General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsToday's Kids Run More Slowly-Children run the mile 90 seconds slower than kids did 30 years ago
Sure, your 13-year-old might run a mile faster than you could today, but could she beat your time at age 13? Not if shes like most kids worldwide, a new study shows.
Children run the mile 90 seconds slower than kids did 30 years ago, according to research presented at an American Heart Association conference. Overall, kids ages 9 to 17 experienced a 5 percent decline in heart-related fitness.
It makes sense. We have kids that are less active than before, Dr. Stephen Daniels, a University of Colorado pediatrician and spokesman for the heart association, told The Associated Press.
Its perhaps no surprise that American kids have slowed down: about one-third get the recommended daily allotment of 60 minutes of moderately vigorous activity. But this is the first to show a decline in global youth fitness, the American Heart Association said.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
MORE:
http://news.discovery.com/human/health/todays-kids-run-more-slowly-131120.htm
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)School actually used to be a decent place to go, overall. Today they are like prison camps and factories. I would be expelled nowadays for the fun things we did in school - we drew pictures of battles with tanks and guns, played dodge ball and kick ball, cops and robbers, ran around like crazy. Today we would be put on meds and sent to a psychologist to see why were not conforming, after being tased and put in jail for the night.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)Social norms aroung gaming instead of outdoor sports create sedentary leisure instead of active kids. Same with TV, smart phones....it is a parental choice. And most kids are following their parents' sedentary example.
Response to Pretzel_Warrior (Reply #6)
Name removed Message auto-removed
zazen
(2,978 posts)I wouldn't have to have my daughter have 24/7 access to the internet if it weren't for poorly-designed "webquests" that teach her less than she would have learned with a solid textbook 20 years ago.
If the schools weren't like detention centers, she could run around during recess.
She wouldn't be so terrified of the shaming and punitive daily tests that she'd spend what little energy she had left at home doing ridiculous assignments or studying for gotcha board-exam level type multiple choice exams.
Public schools about 15 years ago had found a better "happy medium," apart from reactivity with the zero tolerance crap. They were more challenging, but they weren't sooo stress-inducing and there was more sensitivity about bullying so there wasn't the carte blanche on the playground we had when I was growing up. But the billionaire reformers and Pearson et al (and a cast of other characters who should have known better) have gone and screwed it all up.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)the amount of homework kids get has increased a lot as well. My kids in elementary have way more homework than I ever had in elementary (ie none, except for a first year teacher in 4th grade that went a little crazy the first month with 4 hours of homework a night until the parents ganged up on her and shouted her down at a meet the teacher night. There was no homework after that.) I wasn't allowed to run around the neighborhood after school - I had to wait until my parents were home (latchkey kid) but I walked home every day, my kids take a bus because the schools are far away. Our town is trying to make a system where there are elementary schools in every quadrant so that kids can walk - but even so, there are stay at home parents who drive their kids every day, sit in the parking lot with their motors running waiting when it's only a 10 min walk...it's obscene to me. When I did live that close and I wasn't in school I walked with them every day. My older kids (teens) walk by themselves.
Also, in the newer homes, the yards are tiny. In the home I grew up in, the yard was much larger, and my dad grew up in town (my mom was on a farm) and his yard was HUGE. My yard is so much smaller. It's hard for all 4 of my kids to run around at the same time in our yard unless they are all going in the same direction, lol.
And when I was a kid, sports were affordable. Now even sports that don't require equipment are priced out of my range. Heck, even when my oldest was in dance, it was very affordable. Now that my youngest wants to go into dance, it's the same cost per month that it used to cost me in a year - and that's in a 10 year period. It must be completely out of reach for struggling families.
Anyway, there are a lot more roadblocks for kids today, but for parents too. At least where I live (I'm in Canada) the schools are very big on PhysEd and recess even in freezing temperatures. I do agree that active kids are treated differently in school now than they used to be and that's too bad. And we don't have a huge emphasis on tests - I agree tests are poison for learning.
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)renie408
(9,854 posts)sakabatou
(42,082 posts)MineralMan
(146,189 posts)30 years ago, I can tell you. In fact, at age 68, I ain't running it at all.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)That also goes for TV shows too. Where are the writers of the 60's and 70's All in the Family, Green Acres, The Beverly Hillbillies, Get Smart, Andy Griffith Show, Musters, Twilight Zone. I believe we were smarter back then too.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)If you ask me, one hour is WAY too little in the first place. When I was a kid, only getting to play for an hour was a PUNISHMENT!
zazen
(2,978 posts)if she took an hour of it for active playtime. Nor does she have that time at school. She's up at 5:45, collapses when she gets home, and then turns to hours of homework.
Did I mention this crap escalated last year with the Common Core introduction? She's 12 years old.
I'd rather home school until she's old enough to start college or vocational school or something. This is insane.
