Preventing obesity in the first place.

[mike3]

Hi.

This is a sort of spin-off from the thread "Is Obesity Incurable?", here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=239190

If the obesity is so hard to "cure", I then mentioned about whether it could be prevented, such as in children, so they don't grow up to be obese. The OP mentioned:

So much of this starts in childhood, or at least starts at an age before you really know what's going on. If you've been programmed as a kid to associate food with love, friends, family, celebration, special occasions, curing bad moods, etc, then your future is kind of written in stone, it seems.

It sounds like I'm blaming parents but of course parents are just one small factor in the behaviors a kid picks up -- peers, media, etc all play a factor. And they all point toward, "Eat, eat, eat, eat, and also being fat is horrible and you should feel bad."

The forces pushing you in that unhealthy direction are mind-boggling.

So how can that be combatted, and the kid be prevented from getting fat in the first place?

 

[DragonLady]

I think I've offered up most of my best suggestions in the other thread. But here's a thumbnail list of things that might make some improvements:

Teaching new parents that "feeding on demand" does not mean "feed every time the child cries". I've seen that several times now: kid makes a noise, parents feed, child grows and grows and grows...widthwise.

Calorie counts in HUGE letters on containers of juice and drinks marketed for kids. I think too many parents think juice is lower in calories and healthier for kids than soda. I know I thought so, until I actually started reading the containers and was shocked at how many calories are in one little sippy cup's worth. Make 'em drink water. They will live, and live better.

Discourage pizza parlors and fast food joints from installing playgrounds. I suspect parents take the kids out for fast food more often and feed them more if they're also playing in the ball pits and such (especially if they feel like the park isn't a safe place). At best, they're reingesting every calorie spent. At worst, they're outgrowing the playgrounds but still eating there just as much and just as often.

Avoid fast food and convenience foods. Cooking may cost more and takes more time, but the food is more nutritious.

Reclaiming child safe areas so kids play outside more. As we've said in other thread, they just aren't outside actively playing for anywhere near the number of hours they used to, mostly because of safety concerns. Supervised play areas, parental groups that take kids to outdoor activities and venues, security cameras and a stronger police presence in areas children will enjoy playing may be good places to start.


Put the kids on wheels early. I firmly believe roller skates, bicycles and scooters are still so enjoyable that kids will turn off the tv for a long ride every chance they get.

Enroll them in active sports. Swimming, ball games, rock climbing, dancing, skiing...anything that gets them up and moving and doesn't encourage taking long breaks or just standing around.

Take them places. Really. The whole family. The zoo, the carnival, the state fair, big flea markets, malls.... Places that require a lot of walking and standing, but are interesting and offer a lot of things to see and do. And buy them the souvenirs and gifts and junky stuff instead of snacks. They'll keep it longer and enjoy it more, anyway.

Make them do chores. Pushing a lawn mower, raking leaves, shoveling snow or washing the family car won't hurt them.

Take the electronics out of their bedrooms. With cable tv, the internet, cell phones, cameras and unlimited facebook why would any kid ever want to get out of bed?

If they are watching tv or playing a quiet game, no snacks. They have to turn it off to eat.


I'm sure there are plenty more, but these are a good beginning.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Put the kids on wheels early. I firmly believe roller skates, bicycles and scooters are still so enjoyable that kids will turn off the tv for a long ride every chance they get.

Enroll them in active sports. Swimming, ball games, rock climbing, dancing, skiing...anything that gets them up and moving and doesn't encourage taking long breaks or just standing around.

Make sure your kid is happy doing this, otherwise everyone is going to end up bitter.[/bitter]

Take the electronics out of their bedrooms. With cable tv, the internet, cell phones, cameras and unlimited facebook why would any kid ever want to get out of bed?

I disagree with this. They can just as easily lounge in the living room as they can in their bedroom. It might give you (the parent) a psychological benefit, but that is all.

Take them places. Really. The whole family. The zoo, the carnival, the state fair, big flea markets, malls.... Places that require a lot of walking and standing, but are interesting and offer a lot of things to see and do. And buy them the souvenirs and gifts and junky stuff instead of snacks. They'll keep it longer and enjoy it more, anyway.

Too bourgeoisie, and now you are making them compulsive consumerists .

I'd put effort into making sure all these things are positive experiences. I can tell you that having a parent push arbitrary "get out of the house" rules ensured that I put it the least amount of resentful effort possible, and that I made certain to spread that misery. But perhaps I was just a brat .

 

[Dr. Imago]

How do you prevent it?

Pull the veil off of the food industry's additives laboratories and tell us what exactly are all those "natural and artificial flavorings" in the ingredients that make people crave salty and sugary products more than they normally would.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7389748n

~Dr. Imago

 

[Careyp74]

My wife is friends with a couple of women who have grossly overweight kids. It isn't a big mystery why they are like that. One is actually a grand-mom, and doesn't have the energy for anything but pacifying with food. Another is overweight herself, but it isn't genetics, we see what is put into the child's mouth, and it disgusts us. Yes, fast food is a big part of both of their lives.

For the most part, the only family outings consist of trips to Walmart. No walks, no activities.

Growing up I remember a family where out of three kids, one of them was obese. His attitude might have had a lot to do with it. He was not outgoing, and was a softy. Cried a lot. The parents may have pacified him the same way, while the other two kids didn't need it.

 

[Puppycow]

My wife is pretty strict about what and when the children may eat.

It works, at least in our house.

There's one snack allowed per day, and nothing after dinner.

 

[casebro]

.

