Are your children fat? Why are they fat?

Penny Tration

strelok wrote: »

sodium isn't actually that dangerous at all unless you already have hypertension, the whole salt scare thing of the last few decades was as baseless as the fat fearmongering.

i'd still be wary of it with children alright but i can't think of a good reason, im pretty sure it's just a hangover of being beaten over the head with 'salt is dangerous' all my life

I never grew up with the 'salt is bad' teachings, and like salt on some food, but a shocking amount goes onto burgers and chips in McDonalds, Burger King and Supermacs. The amount that goes onto it can in no way be good for a toddler to have weekly, never mind the whole 'giving him a taste for excess salt' argument.

crazygeryy

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Children these days don't know what a day's hashing in the bog or the purdie field is.

were you in deliverance by any chance?

The Backwards Man

crazygeryy wrote: »

were you in deliverance by any chance?

Yep. Seed potatoes to Meath and Dublin, fish to Dublin, Glasgow and Paris.:)

conorh91

RandomName2 wrote: »

Who said anything racist?

Not me. You referred to how the "Nordic race" should look, and linked to a Hitler Jugend propaganda poster, of a youth bearing a swastika flag.

Your post shows that you are unable to engage with this topic without poor attempts to manipulate and distract from the core issue: that children are growing too fat, for which parents bear responsibility. Because this is a public health problem, society has a role in finding a remedy.

RandomName2 wrote: »

It seems you are indicating a crisis where there is not one. Too fat does not equal obese.

The 'overweight' classification has been located by correlating body-mass index with health risks, in other words, the classification has been 'retro-fitted' to incorporate BMIs that pose a sufficiently high risk to the the person's health. So the very fact that a person is overweight ipso facto means they are exposed to excessive dangers to their health.

You on one hand say that the responsibility is that of parents, but you simultaneously say that it belongs to the public. Hell, why else would you otherwise attempt to expose such parents?

It is the responsibility of parents to feed their children responsibly, just like it is parents' responsibility not to physically injure their children with battery, or the use of toxic chemicals. Any time a parent fails to meet their basic responsibilities by exposing their children to significant health dangers, those parents should be warned and ultimately, in extreme circumstances, reprimanded.

Bring them into a public place and cut off their hair.

You are unable to debate without your precious straw men. Why? Because you have no valid argument against the premise that one quarter of parents of nine-year olds are consciously exposing their children to serious health problems, and you cannot logically argue that they are right to do so.

osarusan

conorh91 wrote: »

So the very fact that a person is overweight ipso facto means they are exposed to excessive dangers to their health.

You mean ipso fatso.

blackbird 49

Qualitymark wrote: »

It would be interesting to have a poll: a) what weight are you; b) what weight are your kids. When I see fat kids they're usually with fat parents. Not always, but usually.

I certainly agree with this, this is something I have seen myself quite a lot

wupucus

FAT LAZY PARENTS have FAT LAZY KIDS - who is going to shag a fat lazy man, a fat lazy woman - fat lazy man and woman = FAT LAZY KIDS -

RandomName2

conorh91 wrote: »

Not me. You referred to how the "Nordic race" should look, and linked to a Hitler Jugend propaganda poster, of a youth bearing a swastika flag.

That poster was advertising a fitness event - something that all the fascist states took particularly seriously for a number of reasons. But the aspect relating to appearance is one that comes up repeatedly, today, in relation to people being overweight. It is acceptable to say that people who are fat are "disgusting". The video you posted says exactly that; and indeed many of the posters here are more than willing to call out the fatties in less than a charming fashion.

wupucus wrote: »

FAT LAZY PARENTS have FAT LAZY KIDS - who is going to shag a fat lazy man, a fat lazy woman - fat lazy man and woman = FAT LAZY KIDS -

You too like to engage in the idea of stigmatising this behaviour in the same manner as we have "cigarette smoking".

As a caveat, the whole thing about the blond, tall, lean citizen of the Reich was not much other than a fiction promulgated by the NSDAP in the first place: something which could be seen by just looking at the individuals promoting such a message. But the point wasn't about truth, but about working up the crowds one one hand, and as a source of control on the other.

conorh91 wrote: »

Because this is a public health problem, society has a role in finding a remedy.

