Thoughts on Childhood Obesity - The Half Man Angus T. Jones
True confession time: I love watching reruns of the early years of the TV show Two and a Half Men. It's been many years since I followed any TV series "live" and not in reruns, and as I'm not into Ashton Kutcher (not seeing it gals, you?) I never had any urge to watch the new shows. As such, I was rather surprised by pictures of the son, played by Angus T. Jones, at age 19. He's all grown up ... and decidedly not obese or even overweight. One might call him svelte even. Then I saw an old episode and he was a very chubby child.
This post is about children and weight. I think we've gotten ridiculous as a society about this in some ways. Robert Lustig laments over some obesity epidemic in 6 month olds. Really? My husband was born prematurely at 4 lbs and change. I was born full term at a robust (especially for these days) 8 lbs. I was a "chubby" baby, he was not. I have a picture of me at age 1 where I'm still quite chubby. By age 4 or so, I was, if anything, too thin and I remained that way naturally until puberty (when I chubbed out a bit but was never more than 20 lbs overweight). My husband was not a fat kid, but he was pudgy, especially in those middle school years. But by high school he leaned out a bit.
Our personal journeys through childhood aside, I was looking back at elementary school class pictures (I won't post them here to protect the innocent) from the late 60's/early 70's -- e.g. when I grew up before this obesity epidemic. It is strange doing so as I remember exactly one "fat girl" in my grade in elementary school, and she remained so through high school graduation. And her entire family was overweight. One of my closest friends in high school, a girl I knew since I can remember and who is part of my earliest memories, was overweight, but not "fat". I think many my age might have some selective memories of how big or small our classmates might have been, because when I took a closer look back at my class pics more recently, I thought to myself "if I saw that kid today, I'd think he/she was overweight". Going to a smaller school system where most families planted for the duration, I have memories of a goodly number of classmates throughout our formative years. I don't recall thinking those kids were fat back then ... we certainly didn't tease them for being so, and let's face it, as kids go that truly is the best measure, right?
So nowadays, although I don't have kids myself, I tend to frequent places where I see them a lot -- swimming pools! And I see them fleetingly in my neighborhood on their way to and from school though too many are seated in cars to really tell. Obviously this is purely anecdotal, but if I compare kids today with kids of my generation, obectively, looking at pictures, I'd have to say that I really don't see obesity of the sort of epidemic proportions I'm supposed to be concerned about. What I do see, and this is more prevalent in certain areas, is a few more "fat kids" among the sea of "normal" and the occasional one of those being quite a bit larger than the "fat girl" from my childhood. Causes of concern, yes, but I really do wonder if our society is not dooming an entire generation (and then some) to a lifetime of orthorexic judgmentalism and dietary neuroses over what used to be lovingly termed: "baby fat". The sort that many kids tended to grow out of.
 |
| link |
 |
| link |
 |
| link |
Now it's true, that in general, girls will go through different stages and tend to gain weight for the first time around puberty. Some when they go to college. The freshman 15 is something quite real, but between being a college student myself including grad school, and being around college students "up close and personal" for 15 weeks at a time for over 20 years now, I honestly cannot say that, at least at this level, I've seen much of a fattening trend over the past three decades. If this were some out of control epidemic as we're led to believe, I would have seen it. Most of my friends that struggled in college thinned out following, until the next great challenge for most women, childbearing. But back to the kids ...
Now granted the college student population is on average from a higher socioeconomic demo, but I have many students who are clearly not coming from such backgrounds. Still, it is true that the worst of this seems to have manifested itself in the communities of the poorest among us. My husband's job change was from a business in a very poor area to one that is considerably less so, and he's previously worked in businesses with high end clientele. Clearly there are other factors at play than simply eating vegetable oils, or potatoes, or wheat, or sugar, or .... you get the picture. I think Nanny Bloomie's soda bans and such will have zero effect. As did posting calories in giant sizes at fast food restaurants, etc. To a very small extent, restaurant chains have reacted to posting calories on menus by paring back portions and such (I'm not sure where I read this, probably Yoni Freedhoff's Weighty Matters) but the servings are often still just as big (who is going to complain about being given more than asked/paid for?) or I expect calorie creep will occur once the initial shock wears off. But a Michelle Obama style approach isnt going to work either. Unfortunately what will, involved non-neurotic BMI-panicky parents, is not something that can be legislated or mandated. And low carb paleo? Fuggettaboutit.