Mariana
(14,847 posts)when she was in high school because she was making herself physically sick trying to finish all of it all the time. Way too much of her homework was given for no reason other than to give the kids a bunch of homework to do. Her dad and I gave her permission to blow off the bullshit meaningless busywork assignments, and told her to concentrate on those that actually improved her knowledge of the material. Her grades suffered a little bit, but it was worth it.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)so that the military would have suitable draftees.
Imagine how slowed down these kids are compared to their great grandparents who ran down rabbits to survive the depression, and walked 6 miles uphill in both directions to attend school.
get the red out
(13,458 posts)When I was a kid, more like 40 years ago, we were outside a lot. All seasons presented some kind of fun activity. My Mom always said if I wanted to stay inside during the summer she knew to get me a doctor's appointment because I was surely sick.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)Don't want the poor snowflakes to get a complex or hurt feelings and stuff...
lame54
(35,130 posts)Blue Owl
(49,902 posts)n/t
Response to kpete (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Logical
(22,457 posts)My line in HS 30 years ago averaged about 190, today that same school is about 240. And quicker.
econoclast
(543 posts)Today's overly cushioned sneakers encourage people to land on their HEEL when they run. This is un-natural. Feet are designed to impact on the ball of the foot when running - not on the heel. Lots of elite track coaches encourage their runners to train - at times - barefoot so that they un-learn that un-natural heel-first stride! Look at the times posted by American marathoners. They have gotten SLOWER as the shoe cushioning improved over time!
Watch the Kenyans run. Thats how its done!
Our old PF Flyers really WERE an advantage.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)I ran "competitively" for six years and there was and is no advantage or disadvantage to any of the number of strike patterns. What's most important is proper pronation and correct deflection of force.
The personal physiology of a person usually determines the best foot strike. Also, if someone who has learned to run using the heel-toe strike changes to the midfoot strike, he or she trades stress on the knees for stress on the muscles of the bottom of the foot. This can result in considerable injury.
Also, there is no "Kenyan" way of running. In fact, that's kind of a racialist thing to say, if I'm being honest and has little or no basis in reality. There isn't any correlation between barefoot running and improved times either. World class runners still wear the appropriate footwear. Even those who run long distance still choose to wear racing flats.
It's worth mentioning as well that just because those running sub-4 minute miles tend towards midfoot strike does not mean that random joe blow running 12 minute miles should also tend towards a midfoot strike. The mechanics involved with different speeds of running, as well as with different physical capabilities of individual sets of legs, call for different types of foot strikes.
Anyway, what you're giving out is bad information. I hope no one goes out and decides to go barefoot running on the balls of their feet thinking they'll run better times or be less prone to injury. The opposite is likely true, in fact.
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)I gave it a try for a season and my times didn't get any better.
bmbmd
(3,088 posts)If you are still running.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)I've run some 5Ks, a half marathon obstacle course and a full marathon since then but that's it.
econoclast
(543 posts)That supports the benefits of mid foot strike. That is why the shoe industry is introducing 'minimalist' shoes. New Balance Minimus for one example.
Not advocating barefoot running as a constant diet. But doing it a little on grass or beach strengthens the feet and informs you about how your body is designed to run.
Look at the times run by elite American marathoners over the last thirty or so years. As the footwear has gotten more "advanced" they have actually gotten slower!
Why do we need 'support' in running shoes? Do architects build 'support' under domes and arches? No. And why not? Because sticking a 'support' under an arch is detrimental! So why stick one under the arch of your foot? Unless you have some real genuine structural damage to the arch of your foot,which very few people do, let the arch do its job.
All the hi tech wizardry in most modern running shoes encourages overstriding, heel striking, bone on bone impact forces all the way up your spine. Thats not how you were designed to run.
Spend a little time barefoot or in minimalist shoes to strengthen the feet, adopt a more natural midfoot strike, and experience much less injury. And Better times.
Revanchist
(1,375 posts)If you tried playing today the way we did 30+ years ago the neighbors would be calling Child Protective Services on your parents. In the summertime I used to ride my bike several miles over town and went romping through the woods and was walking (yes walking) to school by myself in elementary school, fourth or fifth grade if not earlier.
Now parents are afraid to let kids out of their sight and in some cases have had the police called on them for doing so. Kids are being kept inside because it's "safe".
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Not based in reality.
Revanchist
(1,375 posts)Kimbro, R. T., & Schachter, A. (2011). Neighborhood poverty and maternal fears of children's outdoor play. Family Relations,60(4), 461-475.
Brussoni, M., Olsen, L. L., Pike, I., & Sleet, D. A. (2012). Risky play and childrens safety: Balancing Priorities for optimal child development. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 9(9), 3131-3148. doi:10.3390/ijerph9093134
Wen, L. M., Kite, J., Merome, D. & Rissel, C. (2009). Time spent playing outdoors after school and its relationship with independent mobility: A cross-sectional survey of children aged 10-12 years in Sydney, Australia. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 6(15). doi:10.1186/1479-5868-6-15
Is this enough reality for you? It isn't a right-wing meme, they may have twisted some of the truths to fit their agenda as they are wont to do, but it a fact that parents are more protective then they were when we were growing up.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Where kids loose the emotional ability to cope with their surroundings because their parents didn't want them to walk to the store alone at the ripe age of 2 and a half.
