Fat kids

end of the road

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Obesity is not tackled so easily because fat people do not listen to the undeniable advice they keep getting.

not from the unmedically qualified no . they would be correct.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And if we have to decide who gets HSE funds, I vote for the desperate people whose kids have cancer, not the fatties who know damn well how to get healthier.

can't be done, both are as equally entitled to treatment. if one votes for 1 group to not receive treatment because they dislike something they have done, then one is along the lines of an extremist, who believes that those who don't conform to their way of thinking are inferior and should be left to die or whatever. if they knew how to get healthier then they would be doing it. the real reason people have an issue with this is because they don't like how it looks. that's fine, but pretending to care about health or tax money is easily saw through.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

In the case of indicivual fat kids, yes.

This can't explain the obesity epidemic, though. They can't all be on steroids.

nobody is saying they are. but you wouldn't know that they are or aren't on an individual basis.

end of the road

pickarooney wrote: »

It's different because it's clear and obvious that when entire families are stuffing themselves from morning till night that the only psychological disorder at play is congenital stupidity.

it's actually not clear and obvious at all. you could be correct and you may not be, but you wouldn't know either way unless you go to stay with these people.

pickarooney wrote: »

that feeds into the prejudice of fat people as lazy and stupid when often nothing could be further from the truth.

the only people who get involved in such prejudice are the gullible, for which everything feeds into their view. in my opinion.

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

If you have read all the thread you would see that I have a fair idea what I'm talking about because I was one of these fat kids, I knew I was fat and was called all the usual names going to school.

The reason I was fat was I was shovelling all the wrong foods down my gob and amazingly when I stopped and changed my diet and exercised more the weight came off.

I've remained pretty much the same weight since I was 17 so of course it's possible with a bit of willpower.

that didn't answer what was asked of you however. you were fat, you aren't any longer, that was your job to deal with the problem. however, the world isn't black and white and ranting eat less move more clearly doesn't work over all, otherwise we wouldn't have an issue.

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Stupid question. Why do we actually care whether someone is fat or not? Or even large parts of the society.
Is the same as smoking really. Let people be porkers if they wish to be or if they don't care.
Why do we all have to adhere to this great new standard of model worker bee all increasing the national health average?

people don't like the look of it, and they want to look down on others they see as inferior to them. if it's not fat people it will be someone else. we don't all behave that way however.
in saying that, we do have an issue here and there are some of us who actually do genuinely care about solving it. however, we know that simplistic statements, soundbites and rants aren't going to solve the issue.

Ronaldinho wrote: »

Because people who actually take care of themselves end up subsidizing those adhering to those unhealthy lifestyles.

I do agree that we don't/shouldn't start turning the country into a nanny state though.

Maybe a disgustingly graphic TV ad campaign might change attitudes? Like what was done for dangerous and/or drunk driving.

every single one of us is subsidized in some way or another. a graphic tv add campaign should be tried. whether it will work or not is another matter but give it a try.

mathie

Ann_Landers wrote: »

Yeah, but the chocolate milk bottle might be way bigger. Like, obviously coke is complete crap but a can of it has 139 calories whereas the chocolate milk bottle might be nearer 300 cals. I'm just guessing here but just pointing out that it could, in terms of calories, be much worse than the coke. Both are rubbishy obviously. The 'per 100mls' info alone isn't that useful if we don't know what size the actual bottles are.

And you left out that coke per 100mls has 42kcals, whereas the milk has 76kcal per 100ml. So if the chocolate milk was in the same size can as the coke, it would contain 250kcals to coke's 139kcals. The reason I am pointing this out is that in this thread, people have scoffed at notion that people are uneducated about nutrition but you've just shown how anyone can get it wrong about calories and nutrition. If you told your child to out down the can of coke and swapped it out for chocolate milk, you'd actually more than likely have fed them even more calories and sugar.

Its not just about calories.
If it was you could drink litres of diet coke a day.

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-34924036

Lollipops23

I was waiting outside Cineworld on Parnell St a few weeks ago (when the weather was still fabulous). There was a girl of no more than 9/10 also waiting with who I assume was her dad. She was a very very heavy kid. She didn't appear to have any physical/mental disabilities (I know you can only tell so much by looking, but she was behaving and interacting in a fairly normal way).

The sight wasn't much helped by the fact that she'd squeezed herself into a playsuit that was easily 2-3 sizes too small for her.

It's just no start in life for her; puberty is gonna make it all so much worse.

caniask86

RhubarbCrumble wrote: »

Have just been in Tesco and saw a child of about 4 or 5 pick up a small carton of chocolate milk and ask his father for it. Father's reply was "F**k off will you. I'm not buying you a f***ing carton of milk. Get a bottle of coke if you want a drink"
With a parent like that, what hope has the child? I know chocolate milk isn't the healthiest drink, but certainly better than a bottle of coke.
Before anyone asks, yes the child did have a weight problem and so did the father.

It is actually one of the biggest issues surrounding obesity is the fact that people think chocolate milk is better than coke! Neither is a good. Compare sugar content in both and actually a large carton of chocolate milk is larger and more sugar and cals than a small bottle of coke. Water being the best of course but even if the father switched to coke zero. It has a lot to do with lack of reading labels and not actually being aware of cals content.

Ms Doubtfire1

in my view it's pretty simple ; too many calories and too little exercise for the kids.My childhood years i ate like a wolf - but I was out and about running around, riding ponies, playing catch and other games every day from dawn til dusk (except for schooldays and they were torture one had to sit STILL). The breaks at school were spent playing any kind of game but all involved running around. Basically, thats what kids are missing these days.if you eat a lot, you have to move. Iphones, internet, xbox interactive games - all that sh*** will keep the young generation glued to the couch - with their ever enlarging bottoms....it's a shame.:(

Ann_Landers

mathie wrote: »

Its not just about calories.
If it was you could drink litres of diet coke a day.

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-34924036

If you have to eat, say, 1400 calories a day to lost weight and you used all that up just drinking coke, you would still lose weight. You would be unhealthy but you would still lose weight.

On the flip side, chocolate milk might have a lot more goodness in it than coke but as the same volume is much higher in calories, it doesn't matter if it has more goodness if it puts you in the weight gain zone.

That's what makes nutrition such a confusing thing for a lot of people.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Lot of talk of diet here, but I think lack of exercise is the bigger issue. I mean: kids eat junk food. Always have, always will. And I'm pretty sure they're doing it in the same amounts they've always done, so that doesn't account for a higher portion of overwieght kids.

There's an element of playing ipads and watching screens all day, probably because Mum and Dad watch to much Sky News and are convinced the moment he goes out, he'll be moledted; or are just too tired to put together an active outlet for the kid.

Ann_Landers

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Lot of talk of diet here, but I think lack of exercise is the bigger issue.

No, diet is by far the biggest factor in weight gain. I did no organised sports as a kid, just a bit of cycling was all I did. I just didn't eat huge amounts. And I grew up with chubby kids who were quite active in sport. But they just ate far too much.

Exercise is more for keeping in condition. Obviously, it adds a bit to the calorie deficit needed for weight loss but the calories burned off from exercise are never as high as people think.

Eating more and more junk food is the issue. Clearly kids eat more of the stuff now than a generation ago. Takeaways are much more popular, it seems, probably due to increased disposable income of the parents. And takeaway portions are ridiculous, just way too big.

We got a takeaway chipper maybe twice a year as children. I think that was the norm. I think it'd be a few times a month at least now.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Ann_Landers wrote: »

No, diet is by far the biggest factor in weight gain. I did no organised sports as a kid, just a bit of cycling was all I did. I just didn't eat huge amounts. And I grew up with chubby kids who were quite active in sport. But they just ate far too much.

Exercise is more for keeping in condition. Obviously, it adds a bit to the calorie deficit needed for weight loss but the calories burned off from exercise are never as high as people think.

Eating more and more junk food is the issue. Clearly kids eat more of the stuff now than a generation ago. Takeaways are much more popular, it seems, probably due to increased disposable income of the parents. And takeaway portions are ridiculous, just way too big.

We got a takeaway chipper maybe twice a year as children. I think that was the norm. I think it'd be a few times a month at least now.

Got chipps twice a week and turne out fine, but I was a very active child.

My point, though, is: is there any evidence to suggest kids are eating more junk food now than a generation or two back? If not, why is childhood obesity more prevalent now? If so, what's changed?

Ann_Landers

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Got chipps twice a week and turne out fine, but I was a very active child.

My point, though, is: is there any evidence to suggest kids are eating more junk food now than a generation or two back? If not, why is childhood obesity more prevalent now? If so, what's changed?

