Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

We're number 5, we're number 5!!

12357

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 59,244 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    rubadub wrote: »
    With kids you have to bear in mind the BMI charts are far more complex.

    Kids have gotten bigger over the years, developing faster. Its very rare for me to hear someone comment on a child being small for their age, its quite common for people to be surprised a child is so large for their age. And this is not just people making a child feel good saying "aren't you a big boy".

    Look at this chart

    growthchart_example2.gif

    So a boy of 10 with BMI of 23 is deemed to be obese, and at the 15 year old is fine.

    Now say this chart was developed 100 years ago, now say 100 years on the typical 10 year old has the build of what a typical 15 year old did back then. Then using that chart is incorrect, the goal posts need to shift accordingly.

    You can see the 15 year old & 20 year old are quite differnent, no doubt accounting for an expected increase in muscularity & frame size. Also you can see the graph goes up at the start. I think this is due to the high % of weight being due to the relatively large head on babies.

    Hence why I was saying that you need a real in-depth and researched study, not a few statements about 1/4.....I still think that 1/4 3 years olds (if fairly accurate) being termed obese or overweight is nothing alarming.


  • Posts: 25,909 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    That chart relates to percentiles rather than healthy ranges though.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    walshb wrote: »

    Nobody sticks to
    it could be the case/excuse for any pyramid or brilliant suggestion given that sees people still being overweight.

    There is nothing wrong with the WHO food pyramid. It's a guide. It's not perfect. Adhering to it is the key.


    If it's not perfect then there is something wrong with it!

    Starting every day with bread and cereal is wrong.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 59,244 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    If it's not perfect then there is something wrong with it!

    Starting every day with bread and cereal is wrong.

    Ridiculous. It's a thought out and researched guide, it is not meant to be perfect. No food pyramid can be. We're not robots, you know!


  • Posts: 25,909 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    MaceFace wrote: »
    I have to say that never in my life have I gone shopping or planned what to eat based on the food pyramid. Something tells me I'm not alone.

    Fact is that people buy what is easy, cheap, looks and taste's good. All influenced by what they were brought up eating, and what big business pushes at us.
    That's another part of the problem. However my dad after some heart attacks got some leaflets and went online. So he was convinced that plenty of bread, spuds and weetabix was what he should base his diet on.
    I know plenty of people who were veggies in their teens and always carried weight because they loaded up on pastas, noodles and rice. Less than a year after eating meat again they lost the weight. They couldn't understand it despite having an interest in fitness and the like.

    It comes down to several things, laziness, ignorance, portion sizes, poor/ineffective advice etc. The issue with the food pyramid w.r.t. carbs/grains is twofold, the portions are laughably unrealistic and the fact that it's "the base", implying more is fine, whereas it should be vegetables that applies to.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    walshb wrote: »
    Ridiculous. It's a thought out and researched guide, it is not meant to be perfect. No food pyramid can be. We're not robots, you know!

    You said there is nothing wrong with it. Then you said it's not perfect. Contradiction?

    Much thought and much research is wrong.


    You think beginning the day with cereal and bread is correct?


    You might want to do some research into Richard Nixon and what he did to appease farmers in 1972 and the 1977 dietary goals for Americans to see why the pyramid is based on grains.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,386 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    That chart relates to percentiles rather than healthy ranges though.
    True, but I think my points still apply, I am talking about the natural shifting rather than trying to find an ideal BMI.
    walshb wrote: »
    I still think that 1/4 3 years olds (if fairly accurate) being termed obese or overweight is nothing alarming.
    It doesn't surprise me either. People get all up in arms when they hear the word obese. They picture some lad on discovery channel being taken to hospital on a flat bed truck, when really it does not take much added fat to fall into the obese category. If they showed photos of 100 obese 3 year olds, I bet people would come away thinking "hmm, obese is not as big as I thought". Its sort of simliar to the WHO saying 3 drinks in a row is binge drinking, if I had said "did you know 50% of polictians go on binge drinking sessions in the dail bar once a fortnight?" you might be shocked, until you find out what that actually means.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 960 ✭✭✭cletus van damme


    MaceFace wrote: »
    Anyone who has kids knows how difficult it is to get them to eat healthy. I can put all the veg or salad on a plate for my kids and not let them leave the table until they are done. An hour later, I'll give in, let them leave the table hungry and they don't get fed.
    If I put a salmon darne in front of them they would probably cry.

    i have multiple children.
    I disagree with all above bar the salmon darne part of what you said.

    getting my kids to eat meat is an issue I'll admit.
    However fruit/veg and carbs sources (spuds/bread) go down teh hatch no problem.
    I find protein wise eggs and dairy are the only they'll eat without difficulty.They do eat junk too but I try manage it actively like keeping it for dessert only.

