell the meddlers to get out and stay out. I don't want to get off topic, so I won't spell it all out or anything, I just know once we own our government we can come up with better food policy for adults and children. Right now it's all about greed.
We can stop the oil, drug, and vice wars. That is less government. We can ban junkfood advertising to kids. Net result: Still less government overall.
You're double fisting an argument there.
It is certainly true that advertisement viewing by kids is correlated with children's diet. It could be a more complex relationship, but I doubt companies are spending money on advertising for giggles.
As far as the first Ammendment, no one has a First Amendment right to television or radio advertising - those both involve use of public goods.
Show me where the First Amendment makes a public goods exception.
So soft core porn advertising during children's programming wouldn't bother you and it should be considered protected speech? How about a 30 second KKK recruiting commercial? Or advertising for an incredibly gory horror movie? Cigarettes? Drugs? Alcohol?
Parents can just not let their kids watch TV at all, it's personal responsibility. And not send them to school because of the school lunch program. Homeschool them. Yeah, right, like most families can do that with both parents working 40+ hours a week.
You cite the First Amendment like it means something, but it doesn't except in the context of having a better society. If it's going to be used to worsen our situations then we should get rid of government entirely and fend for ourselves.0 -
Whether or not that's true, public health is in the government's domain. And they should do more to help this terrible trend that will end up potentially costing us so much money in the future.
Agree with the first sentence. Would agree with the second, except I'm not really sure what to do. There are things I support (many of which seem to be being already tried, at least in some places), but I get the sense that people are saying "the government should do something," when the problem is we don't know what to do and doing it is hard, because so many other issues are involved.
I don't want to be negative -- I guess I want to push the conversation into acknowledging some of the issues and not just suggesting it's a lack of caring or political will. A lot of things I see suggested either aren't possible or would have (IMO) negative side effects. I find it a frustrating problem because I don't know how to fix it.0 -
Well, no, because I don't accept the comparison of restrictions on content and providing the means to disseminate content as valid.
Do you honestly think you have a right to broadcast a pirate radio station into the airwaves? If you don't, you're already acknowledging the public good has enforceable rules that limit free speech on them.DeguelloTex wrote: »
That the advertising works doesn't mean it causes obesity.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Your proposed ban is still more government than in the absence of that ban. Regardless, the idea that banning advertising to kids is going to affect meaningfully obesity rates while jabbing yet another knife in the back of the First Amendment seems pretty flawed to me. And a poor "end justifies the means" decision even if it would work.DeguelloTex wrote: »
At 11:22 it was, "Not more government." At 11:26, "It is more government." Your position is very confusing, though evolving at an admirable rate.DeguelloTex wrote: »
How is "Ban advertising junk to kids" not more government? Who's creating and enforcing the ban?DeguelloTex wrote: »
So your answer seems to be, as is common, more government to solve what you've characterized as a problem with government. What could go wrong?DeguelloTex wrote: »
Or they're buying what their kids like to eat because it's easier.lemurcat12 wrote: »I didn't assume they were stupid, I assumed they were raised on the low fat, heart healthy whole grains message.
As was I -- whole grains are supposed to be good, along with lots of vegetables, fruit, legumes, etc.
And calories are important.
And shop the perimeter, of course, and eat whole foods.
None of these would have ever led me to think the ideal diet involved a Lean Pocket.
But thanks for illustrating that there IS a problem with saying nutrition should be taught when there's a split re what good nutrition is in that I don't think carbs in general or whole grains are foods to be avoided.Another mother fed her obese daughter cereal any time of day because she read and trusted those whole grain messages on the labels. Poor kids! No wonder they were starving all the time.
I so don't buy this. It's an excuse. By my generation (and I'm old, 45, so older than the average mother in question) -- people were cynical enough not to trust advertising as some kind of absolute truth. (In fact, to be extremely cynical about it.)
But I also don't think the kids are overeating because they are starving due to cereal. Back in the '70s and '80s (again), I didn't eat cold cereal because I have always hated it (this meant I didn't eat breakfast sometimes, because my mother said "okay, make what you want" and I was lazy, but I'm not recommending that). However, the vast majority of my friends did -- probably less nutritionally beneficial things than are now popular. Yet obesity was not an issue.