There may well be evidence, I haven't looked. I just know that the calorie deficit created by exercise is hugely overestimated by a lot people which is why it's not as big a factor in weight loss and weight gain as people think. And I know myself from losing weight that exercise didn't make a huge difference to weight loss, it just toned me up a bit and gave me more stamina. And there were always lazy kids. Computer games have been popular for a quarter century now. I don't think there are any less children doing sport now than a generation ago either. It's much more likely that extra junk food is the culprit. It is very easy to gain weight through eating just a little extra every day. The chicken fillet roll and general deli counter rubbish is very much a 21st century phenomenon too. People seem to be more clueless on portion sizes. The aforementioned takeaways and the like. I don't think having a chipper twice a week like you had was the norm a generation ago.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Ann_Landers wrote: »

There may well be evidence, I haven't looked. I just know that the calorie deficit created by exercise is hugely overestimated by a lot people which is why it's not as big a factor in weight loss and weight gain as people think. And I know myself from losing weight that exercise didn't make a huge difference to weight loss, it just toned me up a bit and gave me more stamina. And there were always lazy kids. Computer games have been popular for a quarter century now. I don't think there are any less children doing sport now than a generation ago either. It's much more likely that extra junk food is the culprit. It is very easy to gain weight through eating just a little extra every day. The chicken fillet roll and general deli counter rubbish is very much a 21st century phenomenon too. People seem to be more clueless on portion sizes. The aforementioned takeaways and the like. I don't think having a chipper twice a week like you had was the norm a generation ago.

Not sure what the "norm" was back then, to be fair!

Just re the bit in bold: where is this food coming from? Has portion size increased? I mean, coke and sweets are still in the same size containers - chips and burgers are the same size - either kids are eating them more frequently or they're not.

Also, the diet-exercise balance is dependent on age. The younger you are, the more you'll get away with over eating, because your body metaboolises the food more effieicently. After about 30 (especially in men, for some reason), it slows down and the diet becomes more important.

Ann_Landers

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Just re the bit in bold: where is this food coming from? Has portion size increased? I mean, coke and sweets are still in the same size containers - chips and burgers are the same size - either kids are eating them more frequently or they're not.

Do you know this? I remember seeing an article somewhere which showed how the basic burger in MacDonald's has become bigger and bigger throughout the years. And in a Italian chipper, a portion of chips can be 1000 calories alone.

I think bigger portions sizes are a reason as well as more disposable income and therefore more eating out. I know if I go through a phase or either eating out more and eating more takeaways, I gain weight fast. And it would be the same for kids even with their growing bodies. They still have a calorie limit advised that I don't think exceeds 2000 calories a day, maybe a bit higher for teenagers. A takeaway or meal out can be between 1000 and 2000 calories for one sitting.

And as said, sports haven't stopped in schools, schools generally still have the same teams they had a generation ago.

Too much food is the main problem.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Lot of talk of diet here, but I think lack of exercise is the bigger issue. I mean: kids eat junk food. Always have, always will. And I'm pretty sure they're doing it in the same amounts they've always done, so that doesn't account for a higher portion of overwieght kids.

There's an element of playing ipads and watching screens all day, probably because Mum and Dad watch to much Sky News and are convinced the moment he goes out, he'll be moledted; or are just too tired to put together an active outlet for the kid.

A child I know is given a horrific amount of crap and it should disguised as "he's a fussy eater" justifying the fact he'll only eat processed fast food. He's 2 years old and given the same size portion of "treats" us adults get. A full slice of cake. A whole donut. A 99. A large gingerbread man.

There's no need for it.

Dtp1979

LexieOnRale wrote: »

A child I know is given a horrific amount of crap and it should disguised as "he's a fussy eater" justifying the fact he'll only eat processed fast food. He's 2 years old and given the same size portion of "treats" us adults get. A full slice of cake. A whole donut. A 99. A large gingerbread man.

There's no need for it.

Ah but he's a fussy eater. Non of mine will eat broccoli or eggs.......Is often said to me. You'd swear eating unhealthy was some sort of medical condition

Zubeneschamali

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Has portion size increased? I mean, coke and sweets are still in the same size containers - chips and burgers are the same size

This isn't true at all - the portions at fast food places are much bigger than they used to be. A Big Mac was regarded as a monster when McDonalds arrived first in the 70s, with 90g of meat.

Today you can rock up in Burgerking and order a triple whopper - 340g of meat.

And a Super Coke, Sprite or Fanta with it is 750 ml, a pint and a half, nearly 2000 calories right there.

_Brian

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Got chipps twice a week and turne out fine, but I was a very active child.

My point, though, is: is there any evidence to suggest kids are eating more junk food now than a generation or two back? If not, why is childhood obesity more prevalent now? If so, what's changed?

Lots of evidence.
My OH is A healthcare professional and works in this field.

Serious increase in consumption of processed sugars, minerals, caffeine drinks etc.