    It's not hard in fairness to shove a bowl of grapes or chopped up pineapple on front of them instead of junk food and they'll lap it up.

    I'm not trying to pass myself off as a supernanny style super parent(smug bastards ) but it's fairly straightforward to feed them right and set ground rules.

    The problem I see with others I know is that they (the parents) don't like healthy food and the kids pick up on that.
    my kids see me live my life and pick up my habits. I try to live a healthy life (don't always succeed mind)
    I really believe it's that simple.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 894 ✭✭✭Corkgirl18


    MaceFace wrote: »
    I have to say that never in my life have I gone shopping or planned what to eat based on the food pyramid. Something tells me I'm not alone.

    Fact is that people buy what is easy, cheap, looks and taste's good. All influenced by what they were brought up eating, and what big business pushes at us.

    Anyone who has kids knows how difficult it is to get them to eat healthy. I can put all the veg or salad on a plate for my kids and not let them leave the table until they are done. An hour later, I'll give in, let them leave the table hungry and they don't get fed.
    If I put a salmon darne in front of them they would probably cry.


    Some kids don't like the look of veggies but there are so many ways to get them to eat them. Make a homemade pizza and tell them they have to put 3 different veg on it, play a game where they have to taste everything and guess what it is, when making spaghetti bolognese or curries or stews or soups or sauces blitz up the veg so they won't know they're eating it.
    The effort does pay off.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,802 ✭✭✭✭Alf Veedersane


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    If it's not perfect then there is something wrong with it!


    Does this apply to people as well?

    attachment.php?attachmentid=14723&d=1358449714


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 59,244 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    You said there is nothing wrong with it. Then you said it's not perfect. Contradiction?

    .

    No contradiction. Just because something isn't "perfect," a subjective word in this instance, doesn't make said thing wrong. What is perfect? Getting bogged down on semantics. You said the pyramid is a disaster. I think that's OTT.


  • Posts: 25,909 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    rubadub wrote: »
    True, but I think my points still apply, I am talking about the natural shifting rather than trying to find an ideal BMI.

    No, you're completely misinterpreting it. Look at the axis down the right hand side. At age 20 the 75th percentile is at a BMI of approx. 25.5 meaning 25% of 20-years-olds are above a BMI of 25 from that data. The 50th percentile for the same age is at 23.

    All that chart shows (guessing it's some attempt at a new interpretation of BMI for kids) is comparative data. If everyone's BMI increases by the same amount then no-one changes where they would be according to that chart because the percentiles would just rise up.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    walshb wrote: »
    No contradiction. Just because something isn't "perfect," a subjective word in this instance, doesn't make said thing wrong. What is perfect? Getting bogged down on semantics. You said the pyramid is a disaster. I think that's OTT.[/QUOTE


    You still didn't answer my question. Have people got slimmer since it was introduced.

    I presume you know the real reasons as I've pointed out to you to research as to why it is based on grains?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 59,244 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    People I know who are adhering to it have got 'slimmer.' What's your point?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,802 ✭✭✭✭Alf Veedersane


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    You still didn't answer my question. Have people got slimmer since it was introduced.

    It's not like it's a law, Bruno. How many people do you think use it as a guide?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,863 ✭✭✭kevpants


    Corkgirl18 wrote: »
    Some kids don't like the look of veggies but there are so many ways to get them to eat them. Make a homemade pizza and tell them they have to put 3 different veg on it, play a game where they have to taste everything and guess what it is, when making spaghetti bolognese or curries or stews or soups or sauces blitz up the veg so they won't know they're eating it.
    The effort does pay off.

    My 4 year old eats so many hidden veggies it's unbelievable. It's a constant struggle to widen the breadth of what she eats. Sometimes it's exhausting and she gets spaghetti hoops on toast. According to some this makes me worse than Jimmy Saville and ISIS combined.

    My 11 month old will eat literally anything, if you hand her a sprig of broccoli she'll munch it down. Yet to find anything she won't eat, including pennies and cat hair.

    What sickens me is the smug "kids love parsnip fries just as much as real fries!" brigade. They do in their hoop. Single people in their 20's have literally no clue how much work it is feeding kids the right stuff and they need to shut up about it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    walshb wrote: »
    People I know who are adhering to it have got 'slimmer.' What's your point?

