Parents of fat children to be given a warning

[seriousstan]

Source: Timesonline

Parents of 5-year-olds are to be sent official warning letters if their child is found to be obese, as part of a national programme to weigh children in schools.

Ministers are bracing themselves for charges that they will stigmatise fat children when they publish proposals next month to tackle rising levels of obesity, The Times has learnt.

Alan Johnson, the Health Secretary, is understood to have been persuaded that it is in children’s best interest if their weight is brought formally to the attention of their parents.

The routine weighing of primary school pupils was reintroduced in England and Wales two years ago in response to obesity fears. The National Child Measurement programme aims to collect data on every child twice, when they start school and when they leave. Parents of 5 and 10-year-olds can request the measurements but are not informed automatically, even if the child is severely overweight.



Read more: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article2709161.ece

[NoGodsNoMasters]

1. Oh jesus...

Isn't our society already more than sufficiently inundated with this body-obsession, self-hatred culture? Especially for women, some of the most beautiful girls (I may be biased because I like curvy women.) absolutely HATE themselves and drive themselves mad because they don't look like barbie or kate moss. Issuing warnings to forty-year-olds, who risk heart disease, fair enough, but this seems to me that it only makes children who probably already have low self-esteems, feel even worse. Moreover, when did a persons' health, note, not healthCARE, become public business? Are they going to issue tickets for smoking next? Rediculous.

[seriousstan]

2. In the interest of nationalized health care, this must be addressed and habits changed,

The common good must reign supreme.

[rodeodance]

48. Preventive measures needs to be part of overalll care.

........Professor Sir Albert Aynsley-Green, the independent advocate for children, said last year that telling parents their children were too fat “risks stigmatising those who are overweight”.

But in a sign of shifting attitudes, the Office of the Children’s Commissioner said last night that obesity was rising so fast it would give the measure a cautious welcome.

Claire Phillips, its policy director, said: “Our concern is that parents are given help in the form of a package of support to help them make the necessary changes to lifestyle.”

A Department of Health spokesman said: “The programme is a vital part of engaging with children and families about healthy lifestyles and weight issues. We need to take this farther and help parents to understand the importance of healthy weight for their family.”

[superconnected]

133. ah, so their next step is dictating their life style to them.

[Coexist]

64. thats the funniest post I've read in awhile!

[UnyieldingHierophant]

131. Yes...it is!

[tuckessee]

79. What do you propose if all else fails?

Seizing overweight kids from their parents? Sending them to boot camps?

[melody]

92. Anti-Fat bigots are useless for discussion purposes

I do one post and forget about it. lol

Anti-gay bigots want to exterminate gay people so I'd imagine anti-fat bigots secretly think the same thing about
fat people. For the "gene pool", of course. (grrrrrrrrrrr)

[toopers]

130. Yes, send them to the FBI . . .

Fat Boys Inc, as my high school football coach use to call his "conditioning" program.

[lunatica]

141. In the interest of facts

Why are the fast food poisons still legally allowed to pass for food. How stupid to send Warnings and punish the parents and the children but ignore the fast food industry for putting preservatives and crap which should be illegal into food. Why aren't these people going after the criminals instead of the victims. Not everyone is aware that fast food is anything other than regular food.

[silverojo]

5. This isn't about mildly overweight kids

This is about "obese" children...the ones who are EXTREMELY fat, because their parents feed them far more than is healthy. Doing this to a child is positively abusive, and should be nipped in the bud before the poor child develops life-threatening health problems.

This isn't about body image or wanting to look like Barbie--it's about saving lives.

[China_cat]

7. 'Overweight' is no longer the term for anyone past what

the government decides is a healthy weight for anyone. The term now is obese. Period. EXTREMELY fat is known as "morbidly" obese.

And yes it is about body image. When the medical description of a person who is 5-10 lbs over what is deemed 'ideal' is 'obese' and size 10 women's clothes are being sold in the large size stores and departments, you bet your ass it's about body image.

[bpeale]

65. exactly! just when did size 14 & 16 become plus size? this is ridiculous.

now they no longer have just plus size clothing for women, they have exactly the same sizes in junior clothes. this is about calling people fat who are not fat. if the perverts weren't running the streets, our kids would be outdoors playing. you can't just let your kid go out & run the streets like i used to do as a kid. you can't. but calling them obese & morbidly obese will give them psychological problems and run the risk of bulimia & anorexia by a whole generation of children.

[China_cat]

66. There is no term any more for 'underweight'

On one side it is 'normal, obese, morbidly obese'. On the other side there is nothing between 'normal' and 'anorectic'. And there's a very thin line between those 2.

[Quantess]

104. Eh, sorry. A size 20 in the 1970s would be a size 12 now.

Size inflation. A size 8 in the 1960's would be a size 0 today. You can't reliably judge your weight by clothing size. The numbers have stayed the same, but there's a lot more fabric in the clothing. Clothing manufacturers want to flatter consumers into thinking they're slim. Well that's a big, fat, lie. People are a lot fatter, on average, than they used to be just 15 years ago.


Today's size 14 and 16: put them in a time machine back to 1970, and they would most definitely be in a plus-size department, with a far higher number on the size tag. Just sayin'.

[pitohui]

136. that is a gross exaggeration

size 8 in the 1960's would be a size 0 today

that is simply not true, i was a size 8 once i reached my adult height/weight in my early teens and i am still the same height/weight today, and i am a size 4 -- it's funny to look at my closet over the years, since i can still wear clothes from high school that have not worn out (such as jeans, altho they are hopelessly high-waisted and unstylish) so i can see the change in size over the years

yes, there is size inflation, but in no way is the old size 8 the new size 0

sarah jessica parker (a size 0) would have NEVER been more than a size 4

[Quantess]

138. Size 8 in the 1960s would be a size 2 today.

Try it out. Try on some vintage clothing. See how insulted you feel when trying on vintage clothing, and looking at the size tag.

Edit to say: I am not trying to put anyone down. All I'm saying, is, try on vintage clothing, and be prepared for heartbreak.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

76. Thank you.

Ever noticed how people get all "concerned about your health" when you're a woman at a much lower weight than they will over a man. A guy has to be frigging enormous before the general public (not necessarily doctors) will worry about him. This despite the fact that belly fat (which men generally have in excess when even slightly overweight) is a proven contributor to cardio-vascular disease.

When Jordin Sparks (who is talented as well as gorgeous - too bad she's a fundie anti-choicer) won American Idol there was this "concerned" skinny woman getting on news and talk shows to blather about how Jordin was sending a "bad message" to young women by daring to be normal sized. But it was all about health dontchaknow. :eyes: Funny how this self-righteous creature didn't come out to bemoan that Ruben guy who won a few years before and weighs over 300 lbs.

[woodsprite]

31. There was talk about actually putting it on the kids' report cards

here in the US. I don't know if any states are doing that yet or not. I'm just glad my kids take after their dad.

I dreaded the little evals they did during school anyhow because I was always treated 'fat'. I matured early, so carried that extra weight girls get right before they do mature, at a younger age than most. But I look back at pics and I think "They were crazy. I wasn't fat." But it made me feel that way. I was between a size 9 and 11 in high school and people still thought I was fat, but I don't look it to anyone who sees those pics now.

Unfortunately, I can't say the same thing since I left college ;) Although this morning I started trying to do something about it! :)

[kath]

51. The article is from Britain, not the US.

[LeftyMom]

74. rtfa!

This is in the UK. They already have health care.

[Mojambo]

3. Screw homework! Get on the treadmill, fatty! n/t

[zalinda]

4. I'm guessing these people think that the parents

don't know that their kids are fat. They serve crap in school for lunches, take away gym, give lots of homework and then complain that kids are fat. Duh!

zalinda

[dysfunctional press]

10. this is about kids that are 5 years old...

since they're just starting school, i don't think that the schools can be blamed for their obesity.

[SmokingJacket]

54. Actually... parents don't know this.

They've done studies that show parents think their little chubby kid is just cute and healthy, when he's actually very obese.

[harun]

114. Correct, they pump them full of high fructose corn syrup

drinks. This causes them all sorts of problems later in life. When they are older they figure out what was wrong with their dietand it is that much harder to change their bad habits they learned from their parents.

[RaleighNCDUer]

68. OTOH, both my BIL and my sis are morbidly obese.

And their two kids take after them because their home environment promotes it - they eat fast food almost exclusively, BIL refuses to eat veggies at all, and sis (because he is the man of the house and is her master) will not contradict him and tell the kids they HAVE to eat fruits and veggies. It's not how much they eat, but what they eat.

Having a 10yr old boy weighing in at 160 is child abuse, IMO.

Many parents ARE idiots.

[SyntaxError]

82. My brother and his wife are similar...

I feel bad for my neice and nephew... It's sad.

[melody]

94. My thin neighbor and his wife are similar, too

But I guess they're acceptable because their bodies aren't fat ones.

[melody]

91. Boy, I'll bet your family just LOVES having you come over! lol

You sound like my slender mother who hated fat people. They were her favorite group to feel superior to.
She would chide people for the way they ate, etc. She was a social drinker, you know. Nothing bad, just a
"social drinker". And she took Valium. The two conspired to kill her at the age of 53.

I lived my whole life with her in my ear about how "undisciplined" I was with my fat body. Trouble is, she
married a man with a fat family. Long after she died, I inherited pictures of his fat family -- I look exactly
like my great-grandmother who weighed in around 300 lbs and who died aged 70. Not bad for a woman of that time.

Gosh, I wonder who was healthier.

[T_i_B]

117. Actually, over here in the UK...

...school dinners have been made considerably more healthy following a campaign by TV chef Jamie Oliver. School dinners over here are part of the solution rather then the problem.

[zalinda]

128. Yes, I heard about that

this is a good thing. I wish it was going on over here. We give our kids crap for lunch, and for those who get breakfast at school, they get sugared cereal. Then we wonder why they can't sit still. Damn, that Plumpy Nut would be a better choice for these kids.

zalinda

[DJ MEW]

6. good, go back in time and stop my mom from buying LIttle Debbie please.

as a 20 something that is really trying to battle the buldge I have got to say that issueing warnings to parents that their kids need to get health is a great idea.

It is so rediculous every time I see some mom putting Coke in a baby bottle for their infant. We really need to focus parents towards offering healthy foods to their kids. If only the parents didn't both have to work to make ends meet, maybe if the quality of life for the lower and middle classes wasn't falling, then everyone would be healthier and able to teach children how to make healthy choices.

[melody]

90. I think we ought to start focusing on health and education instead of thinness

Health has nothing to do with being slender. Just ask Karen Carpenter.

[RaleighNCDUer]

99. There's as huge a difference between slender and anorexic as

there is between chubby and morbidly obese.

The real problem is that some doctor says X is the ideal weight for someone who is X tall, and that is nonsense. Genetics determine a lot, and someone of Germanic extraction is going to be heavier at the same height than someone of Chinese extraction - it goes back to what made for survivability during the ice ages.

Nevertheless, that 'ideal weight' could be a guideline allowing for 20lbs plus or minus, and either way is perfectly healthy. I am 60lbs over the prescribed ideal and usually feel fine - but with my bad back it is important for me to shed 40lbs of it, if I want to avoid any more surgeries because 90% of it is belly fat. I walk or bike to work every day, and usually walk @ 3 miles a day. It's not that I'm so terribly undisciplined - it's my heritage. Same heritage as my sis. Her hubby has a similar heritage, I would think, but he is making choices that will kill him. And his choices are being reflected in his kids, as well.

As you said, it's about health, not thinness. And health includes good choices.

[melody]

102. Exactly ... but many people think "slender" is best and any slender is good

To be radically underweight is as dangerous as weighing 600 lbs, as you've said.

I've made the genetics argument many times, too. One-quarter of my ancestors were people
who walked a long way to get to where they were going. Only the stoutest survived. Another
large chunk came over from Great Britain and Ireland due to extreme poverty -- hunger breeds
people with a great ability to process food into the greatest amount of fat. Put that together
and presto -- big obesity epidemic in the USA.

[FREEWILL56]

8. Being overweight is a societal problem and not just the fault of parents.

Schools instead of just citing a child should themselves be helping that child through exercise programs in gym and of course health class for proper eating habits. Some may have other health problems that cause what they would be judging to be obesity and just overeating. Schools are not qualified to judge if one is just an over eater, but should take a real interest in the children's health by stopping the practice of feeding them the wrong foods and drinks. Some schools get kickbacks for allowing say coke or pepsi only in a vending machine. I too am having a real problem now with weight due to other recent health issues and I can say that to help is fine, but to just pass judgement while being part of the problem is more bullshit hypocrisy. There are also many on the other end of the spectrum and not getting anything to eat and we know how much bush has left all the children behind as too many do fall through the cracks. Obesity itself can be a sign of malnutrition because one tries to eat more to gain sufficient quantities of nutrients one lacks in the diet and nobody knows for sure, but diabetes also figures into this mix and can cause weight gains. I know of one soldier who was placed under a certain drug by his doctors and that drug later was shown to trigger diabetes and excessive weight gains. I wish I could remember what it was called.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

39. it is not just the parents nor a societal problem it is a Corporation Problem....

[allisonthegreat]

126. so true....

[FREEWILL56]

9. dupe

dupe

[harpboy_ak]

11. We should be doing this in the US

At least the British are finally having enough sense to realize that obesity is a health problem that costs money! One reason, of course, is that they can track the costs of obesity and the treatment of the health problems it causes (heart problems, diabetes, joint problems) because they have a national health care system.

I'm sick and tired of fat people who refuse to change their diet or lifestyle whine about how they are discriminated against, and that want "fat acceptance". Sorry, I don't want my insurance to cost more because you won't take care of your health.

I do understand that there are some hereditary body types that tend to put on more body fat than others, but outside a particular range for the body type, people are obese, and it has NOTHING to do with body image crap, it has to do with health.

If you're obese, can't lose weight even on a reduced calorie diet, your cholesterol levels are dangerous or your blood sugar levels are close to diabetic, you need to have your doctor find out why and get the right exercise and meds to get your weight down to a healthy range.

I lost 25 lbs in the last year (195 to 170, for a 6 foot male) by simply reducing my carb intake --- I only cut down carbs at dinner time by substituting salads five days a week --- by not eating fast foods, and by exercising at least half an hour a day. It's not rocket science, and doesn't take a lot of will power, just common sense. It does help if you learn how to cook foods that are good for you.

But I continue to see fat moms buying their fat kids candy and pop when I'm in line at the supermarket with my salad stuff, and their carts are loaded with high-carb high fat high salt crap instead of healthy foods. These are the same folks that complain that they don't have any place where their fat kids can pollute the air and make noise with their ATVs, when they should give the kids mountain bikes and helmets and get them to use muscle power, the ones that drive their kids to school instead of making them walk or ride their bikes.

I'm a person who loves to cook and loves to eat, but I cook healthy, eat healthy, and enjoy myself because I can eat what I cook without any guilt or psychobabble. A tasty fish filet, vegetable curry, or ratatoui beats a fat and sugar loaded doughnut any time.

[Locrian]

12. information is the key

"I lost 25 lbs in the last year (195 to 170, for a 6 foot male) by simply reducing my carb intake --- I only cut down carbs at dinner time by substituting salads five days a week --- by not eating fast foods, and by exercising at least half an hour a day. It's not rocket science, and doesn't take a lot of will power, just common sense. It does help if you learn how to cook foods that are good for you."


Great job and sounds like you are on the right track. Unfortunately, the "low fat", "high cholesterol" vs low carbs is full of FUD.

Good links:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/diet/interviews/taubes.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E2D61F3EF934A35754C0A9649C8B63
http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Gary-Taubes/dp/1400040787

[BadgerKid]

28. The FUD of FUD..but we're on the same page

"Great job and sounds like you are on the right track. Unfortunately, the "low fat", "high cholesterol" vs low carbs is full of FUD."

Diets are marketed to be fads, and I believe the mass media has people scrambling from one diet to the next. The point, IMO, that is missed by both sides is that it's about choosing a diet, or combination of diets, that works well for *you* and that provides a net caloric deficit.

Low fat makes sense metabolically -- you want your body to burn *your* bodyfat, not dietary fat.

Low-carb makes sense for people who can tolerate it or for those who want to burn bodyfat at a higher rate.

[NorthernSpy]

34. no wonder dieters fail almost 100% of the time in the long run...

Diets are marketed to be fads, and I believe the mass media has people scrambling from one diet to the next. The point, IMO, that is missed by both sides is that it's about choosing a diet, or combination of diets, that works well for *you* and that provides a net caloric deficit.

Low fat makes sense metabolically -- you want your body to burn *your* bodyfat, not dietary fat.

Low-carb makes sense for people who can tolerate it or for those who want to burn bodyfat at a higher rate.

Haven't any of these people noticed that they can't really do any of this stuff indefinitely?

Your metabolism incorporates multiple feedback loops at every stage. The ultimate goal of this complex, closed system is to maintain fat stores at the level dictated by the hypothalamus.

Your fat storage system was toughened up by millions of years of evolution under survival conditions. You can't actually outsmart it by eating less, or eating different things.

[BadgerKid]

69. Cycled dieting is arguably better

for precisely that reason of satisfying the body's set points/hormonal levels. There's a saying on some fitness forums: You body wants you fat. This is totally true because it's a survival mechanism. For women, it's also to help ensure fertility. If we were in Nature, our eating patterns would be cyclical along with the seasons.

In various fitness forums the basic formula comes down to

1. eat less
2. exercise
3. repeat
4. forever

The only thing I can think of that would deter the burning bodyfat is something like a fatty acid oxidation genetic disorder (e.g., acyl-CoA dehydrogenase 9 (ACAD9) deficiency).