I can eat a mixing bowl full of cereal and still be hungry. That's why one size fits all is worse than nothing at all. Maybe I'm naive, maybe these parents know full well what they're doing is shortening their kids' lifespans and sickening them for perhaps a lifetime. Maybe they're all just bad parents. But I don't think so. I think they've swallowed the messages of the marketing industries and our reprehensible, corporate-owned government agencies.
I doubt our reprehensible corporate-owned government agencies are responsible for parents who raise boundary-less brats because it's easier.
There may be some connection there.
Ban advertising junk to kids. Then maybe we'll see the parent-kid dynamic. A study showed kids shown food commercials ate more while watching TV than kids who saw non-food commercials. There is a lot at play here, and just because some parents are irresponsible doesn't mean we should let government and corporations off the hook.
Not more government. Taking the government away from moneyed interests and making it respond to us instead. It might even end up being less government overall.
It is more government. We have to protect kids by owning our government and making it do so for us. But there are other areas we can safely tell the meddlers to get out and stay out. I don't want to get off topic, so I won't spell it all out or anything, I just know once we own our government we can come up with better food policy for adults and children. Right now it's all about greed.
We can stop the oil, drug, and vice wars. That is less government. We can ban junkfood advertising to kids. Net result: Still less government overall.
You're double fisting an argument there.
It is certainly true that advertisement viewing by kids is correlated with children's diet. It could be a more complex relationship, but I doubt companies are spending money on advertising for giggles.
As far as the first Ammendment, no one has a First Amendment right to television or radio advertising - those both involve use of public goods.
Show me where the First Amendment makes a public goods exception.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Or they're buying what their kids like to eat because it's easier.lemurcat12 wrote: »I didn't assume they were stupid, I assumed they were raised on the low fat, heart healthy whole grains message.
As was I -- whole grains are supposed to be good, along with lots of vegetables, fruit, legumes, etc.
And calories are important.
And shop the perimeter, of course, and eat whole foods.
None of these would have ever led me to think the ideal diet involved a Lean Pocket.
But thanks for illustrating that there IS a problem with saying nutrition should be taught when there's a split re what good nutrition is in that I don't think carbs in general or whole grains are foods to be avoided.Another mother fed her obese daughter cereal any time of day because she read and trusted those whole grain messages on the labels. Poor kids! No wonder they were starving all the time.
I so don't buy this. It's an excuse. By my generation (and I'm old, 45, so older than the average mother in question) -- people were cynical enough not to trust advertising as some kind of absolute truth. (In fact, to be extremely cynical about it.)
But I also don't think the kids are overeating because they are starving due to cereal. Back in the '70s and '80s (again), I didn't eat cold cereal because I have always hated it (this meant I didn't eat breakfast sometimes, because my mother said "okay, make what you want" and I was lazy, but I'm not recommending that). However, the vast majority of my friends did -- probably less nutritionally beneficial things than are now popular. Yet obesity was not an issue.
I can eat a mixing bowl full of cereal and still be hungry. That's why one size fits all is worse than nothing at all. Maybe I'm naive, maybe these parents know full well what they're doing is shortening their kids' lifespans and sickening them for perhaps a lifetime. Maybe they're all just bad parents. But I don't think so. I think they've swallowed the messages of the marketing industries and our reprehensible, corporate-owned government agencies.
True, but again back in the day kids ate cereal and weren't obese, so I am skeptical that eating cereal is the cause.
Eating insane amounts of calories, including lots of sugary drinks (pop was a rare treat when I was growing up, as was fast food, and dessert was after the vegetables and snacks were sensible and not constantly available and we were expected to be active -- hmm, and this seems to be how my friends are raising their kids and none of them are overweight).0 -
Have you heard of the baby empathy experiment using Goldfish crackers and broccoli? Three guesses which the toddlers preferred.
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2013-02-01/features/sfe-sfp-empathy-develops-during-early-childhood_1_babies-and-toddlers-broccoli-empathy0 -
-
There is not now nor will there every be a solution in one body that effects another body...in short this is not something that can be done FOR YOU. Parents can feed better but in the end its really what does the kid see...does the kids SEE mom and dad sitting around never exercising and eating poorly...if they do that is what the kid is going to do. SET THE EXAMPLE FOR YOUR CHILDREN. if your are a teacher set the example for the children WHO ARE watching you sit down and drink coffe and talk to another teacher. IF YOU WANT TO IMPACT CHILDREN SET AN EXAMPLE. silent sermon;s needed. rant over.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions