nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Is the Obesity Epidemic fact or fiction?

LCD

Everything you read or see on TV these days tells us world is in the middle of an obesity epidemic, read somewhere 60% of Irish overweight. Then is all these programmes saying cause is not too much fat is too much sugar. Yet half the country seesm to be doing a 5km run or triathlon every weekend.

Question is, is it actually happening? I came across a local secondary mag the other day & flicking through the class photos (6years, 4 classes of +/-30 per year) was a few fat kids but something similar to my day. Looking round the place yet plenty of people with a bit of meat on the bones, but very few obese I reckon. When it come to US every since I was a kid, 30+ years ago you always heard that Americans tended to be fatter.

So is it real??

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Jogathon

I think that it is a social problem. I have worked in different schools and have noticed a huge difference in according to area. In areas where there is a high proportion of lower wage or dole recipients (and the school would be designated disadvantaged) there are many overweight/obese children. There are also the stick insects of children who survive on sweets in these schools.

In the school where parents would both be working and earning good money the children are slim, not skinny and not overweight. However, there is always one that's a little chubby - pushing towards obese.

Sala

It's hard to know if people are "obese". Sometimes people seem to think obesity means you are huge but I know a few people I would have said are overweight have been told by their doctors they are in fact obese.

Wacker The Attacker

Its lipofiction?

Muir

I think people perceive obese as the really huge people. Like the kind shown on TV who can hardly leave their homes, when in fact people of a size 14-16 can be obese (not saying all are but from around that size you can be). Whereas I would say a lot of people would just think of it as a bit overweight & not actually obese.
Even many children who are slim are still eating junk which isn't good for them. I think there should be a lot more focus on healthy eating for children, and not on weight. I have a nephew who is skinny, but he has an awful diet. He doesn't like & refuses to try most foods, so he eats coco-pops, crisps, waffles, noodles & chips. No vegetables or fruit. He believes he wont like new foods (I was like that as a child too) so then wont try them or if he does try he'll say he doesn't like it without really giving it a chance.

From primary school children should learn about nutrition, try new foods and even be given some lessons in cooking healthy foods. And a greater focus on exercise also. In the school yard children often aren't allowed run incase they fall over, which is stupid. A few grazed knees never did anyone any harm.

dirtyden

Sappa wrote: »

I an friendly with a sports scientist working at UL.
They do regular analysis of secondary school PE and gave data going back 20 yrs.
The difference in speed tests,beep test fitness and body fat % is alarming.
He reckoned 20 yrs ago maybe 5-10 percent of a class could be classified as obese where as now the data is showing the last 10 yrs the level of obesity for second level schools is running at 25-35 percent obesity.
We have only begun this battle,it's a huge problem here but also around the world.
I traveled to Asia 14 yrs ago you would rarely see fat kids now when I go back it's evident and speaking to the parents there who rarely eat processed food or junk the kids are down the 7-11 constantly snacking and choosing sweet over veg going against the traditional healthy food and it shows plenty of pudders about the place.

I have a problem with that word. He reckons because there is absolutely no way to know for sure. It is impossible to compare because 20 years ago when I was in primary school there was noone measuring BMIs etc. There was fat kids then and skinny kids same as there is now. I dont think body shape/sizes have changed significantly but i am also only reckoning.

What certainly has changed though is the widespread availabilty of convenience food. Fish and chips once a week would have been extravagant, wheras now it would be quite common to get takeaway 3 or 4 times a week. Soft drink portions have got bigger (you could only get 330 ml cans back then, now have 750 ml bottles). I do think we did eat healthier when i was young, sweets fast food were seen as a treat rather than common place.

Pace2008

marshbaboon wrote: »

BMI is nonsense. I'm apparently clinically obese because I'm 6'4.

Well, that can't be right since BMI is based on weight compared to height.

BMI is a pretty good guide fort the general population. It doesn't necessarily apply to people who do a lot of resistance training, but for the average Joe if your BMI is in the overweight range then you're probably carrying too much fat.