[melody]

88. One opinion in obesity research is that the popularity of diets caused the obesity "epidemic", also

We diet, we regain, our set-point changes, etc.

[eridani]

111. Bingo. Feedback mechanisms greatly reduce the chances of net calorie deficit

Eat less, and those mechanisms kick in to remove the deficit.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

15. Your premiums? Better hope you don't have a DNA wired high risk of cancer or

heart disease. Because I'd have to pay higher premiums for you were one of those to make an appearance.

Or, if you knowingly put yourself at risk by engaging in sports or activities where you can be injured seriously. I don't want to pay for your emergency treatment and rehab, when you knew that motorcycles, rock climbing or snow boarding have well documented inherent risks.

I expect you to avoid all risk and have perfect a family medical history with no possible hereditary implications for health issues, or stay out of my payer pool! And don't have a family with those either.

For instance, pregnancy is loaded with health risks, so if your S.O. gets pregnant, I don't want that potentially costly risk in my payer pool if anything goes wrong. Even the preventative care for a normal pregnancy can be costly, so I shouldn't have to pay for that either, it makes everyone's premiums go up.

BTW, :sarcasm:

What is about people that they think their perfect health will last forever? It just takes one thing, and you become the "liability" to the other payers.

But, you're bulletproof, right? MKJ

[melody]

18. Exactly

Then there are workaholics, stressaholics. Hell, let's just invade everyone's lives and tell them
how to live. Oye. :eyes:

[NotGivingUp]

72. Glad SOMEbody said it!!! n/t

[mrreowwr_kittty]

80. Don't forget DRIVING!

You know how many people are killed and injured every year by climbing into those 2 ton metal machines that have to dodge other 2 ton metal machines at speeds of over 60mph?

And what's worse is, sometimes people CHOOSE to do this activity, despite the enormous risk. Some of them do it for recreation, like to go on vacations or out shopping.

Why should the rest of us have to pay for these selfish, reckless people and their lifestyle CHOICE?

[eridani]

112. Biking is even worse

Chances of death or serious injury are 50 times higher for cyclists than for drivers.

[DemBones DemBones]

107. Why do we have to constantly point this out to people who

should be smart enough to figure it out for themselves?

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[woodsprite]

37. And let's not forget those lovely female hormones.

A guy couldn't possibly know how that is - either on a monthly cycle OR to have them ripped from you when you get put into surgical menopause. Talk about some joint pain! I know I'm heavy, and I was borderline arthritis in my one knee before total hyster surgery. Now 18mo out from surgery and I'm moving like a 90yo w/ my back, both knees and hips. I hope I can lose some weight without being able to move much. Swimming does help. Some docs will say hormones don't play a part in arthritis, it would've developed like that anyhow. But there are new studies coming out saying that estrogen (or lack of it) plays a major part and I soooooo believe that. Phytoestrogens help somewhat so I've been taking my flax seed.

[NorthernSpy]

23. and even the fattest women will still outlive you...

... just because they're women, and you're not.

I lost 25 lbs in the last year (195 to 170, for a 6 foot male) by simply reducing my carb intake --- I only cut down carbs at dinner time by substituting salads five days a week --- by not eating fast foods, and by exercising at least half an hour a day. It's not rocket science, and doesn't take a lot of will power, just common sense. It does help if you learn how to cook foods that are good for you.

But I continue to see fat moms buying their fat kids candy and pop when I'm in line at the supermarket with my salad stuff, and their carts are loaded with high-carb high fat high salt crap instead of healthy foods. These are the same folks that complain that they don't have any place where their fat kids can pollute the air and make noise with their ATVs, when they should give the kids mountain bikes and helmets and get them to use muscle power, the ones that drive their kids to school instead of making them walk or ride their bikes.

I'm a person who loves to cook and loves to eat, but I cook healthy, eat healthy, and enjoy myself because I can eat what I cook without any guilt or psychobabble. A tasty fish filet, vegetable curry, or ratatoui beats a fat and sugar loaded doughnut any time.

The good part is, you probably didn't change your overall likelihood of getting sick or dying by much. 'Cause the bad part is, you have a statistically greater chance of dying early at your new BMI.


http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/293/15/1861


The "overweight" have the lowest mortality risk, even if you control for smoking and for wasting diseases.

[melody]

87. Exactly, thank you!

Wait till he finds out fat senior citizens live longer than thin ones.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

78. But gosh

If all those fat lazy slobs became thin and virtuous like you, then you'd have to find someone else to denigrate.

[eridani]

110. 25 lbs is a seriously chickenshit amount of weight loss

Actual fat people who lose 25 lbs are still fat.

[CTyankee]

123. I don't understand how people can say they don't eat and still get fat.

I was slightly overweight before I had a series of complications and abdominal surgeries over the past 6 months. As a result of not being able to eat I have lost 30 lbs. and am struggling to gain back 5 lbs. cuz the surgeon is on my case. Sometimes I just can't eat. And what I CAN eat is very limited. I couldn't overeat even if I wanted to, due to the removal of much of my digestive material.

My point is what has been so dramatically evident to me: if you don't eat, you lose weight. It isn't always ideal, because then you may not get enough proper nutrients, but in my case it was just the way it was!

[Scout]

127. you are wrong: "if you don't eat, you lose weight"

if you don't eat, your body thinks you are starving and becomes even more efficient at using the few calories you take in. It is entirely possible to gain weight even when you cut calories.

Everyone isn't the same as you, obviously. :eyes:

[CTyankee]

132. Perhaps over the short term you may be right. But over several months you

couldn't possibly gain weight. Once your body adjusts to the amount of food you do get, if you expend more calories than you consume, you cannot possibly gain weight! You have only to look at pictures of concentration camp survivors to see what consistent deprivation of calories does to the human body. In my case, I was not starving, I was just unable to eat the amount of food that satisfied my appetite before. I was unable to exercise the way I had, but my body was obviously using more calories trying to heal than I could keep up with by eating.