Really, it sounds more like you want to expose the "bad parents" on a forum on boards.ie... if they ever find time to "put down the cake" that is.

conorh91 wrote: »

The 'overweight' classification has been located by correlating body-mass index with health risks, in other words, the classification has been 'retro-fitted' to incorporate BMIs that pose a sufficiently high risk to the the person's health. So the very fact that a person is overweight ipso facto means they are exposed to excessive dangers to their health.

Well children aren't at risk ipso facto by being overweight; only insofar that they have a significantly greater disposition to be overweight in later life. Okay, there are exceptionally niche examples of morbid obesity causing sleep apnea, but seeing as we are dealing with the PERILOUS 25% that can be discounted as noise (because we would otherwise be talking about the 0.01% or whatever). There is is also a common cause between juvenile type two diabetes and obesity, but one does not in itself cause the other.

conorh91 wrote: »

It is the responsibility of parents to feed their children responsibly, just like it is parents' responsibility not to physically injure their children with battery, or the use of toxic chemicals. Any time a parent fails to meet their basic responsibilities by exposing their children to significant health dangers, those parents should be warned and ultimately, in extreme circumstances, reprimanded.

I thought in general we let people get on with it. Parenting is a difficult, unpaid job - arguably the most difficult, and with the most responsibility. With such responsibility comes authority however. But that authority is undermined and diminished if we have nanny state individuals threatening to expose them for not reaching the targets that they have themselves decided upon. And indeed it is that, for you not only consider a quarter of families to under-performing, but you also seem to feel that the state is not a suitable arbiter, and rather that citizen action is required. Interesting.

conorh91

RandomName2 wrote: »

That poster was advertising a fitness event - something that all the fascist states took particularly seriously for a number of reasons. But the aspect relating to appearance is one that comes up repeatedly, today, in relation to people being overweight. It is acceptable to say that people who are fat are "disgusting". The video you posted says exactly that; and indeed many of the posters here are more than willing to call out the fatties in less than a charming fashion.

You're going off in all directions. You tried to tie my post to racism and totalitarianism; now you're sulking that fat people are considered disgusting.

I think fat people's looks are the least of their problems. It is neither totalitarian or racist (i.e, promoting the "Nordic" race) to state that being fat is bad for your health.

Really, it sounds more like you want to expose the "bad parents" on a forum on boards.ie... if they ever find time to "put down the cake" that is.

If there are parents of fat children on here, I would like to know how they can knowingly put their children's health in danger. I think it's incredible that more people aren't asking that question in the middle of a public health crisis.

Well children aren't at risk ipso facto by being overweight

They are. I already explained this to you. The overweight classification was not chosen from thin air, it is correlated with increased health risks, as is the grade designation within the obese classification. These designations exist for public health purposes, why else did you think they were created? They're not for oversized-dress designers.

I thought in general we let people get on with it.

No. We don't let parents "get on" with giving their children carcinogens like tobacco, I don't see why we should be any more accepting of detrimental dietary choices which are known to damage child health.

chrissb8

Hardly like the kids picked the habit of bad eating off the floor. Parents are a large part to blame. Yesterday I just saw kids getting handed crisps and chocolate bars to eat from multipacks and indulging them with more when the kids asked for more. Learn to say no to your kids think about what you eat and then half that or at least give them 2/3rds of it. Find out when they get full and don't insist they finish what's on their plate all the time.

Stop thinking a weekly McDonalds is normal. It's not. Kick you kids out of the house and heck even force them to. Exercise is just as needed as food and water. Don't let the skinny one's who don't get fat either fool you there's a load of health problems going on in the body as a result of eating loads of junk food.

In turn though it's also down to the easy access of junk food and the ubiquitous advertising etc. But realistically they can't eat these things without money i.e. the parents. I don't buy into parents being miseducated on it either. There's enough in the news and on the internet. There should actually be mandatory classes in school about good eating habits and what certain foods do to your body. But by and large just looking at foods and their caloric intake is something everyone can do.

Nanazolie

JacquesSon wrote: »

I reckon I, and everyone I grew up with, did 4-5hrs minimum physical activity everday.

I doubt kids these days go anywhere close to that.

Don't just blame the parents. I have been trying to convince our local school to build a rain shelter to allow the kids to play outdoors in the wet weather. We did in my school, were out by all weathers, including deep freezing temperatures (eastern France can get extremely cold). It's a simple structure of wood pillars supporting corrugated iron sheeting. Very cheap to build but they refused due to the costs.
So on one hand, they send notes to the parents to encourage the kids to walk to school, on on the other one, they keep the kids indoors at recess, watching TV

LordSutch

My children are not fat, I am not fat & my wife is not fat.

