Teenagers' weight now & before

Reyman

Just glancing at today's Irish Times (Feb 10th). It compares 14 year olds in 2002 to back in 1948.

Conclusion: Boys are 65% heavier, and girls 48% heavier now than in 1948. Most of the weight increase occured after 1970 (arrival of TV?)

The average boy has gone from 5.8 stone in 1948 to 9.6 stone now. The average girl has gone from 6.2 stone to 9.3 stone.
Luckily it's all muscle!!!

Now question: Who' d win 1. the mile race 2. Ten pull ups 3. the bench press ?

seamus

I think I'm a little more stunned that 14 year old boys were less than 6 stone in 1948 (and girls were marginally heavier!).

Did they give any figures for avg. height and so forth?

If you assume that a 14 year old boy is roughly 150 cm (5ft), that's a BMI of just over 15. Which goes to show just how poor people were I guess.

rubadub

Reyman wrote: »

Most of the weight increase occured after 1970 (arrival of TV?)

TV dinners, & fastfood too!

Did it mention the average height? perhaps kids are just generally taller now too.

Reyman

The boys now are 9" taller the girls 6". That would explain some of it. But I'm not sure whether the puberty growth spurt now and then may have lot to do with those figures.

Interestingly he mentions that everyone did physical work and walked to school then. Also Irish kids were unusually well nourished by Euuropean standards because we were'nt in the war and had lots of food.

rubadub

Reyman wrote: »

The boys now are 9" taller the girls 6".

Right, it would be more interesting to compare them when they are at the same heights, i.e. possibly 12 year old boys now might be the same height.

I would not know how valid BMI would be at different heights, esp. for kids, after puberty boys would have more muscle.

tribulus

Without wanting to start another BMI debate I really don't think you could apply it to children.

amacachi

tribulus wrote: »

Without wanting to start another BMI debate I really don't think you could apply it to children.

+1

rubadub

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=15032
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2009/0210/1233867928673.html

IRISH CHILDREN now weigh up to 24kg more than they did in 1948, according to a new study which compared the height and weight of Irish children in the 1940s, the 1970s and in 2002.

The most dramatic increases in weight were found in 14-year- old boys who were 65 per cent heavier in 2002 (60.9kg) than in 1948 (37kg). Fourteen-year-old girls were also found to be 48 per cent heavier, weighing an average of 58.7kg in 2002 compared with 39.5kg in 1948.

The research also found that children have grown taller through the decades. For example, 14-year-old boys are on average 23cm taller now than in 1948 while 14-year-old girls are on average 15cm taller now than then.

The study, which was carried out by researchers at the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health at University College Cork (UCC), is published this week in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

Commenting on the findings, the researchers point out that most of the increases in weight occurred from the 1970s onwards.

The authors also point out that children in Ireland might have been undernourished in 1948 but their nutritional intake was comparable with that of the rest of Europe because they were not subject to food rationing after the war.

“We must also remember that 20-30 years ago, our society was much more rural. More children worked on farms and walked to school,” said Prof Ivan Perry, lead author and professor at the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health at UCC.

However, Prof Perry suggested that the recession was unlikely to turn around the tide of obesity. “One can only speculate on the effect of the current economic downturn on obesity in Ireland but it’s likely as money gets tighter, people will fall back on cheap staples and fast food and the quality of their diet will go down,” he said.

When asked what extra measures might be necessary to prevent this, Prof Perry said, “There is no magic wand but the food sector needs to look at portion size – particularly regarding treats such as crisps, soft drinks and chocolate which are significantly larger than they were in the past.”

Recent studies carried out in Germany and Australia have also found that daily school exercise classes and active participation in sports are successful in tackling childhood obesity.

I am guessing the kids are fatter now, but these stats actually show nothing much, they do not even say what the height is or was! Differences in Body Fat % would probably be the most useful one, though girls put on a fair bit of fat during puberty, so again I think they should compare them at the same heights.

AARRRGH

They say most of the girls extra weight can be blamed on fake tan...

WolfForager

Wow, i knew that this generation was taller than that of 1948, but 11"??

AARRRGH, you may be on to something...

dave80

rubadub wrote: »

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=15032
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2009/0210/1233867928673.html



I am guessing the kids are fatter now, but these stats actually show nothing much, they do not even say what the height is or was! Differences in Body Fat % would probably be the most useful one, though girls put on a fair bit of fat during puberty, so again I think they should compare them at the same heights.

when i was 14 i was 10 stone, there wasnt a pick on me altought i was about 5'10, the height increase kinda balances out the weight gain to some degree, but there are a lot more fat kids around these days!

anladmór

yeah irisih used to be healthy enough in the century after an gorta mór, but now a lot of fat kids but i guess this is a western problem though,

ali.c

rubadub wrote: »

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=15032
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2009/0210/1233867928673.html



I am guessing the kids are fatter now, but these stats actually show nothing much, they do not even say what the height is or was! Differences in Body Fat % would probably be the most useful one, though girls put on a fair bit of fat during puberty, so again I think they should compare them at the same heights.