I'm not really happy about this state of affairs, believe me. I say to my friends, Be careful what you wish for...

[pookieblue]

137. a few years ago

I having to take steriods. They actually made me sick to my stomach, so I wasn't eating much of anything. and anything I did eat tasted like crap. (the meds left a copper taste in my mouth)

But instead of losing weight...I gained weight, about 30lbs. that is just one example of how one can actually gain weight, while not eating.

[Oak2004]

139. You do know you would lose weight afer such surgery regardless of calorie intake?

The body goes catabolic after most major surgery, and postsurgical patients often lose weight in the 6 months to one year after surgery, even if they maintain or slightly raise their caloric intake.

[CTyankee]

142. Yes, I am sure that had its effect. But that does not dismiss my point

about people who were consistently underfed or starved (my example was concentration camp victims but also people caught in a war time situation come to mind -- one reason Audrey Hepburn was always struggling to gain weight).

In my situation, my colon is quite slender and much of my small intestine is now gone. Even if I wanted to, which I don't, I couldn't eat large portions of food at one time. I understand that people who have their stomachs stapled are in a similar sitation with their stomachs. And yet we hear about those who have had that surgery and lose a lot of weight but then put it back on because they try to eat more. It's quite scary and I have every sympathy for them. They either have an overwhelming appetite or another problem in thinking or feeling about food.

You sound very knowledgeable. Is there research on the issues I have mentioned? Would like to educate myself...

[superconnected]

134. Oh GAWD!!!! Are you serious. Are you sure you're not a repuke?

The whole force others to live by your beliefs sounds exactly like THAT camp.

[Vinca]

13. It wouldn't hurt to limit ingredients in processed food, either.

There is no reason whatsoever to put corn syrup in canned kidney beans. Corn syrup is in almost everything that isn't fresh. The governments are complicit in making us a bunch of porkers so they should stop wagging their fingers and start making changes to the quality of the food supply. Another problem, for kids, is that there is often no one home to kick them out the door to play ball. Dad is working, Mom is working, the latchkey kid is plopped in front of the tube playing video games. We need to go back to the days when a family could afford to have an adult in the house after school to rear the children.

[distantearlywarning]

35. This is a big pet peeve of mine now too.

It's astounding what they put corn syrup in these days. You have to spend time reading every single label to remove it from your diet. And in some cases, you have to search high and wide to get certain items without it. Bread is a great example. Try going to your average grocery store and buying a loaf of bread without HFCS in it - you'll have to pick up 10-15 loaves before you find a brand without it, guaranteed. I've also found that shit in foods as widely varied as vegetable soup and cottage cheese (WTF??). Further, there is evidence out there that the time when they started filling all kinds of food with HFCS is also the time when obesity rates in America started going up dramatically. Correlational evidence to be sure, but still pretty damning.

If this society REALLY wants to work on obesity (rather than just continue to stigmatize and blame fat people), they'll start by removing high fructose corn syrup from foods that normal people who are trying to be healthy eat. And they'll also work on replacing it in sweet foods with sugar or honey.

[NotGivingUp]

75. You are 100% right on all counts!

And I'll tell you...that's one thing that really pissed me off...I bought a can of kidney beans without looking at the ingredients. Well, hell, I figured it would just be kidney beans. Nope...get them home and there was corn syrup..grrrrrrr. I was ready to take that can of beans back to the store and throw it at them. There's disgusting crap in all of the processed foods at the store...along with chemicals/poisons/etc. on everything else. Yes, we should go back to the days when it took one salary to support a family...that way we'd all be eating healthier. And, we'd also be smart to be growing more of our own food since they are screwing up EVERYTHING that we eat.

[Snarkturian Clone]

14. If anyone does some research about where the whole BMI

thing comes from, they will see that "obesity" is WAAAAAY over-diagnosed. According to the BMI scale, I'm not just obese, but MORBIDLY obese.

Insurance companies love the BMI scale because it was created for belgian men in 1840 with an average height of 5'4". This means that LOTS of people could be labeled as obese just for being tall or mesomorphic.

[sleepyhead]

19. Agreed.

I just finished reading "The Obesity Myth" by Paul Campos. He discusses this in depth and refutes the studies leading to use of the varied obesity indices, including the BMI. As always, one must ask who is going to benefit from classiying so many people as obese. The weight-loss industry of course, but also the insurance companies who can raise premiums or drop people from their rolls, clothing manufacturers who can charge extra for "extra-large" sizes, etc. He also cites studies that show that there are health advantages to being somewhat "overwieght" (according to the BMI index) - actually, you are statistically better off being slightly over the "ideal" weight and moderately physically active than you would be if you were a "normal" size and sedentary. (Not to mention the psychological benefits from not having a poor body image.)

[High Plains]

96. If it's a myth, why are there so many more fat people these days?

I see more and more every year.

[sleepyhead]

100. First of all, we are redefining "fat"

Fashions come and go, and nowadays people are being called fat who never would have been considered overweight before. This is partially due to the abundance of stick-thin models and actresses for comparison. If all you see on TV, in the movies, and in advertisements is very thin people (and if the few realistically-sized people in evidence are continually referred to as "plus-sized" etc), you will start to redefine obesity as what might formerly be called "curvy" for example. Another issue is that the BMI is not a realistic measure of body fat or shape. I'm sure you've read the articles that say that famous hunks like George Clooney and Brad Pitt are considered overweight/obese on the BMI scale.

I wouldn't argue that there are many truly obese people in this country - due to the prevalence of HFCS in our diet and our increasingly sedentary way of life. This isn't contradicting anything in The Obesity Myth, as Campos specifically states that there are those at the upper end of the various weight indices who *are* at increased risk of disease (we aren't talking about 20 or even 50 extra pounds here, but more like 100 or more pounds overweight). His point is that when you leave those unfortunate folks aside, we have become far too obsessive about our extra pounds (and he does not deny that we are heavier than we have been in the past) - to the point of neurosis. It is not a health issue (which can be measured scientifically and statistically) but one of aesthetics (which is highly subjective and prone to manipulation).