None of us drink fizzy drinks, (zero intake), although crisps, ice cream & chocolate permitted in moderation. Dunno why some kids are fat and others not? Our kids have always been very active, running around and playing outdoors, which may be part of the reason they are very lean and fit? although I guess activity & diet are only part of a much bigger picture?

Barely There

Nothing worse than seeing fat kids waddling into MacDonald's with their fat parents.


There's a real Irish Mammy notion as well of 'fat baby = healthy baby'. Know a few women like this that are always feeding their baby/toddler.

Qualitymark

Nanazolie wrote: »

Don't just blame the parents. I have been trying to convince our local school to build a rain shelter to allow the kids to play outdoors in the wet weather. We did in my school, were out by all weathers, including deep freezing temperatures (eastern France can get extremely cold). It's a simple structure of wood pillars supporting corrugated iron sheeting. Very cheap to build but they refused due to the costs.
So on one hand, they send notes to the parents to encourage the kids to walk to school, on on the other one, they keep the kids indoors at recess, watching TV

And, as I said, a cycle club could bring the kids out on 20km rides every week. Then extend it, bring a picnic, stay overnight… Will never forget the pride teenager showed when we got to Leighlinbridge (nearly 100km) at around 1pm on one cycle trip, and local lads asked "where did you come from?" - "Dublin" - "When?" - "This morning" - their faces (not to mention their one-word succinct comment!) were a thing to be seen.

Wibbs

RandomName2 wrote: »

That poster was advertising a fitness event - something that all the fascist states took particularly seriously for a number of reasons.

The Nazi's also brought in anti animal cruelty and anti tobacco legislation. Better get rid of our laws now considering the connection… Or not. I have no clue why the fascists are being brought into this. All over the place is right.

Obesity is a growing problem(no pun) and one that will impact wider society as it's starting to in the US where it's overtaken smoking as a leading cause of illness and death. The state jumped in(finally) over smoking, so why not apply similar approaches to another widespread danger to health?

the_monkey

I remember when I was a kid, kids would be out playing a lot more, the tennis courts were packed in the summer, kids would be out playing football in the parks ... now it's all tablets/phones/consoles ... the courts are empty ... (maybe a few during wimbledon).

Plus all these fast food restaurants ... parents giving their kids 10e to get lunch there.

All this is a recipe for obese kids.

seamus

If someone who has never actually been overweight goes on a rant about fat people, I tend to dismiss them. Not because I don't want to hear their opinion, but because it's usually poorly informed and isn't coming from a position of experience or authority. Like that drill instructor video from the previous page.

Like people who've never smoked, not being fat is easy for people who've never been overweight. There's a reason why you've never been overweight, and it's likely got nothing at all to do with you carefully monitoring your intake. It's been a life-long attitude, or set of habits, or extremely active lifestyle, or in rare cases genetics, that's kept you trim. You don't think, "Oh, I won't have that extra large burger, because it'll make me fat". No, you just don't eat it because it doesn't really appeal to you that much.

Yes, you can bang on about health effects and all of the things coming down the line if a person remains overweight. But that doesn't work. Did everyone stop smoking when we realised it kills you? Nope.

Yes, ignorance is a big issue here, with plenty of adults lacking simple information about nutrition.

But then nobody makes any attempt at providing simple information. Every week there's a new fad diet about going paleo, or no-carb or organic GMO vegan. All of which make it more difficult to make smart dietary choices, not easier. And which deliberately obfuscate the basic biological facts in order to sell some books, get magazine inches and promote ads and drill instructors' rants on facebook.

It's not really about kids moving less. It's about them eating more. It's about food being used to reward and comfort children and being afraid to say "no more" lest their child goes hungry. A significant proportion of parents with overweight children, when asked, could genuinely not see their child was fat. Feeding their child is a basic parental drive, and since food is cheap and plentiful, kids get too much.
This forms basic habits from an early age which translate all the way into adulthood. And habits, especially those which begin in childhood, are hard to break.

This is what people who've never been overweight don't understand, and why hate-filled rants about lazy fatties are nothing more than pure ignorance from idiots with their own low self-esteem.

Hammer89

Wibbs wrote: »

Obesity is a growing problem(no pun) and one that will impact wider society as it's starting to in the US where it's overtaken smoking as a leading cause of illness and death. The state jumped in(finally) over smoking, so why not apply similar approaches to another widespread danger to health?

