Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kpete

(71,898 posts)
Wed Nov 20, 2013, 04:39 PM Nov 2013

Today'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 she’s 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.

It’s 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

42 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Today's Kids Run More Slowly-Children run the mile 90 seconds slower than kids did 30 years ago (Original Post) kpete Nov 2013 OP
Kids also spend more time being taught for the test. Playing outside is not on that test The Straight Story Nov 2013 #1
You can't blame schools alone. Parents don't create opportunities for kids to be as active Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #6
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2013 #40
agreed and I do blame the idiotic educational reform establishment zazen Nov 2013 #9
It's not just during school time laundry_queen Nov 2013 #13
To be fair, if you run too fast it's too hard to text pinboy3niner Nov 2013 #2
Yep. I was going to say that I could probably outrun her, but she can out type me. renie408 Nov 2013 #39
Too much indoor playtime? sakabatou Nov 2013 #3
Well, I sure run it a lot more slowly than that, compared to MineralMan Nov 2013 #4
Our PF Fliers made the difference Politicalboi Nov 2013 #5
Only ONE THIRD of kids get an hour of active playtime a day. One hour! Xithras Nov 2013 #7
my daughter would never have time to do her homework zazen Nov 2013 #10
I had to teach my older daughter to prioritize her homework Mariana Nov 2013 #18
And "we" were so out of shape JFK had to start a national program HereSince1628 Nov 2013 #8
Makes sense get the red out Nov 2013 #11
That's why we need to stop doing the Presidential Fitness Fitness Tests. Glassunion Nov 2013 #12
Maybe we should point 'em toward a KFC lame54 Nov 2013 #14
Oh wait -- the video was just set on slow-motion Blue Owl Nov 2013 #15
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2013 #16
But high school teams would destroy teams from 30 years ago..... Logical Nov 2013 #17
Part of it IS the footwear!!!! No joke econoclast Nov 2013 #19
Actually, heel-toe striking is perfectly healthy. Gravitycollapse Nov 2013 #21
Yea I agree, I had a coach tell me I'd run 3 miles in under 18 if I stopped running heel to toe Hippo_Tron Nov 2013 #25
just want to know bmbmd Nov 2013 #31
Not really. I stopped once I started college. Gravitycollapse Nov 2013 #32
Actually there is a considerable body of science econoclast Nov 2013 #34
I blame society Revanchist Nov 2013 #20
The supposed "pussification" of children is a right-wing meme. Gravitycollapse Nov 2013 #22
Really? Revanchist Nov 2013 #23
Yes, and that discusses -potential- consequences, not some doomsday scenarios Gravitycollapse Nov 2013 #26
With all due respect, I did not suggest any doomsday senarios Revanchist Nov 2013 #27
So that's ONE example. Even your studies you posted before don't say what you think. Gravitycollapse Nov 2013 #28
I feel that there is a disconnect between what I'm saying and what you think I'm saying Revanchist Nov 2013 #30
And I think the protectiveness results in... GaYellowDawg Nov 2013 #36
Story after story after story... Decaffeinated Nov 2013 #37
how about if we just insist they run a mile in 5 minutes? That would match what we expect of them liberal_at_heart Nov 2013 #24
that is because due to inflation a mile is longer now than it was 30 years ago dsc Nov 2013 #29
Close. It's because the universe is expanding. n/t Alkene Nov 2013 #33
I tried to find the average times they are comapring and had no luck KurtNYC Nov 2013 #35
Look at a class picture from 30 years ago. former9thward Nov 2013 #38
Well, the universe has expanded a lot since then Orrex Nov 2013 #41
If they can run a mile at all, I think they are doing great. dawg Nov 2013 #42

The Straight Story

(48,121 posts)
1. Kids also spend more time being taught for the test. Playing outside is not on that test
Wed Nov 20, 2013, 04:44 PM
Nov 2013

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)
6. You can't blame schools alone. Parents don't create opportunities for kids to be as active
Wed Nov 20, 2013, 04:53 PM
Nov 2013

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)

zazen

(2,978 posts)
9. agreed and I do blame the idiotic educational reform establishment
Wed Nov 20, 2013, 04:59 PM
Nov 2013

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)
13. It's not just during school time
Wed Nov 20, 2013, 05:38 PM
Nov 2013

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.

MineralMan

(146,189 posts)
4. Well, I sure run it a lot more slowly than that, compared to
Wed Nov 20, 2013, 04:50 PM
Nov 2013

30 years ago, I can tell you. In fact, at age 68, I ain't running it at all.

 

Politicalboi

(15,189 posts)
5. Our PF Fliers made the difference
Wed Nov 20, 2013, 04:51 PM
Nov 2013

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)
7. Only ONE THIRD of kids get an hour of active playtime a day. One hour!
Wed Nov 20, 2013, 04:54 PM
Nov 2013

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)
10. my daughter would never have time to do her homework
Wed Nov 20, 2013, 05:03 PM
Nov 2013

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)
18. I had to teach my older daughter to prioritize her homework
Wed Nov 20, 2013, 06:15 PM
Nov 2013

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)
8. And "we" were so out of shape JFK had to start a national program
Wed Nov 20, 2013, 04:59 PM
Nov 2013

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)
11. Makes sense
Wed Nov 20, 2013, 05:05 PM
Nov 2013

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)
12. That's why we need to stop doing the Presidential Fitness Fitness Tests.
Wed Nov 20, 2013, 05:13 PM
Nov 2013

Don't want the poor snowflakes to get a complex or hurt feelings and stuff...