So meantime we'll continue to have news stories of children humiliated by report cards or somesuch with BMI alerts that somehow become known to classmates. And idiotic lunch inspections with artificial limits and absurd videos in response. And we of course have the all knowing parents -- and the purist low carb and paleo parents are NO better than the vegans ... wake UP!! -- inflicting their dietary neuroses upon their children. Parents complaining how their carb deprived kids are hungry all the time, but don't give them carbs because somehow that will make them addicts! Parents calling their kids addicts for not wanting to eat low carb diets and eating reasonable foods which aren't good enough for the parents. Parents denying their non-gluten sensitive or anything of the sort kids the joy of actually eating oatmeal with brown sugar or a banana let alone a ... gasp! ... chocolate chip cookie! In this regard I was so very heartened to read Peter Attia's endearing recounting of his daughter's Disneyland experience! If only we saw a little more of that all the way around. Children have been eating "fattening foods" for ages ... certainly well before this epidemic took hold. I'm VERY sensitive to addressing true obesity in some sane fashion in childhood because it is SO damned difficult to reverse, but we cannot as a society impose some blanket standard and panacea to achieve that. It won't work.
And at least in the case of Angus T. Jones? It wasn't necessary.
Now granted the college student population is on average from a higher socioeconomic demo, but I have many students who are clearly not coming from such backgrounds. Still, it is true that the worst of this seems to have manifested itself in the communities of the poorest among us. My husband's job change was from a business in a very poor area to one that is considerably less so, and he's previously worked in businesses with high end clientele. Clearly there are other factors at play than simply eating vegetable oils, or potatoes, or wheat, or sugar, or .... you get the picture. I think Nanny Bloomie's soda bans and such will have zero effect. As did posting calories in giant sizes at fast food restaurants, etc. To a very small extent, restaurant chains have reacted to posting calories on menus by paring back portions and such (I'm not sure where I read this, probably Yoni Freedhoff's Weighty Matters) but the servings are often still just as big (who is going to complain about being given more than asked/paid for?) or I expect calorie creep will occur once the initial shock wears off. But a Michelle Obama style approach isnt going to work either. Unfortunately what will, involved non-neurotic BMI-panicky parents, is not something that can be legislated or mandated. And low carb paleo? Fuggettaboutit.
So meantime we'll continue to have news stories of children humiliated by report cards or somesuch with BMI alerts that somehow become known to classmates. And idiotic lunch inspections with artificial limits and absurd videos in response. And we of course have the all knowing parents -- and the purist low carb and paleo parents are NO better than the vegans ... wake UP!! -- inflicting their dietary neuroses upon their children. Parents complaining how their carb deprived kids are hungry all the time, but don't give them carbs because somehow that will make them addicts! Parents calling their kids addicts for not wanting to eat low carb diets and eating reasonable foods which aren't good enough for the parents. Parents denying their non-gluten sensitive or anything of the sort kids the joy of actually eating oatmeal with brown sugar or a banana let alone a ... gasp! ... chocolate chip cookie! In this regard I was so very heartened to read Peter Attia's endearing recounting of his daughter's Disneyland experience! If only we saw a little more of that all the way around. Children have been eating "fattening foods" for ages ... certainly well before this epidemic took hold. I'm VERY sensitive to addressing true obesity in some sane fashion in childhood because it is SO damned difficult to reverse, but we cannot as a society impose some blanket standard and panacea to achieve that. It won't work.
And at least in the case of Angus T. Jones? It wasn't necessary.
Comments
I looked at my primary school pics from the '80s, and most of the kids were skinny - I'd say fewer than 5% were obese or even overweight. That said, it was not a very large school so may not be representative of the general size of kids at that time.
I also wonder if there is an overreaction going on, but I'm not around the newer generation of kids much. I have a nephew who is around 14 and looking at him and his friends, the they all seem to be healthy-looking. Some what we would call stocky or chunky but it's well-carried weight. They all can run, swim, etc., without struggling.
But in my neighborhood there is also a world class museum and I see a lot of kids getting off buses to visit the museum for school trips. Many of them are black - and obese. Not all. But I do remember one instance of seeing a whole troupe of black kids (age 7-8?) getting off the bus. Not one was skinny, and some were very heavy.
Anyways I think there is a good hypothesis that women who are obese during pregnancy are likely causing their children to become obese via epigenetics.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17234033
In high school I so wish my coaches hadn't harped on us girls for our normal puberty bursts. We were normal. Things grew a little too fast or whatever, but almost all of my teammates seem to have turned out just fine in adulthood.