This is futile because obese people know the risks. They know what they're signing up for. They know that, in the long term, it's Russian Roulette. Smokers know the same with their habit.

Why, then, do people not take these risks to heart? Because they're risks. That's all. Not every smoker is going to get lung cancer, and not every lifelong over-eater will get diabetes or heart disease. They roll the dice on the assumption that it won't happen to them. Fair dues. Statistically, it won't, and that's why scaring people into change doesn't really work.

I'm a smoker now, and I used to be obese, and I've never once been scared about suffering from any of the diseases associated with my past and present habit(s) because I'm a young man. In my mind, and with regards to eating, I was going to get out of that lifestyle before something terrible happened. I feel the same about smoking - I just haven't taken the same combative steps as of yet.

The bottom line is that scare tactics patently don't work. I know ex-smokers cited the health warnings on packets - be it text or visual - as an incentive to stop, but bigger picture, smokers don't pay attention to them. And obese people wouldn't pay attention to any similar warnings. Why? They, like smokers, know exactly what they're signing up for.

Dyr

Wibbs wrote: »

The Nazi's also brought in anti animal cruelty and anti tobacco legislation. Better get rid of our laws now considering the connection… Or not. I have no clue why the fascists are being brought into this. All over the place is right.

Obesity is a growing problem(no pun) and one that will impact wider society as it's starting to in the US where it's overtaken smoking as a leading cause of illness and death. The state jumped in(finally) over smoking, so why not apply similar approaches to another widespread danger to health?

Have to hand it to Goering though, he was ahead of the times again when he commented that butter would only make us fat

Speaking from bitter personal experience I presume

Jon Stark

seamus wrote: »

If someone who has never actually been overweight goes on a rant about fat people, I tend to dismiss them. Not because I don't want to hear their opinion, but because it's usually poorly informed and isn't coming from a position of experience or authority.

You don't have to be speaking from experience to help someone, you just have to actually want to help them instead of being more concerned with getting digs in and going on rants about taxes.

People should just mind their own business on this subject but unfortunately the perceived tax issue seems to make every knob out there think that they're entitled to an opinion (i.e. tirade) on the subject.

fatknacker

It surely can't be an increase in carb intake? I'd have thought carbs were more popular here for much longer than protein. Bread and potatoes are or were much cheaper than meat in the olden days.

Nanazolie

fatknacker wrote: »

It surely can't be an increase in carb intake? I'd have thought carbs were more popular here for much longer than protein. Bread and potatoes are or were much cheaper than meat in the olden days.

It's not the quantity as much as the quality that's an issue here. Bodies need carbs for energy, and kids will need them even more as they are more active than adults. But we are talking wholegrain bread and rice, potatoes (although kids should not be given too much fibres). Not sweets or soda. There was a study in the National Geographic some months ago about why poorer populations tended to be fatter: apparently, the increase in use of corn syrup in cheaper foods is the culprit

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/hunger/

I said it before and was laughed at: snacking is the real problem. Why do you think French people can get away with eating rich foods? Of course, there are obese people in France too, but the obesity rise is a recent issue, and linked to the increase of snacking. The solution that schools have adopted there is simple: remove the vending machines, and since kids are in school from 8.30 to 4.30 with lunch at the canteen (lunches have to be approved by a nutritionist), there is very little opportunity for eating between meals. French kids are no more active than Irish ones. I would even say they play less freely on the streets.

haminka

I would agree with the fact that if you see chubby children, there's chubby parents near them. And I mean not just maybe slightly overweight parents but a proper well-fed seal blubber. It makes me really sad because I can't see what good example these children will get if they see their parents stuffing their faces with fatty and sugary food all the time and not giving them a chance to be properly active, get out there during the weekends and go for long walks, drive a bit to the nearest hills and spend vacation not sitting beside a swimming pool or on the beach somewhere in Spain but do some proper mountain walking. Children aged about 5 are perfectly capable of walking 10 kilometers without complaining. There's no reason why the Dad can't have a young child in a carrier while the older ones are walking, just take some breaks in-between.
It's hard not to be judgmental if you see a seriously overweight family trying to park as close as possible to a cafe somewhere out nice and then heading straight for the cakes and ice-creams. I judge them because their children may suffer from a range of health problems such as diabetes, respiratory, digestive and joint issues. I pity the children and judge the parents without feeling guilty.

fatknacker

So many schools here have vending machines and canteens though?
Mine never had such things.

tigerboon

haminka wrote: »

get out there during the weekends and go for long walks, drive a bit to the nearest hills and spend vacation not sitting beside a swimming pool or on the beach somewhere in Spain but do some proper mountain walking. Children aged about 5 are perfectly capable of walking 10 kilometers without complaining.