Sappa

dirtyden wrote: »

Sappa wrote: »

I an friendly with a sports scientist working at UL.
They do regular analysis of secondary school PE and gave data going back 20 yrs.
The difference in speed tests,beep test fitness and body fat % is alarming.
He reckoned 20 yrs ago maybe 5-10 percent of a class could be classified as obese where as now the data is showing the last 10 yrs the level of obesity for second level schools is running at 25-35 percent obesity.
We have only begun this battle,it's a huge problem here but also around the world.
I traveled to Asia 14 yrs ago you would rarely see fat kids now when I go back it's evident and speaking to the parents there who rarely eat processed food or junk the kids are down the 7-11 constantly snacking and choosing sweet over veg going against the traditional healthy food and it shows plenty of pudders about the place.

I have a problem with that word. He reckons because there is absolutely no way to know for sure. It is impossible to compare because 20 years ago when I was in primary school there was noone measuring BMIs etc. There was fat kids then and skinny kids same as there is now. I dont think body shape/sizes have changed significantly but i am also only reckoning.

What certainly has changed though is the widespread availabilty of convenience food. Fish and chips once a week would have been extravagant, wheras now it would be quite common to get takeaway 3 or 4 times a week. Soft drink portions have got bigger (you could only get 330 ml cans back then, now have 750 ml bottles). I do think we did eat healthier when i was young, sweets fast food were seen as a treat rather than common place.

They have hard data to prove this targeting secondary schools not primary schools,should have made that clear sorry.
He couldn't believe the level of fitness when tested at a speed beep test.
Kids were dropping out after 20 beeps where the analysis from 10 yrs previously showed 60 odd being the worst performance,
Body fat bmi was taken consistently from 4 schools and the data is showing a huge jump in fat %.
I think it is down to a number of factors,ready availability of fast food,junk,extra money,clever marketing,over indulgence and lack of exercise or encouragement by the parents.

Angeles

I wouldn't say epidemic as that implies some form of disease, but yes, society as a whole are moving more and more towards our body's becoming overweight.
People blame food all the time, "too much sugar in this and that"
The real problem is our level of activity.

Walk to the shop half a km down the road? haha feck that. *Takes out car*
Cycle to work 8km away? haha as if - *hops on the luas*
How about a nice stroll on the beach/park... yeah right *my show is about to start*

Our General physical and mental activity is highly reduced because of advancements in entertainment and in the amount of ways we reduce the effort in simply getting from A to B.
Compare that to 80 years ago, the food more or less is the same. Infact in many cases now, healthier, we just simple don't move as much.
*typed while sitting motionless in a comfy chair in an office looking at a computer screen*

BraziliaNZ

Sea Filly wrote: »

I wasn't presenting it as a statistic. But actually, extending that to the building as a whole, it's a generally slim place!

Well you work in a lab, so probably educated middle class people you're surrounded by. They're the ones who eat healthy and exercise. Look at a typical pajama wearing type's grocery trolley, it's all coke and chicken nuggets, not roasted fennel and rocket salads etc!
So it's the uneducated poor people who are getting fatter it seems.

dirtyden

Sappa wrote: »

They have hard data to prove this targeting secondary schools not primary schools,should have made that clear sorry.
He couldn't believe the level of fitness when tested at a speed beep test.
Kids were dropping out after 20 beeps where the analysis from 10 yrs previously showed 60 odd being the worst performance,
Body fat bmi was taken consistently from 4 schools and the data is showing a huge jump in fat %.
I think it is down to a number of factors,ready availability of fast food,junk,extra money,clever marketing,over indulgence and lack of exercise or encouragement by the parents.

I should have read your post more thoroughly too, apologies! I guess it is hard to argue with numbers. Do you mind me asking where the school was? I would imagine depending on school or area large differences might also be seen. I am from a rural town where GAA is religion and every kid plays. I would imagine factors like that would also be key in the general fitness and activity levels of kids.

I would imagine general fitness may have dropped in some areas as past times for kids have in some cases become more sedentary. We spent school holidays outside, but we did not have games consoles apart form the C64 (and you still had to go out and play 2 hrs football while the game was loading). And also junk food is everywhere now. Sad to say, i can remember when a bag of chips was a real treat (although our local italian chipper back then was legendary).