Reclaiming child safe areas so kids play outside more. As we've said in other thread, they just aren't outside actively playing for anywhere near the number of hours they used to, mostly because of safety concerns. Supervised play areas, parental groups that take kids to outdoor activities and venues, security cameras and a stronger police presence in areas children will enjoy playing may be good places to start.

.

Safety is not the problem. The media is the problem. When a kid gets abducted 2,000 miles away. we hear about it. When a pervert exposes himself, we hear about it.

I consider it a sign of how safe a society we live in. Look how hard they have to search to find bad news to print. Total number of children abducted and murdered in this country by strangers every year? About 80. Out of um, 60,000,000 ? The usual child predator murderer is a relative, or known to the parents, about 400 per year. Lets do the math: 260,000,000 strangers /80= 32,000,000. vs a couple hundred 'known to' to 400= .5 , uh, 64,000,000 times safer away from home? Predation wise, children are safer AWAY from home.

Hey, I grew up riding a bicycle for miles, without adult supervision- and WITHOUT A HELMET! It looks like the risk might be worth the rewards.

 

[Roboramma]

Lets do the math: 260,000,000 strangers /80= 32,000,000. vs a couple hundred 'known to' to 400= .5 , uh, 64,000,000 times safer away from home? Predation wise, children are safer AWAY from home.

Could you explain what the highlighted numbers are meant to represent?

 

[Careyp74]

Could you explain what the highlighted numbers are meant to represent?

bad math and poor explanation.

 

[Roboramma]

bad math and poor explanation.

Well, the first one seems to be the ratio of total number of strangers to total number of child abductors who are strangers to their victim, or, I suppose, the chance that any particular stranger is a child abductor, though if that's the case, he said it odd, as he gives the inverse of that ratio.

The second number is the ratio of the number of people that average person knows to the total number of child abductors who know their victim. Casebro seems to think this represents the chance that any particular person a child knows is a child abductor, which is absurd. He should have realised the absurdity when the result, .5, appeared. This number, again, is the inverse of the ratio that it seems casebro is interested in, which means the real ratio is 2/1. But it's not even meaningful to speak of probabilities greater than one!

So, obviously that's not what the second number is. But then, what does casebro mean that number to represent? And even more bizarre: what does he mean the product of the two to represent?

Anyway, I'm a little tired, so maybe I'm just confused, but I really can't figure out what he is trying to say here.

 

[Kestrel]

Safety is a real problem in certain gang infested neighborhoods. The irrational level of fear in the average suburb is a direct result of media hype and politicians playing the fear card. In both cases, the result is that kids no longer spend the day outside in active play. Few are allowed to walk to school, even when it's a few blocks away.

 

[casebro]

For those who doubt my math I'll quote my summation:

Predation wise, children are safer AWAY from home.

Hey, I grew up riding a bicycle for miles, without adult supervision- and WITHOUT A HELMET! It looks like the risk might be worth the rewards.

Okay, for those who who think my math is an exaggeration, How about a simple statement: 83% of child predator murders are caused by people known to the family. Same summation applies.

Math from a different angle: Known people are suspects, 400 cases per year. 200 people known in each case, (my guess) thats 80,000 suspects. One perp for each 200.

80 cases in 260,000,0000 strangers. one stranger in 32,000,000 is a perp. Per year?

Or maybe the same perps are involved, at that rate: for each strange child they take, they take 5 that they know. Naa, there just aren/t that many serial child murderers. The unsolved are about 50 per year. If the same rate of known/unknown apply, that only leaves 5 for an un-charged serial killer. Statistically, there just isn't any chance to back up a rampage of serial child murderers out there.

Flaw in my thought process is that I'm only talking about murders, because that has the firmest numbers. Mere molestations are not reported in a high enough percent of commissions to delve into a discussion. Though I don't see why the same rates wouldn't apply, 83% by the known.

 

[Careyp74]

For those who doubt my math I'll quote my summation:

80 cases in 260,000,0000 strangers. one stranger in 32,000,000 is a perp. Per year?

is it 260,000,000 divided by 80? This equals 3,200,000

 

[Modified]

Calorie counts in HUGE letters on containers of juice and drinks marketed for kids. I think too many parents think juice is lower in calories and healthier for kids than soda. I know I thought so, until I actually started reading the containers and was shocked at how many calories are in one little sippy cup's worth. Make 'em drink water. They will live, and live better.

And if you do give them juice, water it down 2 to 1.

 

[Puppycow]

OK, the point is that "stranger danger" is overexaggerated, like shark attacks.

A swimming pool in your back yard is much more likely to kill your child, but much less likely to make the local evening news.

Now, back to the issue of childhood obesity.

 

[Kestrel]

OK, the point is that "stranger danger" is overexaggerated, like shark attacks.

A swimming pool in your back yard is much more likely to kill your child, but much less likely to make the local evening news.

Now, back to the issue of childhood obesity.

The problem is that parental fear keeps kids from walking to school. Or riding a bike several miles to the city swimming pool. Kids ride everywhere in the back of the family car instead of using their own muscles. They can only go to the park or the beach or the sledding hill when a parent is free to take them. The result is less activity and more time sitting around at home or in cars.

 

[mike3]

Make sure your kid is happy doing this, otherwise everyone is going to end up bitter.[/bitter]



I disagree with this. They can just as easily lounge in the living room as they can in their bedroom. It might give you (the parent) a psychological benefit, but that is all.

[/QUOTE]

Also, note that BOOKs and studying can have the same effect.