Our 3 year old walked about 10km the other day then paddled in the pool for an hour. I'm not saying my kid is great but it will surprise you how long they will keep going for. After an active day is when you treat them to an ice cream or whatever. If they think there is an ice cream coming they would cycle/walk to the end of the earth and back

haminka

tigerboon wrote: »

Our 3 year old walked about 10km the other day then paddled in the pool for an hour. I'm not saying my kid is great but it will surprise you how long they will keep going for. After an active day is when you treat them to an ice cream or whatever. If they think there is an ice cream coming they would cycle/walk to the end of the earth and back

My daughter does the "let's pretend". So it's Hansel and Gretel or Jake and the Neverland Pirates quest or something else she likes. And if there's ice-cream or a cake at the end, it's the ultimate reward.

Nanazolie

fatknacker wrote: »

So many schools here have vending machines and canteens though?
Mine never had such things.

ours has made huge improvements this year by providing school lunches. They usually consist of sandwich, crackers or pasta with water and fruits. It's a step in the right direction, although I wonder if parents would accept to pay maybe 2 or 3 euros for a hot lunch in winter? Unfortunately, not all schools can provide this.
I always wonder, if the government had the guts to commit for long term changes, would they not introduce a real anti obesity program? Not just a sugar tax, but a combination of school lunches, education, cheaper healthy and fresh foods compared to junk food, promotion of safe exercise with cycling or walking 'buses' (where groups of children and accompanied by 2 or 3 adults and cycle or walk to school), safer cycling routes in the cities, wider footpaths? There are already some initiatives in place, take for example the seafronts in most coastal towns, you have promenades with some exercise apparatus. A sugar tax for me is too 'nanny state', but sometimes, all it takes is information and an incentive to change

Nanazolie

tigerboon wrote: »

Our 3 year old walked about 10km the other day then paddled in the pool for an hour. I'm not saying my kid is great but it will surprise you how long they will keep going for. After an active day is when you treat them to an ice cream or whatever. If they think there is an ice cream coming they would cycle/walk to the end of the earth and back

I wish.... Mine hates walking. But she has bucketloads of energy when it comes to climbing and running. So we have to cheat her a bit and bring her to a forest where she can climb, play hide and seek, etc. Otherwise she just moans and moans and that's enough to wish you were back on the sofa

haminka

Nanazolie wrote: »

I wish.... Mine hates walking. But she has bucketloads of energy when it comes to climbing and running. So we have to cheat her a bit and bring her to a forest where she can climb, play hide and seek, etc. Otherwise she just moans and moans and that's enough to wish you were back on the sofa

Not sure whereabouts you live but we have the Slieve Gullion relatively nearby and this is really great for kids who find walking boring but still love to play:

http://www.ringofgullion.org/things-to-do/slieve-gullion-adventure-playpark/

Really amazing place providing lots of fun for parents and children.

fatknacker

Nanazolie wrote: »

ours has made huge improvements this year by providing school lunches. They usually consist of sandwich, crackers or pasta with water and fruits. It's a step in the right direction, although I wonder if parents would accept to pay maybe 2 or 3 euros for a hot lunch in winter? Unfortunately, not all schools can provide this.
I always wonder, if the government had the guts to commit for long term changes, would they not introduce a real anti obesity program? Not just a sugar tax, but a combination of school lunches, education, cheaper healthy and fresh foods compared to junk food, promotion of safe exercise with cycling or walking 'buses' (where groups of children and accompanied by 2 or 3 adults and cycle or walk to school), safer cycling routes in the cities, wider footpaths? There are already some initiatives in place, take for example the seafronts in most coastal towns, you have promenades with some exercise apparatus. A sugar tax for me is too 'nanny state', but sometimes, all it takes is information and an incentive to change

I really wish it would, spending a lot on preventive measures that will benefit the country and health system down the line is not something any government wants to invest in over their four year cycle, it seems.
Short sightedness and patching up holes from predecessors has them all too busy. Our whole culture needs to change. We have allowed ourselves to be Americanised, when we should have been looking at Scandinavian or Asian models instead,