Maybe they're pushing complexes onto kids? Always found it interesting that every phys ed teacher at my school was obese.
Then of course there's a regional factor. I grew up and live in the country. Large Amish community, lots of farms. Maybe obesity is more prominent in urban areas with fewer things to do?
Richard A. Muller, a 1982 MacArthur Fellow, is a physics professor at the University of California, Berkeley, where he teaches a course called 'Physics for Future Presidents.' Since 1972, he has been a Jason consultant on U.S. national security
The Physics Diet
"Want to lose weight? Easy! Just remember the first law of thermodynamics: conservation of energy.
Here's an old joke. The dairy industry hires a physicist to improve milk production. After several weeks, he's ready to lecture about his progress. He draws a circle on the blackboard and says, 'Consider a spherical cow.'
I've told this joke many times, but nobody ever laughs -- except other physicists. For the rest of you, I should explain that it is self-deprecating humor. It makes fun of our penchant for oversimplification.
This month I want to talk about diet and exercise for weight loss, and I'm going to oversimplify on purpose. Consider a spherical physicist.
Most dieters are so concerned about second-order effects, such as daily fluctuations in weight and changes in metabolism, that they lose track of the first law of thermodynamics: conservation of energy.
Want to lose a pound of fat? You can work it off by hiking to the top of a 2,500-story building. Or by running 60 miles. Or by spending 7 hours cleaning animal stalls. (It is amazing what scientists have actually measured. This last example is tabulated in the book Exercise Physiology by G. Brooks and T. Fahey.)
Exercise is a very difficult way to lose weight. Here's a rule of thumb: exercise very hard for one hour (swimming, running, or racquetball)– and you'll lose about one ounce of fat. Light exercise for an hour (gardening, baseball, or golf) will lose you a third of an ounce. That number is small because fat is a very energy-dense substance: it packs about 4,000 food calories per pound, the same as gasoline, and 15 times as much as in TNT.
If you run for an hour, you'll lose that ounce of fat and also a pound or two of water. By the next day, when you've replenished the water, you might think, 'the weight came right back!' But you'd be wrong -- you really did lose an ounce. It is hard to notice, unless you keep running every day for a month or more, and don't reward yourself after each run with a cookie.
There is a much easier way to lose weight, as we can learn from the first law of thermodynamics. Eat less.
A reasonable daily diet for an adult is 2,000 food calories. That's 8.36 megajoules per day, or about 100 joules per second -- in other words, 100 watts. Most of that ends up as heat, so you warm a room as much as a bright light bulb. Cut your consumption by 600 calories per day and you'll lose a pound of fat every week. Most diet experts consider that a reasonable goal. Don't drop below 1,000 calories per day, or you might get lethargic. But at 1,400 calories per day, you can easily maintain an active life.
Of course, there is a catch. You'll be hungry.
It's not real hunger–not like the painful hunger of starving people in impoverished countries. It's more of a mild ache, or an itch that you mustn't scratch. To be popular, a diet must somehow cope with this hunger. Weight Watchers does it with peer support. The food pyramid does it by encouraging you to eat unlimited celery. Some high-fat diets satisfy all your old cravings -- and figure you'll eventually cut back the butter you put on your bacon.
Last April, I had once again grown out of my belt. I wasn't grossly overweight: 205 pounds in a six-foot, one-inch body. That wouldn't be bad for a football player, but I'm 59 years old, and the excess pounds weren't in muscle. I had gained a pound a year for several decades. I felt heavy and old. I decided to try conservation of energy. I gave up lunch and snacks.
How to cope with the hunger? I attempted to enjoy it. I thought of the movie Lawrence of Arabia, in which T.E. Lawrence says, 'The trick is not minding that it hurts.' I told myself that the mild ache was only the sensation of evaporating fat. That interpretation has some basis in physics. When you lose weight, most of your fat is converted to the gases carbon dioxide and water vapor, and so you get rid of fat by breathing it out of your body.
Physics works, and I lost weight. By August, I was down to 175 pounds, a 30-pound drop. My belt went from 42 inches to 36 inches. My Zen-like approach to hunger also worked; I found myself declining offers of chocolate cake because I didn't want to lose the sensation of evaporation. I didn't change my level of activity, and managed to maintain my diet while taking trips to Cuba and Alaska -- and during a week-long backpacking excursion in the Sierra Nevada. A key innovation: I kept up the social aspects of lunch, without eating. I watched others gobbling cheeseburgers, while I sipped diet cola. It really wasn't that hard to do. And the mild afternoon discomfort was compensated by several positive developments. Dinner became truly wonderful. I hadn't had pre-dinner hunger for decades. A sharp appetite turns a meal into a feast. No more cheese 'appetizers' for me.
Moreover -- and this may sound silly coming from a physicist -- I was surprised that I began to feel lighter. I no longer walk down streets -- I float. Distant stores seem closer. And my knees have responded to the lighter load. Their aching, which I had mistakenly attributed to aging, went away.
Food is instant gratification. And fast-food chains and gourmet restaurants serve tasty food at remarkably low cost. It is a situation unprecedented in history and unanticipated by our genes. No wonder we are overweight.
Anybody can lose weight. Energy is conserved. Just stop scratching that itch. Of course, you'll have to sacrifice instant gratification. Is it worth it? You decide. Food is delicious and cheap. You might reasonably choose to take advantage of this unique historical circumstance, and decide to be fat.
It's been seven months since I started my diet, and two months since I left it. I've begun eating a light lunch, and having an occasional small snack. I'm still at 175. But I never want to lose the delicious edge of hunger before dinner, or the floating sensation when I walk. Moving takes less energy now, so I have more energy. I no longer feel like a spherical physicist. And for losing weight, dieting sure beats cleaning animal stalls.
"
This is just a hypothesis based on observation, but it's interesting.
While I'd agree that exercising for the sole purpose of burning calories isn't really all that effective, the oversimplification is oversimplified and kind of misleading. Just dieting also tends to lead to loss of lean muscle mass, no? Not a good thing.
It has always been my impression that the theory behind ELMM is equilibrium. You are fat/overweight. Moving more builds lean body mass as you are moving your fat/overweight self around. Eating less, lessens the amount of your overweight self. At a certain point, an equilibrium is reached and you reach a state of fitness.
My generation was raised almost exclusively in two-parent households where one parent was around almost all the time, and when that wasn't the case there were grandparents and other neighborhood parents. We ate most meals at home. A whole lot has changed .... Abstent or disengaged parents for sure plays a role. Left to their own devices many kids prefer junk that has been engineered to tantalize them and heavily marketed at them. Imagine that.
http://cassiesmith.hubpages.com/hub/The-Al-Sharpton-Diet-Become-a-Jailbird-to-Lose-Weight
I think it's a terrible problem. My anecdote was simply meant to illustrate that the OE doesn't affect the rich that much but it's everywhere else - more or less. I often wonder why - I have my suspicions, but I can't prove anything.
For some reason I think you're British - if I'm wrong forgive the next question - but isn't the OE a class and race issue in the UK too? I put class first in order of priority. As an outsider it strikes me that the more working class, the heavier. Kate Middleton skinny girls are usually posh.
http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/obesity/facts.htm
@Evelyn/ADL - I'm certainly not in favor of adults pushing their complexes onto kids, but what if a kid is getting fat? Sure, it's sick to punish a girl for a normal puberty burst, but there is a problem, and it needs to be addressed. With compassion and tact, but still.
If most of your classmates grew up fine, then maybe the warnings to watch it had a good effect.
The big difference between poor and rich is that the rich kids have activities while the poor kids do not. Those fat poor kids like clockwork slim right up when they are somewhere with a backyard or park to run around in. When I lived in a wealthy neighborhood where it was safe and easy to walk to numerous parks, no chubby kids. Now I live where you have to drive to a park and there are some chubby kids, though the poor people have cars and sometimes backyards, so the kids do get out sometimes and they aren't as fat as urban kids who don't.
Also, there is way more food restriction for rich kids than most people are aware of.
Simon, I think you're terribly misguided to think 'epic parent fail' whenever you see one of those shameful, rotund children. I wonder if when you see a thin young woman you think that? After all, many skinny girls are flirting with eating disorders and are dangerously underweight-- much more serious than childhood pudge. Most Kate Middleton skinny girls are undereating-- does that not bother you? If you think only obese children eat crap then you have not been around kids. In my observation, the skinniest kids are the ones who live off of chicken nuggets, white rice, goldfish and juice boxes. I have two sons-- one is skinny and one of them would represent an epic fail on my part since his BMI makes him 'obese' -- never mind that if h was 5 lbs lighter he would be normal. The skinny one has to be peeled away from video games and can eat an entire bag chips in 5 minutes, would (if we let him) guzzle 2 or 3 cans of soda, and just in general has more of the characteristics we would attribute to a 'fat kid.' Don't get me wrong, he is active and enjoys playing and sports, but he is able to be sedentary far more than his chubby little brother who almost never sits still, prefers fruit and cheese to 'junk food' and would maybe drink a few sips of soda if it was in front of him. I wouldn't be so quick to judge-- slimness in and of itself is rarely a sign of health and virtue on the part of the individual or his or her parent.
http://www.drsharma.ca/childhood-predictors-of-adult-obesity.html
"Simon, I think you're terribly misguided to think 'epic parent fail' whenever you see one of those shameful, rotund children. I wonder if when you see a thin young woman you think that?"
No, what's wrong with being thin? If she's thin and smokes, then yes, I think epic parent fail. Otherwise I think thin on a young woman is lovely. I do think Kate lost too much weight to fit in with prevailing norms but it doesn't seem to have hurt her fertility.
Further to my above comments, although most of the childhood obesity I see in my little world is black (and brown), I do see all sorts of young folks who have come to NYC to make their fortunes, and there is a surprising spike upwards in young obese middle-class white women. I do not mean plump or a little overweight: I mean obese. And I wonder where the hell these girls' parents are.
Contrast to above, I worked for a time at Columbia U, an Ivy League school, in 2010. Not one obese person young person did I see.
http://www.miller.co.at/publications/paper_pdf/social_childhood_bmi.pdf
I didn't change anything about my eating.
A once per week full body heavy-duty labour seems to do what an hour a day at the gym never can. Prior to, I'd been going to the gym for three years and before that I had been swimming an hour a day for several years. Sure those activities kept me toned. The problem, actually, with the barn work was I ended up gaunt because I didn't need to lose weight.
This is why I laugh at the people who claim that ELMM doesn't work. Put them to work at a farm even only once per week, and let's see what happens. They wouldn't even have to be tasked with eating less.
Academically I see a focus on the slowest -- don't want to leave anyone behind or stigmatize them by acknowledging that leaving them back a grade might be all that's needed (it was done all the time when I was a kid) -- and the smartest kids have become the more troublesome (because they're bored off their asses) or the truly gifted get some attention. What of the top 50-95%? Relished to mediocrity lest they show up the 0-49%. Policies are formed to address the lowest 10-20-30% and ignore the rest. I see the same with childhood health. This "crisis" means kids are being weighed and measured and evaluated by a school nurse (whatever happened to pediatricians?) as if weight is the most important factor. We must control what they eat if they are getting "too fat". Meanwhile I think the "fat girl" from my era still falls through the cracks and doesn't get appropriate intervention in conjunction with the parents if it is warranted and needed/wanted. And the skinny sickly kids are ignored because, heck, at least they're not fat, right?
I'm sure there were people who criticized Jones' parents (and as kid stars go it seems he's gone through some of the usual growing pains but he hasn't been in the tabloids for tussles with parents and such). The early episodes were a lot about the kid eating (the constipation one is still one of my favorites!!) and I can see people thinking it was child abuse to allow their kid to play a fat kid and perhaps even keep him that way as he grew? But at least physically it looks like his body sorted it out. ... to be cont...
Diana, you make some good points and observations here. I think the "fat girl" in my class wasn't epic parental fail, it was in her genes. That just is for some people, and I'm sure her parents struggled (being obese themselves) to find a balance for her to enjoy childhood like a "normal" kid w/o too much of the teasing and all of that that can scar one indelibly. But too many adult policy makers look at statistics and enact ridiculous remedies targeted at averages and numbers, and not at children as individuals. I'm not sure what the answer is in poor neighborhoods.
I do see your point about maybe the coaching nudges worked, but I see it as more despite that. Most of us started dieting and some of us (me) were set down the path to perfection. We were high school athletes at a small school who were not being scouted by Division I schools and such. In other words this was good old competition and all that should go with sports and the focus on weight was counter productive.
I guess my rant here was generated more by reading some idiotic shit on Facebook with vegans bragging on their lean toddlers (with misshapen heads and hollow eyes) and low carbers bragging on their lean kids who are in ketosis most of the time (let's see what happens when these kids get to high school and beyond) and idiotic posts by Jimmy Moore taking pictures of "carbage" in people's carts at Sam's Club like it is any of his business what others feed their kids.
And I guess what REALLY set me off was the most recent interviews by Lustig with his Sugar = Fat. He's now saying it's not about weight, it is ALL visceral fat and SubQ is actually good. Then going on about his pediatric practice and fat kids and infants. And then I saw a commercial for 2.5 the other day I didn't even recognize Jake/Angus (or realize just how tall Ashton is as he "towered" over John Cryer seated at the table!). I cannot imagine what the Paleoista would have done (needlessly) were he her child, and Lustig would never let that kid have a glass of deadly orange juice. It's getting mighty bad out there!