Coupled with the fact that puberty seems to be starting earlier now than in the 1940's it is hard to compare like with like tbh.

davyjose

seamus wrote: »

I think I'm a little more stunned that 14 year old boys were less than 6 stone in 1948 (and girls were marginally heavier!).

Did they give any figures for avg. height and so forth?

If you assume that a 14 year old boy is roughly 150 cm (5ft), that's a BMI of just over 15. Which goes to show just how poor people were I guess.

I agree, this report might have been designed to show how fat we've gotten, but it really just shows how much healthier we are. I'd rather be chubby than malnourished.

rubadub

Some woman related to Cork UCC was on TV3 this morning. They had all the heights and figures from 1970. I think she said 90% of kids are driven to school, or on bus, which I found hard to believe, and said 70% used to walk or cycle, dunno the year of that.

I'd rather be chubby than malnourished.

They did say the diet in the 40's could have lead to malnourished children as it was not very varied.

The said the height had increased but the weight increased disproportionately, but again had no forumla or anything to back this up (not that I doubt it).

tpedoussaut

And they are using the wrong mathematical instrument. Average != Median.

Take a class of 30 in 1948. 25 are 8 stones +- 1stone, the other 5 are under-nourished and only 6 stones. Avg=7.6 stones. Median ~ 7.5 as well.
Take a class of 30 in 2002. 25 are 8 stones +- 1 stone, the other 5 are obese and 15 stones. Avg=9.16 Median ~ 8.5.

Because the weight is somhow limited down (can't weight less than 4 stones) but unlimited up (think 20+ stone), taking the average is not giving satisfactory results.

Reyman

tpedoussaut wrote: »

And they are using the wrong mathematical instrument. Average != Median.

Take a class of 30 in 1948. 25 are 8 stones +- 1stone, the other 5 are under-nourished and only 6 stones. Avg=7.6 stones. Median ~ 7.5 as well.
Take a class of 30 in 2002. 25 are 8 stones +- 1 stone, the other 5 are obese and 15 stones. Avg=9.16 Median ~ 8.5.

Because the weight is somhow limited down (can't weight less than 4 stones) but unlimited up (think 20+ stone), taking the average is not giving satisfactory results.

Your logic escapes me here. The median does not necessarily represent the statistics any better than the average. But we don't have the full test results or statistical modus operandi so we can't comment yea or or nay on the study.

ali.c

Reyman wrote: »

Your logic escapes me here. The median does not necessarily represent the statistics any better than the average. But we don't have the full test results or statistical modus operandi so we can't comment yea or or nay on the study.

I think what tpedoussaut said does make sense, considering if that the extremes in weight at at the high end of the scale depending on the sample size it may indeed scew the results. It would be interesting to see what the spread was (i.e. whether the majority of the population could be accounted for in proportion to the height and the increase in the number of very obese was counted for the large increase?). So that although the incidence of childhood obesity is rising, could it be a case that the majority of children are not overweight?

norwegianwood

well, they were either malnourished or total midgets!
i'm 16 now, but when i was 14 i weighed 9 and a half stone and there wasnt a pick on me!(5"4)

rubadub

Reyman wrote: »

But we don't have the full test results or statistical modus operandi so we can't comment yea or or nay on the study.

Yes, they could well be using median but would not say that in a regular paper as feck all people would know what it means. They often dumb down scientific studies, and regularly get things wrong in the process.

It is a valid point though. In my workplace the average would be very large due to one guy I would guess is possibly 35stone, while the thinnest is probably around 10 stone. Without readily available takeaways & transport I wonder if people did get that big in the 40's.

nowimtalking

I have looked through the web and have come accross varied reasons for this.
Most kids are at least 50% less active than back then, therefore by the time they reach 14 they have gained alot more weight.
They also are more accustomed to fast/convienient foods, hence gaining weight.
Asthma is alot more common in Ireland as it has a moist atmosphere this causes an increase in under-activity.
Richer families are able to afford more red meat, which has led to excess fat consumption, people do not encourage poultry or fish anymore so Kids are just eating red meat which they cant digest over a short period of time.
Thyroid problems have become more frequent mostly due to kids entering puberty at an earlier age and hence loosing hormones causing fat gain, this can also be caused by either a low salt intake which would have been applicable before the 90s and since it is genetic it has been passed down to the present teenage generation.
The height increase has been noticed in most countries around the world especially in America, this is due to excess protein from red meat by recent study.
Kids in Australia and Newzealand are shorter because they have been more accustomed to fish and poultry and lead better balanced diets.
From travelling i have noticed that that is true because when i was in America i had to buy two sizes smaller and when i was in Newzealand two sizes bigger.
Hope this was a help!