Fat kids

OU812 wrote: »

That's by no means definitive. I was breastfed & as stated earlier, was a fat kid & adult & only in recent years have managed to get it under control.

They way I did was to change my diet & exercise more.

It is much less likely- not 100%. That's like saying the studies on fast food being bad for you are all wrong because I eat it and I am slim. It could be that in 40 bottle fed babies 23 are obese. In 40 breastfed babies 10 are obese. (Not actual figures) Thus making it much less likely to be obese if you are breastfed, it doesn't mean that all bottlefed babies will be obese or that no breastfed babies will be obese.

end of the road

It wasnt me123 wrote: »

Billy Connolly said it best -
You're retaining water? You're retaining chips. You're retaining mars bars.
I have a slow metabolism - you have a fast appetite.
I'm big boned - yes your ass bone is enormous.

Its the old adage - you are what you eat - if you eat crap, you will look like crap.

Its not education - from 10 year olds to 30 somethings, these are the social media savvy people - if they can text faster with their thumbs on Whats app, Instagram, Twitter, FB, etc than I'm typing this, they can look up healthy eating information.

its pure laziness. If you work full time (long days), plan meals in advance. Buy vegetables and fruit.

And its not the governments fault or big business - they aren't shovelling the food into your gobs.

I never buy crisps, chocolate, cake, biscuits - because if I did, I would eat them all in one setting and they wouldn't be there for the visitors that I bought them for in the first place!

Don't buy crap and your kids and you can't eat crap. Simples!

not simples at all, otherwise we wouldn't have a problem.

OU812 wrote: »

So the answer is to starve the baby just in case it kicks in later?

Maybe the "breast is best" brigade would be suitable for doing thins then, because they didn't in our case, just scoured angrily as I demanded a bottle for a baby that had had trouble feeding for 36 hours.Pumping is not an ideal solution either

Personal experience. Quite a difficult pregnancy followed by a difficult cesarian. made it impossible to even lift baby for the first four days.

* Still waiting on the three independent reports BTW.

You clearly have no clue about breastfeeding, the first feeds are colostrum always, the milk always kicks in later and no starving there.

So the breast is best brigade were with you in your ward scourning you? Did you even ask for or contact a lactation consultant?

That is in your experience, that is not to say that other mothers can't breastfeed after a Caesarian.

Show me an actual study that proves that artificial milk is best for baby.

Everyone has a right to decide to breastfeed if they wish, don't try to dismiss its benefits just because you didn't.

Murrisk wrote: »

I'm reading 'The Life Project' currently about the longtidunal studies done on successive generations of children born in the UK. These are huge, ambitious studies where a huge amount of information are gathered. Among their findings is than breastfed children are much less likely to be overweight. I don't have three independent studies to hand this minute relating to these findings but there is no doubt they exist. The findings have been written up extensively.

That's by no means definitive. I was breastfed & as stated earlier, was a fat kid & adult & only in recent years have managed to get it under control.

They way I did was to change my diet & exercise more.

Sadb wrote: »

1. A breastfeeding mother's milk does not come in until day 2/3/4, in most cases, this is after the mother has left the hospital, by which point already 70-80% are not breastfeeding so how could any of them know if they could produce enough milk.

So the answer is to starve the baby just in case it kicks in later?

Sadb wrote: »

2. Many babies/mothers do need help with latch, unfortunately, there is no help available to these mothers in Irish hospitals and the solution is to shove a bottle in babies mouth. If a baby cannot latch because of other issues a mother can pump her breast milk.

Maybe the "breast is best" brigade would be suitable for doing thins then, because they didn't in our case, just scoured angrily as I demanded a bottle for a baby that had had trouble feeding for 36 hours.Pumping is not an ideal solution either

Sadb wrote: »

3. Why do you think this? There is no medical reason why a mother can't breastfeed after a Caesarian.

Personal experience. Quite a difficult pregnancy followed by a difficult cesarian. made it impossible to even lift baby for the first four days.

* Still waiting on the three independent reports BTW.

pickarooney

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

When I was young my parents had me involved in everything. Rugby, soccer, hurling, football, golf, tennis.

I hardly ever had an evening off during the week, there was a training session of some kind to attend.

You'd be looking at about 2 grand a year in fees for that these days.

Still, cheaper than a heart transplant.

pickarooney

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

You see loads of kids on my local shop every morning buying sausage rolls and other **** processed junk for their breakfasts. It's just mind boggling to me that there are parents that don't make sure their kids have a decent breakfast at home in the mornings and instead give them money to buy unhealthy crap.