I am not equating thin with healthy. I've spent enough time out of my ghetto to see that there are (even in today's "fat" America) plenty of skinny people (usually heavy smokers) who are not healthy.
I am only referring to kids who are genuinely too fat and despite the fact that the hucksters are turning this into yet another scam to scare people, and to profit from it, it's a genuine problem. I don't think it's overblown.
I do agree that there is an overlap between overweight and obese in terms of data collection. In the CDC link which I gave above, they refer to this & it bothered me. BMI (esp. given racial differentials) is not the way to judge a kid's propensity to adult obesity. But it is one factor, as the studies that I cited indicate.
I totally agree that in the diet world, this subject has become yet another reason for a shooting war. And it will become another get rick quick scam.
Drew: "Don't assume...." I don't think I assumed anything. I am limiting my comments strictly to children who truly are overweight, not going thru a puppy fat phase, and who fit the criteria for future weight gain. Sunken-eyed glassy-eyed skinny kids aren't relevant to my points.
Regarding thin girls, sorry, I think that the vast majority of young women will be naturally thin eating a moderate diet, and that the OE which is spreading amongst them alarmingly a bad indicator. When I see a fat teenaged girl I think that some caring adult should intervene, in a compassionate & tactful way. It's irrelevant to the issue of skinny girls who starve & smoke.
But I notice that first generation immigrants (NYC is an immigrant magnet) are normal weight people. Many of their kids are fat. What's going on?
Agree w/you about Kate. I think she became way too thin and I hope she keeps an extra five pounds after the baby is born, but I don't think so. The pressure on her to go back to her skeletal frame will be intense. She does have a nice round ass, though. I saw the pictures.
I also agree about heavy labor. My one experience of actual physical work (a week of trail work in the White Mountains of New Hampshire) combined with dietary restraint but not deprivation convinced me of that. The problem with today's "exercise gurus" is that they don't want to tell people: do this 7 hours a day.
The only problem with the heavy labor "diet" is that eventually you will get injured. Injury is a way of life among manual laborers.
Part of my issue is with the use of BMI -- somewhat useful for comparing populations, but useless for the individual. My other point is that "chub" in children can be quite normal and overreactions to it are not likely to have good longterm results either.
Yes, obesity in childhood can predispose towards obesity as an adult, but in an odd fashion this may well protect the heavier adult from metabolic diseases.
More later ....
My friend's parents began her on weight watchers at age 9-- she also went to fat camp, did jenny craig, etc... until finally she was that loveliest of lovelies-- a slim young woman. This lasted for about 3 years until she gained about 100 lbs that she has never successfully lost again. The parents did intevene-- over and over. What might have then been puppy fat is now obesity combined with binge eating or maybe it kept her from being 200 lbs overweight-- I don't know-- but, they did care and they did, indeed, try to help.
So, again, all I'm saying is slimness does not necessarily represent health or a healthy home environment with wonderful parents and obesity does not necessarily mean negligent parents. Shows like the Biggest Loser that shame people are great television, but I don't think this is the best tact to address what you rightly point out as a real problem of severely obese children and young adults. So, I don't think it's irrelevant to talk about skinny girls who starve and smoke because the assumption is that a thin child means the parents are not providing a 'toxic' home environment. We would be better off to stop worrying about the scale and focus on healthy, balanced lives for all children. The emphasis on weight as the ultimate gauge of health, habit, hygiene, etc... creates overeater's on one end and anorexia and bulimia on the other end The public health campaign right now is targeting overweight kids and their parents--naming and shaming. I don't think it's fair or reasonable or grounded in truth because of it assumes thing. My observation is that there is little correlation in young people between healthy habits & diet and beauty & slimness. Besides, interventions focused on weight loss do not have predictable LONG term results. As Evelyn mentioned, we're heading to a point where your BMI is going to be on your report card home with the subtext-- 'Mom & Dad: you better get this sorted out." Meanwhile the Paleo people are so impressed with their slim children-- most children are slim-- it will be interesting to see whether the over-emphasis on their weight as a value will backfire-- "Look at little Johnny, he just loves grass-fed beef jerky and is not even interested in eating birthday cake (aka gluten death cake)" Yeah, right. He's trying to please you-- one day he will try to displease you.