I don't agree with "golden age" rhetoric. It's not factually based. It's just nostalgia.
Revanchist
(1,375 posts)The OP stated that kids are less active than they were before. I stated my hypothesis on why this is so: Parents are afraid to allow their children to engage in activities that we engaged in at a similar age. Studies have also shown this to be true.
There is no need to get combative or try to exaggerate what I stated, I'm not the enemy here.
As for parents fearing being seen as "bad" for letting their children engage in normal behavior I offer this as an example:
http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/local_news/water_cooler/texas-mom-tammy-cooper-sues-police-neighbor-after-arrest
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)That the main reason why kids exercise less is because their parents are afraid of them getting hurt? Seriously? I don't think that's even remotely a reality.
Even then, even if parents are becoming more afraid to let their children play in violent contact sports, that is very obviously a good thing. If I ever have children, I want them to grow up with optimum mental faculties. I don't want them to think beating the shit out of each other is the way to live life.
Revanchist
(1,375 posts)Go online and read some parenting groups on the subject many are living in fear of what might be:
"No unsupervised outside play here! We live in a safe town and safe neighborhood but that doesn't mean squat anymore. Hell they come in and take them out of their bed in the middle of the night (Jaycee Lee Dugard). No thank you. We have a fenced in yard and dogs but I am still right there. She won't ride her bike on the sidewalk out front unless one of us is there to physically watch her. It just takes an instant. Someone at any given time could be watching and you would have no clue. If she goes to her friends home 2 doors down I go out and physically watch her until they have made contact because I know her mother/grandmother are right there on the back porch watching too! Call me paranoid if you like I am better safe then sorry! I am one of those people if something were to happen I would not forgive myself and I would blame myself for letting her out of my sight. I don't want to be that parent. I NEVER WANT TO SAY WHAT IF..."
http://www.circleofmoms.com/question/what-age-were-your-children-when-you-let-them-play-outside-alone-1701589
That's what the second study was about, another quote from the same study:
"For example, in a U.K. study of 1,011 parents, 43% believed that children under the age of 14 years should not be allowed outside unsupervised, and half of those parents felt they should not be allowed outside unsupervised until they were 16 years of age [58]. Parents perceptions about danger can be disproportionate to actual dangers. While traffic concerns are borne out by statistics, child abductions by strangers are exceedingly rare. Ironically, stranger-danger concerns have resulted in increasing volumes of traffic, with corresponding increases in traffic-related dangers [57]."
They also talk about playground rides that are considered risky and the way children gravitate towards them, even the one who aren't allowed to ride them. Children want to engage in risky behavior, that's how they learn.
Where did I mention contact sports? The articles I posted never mentioned them either. Parent's are afraid of crime, predators, and other things, especially those in urban environments.
Seriously Gravity, I'm not trying to have a fight with you, but you're accusing me of parroting right-wing talking points, using words and statements I never did, and ignoring what I posted while stating that the research reports said the opposite from what I quoted. I don't know where this hostility towards me is coming from.
GaYellowDawg
(4,443 posts)... the world seeming scarier to the kids (otherwise, why would they be protected?), and more fear of the unknown. And fear... fear is the basis of conservatism. They vote from fear of change. From fear of strangers. From fear of people unlike them. From hatred of those same things (which comes from fear).
Decaffeinated
(556 posts)... are just made up?
No physical sports at schools, handstands only under supervision of teachers, children suspended and expelled for toy guns the size of a quarter, party invitations for the whole class or none at all etc.. etc.. ad naseum...
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)in their academic classes in this stupid ass Race to the Top.
dsc
(52,129 posts)Alkene
(752 posts)KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)90 seconds is quite dramatic but what is the percentage of the change? If the average for the mile 30 years ago was, for example, 8 minutes then this data would make it 9 mins 30 sec now. A change of +19%
Perhaps changing the test would improve the times:
- place the kid's cell phones one mile away and then tell them that someone just sent them a text, or
- have an old guy (like me) stand at the starting line with the garden hose in one hand and a megaphone in the other to tell them: "When I was your age we ran the mile 90 seconds faster than you! And we LIKED it! Used to run the mile to and from school, uphill both ways...Now get off my lawn! (activate hose)
former9thward
(31,798 posts)Then look at a class picture now. Nothing more need be said.
Orrex
(63,084 posts)Accordingly, a mile is longer now than it was in 1983.
Duh.
dawg
(10,607 posts)I can't run a mile.
I could not run a mile thirty years ago either (when I was 16).
I want to be able to run a mile, and I'm trying to take up running in middle age.
But it's hard, and I'm slow and easily winded.