[bperci108]

106. IMHO, reasons #1 and #2 are:

#1 - A sedentary car culture that is marketed to 24/7 to eat a huge-portioned fast-food heavy diet.

#2 - An industrial agriculture food chain that has put HFCS in nearly every thing we 'Muricans eat.


This list goes on but those are the two biggies

[SyntaxError]

84. Relying on BMI alone is stupid...

It doesn't take into account people with a good portion of muscle mass.

[melody]

16. I wonder if parents of children with trichotillomania are going to be threatened now?

How about all forms of OCD, addiction? Ah, apparently not -- only the ones whose children look unpleasant to them. Yeah, that's rational.

Don't they have any legitimate doctors in the US and UK anymore?

[The2ndWheel]

20. Welcome to the future

Where the corporation owns the food, and the state tells you what you should eat and how you should look. All for your own best interest.

[Zodiak]

21. Fucking Safety Nazis

They won't be happy unless everyone lives according to THEIR dictates.

I do not tolerate authoritarianism from the right OR the left.

[GeneCosta]

22. It's not authoritarian

If getting a letter in the mail is authoritarian, that says a lot...

[NorthernSpy]

26. I thinks schools have widely overstepped their boundaries in a lot of ways...

Much as I want to believe in public institutions, I can't blame parents for increasingly opting out of the school system.

[BrklynLib at work]

24. So instead of working to create healthier eating and exercise habits for everyone, they are going

stigmatize those that have a weight problem..without really knowing the underlying cause in each case..
How about cutting down on ads for crappy food, and encouraging good food in the school meals and creating more opportunities for exercise?
What a short-sighted, and ultimately wasteful policy.

[depakid]

25. The NHS does provide support for families having trouble with obesity

in quite a variety of ways that would come as a big surprise to Americans, who often go without basic primary and preventative care.

[BrklynLib at work]

27. I was thinking of a National policy of limiting the appeal of the cheap, non-nutritional junk foods

and instituting a National policy to encourage EVERYONE to get out and exercise. No reason to limit it to those families that ALREADY have a problem.

[NorthernSpy]

30. thing is, such interventions are useless...

Every time we study this question, we find that dieting fails in the long run. And attempts to re-envision diets as "healthy eating for life" don't generally make them more effective, either.

Where food choices are concerned, the government should just leave people alone. There is NO reason to believe that propaganda, "advice", and dictats from the government can do any good, and plenty of reasons to believe that they will cause alienation, stigma, and harm to real people.

[electron_blue]

29. Sounds like they are treating this like letters sent out about vision and hearing screening

which have been sent for years.

I think we can quibble all forever where the line is exactly drawn for obese and morbidly obese but this is a real problem that is apparently only going to get worse. I agree that BMI tables are not accurate for each individual. I know that from personal experience. A few years ago I lost 45 lbs and when I was at what I thought was my goal weight I had my lean body mass tested with underwater weighing. I did this bcs the BMI tables still said I had 25 lbs more to lose which I thought was just wrong. I wore a size 8 and looked danged good. The u.w.w. said I was 5 lbs away from my ideal weight bcs I had a lot more bone and muscle than the average person my height. So - the BMI tables were wrong by about 20 lbs for me. However what I found sobering is that I was still obese at my original weight. I'm using the definition of obese as at least 20%, or 30%, over my ideal weight, since I don't see a lot of agreement on the definition of obese. Thinking back to how I was years ago, I now see that what I thought of as "obese" was actually morbidly obese. I wonder how many people also have that same problem.

[NorthernSpy]

36. vision and hearing relate to whether one can see the blackboard or hear the teacher...

.. or whether visual and auditory aids should be provided.

Schools should NOT be a place where the government makes use of a captive audience to try to achieve whatever social-engineering goals it might fancy at the time.

[electron_blue]

43. I would hate for kids to be the victims of a social-engineering experiment as you

suggest. But can you say that obesity, esp morbid obesity, does not carry physical impediments with it? Remember that not all learning goals at school are academic - some are physical and social.

I admit I don't see how the letter will magically change any kid, but it might get a few parents out of denial. More likely it will backfire because of the social implications that go along with being fat in our society.

[midnight]

32. I'm no nurtitionalist. I hope one weights in on this. What about

sugar in many of the foods aimed at the public. Should that be reduced?

[woodsprite]

33. I guess it swings both ways - just takes a few years

When I took my teen daughter for her physical this past year, I was given the third degree because she weighed less than her last appointment 6 months before. I looked at her and she looked the same, her eating was the same (except that she's always running late and rushing or trying to skip breakfast during the school year).

Finally, I asked the Dr. exactly what the difference was. She said "She went from 121 to 120" --- IT WAS 1 FREAKING POUND!!! That could have been her period! SHEESH!!! I'm glad they're concerned, but give me a break!

[mrreowwr_kittty]

81. It seems like a lot of medical professionals are obsessed with women's weight

When I go to the doctor I am forced to get on the scale no matter what I am there for. I am always questioned about any weight fluctuations, as if they are relevant to the fact that I'm there to get my ear checked. I remember a male doctor counseling me about "watching my weight" and it was all too clear the focus was more on my appearance than my health. Remember that doctor who made the news when he told a woman patient she should lose weight because if her (also obese) husband died she would have a hard time remarrying?

I've asked men if this happens to them and it doesn't seem to be the case. My b/f tells me that he only gets weighed when it's a routine physical and his doc rarely mentions his weight, even though it has creeped up over the years.

[momster]

98. My Mom Says No

She flatly refuses to get on a scale at the doctor's. She is heavy but not obese -- probably about a size 16-18...and, by the way, in perfect physical health, a twinge of arthritis but that's it. But between normal weight fluctuations as a female and the fact that she is wearing clothing, there's no point in being weighed at the office unless they are prescribing some kind of medication that changes dose according to weight.

