Obese kids

[Earthborn]

Earthborn: Do you have a weight problem yourself? (sorry if you think it's a cheap shot)

Some would say that I do have overweight. I don't make it a bigger problem than it actually is. And I know for a fact that I am stronger and healthier than I ever was in my life.

And yes, it is a cheap shot! This remark proves that it is:

The reason why i am asking is that some of your arguing sounds a bit like the one I use when i defend my smoking.

Apperently you like to assume that my arguments are just excuses. But it means that you haven't been paying attention. No where did I say that obesity isn't a problem, that obese people can't help themselves. I also did not claim that overeating isn't learned behavior and that parents don't have a responsiblity to teach their kids healthy eating habits.

I can't use my arguments as excuses for anything at all.

Conserning your link i must say that Alan Alda has been used to promote a lot of B***.

I have seen him talk to environmental scientists who assume humans have a devasting effect on the environment. But generally they do quite good science as far as I can see, and don't assume willful destruction by humans, only the nasty side effects of mankinds success. I can't think of anything else you might consider b***, can you give an example?

Children are extremely naive and will accept anything if you tell them it is good.

So if you say that brussels sprouts are good for them, they will like them? I'm sorry, but I find that hard to believe.

Only if they discover that it in fact isn't good will they turn away from you.

Here you use a different definition of 'good': tasting good.

The mere fact that children so easily can be lured away with candy prooves my point.

You haven't watch the video or read the transcript, did you? It shows that children who are taught that they can have candy whenever they want, will want very little, while children who are often denied candy will experience a sort of 'forbidden fruit' effect and want a lot. Surely you can relate to that as a parent. Not allowing to have access to things will only make them more interested in it.

This reminds me of my daughters teacher who also believed that "kids know what's good for themselves". When we questioned her why, at fourth grade, a lot of the children couldn't read properly, she said: "I don't know either". "I have time and time again lectured them about how important in life it is to be able to read properly".

Well, duh. You can't explain to a child how important something is they don't even know how to do. But trying to force them to read is equally counterproductive. What you need to do is put them in an environment with books, read to them, play fun word games. Get them to be genuinely interested in the written language.

Similarly, you should put your child in an environment that confronts them with many kinds of food, show them how much you like them yourself, letting them help prepare it in a playful manner. Allowing them to understand what it is and how it is prepared, is what increases their trust. Telling them what is good for them is not going to work. Helping them understand and allowing them to have control over it is.

Clearly indicates to me that you'll have a very rough awakening if/when you ever get children yourself AND i must say that if you intend to practice this principle you should refrain from having any.

Well, you can rest assured, I don't have plans to procreate.

But I guess you would be horrified to learn that the people who should know best are following pretty much what I advocate...

 

[soccer_ref]

Some random thoughts on this topic.

I live in the part of Canada that has the greatest problem with obesity in general and with obese children in particular. In part, this problem may be cultural. I'm not originally from Atlantic Canada but my wife is. I'll never forget seeing my father-in-law cook up eggs and bacon Maritime style. [Fry a pound of bacon in a pan and carefully preserve the grease. Add eggs. Spoon grease over eggs as they cook.] He died at age 59 from heart disease although he was not obese.

Last night I went to referee an Under-14 Boys soccer game. As usual, there were a couple of boys on each team that were grossly overweight. But it was great to see them out there trying hard.

I once attended a lecture by a Kinesiology professor who not only talked about computer games being a problem but also the labour saving devices we all use. No longer do we have to get off the couch to change a channel, crank a handle to lower a window in the car or even open a door when we walk into a grocery store. It was his opinion that losing all these little bursts of effort during each day was a contributing factor to the fattening of the population. I think he continues to study this issue.

The North American population does not use their bicycles enough. I bike to work each day and find it's easy and fun. Even in the rain. Healthy and good for the environment.

Is your child involved in soccer? Encourage them to become referees. That will be a reason to stay in the game and stay fit. I've heard there are some other sports and the same might apply to them.

My daughter is 21 now and has been slim, even skinny, all her life. At times she has been upset by well meaning people hinting or enquiring if she has an eating disorder. So my advice would be to go easy on confronting others about their weight problems. That being said, we should all be encouraging to others with their weight loss efforts. Obesity is a public health issue and will be costing all of us big bucks in the future. Therefore, for purely selfish reasons, we should all be supporting others in their attempts to lose weight. I don't think that confronting people at McDonald's will work well in this regard, though.

Recently, my daughter checked the nutritional content of a Big Mac meal. The numbers were truly shocking. One Big Mac has 580 calories, 33 g. of fat (51% of the RDA), 11 g. of saturated fat (57% of the RDA) and 1050 mg of sodium (44% of the RDA). Efforts by McDonald's to persuade us their menus are healthier are a joke as long as "food" like this is served. I'll eat elsewhere, thanks.

 

[Crossbow]

First you say this:Then suddenly you say this:Hello!? Both are quite obviously genetically predisposed!

People like the taste of fat. Some are predisposed to like fat more than others. People's bodies are very good at storing fat. Some are predisposed to store fat better than others. No matter how you look at it, genetics play a huge role in the development of obesity.

If I were to take a wild guess at what percentage is genetic and what percentage is enviromental like many people love to do, I'd say something like: 75% genetic, 85% environmental... And no, that doesn't add up to more than 100%!

The genetic causes for obesity are not rare at all. Check out the Obesity Gene Map!

Earthborn:

Sorry if I was not clear, when I talked about genetic weight problems I was referring to conditions such as hypothyroidism and a genetic leptin deficiencies (which very few people have).

I was making a distinction between those conditions and the normal process the body uses for storing fat (which just about everybody has).

I hope this helps!

 

[Sandy M]

jj - Just curious? "After a full day at the barn?" You/they are farmers? - or equestrians? Of course, among (mostly female) equestrians, anorexia rather than obesity is more of a concern.

 

[jj]

jj - Just curious? "After a full day at the barn?" You/they are farmers? - or equestrians? Of course, among (mostly female) equestrians, anorexia rather than obesity is more of a concern.

My kids (both girls) seem to be recovering from being nuts about horses.

You needn't worry about them eating, though, and I haven't detected any bullemia... Just hunger. Oh, and did I mention, hunger.

 

[Sandy M]

JJ - Recovering equi-holics, eh? Consider yourself (financially) lucky. I'm in my 50s and still addicted, supporting a four-legged child. And I'm deifnitely not anorexic/bulemic.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

........................

People like the taste of fat. Some are predisposed to like fat more than others. People's bodies are very good at storing fat. Some are predisposed to store fat better than others. No matter how you look at it, genetics play a huge role in the development of obesity.

If I were to take a wild guess at what percentage is genetic and what percentage is enviromental like many people love to do, I'd say something like: 75% genetic, 85% environmental... And no, that doesn't add up to more than 100%!

If you insist on calling obesity a genetic problem, then why has it risen dramatically in the U.S., in the last few decades?


[whisper] Eating fat doesn't make you fat.. Eating more calories than your body needs for fuel, makes you fat..[/whisper]

 

[Earthborn]

Which part of "75% genetic, 85% environmental " do you consider "insisting on calling obestiy a genetic problem" ?

I think you present a false dichotomy. You think it is either genetic or environmental. You hear someone say that there are genetic factors and immediately assume that this person doesn't acknowledge that there environmental factors which increased obesity.

Well, sorry, but I do acknowledge that. Of course there are enviromental factors: whatever genetics someone has, someone still needs to eat lots of food to become obese.

Eating fat doesn't make you fat.. Eating more calories than your body needs for fuel, makes you fat..

Yes, but the funny thing is: a lot more people eat more calories than their body needs (for whatever their activity is) and not all of them become obese.

 

[Ove]

Here you use a different definition of 'good': tasting good.

No i was actually thinking of the same definition in both cases. (tasting good).

You haven't watch the video or read the transcript, did you? It shows that children who are taught that they can have candy whenever they want, will want very little, while children who are often denied candy will experience a sort of 'forbidden fruit' effect and want a lot. Surely you can relate to that as a parent. Not allowing to have access to things will only make them more interested in it.