Sea Filly

Angeles wrote: »

I wouldn't say epidemic as that implies some form of disease, but yes, society as a whole are moving more and more towards our body's becoming overweight.
People blame food all the time, "too much sugar in this and that"
The real problem is our level of activity.

No, believe me, sugar consumption has a HUGE amount to do with weight gain. Most of us eat far too much of it.

Sea Filly

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

Well you work in a lab, so probably educated middle class people you're surrounded by. They're the ones who eat healthy and exercise. Look at a typical pajama wearing type's grocery trolley, it's all coke and chicken nuggets, not roasted fennel and rocket salads etc!
So it's the uneducated poor people who are getting fatter it seems.

Well, fair enough, we're not dole recipients but we wouldn't all be middle-class either. I and a few others in the lab would be from working-class backgrounds. But more traditional ones, I'd say, where chocolate was a Sunday treat when we little.

marshbaboon

To be honest it's not that hard a formula to work out. Consuming more energy than you use = weight gain.

If you can't see your neck anymore, it's probably time to put the fork down.

Dravokivich

Sea Filly wrote: »

No, believe me, sugar consumption has a HUGE amount to do with weight gain. Most of us eat far too much of it.

Well there's some truth to what Angeles is saying as well. All that energy and then doing nothing with it. A lot of people need to be more active.

It's easy to lump it all on people's diet, because for the most part that means no take aways and watching what you buy in the supermarket. It's generally harder for people to accept that they are lazy and then get them to start doing something about it. People become habitual in their activities/inactivities and these can be harder to break pass. Sometimes with a negative perception on someone if they are unable to do anything initially / short term.

It wasn't me!

It rose fast when I was in secondary school, and was predominantly down to a growth in inactivity. Among my year most stayed very active all the way through school. It would have been considered odd not to have at least one sport on the go at any stage. But we noticed it even a few years behind us. There were more fat kids and there just wasn't the same level of participation in sports. I'm not saying we ate brilliantly either. We ate pretty terribly really! But you can get away with that to a certain extent when you're a teenager playing two sports competitively. Since leaving school, a lot of guys dropped out of sports and have put on weight. Others have gotten more involved, and participation in individual endurance sports has increased, which emphasises the divide really.

wilkie2006

LCD wrote: »

Everything you read or see on TV these days tells us world is in the middle of an obesity epidemic, read somewhere 60% of Irish overweight. Then is all these programmes saying cause is not too much fat is too much sugar. Yet half the country seesm to be doing a 5km run or triathlon every weekend.

I think that those people who are out running are the wealthier, better educated ones. They're fine and so are their kids, it's the people who are living in really deprived areas that are suffering with dangerous obesity. 60% might be statistically accurate but the 6/10 people it refers to are all clustered together, living where you won't meet them.

BraziliaNZ

marshbaboon wrote: »

To be honest it's not that hard a formula to work out. Consuming more energy than you use = weight gain.

If you can't see your neck anymore, it's probably time to put the fork down.

I looked to see if I can see my neck, but I can't!

wilkie2006

Phoenix Park wrote: »

Its bizarre that its completely normal for every newsagent you walk in to to have so many bars of chocolate and fizzy drinks at the counter...maybe a Fat Tax is needed? Junk food is just so accessible, it almost standard for people to buy a bar and a bottle of coke with their newspaper at this stage.

I absolutely agree that a tax should be levied on all fast-food, sweets, etc. However, the revenue it generates shouldn't go towards the national debt - it needs to be spent on subsidising healthier foods and teaching people how to cook properly.

fishy fishy

wilkie2006 wrote: »

I absolutely agree that a tax should be levied on all fast-food, sweets, etc. However, the revenue it generates shouldn't go towards the national debt - it needs to be spent on subsidising healthier foods and teaching people how to cook properly.

and what about the likes of muesli and most cereals - they have more sugar in them than sweets half the time.

--Kaiser--

fishy fishy wrote: »

and what about the likes of muesli and most cereals - they have more sugar in them than sweets half the time.