Response to kpete (Original post)

 

Logical

(22,457 posts)
17. But high school teams would destroy teams from 30 years ago.....
Wed Nov 20, 2013, 06:07 PM
Nov 2013

My line in HS 30 years ago averaged about 190, today that same school is about 240. And quicker.


econoclast

(543 posts)
19. Part of it IS the footwear!!!! No joke
Wed Nov 20, 2013, 07:05 PM
Nov 2013

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)
21. Actually, heel-toe striking is perfectly healthy.
Wed Nov 20, 2013, 08:09 PM
Nov 2013

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)
25. Yea I agree, I had a coach tell me I'd run 3 miles in under 18 if I stopped running heel to toe
Wed Nov 20, 2013, 09:22 PM
Nov 2013

I gave it a try for a season and my times didn't get any better.

Gravitycollapse

(8,155 posts)
32. Not really. I stopped once I started college.
Wed Nov 20, 2013, 10:51 PM
Nov 2013

I've run some 5Ks, a half marathon obstacle course and a full marathon since then but that's it.

econoclast

(543 posts)
34. Actually there is a considerable body of science
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 10:57 AM
Nov 2013

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)
20. I blame society
Wed Nov 20, 2013, 07:51 PM
Nov 2013

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".

Revanchist

(1,375 posts)
23. Really?
Wed Nov 20, 2013, 09:14 PM
Nov 2013
Children's outdoor activities have declined in recent decades (Burdette & Whitaker, 2005b; Hofferth & Sandberg, 2001) at the same time as an increase in Americans' fear of crime, particularly in urban areas (Liska & Baccaglini, 1990; Warr & Stafford, 1982). Connecting these two phenomena, Clements (2004) found that over three quarters of mothers cite safety and crime concerns when explaining why they prevent thenchildren from playing outdoors


Kimbro, R. T., & Schachter, A. (2011). Neighborhood poverty and maternal fears of children's outdoor play. Family Relations,60(4), 461-475.

Injury prevention plays a key role in keeping children safe, but emerging research suggests that imposing too many restrictions on children’s outdoor risky play hinders their development. We explore the relationship between child development, play, and conceptions of risk taking with the aim of informing child injury prevention. Generational trends indicate children’s diminishing engagement in outdoor play is influenced by parental and societal concerns


Brussoni, M., Olsen, L. L., Pike, I., & Sleet, D. A. (2012). Risky play and children’s safety: Balancing Priorities for optimal child development. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 9(9), 3131-3148. doi:10.3390/ijerph9093134

Thirty-seven per cent of children spent less than half an hour a day playing outdoors after school, and 43% spent more than 2 hours a day watching TV, videos or playing computer games. Forty-eight per cent of children were allowed to walk on their own near where they lived. Children's independent mobility was significantly associated with outdoor play after adjusting for other confounders. Compared with those who were never allowed to walk on their own near where they lived, students who were allowed to walk on their own were significantly more likely to spend more than half an hour a day playing outdoors after school with an adjusted odds ratio of 2.6, 95% CI 1.84–3.58, P < 0.001.


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)
26. Yes, and that discusses -potential- consequences, not some doomsday scenarios
Wed Nov 20, 2013, 09:23 PM
Nov 2013

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)
27. With all due respect, I did not suggest any doomsday senarios
Wed Nov 20, 2013, 09:47 PM
Nov 2013

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)
28. So that's ONE example. Even your studies you posted before don't say what you think.
Wed Nov 20, 2013, 09:55 PM
Nov 2013

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)
30. I feel that there is a disconnect between what I'm saying and what you think I'm saying
Wed Nov 20, 2013, 10:20 PM
Nov 2013
So that's ONE example. Even your studies you posted before don't say what you think.


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 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.


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.

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.


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)
36. And I think the protectiveness results in...
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 11:28 AM
Nov 2013

... 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)
37. Story after story after story...
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 11:43 AM
Nov 2013

... 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)
24. how about if we just insist they run a mile in 5 minutes? That would match what we expect of them
Wed Nov 20, 2013, 09:15 PM
Nov 2013

in their academic classes in this stupid ass Race to the Top.

KurtNYC

(14,549 posts)
35. I tried to find the average times they are comapring and had no luck
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 11:15 AM
Nov 2013

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)
38. Look at a class picture from 30 years ago.
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 12:07 PM
Nov 2013

Then look at a class picture now. Nothing more need be said.

Orrex

(63,084 posts)
41. Well, the universe has expanded a lot since then
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 12:30 PM
Nov 2013

Accordingly, a mile is longer now than it was in 1983.


Duh.

dawg

(10,607 posts)
42. If they can run a mile at all, I think they are doing great.
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 12:47 PM
Nov 2013

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.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Today's Kids Run More Slo...