I'm middle aged and when we were young a fizzy mineral was occasional, maybe once a week a 750ml bottle between 5 kids and two adults.
Now kids are having regular 330ml drinks daily and often "sports drinks" because Johnny plays 30mimutes once a week.

She's had mothers in talking about giving chickatees to babies under six months "coz he loves them"

It's not that long ago I saw a kid maybe four with a 1.5litre of Coke to keep it quiet, drinking from the neck.

Kids are eating way way more processed sugars than say 20 years ago that's why 20% are overweight or obese.


It's also becoming a class divide with a way higher % of obesity among kids from the lower socioeconomic groups than kids of say households where both parents have college education. To put that as bluntly as I can, fat lazy unemployed parents are breeding fat lazy kids with way shorter lifespans than their parents, the parents blame the gubberment, but it's the parents to blame.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

_Brian wrote: »

Lots of evidence.
My OH is A healthcare professional and works in this field.

Serious increase in consumption of processed sugars, minerals, caffeine drinks etc.

I'm middle aged and when we were young a fizzy mineral was occasional, maybe once a week a 750ml bottle between 5 kids and two adults.
Now kids are having regular 330ml drinks daily and often "sports drinks" because Johnny plays 30mimutes once a week.

She's had mothers in talking about giving chickatees to babies under six months "coz he loves them"

It's not that long ago I saw a kid maybe four with a 1.5litre of Coke to keep it quiet, drinking from the neck.

Kids are eating way way more processed sugars than say 20 years ago that's why 20% are overweight or obese.


It's also becoming a class divide with a way higher % of obesity among kids from the lower socioeconomic groups than kids of say households where both parents have college education. To put that as bluntly as I can, fat lazy unemployed parents are breeding fat lazy kids with way shorter lifespans than their parents, the parents blame the gubberment, but it's the parents to blame.

Fair enough so.

I wasn't actually debating one versus the other: I was just putting it out there, hence the question. There being much less kids playing out on the street than when I was a kid is something I've observed.

Bobeagleburger

Anyone that gives their kids fizzy drinks on a regular basis is incompetent as a parent.

I'd be in favour of a large tax on that stuff.

end of the road

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Anyone that gives their kids fizzy drinks on a regular basis is incompetent as a parent.

I'd be in favour of a large tax on that stuff.

all ready tried and failed. this isn't a problem that can be taxed away.

_Brian

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Fair enough so.

I wasn't actually debating one versus the other: I was just putting it out there, hence the question. There being much less kids playing out on the street than when I was a kid is something I've observed.

I'd agree on the playing outside, must be tough in built up areas not knowing if it's safe to let kids out or not.

But, if a kid is getting 3000 calories extra a week they will never "burn it off", you can't exercise away a bad diet, that goes for kids and adults.

It takes effort by parents, a conscious effort to get kids eating right, that starts with what the parents eat, parents need to be sitting down with their kids to quality meals and not gorging on crap and alcohol, "do as I say and not as I do" doesn't work with children.

Bobeagleburger

_Brian wrote: »

I'd agree on the playing outside, must be tough in built up areas not knowing if it's safe to let kids out or not.

But, if a kid is getting 3000 calories extra a week they will never "burn it off", you can't exercise away a bad diet, that goes for kids and adults.

It takes effort by parents, a conscious effort to get kids eating right, that starts with what the parents eat, parents need to be sitting down with their kids to quality meals and not gorging on crap and alcohol, "do as I say and not as I do" doesn't work with children.

Yep, too much food/drinks is the main factor at play here, not lack of excercise.

ford2600

_Brian wrote: »

Lots of evidence.
My OH is A healthcare professional and works in this field.

Serious increase in consumption of processed sugars, minerals, caffeine drinks etc.

I'm middle aged and when we were young a fizzy mineral was occasional, maybe once a week a 750ml bottle between 5 kids and two adults.
Now kids are having regular 330ml drinks daily and often "sports drinks" because Johnny plays 30mimutes once a week.

She's had mothers in talking about giving chickatees to babies under six months "coz he loves them"

It's not that long ago I saw a kid maybe four with a 1.5litre of Coke to keep it quiet, drinking from the neck.

Kids are eating way way more processed sugars than say 20 years ago that's why 20% are overweight or obese.


It's also becoming a class divide with a way higher % of obesity among kids from the lower socioeconomic groups than kids of say households where both parents have college education. To put that as bluntly as I can, fat lazy unemployed parents are breeding fat lazy kids with way shorter lifespans than their parents, the parents blame the gubberment, but it's the parents to blame.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HC20OoIgG_Y

Good review here of what has changed in the American diet over 100 years or so. we are not that different, a small lag perhaps but going in same direction.