No i must admit i skimmed quite fast through it and i would agree that making candy a "Forbidden fruit" will only make it more interesting. BUT.... i would strongly advice against unlimited access to candy. It is a qustion about balance.

Well, duh. You can't explain to a child how important something is they don't even know how to do. But trying to force them to read is equally counterproductive. What you need to do is put them in an environment with books, read to them, play fun word games. Get them to be genuinely interested in the written language.

True BUT they still have to learn to spell first AND the only way to learn that is hard boring work. True, it is a lot easier if the child is genuinely interested but still. I have as i said two children, a girl age 15 and a boy at 10. The boy at 10 learned to read alot faster than his big sister. Why? Because his teacher, opposite to the daughters teacher, did some old-fashiond-spelling-exercises.

Similarly, you should put your child in an environment that confronts them with many kinds of food, show them how much you like them yourself, letting them help prepare it in a playful manner. Allowing them to understand what it is and how it is prepared, is what increases their trust. Telling them what is good for them is not going to work. Helping them understand and allowing them to have control over it is.

Here i agree 100% but that again boils down to my basic complaint. Parents today don't want to take the nescessary time to educate their children. They are very busy pusuing their own interests.

This is a very telling quote:

"After a long day at work, I don't want to come home and prepare a meal either," admits Jackie Berning, assistant professor of nutrition at the University of Colorado, in Colorado Springs, and the mother of two boys, 10 and 16. But she notes that in reality it takes only 20 minutes to put a meal on the table - not much longer than it would take to pick up fast food. To make it easier, she "batch" cooks on the weekends, making foods she can easily reheat later.

I do the cooking at home and i try basically to serve "ordinary" food that is meat and potatoes. The boy could live on spagetti forever and the girl really doesn't eat that much but she still manages fine. My point is that i TAKE THE TIME to cook. We have each day a traditionally cooked meal. Like they said in the article, i try to control the meals i can, not the others.

BUT BUT BUT, if parents are obese and children are brought up in an evnironment with heavy snacking and fast food they will become obese. Don't try to tell me that a child that has unlimited acces to junk food will choose to eat vegetables.

vApperently you like to assume that my arguments are just excuses. But it means that you haven't been paying attention. No where did I say that obesity isn't a problem, that obese people can't help themselves. I also did not claim that overeating isn't learned behavior and that parents don't have a responsiblity to teach their kids healthy eating habits.

Point taken

 

[Phaycops]

I have a question...

Is it even possible to decouple the influence of lifestyle and the influence of genetics in a family of obese people? That is, it seems it would be really difficult, in the abscence of any clearly-defined "obesity gene" to tell to what extent parents are passing on obesity to their children through genes and through lifestyle. I could be wrong, though

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Well, sorry, but I do acknowledge that. Of course there are enviromental factors: whatever genetics someone has, someone still needs to eat lots of food to become obese.Yes, but the funny thing is: a lot more people eat more calories than their body needs (for whatever their activity is) and not all of them become obese.

Funny?

And the solution is, for people who can't do this ( .... eat more calories than their body needs ..), to not do it.

The fact that some people can ( seemingly ) indulge more, in poor eating/exercise habits, is not an excuse for millions of other people to make the choices that result in chronic health issues..

And the truth of the matter is, these people ( who can eat as much of anything they want, exercise little if at all and not get fat) are as rare as obese people who get fat while eating little and exercising a lot..

As someone else pointed out, if you really study the behaviour and food intake of these ' high metabolism ' people, they are not eating more calories than they are burning...


There are exceptions, but I challenge you to demonstrate that the overwhelming majority of obese people, get any type of meaningful exercise, or that the majority of their food intake is not, nutritionless, highly proccessed carbohydrates that are designed for optimum shelf life instead of healthy human beings.

If food processors spent half the money they spend on ' pretty ' packaging and advertising, on truthful nutrition education, most of them would be out of business overnight.
If there was genuine ' Truth in advertising and packaging ', most products at eye-level in the grocery stores, would have a big red circle with a diagonal line across it, printed on the front of the box/can/bottle...