This reminds me of a comment someone made (in an article, perhaps?) about basketball skills. That, in the inner city, poor kids go to a park and shoot baskets - over and over and over again. Practice, practice, practice! Seen any overweight basketball players lately? (Exclude the overweight office workers seeking to 'work it off' at the Y...)
You could say that rich kids know what practice means, too. But in my area, a relatively affluent suburb, the tendency is to take music lessons, have tutoring sessions 'to keep up' or improve, and do other relatively sedentary activities after school. When ' practice, practice, practice' means physical activity (my son was that kid in soccer), kids tend to be physically fit, rather than unfit.
For my daughter, 'practice, practice, practice' meant hours at the cello. Her obese cello teacher rightly encouraged her. You make your choices. You seek the balance.
I've seen my share of chubby kids here, who usually get thinner by high school. We're near a city with a Hispanic and Cambodian population, less affluent, and the kids are of average BMI. That is, until high school graduation, after which things change! You can see it on the street - the number of people of who seem to be 'settling down,' (with kids, or just with income, out of the family home) getting heavier. You can see it at the local Walmart.
To put it in perspective, change happens whether you are poor or not - after high school. I see this in my kids and their friends. Their environments changed, as did some habits. With that, the effects of the changes kicked in.
Together, my offspring are like poster children for the effects of activity. Daughter sedentary (overweight) at her job, and son physically active at his job (slim, muscular). Daughter is active in the local food co-op, and values gardening above other physical chores. Son eats like life is one long visit to the movie theater food court.
Go figure. Both are still young. Close in age. One in the country, one in the city. Both have bicycles, which they treat like cars because they don't HAVE cars. Both walk and cycle miles. Daughter hikes for fun. Son just discovered the 'Fry Daddy' deep fat fryer, in which he fries everything he eats. He is learning to make mayonnaise - because it tastes so good. I stay out of it. They're both adults now.
As Drew said, ' We would be better off to stop worrying about the scale and focus on healthy, balanced lives for all children.' At some point, they make their own decisions and choices.
So true.
Had a friend who tried it for six months, entered a major marathon, and came in third behind a couple of Kenyans, even though he had never run further than 20 yards in his entire life.
Did Jimkins drop him like a hot "safe starch" potatoe?
Just for humour. What do we use to define a low birth weight baby? Is there a cut off point? Let's say that 5 lbs is low birth weight. So if baby A is 5.001 lbs, no problems. Baby B, on the other hand, at 4.999 had bad cards. And of course, baby C who came out at 12 LBS is supreme! Eh. I know that this is more like spectrum and risk increases with lower the weight, but there has to be a point as I am also sure that there's a U-curve at play because I know of families who can attest to the opposite anecdote with regards to birth weight and metabolic health at later stages in life.
Your own experience gets me thinking. I mean, what if someone produces a relatively light baby--not underweight--but with good musculature and metabolic status for a baby? Things to consider.
BTW ... nice to finally "see" you pretty lady!
Of course if there is a problem--a child is having trouble breathing, diabetes, etc. I'm certainly not denying there is a serious problem with children and obesity or that the problem is growing. As I said in my post, it could just be seeing things as better after the fact, as is a tendency when thinking of childhoods.
I just wonder if overweight or being hefty is automatically diagnosed as a problem these days and if the psychological aspects of that don't further the problem. After all, one of the quickest ways to get a child to do something is to tell them not to do it.
I would not expect David Gorksi and Steve Novella to post their childrens' medical info because they criticize the anti vaccine quacks.
These analogies don't match on all corners but IMHO they're close.
Can't possibly be. If he adopted a low fat vegetarian or followed the governments diet advice he would of become fat he would of become fat sick and diabetic.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3187184/
Any comments? It's a rat study. Free PMC article.....
You could always go through the older seasons--if you have the time--and you'll find that there was a gradual case of weight loss as he matured. It does happen to some people with age; metabolic changes and all.
Unlike a purely leafy vegetable diet with which a large number of calories is mechanically difficult to do (like Fuhrman for example, who IIRC disallows or minimizes extracted calories)
They could easily eat 10,000 calories a day, hardly starvation in terms of macros. They could be starving for micronutrients though.
Charles did NOT ask if Evelyn is following NuttyK / low carb - that would be the equivalent of what you suggest.
> David Gorski's kids had not been vaccinated
Charles did NOT ask if Evelyn herself is following NuttyK.