I feel very sorry for fat kids but it is 100% their parents' fault. They are setting them up for a life of discomfort and being mocked as well as medical problems, all due to their own laziness or unwillingness to enforce any discipline. It's very hard for a fat kid to get the weight off, they basically have a lifetime of obesity ahead of them.

It's shockingly unfair on the poor kid.

They won't be mocked as they'll be in the majority. One less reason not to get fat.

suicide_circus

Deleted User wrote: »

I think there are way fewer fat kids in recent years than during the 2000s. Definitely way fewer fat teenagers anyway.

This is untrue I think. It's just that they don't go outside as much because they can live 100% through a screen.

[Deleted User]

I think there are way fewer fat kids in recent years than during the 2000s. Definitely way fewer fat teenagers anyway. During the 2000s, teens who had been fed junk food as kids during the mid to late 90s had become overweight and were used to a junk food diet. During the 90s however, most teens (who had grown up as kids in the 80s) ate little junk food as kids and it was only the better off and those most predisposed to become fat who ate lots of junk in the 80s and early 90s and became fat teenagers. What is happening during the 2010s is that kids who had lots of access to junk food during the 2000s don't get excited by it the way kids who grew up in earlier times do, so it isn't as difficult to avoid it. Also, pressures to do with self-image which result from social media and smartphones being a thing has made teenagers more conscious of their diets, in my opinion.

Sadb wrote: »

It did need some uplifting.

Chest a little.

Are Am Eye wrote: »

Just trying to implant a little humour.

It did need some uplifting.

The Rape of Lucretia

LordSutch wrote: »

Nature or nurture?

I think its a combination of the two.
Genetics play a big part ...

No. 100% its nurture. Nature has not changed in 20 or 30 years so the increase in fat kids is completely due to nurture. Or rising incomes, availability of cheap calorie rich food, and a cultural adaptation to view increasing weight as normal.

JayRoc

I have no idea how much of an effect the difference in exercise levels between this generation and the ones before it is having on childhood obesity , but it certainly exists.

I'm only in my thirties, but the difference is remarkable....when I was in primary school I estimate I was getting a good two hours of exercise a day (mostly running around kicking a football etc), and believe me when I say I was not a sporty kid.

Every one of my mates had access to computer games but even still would have maintained the above, and that's not including things like PE etc.

Does the average child nowadays get even half that? I doubt it

Sadb wrote: »

You're beginning to milk it now....

Just trying to implant a little humour.

It wasnt me123

Billy Connolly said it best -
You're retaining water? You're retaining chips. You're retaining mars bars.
I have a slow metabolism - you have a fast appetite.
I'm big boned - yes your ass bone is enormous.

Its the old adage - you are what you eat - if you eat crap, you will look like crap.

Its not education - from 10 year olds to 30 somethings, these are the social media savvy people - if they can text faster with their thumbs on Whats app, Instagram, Twitter, FB, etc than I'm typing this, they can look up healthy eating information.

its pure laziness. If you work full time (long days), plan meals in advance. Buy vegetables and fruit.

And its not the governments fault or big business - they aren't shovelling the food into your gobs.

I never buy crisps, chocolate, cake, biscuits - because if I did, I would eat them all in one setting and they wouldn't be there for the visitors that I bought them for in the first place!

Don't buy crap and your kids and you can't eat crap. Simples!

Are Am Eye wrote: »

It's difficult to support it at this stage.

You're beginning to milk it now....

Sadb wrote: »

It's all gone a bit tits up.

It's difficult to support it at this stage.

Are Am Eye wrote: »

This thread has really gone bust.

It's all gone a bit tits up.

Chester Copperpot

LordSutch wrote: »

Nature or nurture?

I think its a combination of the two.
Genetics play a big part ...

True to a certain extent but kids that have a poor diet and are not overtly fat are what is termed skinny fat. Their organs are those of obese people but don't display it on the outside. No-one can really get away with poor dietary habits

This thread has really gone bust.

OU812 wrote: »

Ummm... No.

While it's been proven to contribute greatly & influence all sorts of body chemistry, there's no outright report to say it's 100% the best thing you can do - if you can provide three totally independent reports to say it is, I'll publicly apologise to you.

For many babies, bottle feeding is the only option as:
Either the mother doesn't produce/produce enough milk.

The baby will fail to latch on.

After a surgical delivery, the mother is in no condition to breastfeed.