Muesli and most cereals are alos unhealthy

wilkie2006

fishy fishy wrote: »

and what about the likes of muesli and most cereals - they have more sugar in them than sweets half the time.

Yea, add them to the list so. I think that anything that promotes obesity should be taxed heavily.

Ms.M

If you stuck a "how fat are ya" poll on this OP, you might find out!

I'd say some people who consider themselves "overweight" are in fact obese however.

Colmustard

According to the wireless in a study conducted in one of those places that waste billions on pointless studies, men under stress prefer the big women.

They got a bunch of lads gave them stressful tests and then asked them to rate a selection of women. They selected the larger types.

There you go, "YAH See" on the Serengeti when our ancients were been pursued by a sabre toothed tiger, we could trip the woman up and the sabre tooth would have a wholesome BBW while we got away.

Dravokivich

wilkie2006 wrote: »

Yea, add them to the list so. I think that anything that promotes obesity should be taxed heavily.

They all tend to say something such as "recommended along with a healthy diet/living."

The products don't promote obesity and the sales/marketing people are often quite open to promote healthy lifestyles as an addition.

The problem there is with the rate of consumption of those products. It has to come down to pushing personal responsibility.

I don't want to pay out an extra levy on a bottle of Dr Pepper when I go to the cinema because some other person can't diet properly.

Sea Filly

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Muesli and most cereals are alos unhealthy

Oatey homemade muesli with little sugar added would be.

Sappa

dirtyden wrote: »

Sappa wrote: »

They have hard data to prove this targeting secondary schools not primary schools,should have made that clear sorry.
He couldn't believe the level of fitness when tested at a speed beep test.
Kids were dropping out after 20 beeps where the analysis from 10 yrs previously showed 60 odd being the worst performance,
Body fat bmi was taken consistently from 4 schools and the data is showing a huge jump in fat %.
I think it is down to a number of factors,ready availability of fast food,junk,extra money,clever marketing,over indulgence and lack of exercise or encouragement by the parents.

I should have read your post more thoroughly too, apologies! I guess it is hard to argue with numbers. Do you mind me asking where the school was? I would imagine depending on school or area large differences might also be seen. I am from a rural town where GAA is religion and every kid plays. I would imagine factors like that would also be key in the general fitness and activity levels of kids.

I would imagine general fitness may have dropped in some areas as past times for kids have in some cases become more sedentary. We spent school holidays outside, but we did not have games consoles apart form the C64 (and you still had to go out and play 2 hrs football while the game was loading). And also junk food is everywhere now. Sad to say, i can remember when a bag of chips was a real treat (although our local italian chipper back then was legendary).

I was in the exact as you,schools were split between Limerick city and county,couldn't tell ya where as I am not from Limerick but it was all over Limerick from what I remember him telling me.

jan shyr

Yea, add them to the list so. I think that anything that promotes obesity should be taxed heavily.

Obesity comes from high consumption of energy. Non-obese people shouldn't be paying any form of tax just because they like to enjoy the food that you are proposing to be taxed.

Dravokivich

jan shyr wrote: »

Obesity comes from high consumption of energy. Non-obese people shouldn't be paying any form of tax just because they like to enjoy the food that you are proposing to be taxed.

Tax by inches on the waistband of clothing?

djan

Dravokivich wrote: »

Tax by inches on the waistband of clothing?

Something along those lines yes, to tax all unhealthy foods is stupid. Why should I pay extra for a eg. Mars bar just because somebody else is fat.

Ray Palmer

There is a correlation between education and obesity. This in turn has an effect on wealth. So poorer people are fatter.

Strangely this means people who do physical labour are getting fatter. People who do non manual work are staying healthier.

The thing that is really noticeable is the kids are certainly getting fatter. The other thing you see is middle aged woman who got bigger over a long period have daughters in late teens early 20s the same size and larger. It is more noticeable as they go shopping together. This has to do with being acceptable in their social circle. The mother accepts themselves and passes on the acceptability.

There should be a level of public scorn as there is with smoking.

In saying that I have seen big people hide away as other people watch what the eat. A bit sad.