Along with diet other factors that have had varying negative effect
*disturbance of gut microbiota; growing area of research but lots of interesting stuff on gut/brain axis and it's effect on metabolic health. Increasing sterile environment, bottle feeding, C section birth can have an influence on which stains are absent/present
* poorer sleep. The science is pretty much done on the effect of long term sleep deprivation and excess consumption
* mental health; ask any professional and they are turning away children such is the demand in our overly anxious/stressful word
* all exercise seems to be arranged, with little time for spontaneous play or certainly less than they used to be.

A child born of an obese mother, an exposed to an obesogenic environment until adulthood is in all probability always going to be obese. The damage is done to the system which regulates body fat (there is also interesting research headed by St Vincents looking at damage to the immune system) , and in all probability isn't reversible.

Our best chance is education to limit the metabolic damage/dysfunction before it's too late.

For the long term obese eat less/move more is pretty useless information but it is great for lean people to feel smug

Bobeagleburger

ford2600 wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HC20OoIgG_Y

Good review here of what has changed in the American diet over 100 years or so. we are not that different, a small lag perhaps but going in same direction.

Along with diet other factors that have had varying negative effect
*disturbance of gut microbiota; growing area of research but lots of interesting stuff on gut/brain axis and it's effect on metabolic health. Increasing sterile environment, bottle feeding, C section birth can have an influence on which stains are absent/present
* poorer sleep. The science is pretty much done on the effect of long term sleep deprivation and excess consumption
* mental health; ask any professional and they are turning away children such is the demand in our overly anxious/stressful word
* all exercise seems to be arranged, with little time for spontaneous play or certainly less than they used to be.

A child born of an obese mother, an exposed to an obesogenic environment until adulthood is in all probability always going to be obese. The damage is done to the system which regulates body fat (there is also interesting research headed by St Vincents looking at damage to the immune system) , and in all probability isn't reversible.

Our best chance is education to limit the metabolic damage/dysfunction before it's too late.

For the long term obese eat less/move more is pretty useless information but it is great for lean people to feel smug

Surely that can't be true

Ann_Landers

ford2600 wrote: »

A child born of an obese mother, an exposed to an obesogenic environment until adulthood is in all probability always going to be obese. The damage is done to the system which regulates body fat (there is also interesting research headed by St Vincents looking at damage to the immune system) , and in all probability isn't reversible.

Our best chance is education to limit the metabolic damage/dysfunction before it's too late.

Yes, this is a very important point. Once a certain level is hit and that weight level is maintained long-term, it's very hard to go back. This is why children should be stopped from becoming obese because it then likely be a life-long problem for them.

ford2600 wrote: »

For the long term obese eat less/move more is pretty useless information but it is great for lean people to feel smug

Unfortunately, a lot of people won't accept the point about it being very hard to row back once a certain level of obesity has been hit and don't seem to want to find out about it, despite there being very solid science behind it.

Ann_Landers

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Surely that can't be true

Sadly, it is. Most long-term obese people who lose a lot of weight will not be able to maintain it. There is a whole science behind it and it's why it's very important to try not to become obese long-term in the first place. Out and about currently myself but if you have a google, you should find lots of peer-reviewed stuff about it.

ford2600

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Surely that can't be true

http://www.newstalk.com/listen_back/13240/31804/17th_November_2016_-_The_Pat_Kenny_Show_Part_3/

That's one of Ireland's leading doctors treating obese patients.

90% of long term obese adults fail to maintain a health weight.

For most about 10% loss of mass is about the ceiling, after that the damage from decades of overeating works against them

https://sigmanutrition.com/episode175/

This guy is a rock star in terms of measuring calories in/out. He came up with the double labelled water method. His advice for getting lean; "don't get fat"

Ronaldinho

end of the road wrote: »

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Anyone that gives their kids fizzy drinks on a regular basis is incompetent as a parent.

I'd be in favour of a large tax on that stuff.

all ready tried and failed. this isn't a problem that can be taxed away.

Where was it tried out of curiosity?

Ronaldinho

_Brian wrote: »

For the long term obese eat less/move more is pretty useless information but it is great for lean people to feel smug

Obvious - Yes. Useless - hardly.

end of the road

Ronaldinho wrote: »

Obvious - Yes. Useless - hardly.

stating it hasn't made this problem go away, so i would suggest it is useless even though it is very obvious and accurate. simplistic statements and soundbites even if correct aren't going to deal with the issue.