A doctor's scale always seems to add 5 to 7 lbs anyway. Very depressing to see the numbers that have changed at home reappear at the doctor's.

[RaleighNCDUer]

101. I get weight, BP and temperature every time I visit the doc,

even when I went to get a prescription for toenail fungus.

My BP is a problem, but for some reason the doc has never mentioned my weight as a cause of it. Perhaps it has to do with a certain degree of paternalism that makes the difference on how they address it with men or women.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

38. I think the parents know already if their child is fat...what a waste of time imho

[peace13]

41. Oh ya...

I can imagine how that letter will be received at home! Can you say sucks to be the school nurse?

[peace13]

40. I find most of the comments here very distressing.

Lets try putting phys. ed. back in the schools. Lets get health care for all and include access to dietitians and physical 'trainers' for those who wish to make a change. When my son was in High School he was quite overweight. We bought a piece of exercise equipment for the 'adults' to use. When he saw that we could only use it for 10 minutes at a time he proudly professed that he could do better. You guessed it, he lost 50 pounds and outdid us all. That was seven years ago and he still exercises every day. Go figure. Peace, Kim

[bpeale]

67. i remember when i quit smoking, i went to the gym 6 days a week

i worked out for 2 hrs there 6 days a week. i had to have been burning about 5000 calories per week & watching what I ate. i was gaining weight!!! then i injured my food & had to have surgery, which in turn caused the injury to the opposite knee. all because the foot doctor didn't believe in rehab before or after surgery. he should have sent me before to learn how to use crutches. no, he just gave them to me & told me to do it. i tore all the ligaments in the opposite knee. point is, after the two surgeries, i can't walk up & down stairs and can't straighten the knee out because the ligaments were shortened too much during the surgery. I had rehab for the knee, but it didn't help. i am now using a walker to walk & am on constant pain killers for the knee. I have gained 80 lbs from the inactivity, developed diabetes because i can't do anything. one thing i don't need is to be constantly told that i am morbidly obese. it's insulting.

[peace13]

73. I hear what you are saying.

For me the only way that I can lose weight is to count carbs. It is no fun and really takes some of the fun out of living. I know that I have to go back to counting but have been dragging my feet. I don't take these comments from the government personally and you shouldn't either. It sounds like you have really been through the mill. I send energy and peace your way in hopes that things will get easier for you. Peace, Kim

[Enrique]

42. the Times has "learnt???????"

That's not even a word! don't they know English over there?

[rocktivity]

44. I believe that 'learnt' IS proper British English

They also say "whilst" for "while" and "whinge" for "whine."

:headbang:
rocknation

[Enrique]

45. I still think they should get with the program and talk like normal people

have they forgotten who saved their asses in WWII? :-)

[dmallind]

49. You mean the Russians? nt

lhh

[melody]

95. Don't try sarcasm here. It doesn't work. n/t

[DemBones DemBones]

108. They speak proper English in England, having invented it. nt

[CoffeeCat]

46. The same government that denied children healthcare???

It's our government that wants to force kids onto scales.

This same government will feed our kids school lunches today---consisting of high-fat,
high-sodium filler foods. Ketchup is considered a vegetable. The lunchrooms in which
these unhealthy foods are served, are peppered with vending machines that contain
candy, pop, potato chips and other junk foods.

Meanwhile, our government continues to subsidize farmers who convert corn into high-fructose
corn syrup---an ingredient in most junk foods that is killing us. This stuff will turn
a healthy person unhealthy in a week. It's poison.

If you want to take this further, poor people cannot afford to eat healthy. Fruits and vegetables
are more expensive than a bag of generic potato chips. Whole wheat bread is quadruple the price of
white bread. Many people are eating "on the cheap", buying quantity, rather than quality--in order to feed their families on limited incomes. This same government that wants to weigh our children, fosters policies that push people into poverty and cuts any programs that might help them.

And another thing...ensuring that children don't have health care and mandating that people won't
get help with their home-heating bills this winter--further entrenches people into poverty. Clearly, these policies cut into disposable income--which keeps healthy diet alternatives out of reach.

Are we actually supposed to believe that this very same government---which seems to have a policy that promotes UNHEALTHY HABITS---really cares about our children's health? This is about control
and government intervention. There's probably some covert reason for this. My guess is that the pharmaceutical companies will benefit somehow. Pretty soon, they'll have all overweight kids on some form of antidepressant or behavior drug---to cure "compulsion".

The government does not care about children's health. Period.

I'm not saying that kids should be overweight. Children should be healthy and active. They
shouldn't eat junk food. I agree with all of that. However, THIS government shouldn't be trusted with anything related to our children. I don't believe that they care because everyday they demonstrate that they kow tow to corporations and do not care about the health and well being
of US citizens--including children.

[kath]

53. uh, no. Not our govt. Story is from the UK (note the British spellings)

reading comprehension. :eyes:

[CoffeeCat]

56. I didn't read the story....

...I read the comments of others.

I have no excuses either! I've had
my Starbuck's and a protein-rich breakfast.

I supposed I deserve that eye roll.

:)

[NotGivingUp]

77. You are soooo right. And I'm sure you're right about big pharma

wanting to make a profit off of this. It's totally disgusting.

[Teaser]

47. For God's sake

if they're going to do this, make sure the note is not sent home with the child, but sent in the mail.

A discrete phone call would be better.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

50. To produce more suitable kinder for the Fatherland?

?

[ShortnFiery]

57. Yah, for the breeding of super duper, *leaner and meaner* SOLDIERS for our never ending wars ...

:grr: :nuke:

[nodehopper]

121. the story is about the UK...

[Quantess]

124. What a poster!

Please tell me that "it was a liberal" was photoshopped on....
(aarr, curse me typos!)

[snooper2]

52. Feed your kids celery instead of ho-ho's ...

ho-ho's = Calories per cake: 130. Calories from fat: 50. Saturated fat: 4 grams. Vitamins and calcium are dutifully recorded at 0 percent.