Given the emphasis on a vegetarian diet (although it doesn't seem to be so strict that variations aren't allowed), you've got plenty of data coming from a population that is motivated to make food choices for religious reasons.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19351712
'The study population comprised 22,434 men and 38,469 women who participated in the Adventist Health Study-2 conducted in 2002-2006. We collected self-reported demographic, anthropometric, medical history, and lifestyle data from Seventh-Day Adventist church members across North America.'
The Adventists in the study range from vegan to pesco-vegetarian and semi-vegetarian. There are Adventists world-wide. Loma Linda University, Loma Linda vegetarian products - are familiar to many.
(My dentist graduated from their dental school!)
Look, I'm frankly baffled by this discussion. A few news reports about admittedly clumsy and likely ineffectual attempts to deal with the rising rates of pediatric obesity cause more concern than the actual problem? I don't get it.
Also, if anyone's coach warned a girl who was just developing along the normal lines of womanhood that she was getting fat, I'd report that coach to the administration. This is inappropriate. In this day and age it would be a cause for legal action.
Yes, some parents unload their weight complexes on their kids, along with their fears, anxieties, prejudices, and frustrated ambitions. I don't see that as nearly a problem as the actual obesity epidemic.
I do think that adults should intervene when they see that a kid is getting heavy. How? That is a very delicate issue. Clearly dealing with kids is a different matter from adults. The issue of government intervention is way more fraught than that, even. But if society is going to pay for this with increased medical costs, etc., government will be tasked to step in.
Sure there is evidence that low birth weight in babies is linked to adult obesity, but I don't see how that affects anything. There is also evidence that pediatric obesity is a strong indicator of adult obesity. I don't see how any of this conflicts with one another.
One thing you can be sure of, the world is not going to be kind to that fat kid, and his peers will be much more vicious than the teacher or coach. For that reason alone, there's a duty of care to children.
Seriously tho, lest I get accused of secretly low carbing, let it be known that I still do eat VLC from time to time even now. But I also eat VLF some days and any manner in between. I'm not one who can eat junk foods ad libitum like some, but that's OK :D And I have a record going back to around 4 years ago of being a staunch low carber who was skeptical of the "science" from day 1 of finding the internet community, so nobody can accuse me that way!
As to Jimmy's openness and popularity? Perhaps, but it is a deceptive openness. Anyone who followed his menus blog and the regular one knows what I'm talking about. The most egregious example would be when he was still getting congratulated on the pregnancy several days after he posted the video of his wife losing the baby(ies) on the menus blog. The other problem is that while he touts the good stuff with specifics, he either pretty much lies about having "spectacular" lipids, or uses wishy washy terms like "high" when his numbers are astronomical. He is a consistent presence and a drama queen that some people love to cheer on. I just don't get anyone signing up for more than two cycles of the farce if you know what I mean. Fool me once, fool me twice and all that jazz.
This is not to say as well that special intervention is needed in populations with high propensities for diabetes and rates of genuine childhood obesity.
@diana
I don't disagree with you and I'm not saying that nothing should be done in some cases. My anxiety is tied to the prospect of damaging kids who might just be heavy for their age. It's not always a problem to be 10 or 15 pounds overweight. Sometimes you grow into it, sometimes you don't. Kids can be cruel, no doubt, but at the same time, they're kids, not adults.
Given how hot a topic weight is in regards to adults, it's even more strain on the kids and in the end, as we fight over VLC, VLF, vegetarian, paleo, we still don't have any solid answers to many questions regarding it.
Rats are absolutely worthless models for human nutrition. Rats have extremely poor fat tolerance (<5%) and extremely high tolerance for starches (>80%)- basically the exact opposite of humans.
An Evolutionary Approach
Horm Metab Res 2009; 41(4): 261-270
DOI: 10.1055/s-0028-1119377
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2703181/ (free article)
Wait. What? So. . . What about those traditional Irish and their massive potato consumption--and how they were the best lookers out of their European counterparts--that you and others talk about? Are they lizard people? ; )
The results of that study do not apply to subjects that don't get increased energy intake/reduced energy expenditure/obesity/hyperinsulinaemia/etc on the above diet.
"AMPK activity was decreased within 1 week of high fat exposure, and AMPK activation with AICAR was able to completely block the early onset of the renal inflammatory response to HFD. Taken together, the study likely has relevance to features of the human metabolic syndrome and provides insight into the mechanisms underlying obesity-related low-grade renal inflammation and albuminuria.16"
Post a Comment
Comment Moderation is ON ... I will NOT be routinely reviewing or publishing comments at this time..