In all three of these scenarios (of which there are probably several more), bottle feeding is proven to be the most nutritional, healthy food for your baby.

Although I will concede that there is a percentage of mothers who prefer not to breastfeed for their own reasons which have nothing to do with the scenarios I've mentioned.

1. A breastfeeding mothers milk does not come in until day 2/3/4, in most cases this is after the mother has left the hospital, by which point already 70-80% are not breastfeeding so how could any of them know if they could produce enough milk.

2. Many babies/mothers do need help with latch, unfortunately there is no help available to these mothers in Irish hospitals and the solution is to shove a bottle in babies mouth. If a baby cannot latch because of other issues a mother can pump her breast milk.

3. Why do you think this? There is no medical reason why a mother can't breastfeed after a Caesarian.

Murrisk wrote: »

A majority still breastfeed, 55%, I think.

That figure is "who have ever breastfed even once", this figure is hugely inflated imo. Look at the figure of breastfeeding mothers leaving hospital (which is usually at 2/3 days old), it's about 22%.

OU812 wrote: »

Ummm... No.

While it's been proven to contribute greatly & influence all sorts of body chemistry, there's no outright report to say it's 100% the best thing you can do - if you can provide three totally independent reports to say it is, I'll publicly apologise to you.

I'm reading 'The Life Project' currently about the longtidunal studies done on successive generations of children born in the UK. These are huge, ambitious studies where a huge amount of information are gathered. Among their findings is than breastfed children are much less likely to be overweight. I don't have three independent studies to hand this minute relating to these findings but there is no doubt they exist. The findings have been written up extensively.

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Does it work though? I don't think an few extra cent tax is going to significantly lower the consumption of rubbishy foods.

No idea but I don't understand people being almost offended by the idea.

Sadb wrote: »

Unfortunately it is, we have one of the lowest breastfeeding rates in the world.

A majority still breastfeed, 55%, I think.

Sadb wrote: »

But it all starts just after the birth, breastfeeeding has been proved to be the most nutritional, healthy food for your baby yet the majority choose not to breastfeed. Many bottle fed babies are overweight before they even reach the age of one. If you want to change things we have to start at the beginning.

Ummm... No.

While it's been proven to contribute greatly & influence all sorts of body chemistry, there's no outright report to say it's 100% the best thing you can do - if you can provide three totally independent reports to say it is, I'll publicly apologise to you.

For many babies, bottle feeding is the only option as:

Either the mother doesn't produce/produce enough milk.
The baby will fail to latch on.
After a surgical delivery, the mother is in no condition to breastfeed.

In all three of these scenarios (of which there are probably several more), bottle feeding is proven to be the most nutritional, healthy food for your baby.

Although I will concede that there is a percentage of mothers who prefer not to breastfeed for their own reasons which have nothing to do with the scenarios I've mentioned.

I was buying some clothes online for my kids during the week from an American site & noticed for the first time a new section under kids - "Plus Size". Obviously, America does have an obesity problem as do we here in Ireland.

Thankfully none of my kids are overweight, although they're fussy eaters, for the most part, they're so active I'm more concerned that they're not eating enough.

I personally was a chubby kid. I was more into computers than sport, felt insecure, as I got older my weight stayed more or less in line with my growth although I was always over. At my heaviest I was 230lb, I'm currently hovering around 182lb, I watch what I eat, don't drink excessively & try not to snack on junk. According to my BMI, I'm just inside obese. According to my doctor, I'm "maybe 7lb overweight & shouldn't be bothered with crap like BMI" (actual quote).

The main problem is a lack of scratch cooking with both parents working & an increase in the amount of processed/fast foods consumed combined with a reduction of time kids spend running around - my lot aren't allowed run in the yard in school for example.

Murrisk wrote: »

In Ireland, I don't think that's true actually.

Unfortunately it is, we have one of the lowest breastfeeding rates in the world.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Murrisk wrote: »

Dunno if this is serious but for me personally, I don't care if my occasional can of coke is a bit more expensive. If these things are the sporadic treat they usually are for someone who isn't overweight, that's overall not going to hurt your wallet very much. And if you are a thin person that can get away with eating loads of crap, well, I'm struggling to find any sympathy there either.

Q: "Why should I have to more for my rubbishy foods?"
A: "Because if you aren't having much of it, it will barely make much of a difference."

Does it work though? I don't think an few extra cent tax is going to significantly lower the consumption of rubbishy foods.

Education and spreading awareness is the key along with promoting an ethos of personal responsibility.

It's not the State's duty to mother us.