    Ha. Sure it must be right then! I'd imagine it's quite a struggle for them.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,647 ✭✭✭MaceFace


    Corkgirl18 wrote: »
    Some kids don't like the look of veggies but there are so many ways to get them to eat them. Make a homemade pizza and tell them they have to put 3 different veg on it, play a game where they have to taste everything and guess what it is, when making spaghetti bolognese or curries or stews or soups or sauces blitz up the veg so they won't know they're eating it.
    The effort does pay off.

    I agree and know all this and don't want to get into a conversation how I can make my kids eat healthier as they do eat very well... considering.

    But, take the spag bol as an example. Served it yesterday with peppers. 3 year old who loves it suddenly won't go near it because there are "yellow bits in it". Kids are irrational - they make up their minds before trying something.

    Besides, someone should not have to blitz up veg or hide it. This just goes to show the reasons why people serve unhealthy food to their children - it can be hard work to do otherwise.

    Another example - the "5 a day". Everyone knows it, but how many people follow it?
    The results of "unhealthy eating" are a slow one - slowly putting on weight or building up to heart problems or diabetes over 20 years.
    So, while we all know we should eat healthier, the fact is there are reasons why we don't and blaming it on the food pyramid is wrong.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 59,244 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    MaceFace wrote: »
    I agree and know all this and don't want to get into a conversation how I can make my kids eat healthier as they do eat very well... considering.

    But, take the spag bol as an example. Served it yesterday with peppers. 3 year old who loves it suddenly won't go near it because there are "yellow bits in it". Kids are irrational - they make up their minds before trying something.

    Besides, someone should not have to blitz up veg or hide it. This just goes to show the reasons why people serve unhealthy food to their children - it can be hard work to do otherwise.

    Another example - the "5 a day". Everyone knows it, but how many people follow it?
    The results of "unhealthy eating" are a slow one - slowly putting on weight or building up to heart problems or diabetes over 20 years.
    So, while we all know we should eat healthier, the fact is there are reasons why we don't and blaming it on the food pyramid is wrong.

    A sensible and real world example if I ever saw one. We need to be less rigid and more relaxed. Being relaxed doesn't mean we have to be reckless.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 581 ✭✭✭Ralphdejones


    walshb wrote: »
    A sensible and real world example

    Quick, kill it with fire !! before it infects La La land

    Now where did I put my tablespoon of Salmon and Broccoli


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    Quick, kill it with fire !! before it infects La La land

    Now where did I put my tablespoon of Salmon and Broccoli

    The salmon must be from the sea.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 581 ✭✭✭Ralphdejones


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    The salmon must be from the sea.

    Caught fresh this morning just off sellafield


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 894 ✭✭✭Corkgirl18


    MaceFace wrote: »
    Besides, someone should not have to blitz up veg or hide it. This just goes to show the reasons why people serve unhealthy food to their children - it can be hard work to do otherwise.

    Another example - the "5 a day". Everyone knows it, but how many people follow it?

    Surely blitzing up some sauce for 2 minutes doesn't constitute as hard work? If parents care enough about their kids and are well informed enough about food they will take the extra steps needed to make sure they are getting the right nutrition.
    I'd say most people hopefully follow the 5 a day. Its the most useful thing to come from the pyramid


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,386 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    No, you're completely misinterpreting it.
    I am not sure what you are getting at, do you disagree with any of my original points? i.e. ideal/OK BMI changes with body structure, so you have different "ideal BMI" figures & graphs depending on age.

    They are using age as an easy estimate of what your body structure is. So if the chart is very old it might need to be updated, as a typical 5 year old may be far more developed.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index#BMI-for-age
    BMI is used differently for children. It is calculated the same way as for adults, but then compared to typical values for other children of the same age. Instead of set thresholds for underweight and overweight, then, the BMI percentile allows comparison with children of the same sex and age.[9] A BMI that is less than the 5th percentile is considered underweight and above the 95th percentile is considered obese for people 20 and under. People under 20 with a BMI between the 85th and 95th percentile are considered to be overweight.

    Recent studies in Britain have indicated that females between the ages 12 and 16 have a higher BMI than males of the same age by 1.0 kg/m2 on average.

    If I use a regular chart
    bmi-chart.gif
    So if a 6ft man is 200lb he is deemed overweight. If this chart was from 100 years ago I would expect that the lines need to be shifted, a 6ft man 200lb nowadays could be in the normal section.