[Midlodemocrat]

55. They do that here in my county.

If your child is overweight at all, you get a letter addressing it. I think it is beyond insulting.

Do they really think the parents of an overweight child don't realize the child is overweight? What a waste of taxpayer dollars.

[Gormy Cuss]

61. When I was in elementary school our height and weight were measured at the beginning of each year.

The card was sent home to parents and the height/weight amounts were listed and categorized against norms for the grade. Fat was called heavy, thin was referred to a light. I remember being upset when my weight was listed as MH (moderately heavy) until my mother pointed out that it made sense because my height was MT, or moderately tall. As I recall the measurements were just considered FYIs for parents, not castigations. I think the school was gathering the data for a public health project.

[Midlodemocrat]

62. I remember that as well. We were measured at the beginning of the year.

[alcibiades_mystery]

58. Good. They're child abusers.

[SixString]

59. Fatty, Fatty two by four.......

....can't get through the bathroom door.


No longer just a childish insult.
Now it's a government sanctioned health warning.

What a ridiculous world we live in.

[razzleberry]

63. special classrooms for obese, special classrooms for gay

am I the only person opposed?

[SyntaxError]

85. Are they doing that?

[razzleberry]

86. not yet, as far as I know .n/t.

[nodehopper]

122. where did you get special classrooms? logical fallacy!

[Mojorabbit]

70. It costs a lot

more money to eat healthy. For those on a low income the cheap things to buy have the most calories.

[noonwitch]

71. This, from the nation that produced Henry VIII and Churchill.

Or maybe that's why they're doing it.

[Charlie Brown]

105. LOL

I would be very interested to hear if family-members of MPs and the monarchy are held to this same "standard" of thinness that the gov't is prescribing for ordinary people.

[Bill McBlueState]

83. this makes sense

If school doctors find that a child is on either tail of the weight distribution for kids his age, it's only reasonable to notify the parents. Parents deserve to know if their kid may have a health problem.

[slampoet]

89. The Fatty School lunches will be changed? It's the schools that are the PUSHERS!!

Typical school official. Blaming parents when the solution is in their hands but would require them to do their ACTUAL job and not just follow inertia to their retirement.

[JNelson6563]

115. At age 5 this is not likely the cause

To the best of my knowledge at about age 5 kids are usually just entering school.

I think it's time for parents to take some responsibility for their kids.

Julie

[T_i_B]

118. Actually, thanks to Jamie Oliver

The fatty school diners over here in the UK already have been changed. And this article is about what the British government is up to, not the US.

[0007]

93. If it ain't sex it's ......

[maxsolomon]

97. Britain is scared of becoming the US

i was just in Europe (where a lot of our genes come from) - and the obesity level is SIGNIFICANTLY lower - i went days without seeing a morbidly obese person. overweight or "curvy"? sure. but not morbidly obese.

its what we eat (processed crap) & how much we eat (a whole lot).

[DemBones DemBones]

109. Britain and Europe will catch up with the US since they

are getting more and more fast food and processed foods. One reason older Brits and Europeans are on average thinner than Americans of the same age is that they had food shortages after WW II which we didn't. Americans also have had McDonald's since the early-mid sixties, 1963 where I lived. Kentucky Fried Chicken was available in 1958 -- that's 50 years next year. Europe and the UK have not had fast food all these years.

If any government is serious about fighting obesity, they'll make it illegal to put HFCS in anything. They'll also get the snack machines and Coke machines out of the schools and change the school lunch program.

One big problem I saw as a teacher is that when pizza was served, which was generally once a week, most of the kids would carry their tray over to the salad bar and drench their pizza with ranch dressing. Imagine the calories and fat grams added!

It seemed obvious to me that they needed to do away with the giant bowls of salad dressings equipped with ladles and give the kids a small portion of dressing for their salads, using those little paper containers that tartar sauce and such are served in.

[eridani]

113. They have shorter work hours, longer vacations--

--and very heavily subsidized public transportation.

[surfermaw]

103. They did that 80 years ago

I am near eighty, and I was weighed and measured every year that I was in school, so were my children.

[sniffa]

116. they shouLd do that in our country

if you're oLder and you're fine being morbidLy obese, more power to you.

but don't endanger your chiLd's heaLth, and shorten his Life span through negLect, and poor diet.

[0007]

119. Egads!

Next thing ya know, you'll need a license to eat!

[RaRa]

120. How's this for a confusing message?

My kid's school is starting a commission to look at the obesity problem while having once a month "McDonlad's McCare night" where money goes back to the school.

[AngryAmish]

125. Why don't parents of ugly children get warnings?

[billyoc]

129. warnings about what?

[superconnected]

135. So the kid comes how from school and mom/dad says

Son/Daughter, we've recieved this letter that you are obese. Now stop being obese.

We're only going to feed you salads for now on and you have to exercise an hour a night.

Now go back to school and face that place that just pointed out to us that you aren't acceptable. Try to sit in your seat and concentrate on learning knowing the institution finds you physically offensive.

Because it's about looks and not about how you preform on your school work.

Why is your school in your diet, well they fucking shouldn't be. But they are.

[CTyankee]

143. I don't think that's the issue. As I see it, the schools put in Coke machines

as a money maker. They were able to get a lot of high fat, undesirable high carb food to serve at lunch, because it was cheaper than wholesome, fresh foods. In CT schools have taken out the Coke machines or just selling more healthful beverages. I'm not sure about the lunches. I have read about schools trying to do this but the kids weren't buying the good food and the cost of the better food was quite high.

It seems to me that if we want to make school food more healthful, we should be prepared to assume the tax burden that will follow. As to what we can do if the kids won't eat such food, preferring a high fat pizza instead, for instance, that's an issue the parents will have to address. I don't see how a letter from the school is going to change the parents if they continue to model poor eating habits for their kids...

[sadiesworld]

140. Perhaps parents could encourage bulemia...

as the problem appears to be one of physical appearance rather than getting at the root cause of eating disorders.