    Also the previous chart with ranges
    BMI-collage.jpg


  • Posts: 25,909 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    rubadub wrote: »
    I am not sure what you are getting at, do you disagree with any of my original points? i.e. ideal/OK BMI changes with body structure, so you have different "ideal BMI" figures & graphs depending on age.

    They are using age as an easy estimate of what your body structure is. So if the chart is very old it might need to be updated, as a typical 5 year old may be far more developed.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index#BMI-for-age


    If I use a regular chart
    bmi-chart.gif
    So if a 6ft man is 200lb he is deemed overweight. If this chart was from 100 years ago I would expect that the lines need to be shifted, a 6ft man 200lb nowadays could be in the normal section.

    Also the previous chart with ranges
    BMI-collage.jpg
    Those charts are just representing data, they don't actually say what's healthy.

    You get how percentiles work, yes? If everyone under the age of 20 put on 2 stone tomorrow none of them would move on a percentile chart which makes it next to useless.


    The "regular" chart represents definitions of overweight/obese/normal/underweight based on height and weight, just like BMI. The percentile one doesn't say anything useful. It can't apply to a fat population and also apply to a healthy population. No matter what 100 people you choose according to that chart the top 5 of BMI are obese and another 10 are overweight. It's nonsensical to use purely comparative data when trying to define obesity.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,647 ✭✭✭MaceFace


    Corkgirl18 wrote: »
    Surely blitzing up some sauce for 2 minutes doesn't constitute as hard work? If parents care enough about their kids and are well informed enough about food they will take the extra steps needed to make sure they are getting the right nutrition.
    I'd say most people hopefully follow the 5 a day. Its the most useful thing to come from the pyramid
    It might be if you're making a sauce you can hide it in but not so good with spuds and chicken.

    And as for the 5 a day...
    Why 5? The Japanese go for 17 a day. These are all just arbritary numbers based off what people believe at one moment in time and are often misguided by bad studies, lobbyists or sticking a finger in the air.


  • Posts: 25,909 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    MaceFace wrote: »
    It might be if you're making a sauce you can hide it in but not so good with spuds and chicken.

    And as for the 5 a day...
    Why 5? The Japanese go for 17 a day. These are all just arbritary numbers based off what people believe at one moment in time and are often misguided by bad studies, lobbyists or sticking a finger in the air.
    It's a minimum and it's probably to avoid scaring people. :pac:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,386 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    Those charts are just representing data, they don't actually say what's healthy.

    You get how percentiles work, yes? If everyone under the age of 20 put on 2 stone tomorrow none of them would move on a percentile chart which makes it next to useless.
    If every 20 year old put on 2 stone of fat then the "recommended classification" side would have to change for 20 year olds. As I said before "I am talking about the natural shifting rather than trying to find an ideal BMI."

    I get what you are saying about that chart but as I said before I think my points still stand and you are arguing about a pretty moot point.

    I am still not sure if you are disagreeing with any points I made about body structure changing, and how calling 25% of 3 year olds obese now might wrong, depending on when the charts were made. Do you agree with that single point?

    Also do you agree that a "regular" chart for a 10 year old girl would/should be different than for a 20 year old woman?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 581 ✭✭✭Ralphdejones


    Corkgirl18 wrote: »
    I'd say most people hopefully follow the 5 a day. Its the most useful thing to come from the pyramid

    It should be 7 a day according to the UK


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 25,909 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    rubadub wrote: »
    If every 20 year old put on 2 stone of fat then the "recommended classification" side would have to change for 20 year olds. As I said before "I am talking about the natural shifting rather than trying to find an ideal BMI."

    I get what you are saying about that chart but as I said before I think my points still stand and you are arguing about a pretty moot point.
    If we apply the same principle to the entire population then there can never be an increase in the proportion of people who are overweight/obese.
    I am still not sure if you are disagreeing with any points I made about body structure changing, and how calling 25% of 3 year olds obese now might wrong, depending on when the charts were made. Do you agree with that single point?
    Depends what you mean by "wrong"? Doing it by percentiles is certainly wrong.
    Also do you agree that a "regular" chart for a 10 year old girl would/should be different than for a 20 year old woman?
    To some extent. It's still complete nonsense to go by percentiles.

    EDIT: Body composition has an effect, but by 20 someone is fully-grown. Also puberty is the main effect on body composition. Their height is accounted for in the calculation of BMI already and I don't think there's been a massive increase in muscularity in the under-10s.


Advertisement