To tell most obese people that they have a ' disease ', much less a genetic disorder, that is not their fault, is as ridiculous as standing by and watching someone slit their wrists, while telling them " it's O.K., because you have a disease ...

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I have a question...

Is it even possible to decouple the influence of lifestyle and the influence of genetics in a family of obese people? That is, it seems it would be really difficult, in the abscence of any clearly-defined "obesity gene" to tell to what extent parents are passing on obesity to their children through genes and through lifestyle. I could be wrong, though

Hmmm.. Maybe we could follow the development of children born of obese parents and adopted into non obese families..


Does the ' fat gene ' tend to remain dormant in these circumstances?

 

[Earthborn]

Diogenes:

Hmmm.. Maybe we could follow the development of children born of obese parents and adopted into non obese families..

Very good idea! Of course, you're not the first to come up with it:
An adoption study of human obesity

The shocking truth:

there was a strong relation between the body-mass index of biologic parents and adoptee weight class and no relation between the index of adoptive parents and adoptee weight class.

Diogenes again:

The fact that some people can ( seemingly ) indulge more, in poor eating/exercise habits, is not an excuse for millions of other people to make the choices that result in chronic health issues..

Correct. It also doesn't mean that people who manage to stay thin can be proud of themselves because satying thin is entirely their own achievement. It isn't. Unfortunately there are many people who falsely assume they eat much healthier than fat people, and have the right to look down on them because of that.

And the solution is, for people who can't do this, to not do it.

Exactly. Now how do you teach a specific class of people a much higher degree of self-control than is asked of all others? For instance: how can adoptive parents who are thin explain to a child adopted from obese parents, that this child is not allowed the same foods as his brothers or sisters?

There are exceptions, but I challenge you to demonstrate that the overwhelming majority of obese people, get any type of meaningful exercise, or that the majority of their food intake is not, nutritionless, highly proccessed carbohydrates that are designed for optimum shelf life instead of healthy human beings.

I will not demonstrate this, as this is not what I am claiming.

To tell most obese people that they have a ' disease ', much less a genetic disorder, that is not their fault, is as ridiculous as standing by and watching someone slit their wrists, while telling them " it's O.K., because you have a disease ..

To ignore that they have a disease is equally dangerous.

 

[clusterm2]

Tez, I'm with you. Fat children with fat parents yeuurgh, it's child abuse. Don't they remember the piss taking at school, the name calling and bullying.
Fat parents are fat because they're LAZY and GREEDY atributes they selfishly instill in their offspring. I guess breeding more fatties enables them to feel cocooned, you know safety in numbers.
You can't blame McDonalds it's the parents ordering adult sized meals (or two) plus afters, for one child, how revolting.
The nearest they'll get to sport is the TV. "Never did me any harm son".

 

[jj]

Tez, I'm with you. Fat children with fat parents yeuurgh, it's child abuse. Don't they remember the piss taking at school, the name calling and bullying.
Fat parents are fat because they're LAZY and GREEDY atributes they selfishly instill in their offspring. I guess breeding more fatties enables them to feel cocooned, you know safety in numbers.
You can't blame McDonalds it's the parents ordering adult sized meals (or two) plus afters, for one child, how revolting.
The nearest they'll get to sport is the TV. "Never did me any harm son".

Then you specifically deny the study cited in the article above yours?

Please show your evidence for this dismissal.

 

[Earthborn]

Ove:

No i was actually thinking of the same definition in both cases. (tasting good).

Well, in that case, your remark "The mere thought that children should know what's good for themselves is ridicoulus." makes no sense at all to me.

BUT.... i would strongly advice against unlimited access to candy. It is a qustion about balance.

Balance... right... Of course restricting the access to candy they know is there will just make it a 'forbidden fruit'. Everytime you say "No, you are not allowed to have candy." will contribute to it. A smarter way may be to give them unlimited access, but limited supply. Give them their own personal sweetpot and fill it every week. Tell them that they can take candy from it whenever they want, and take as much as they want. But when it's empty, there just isn't any more.

Or raise their pocket money and tell them: "From now on I won't give you any sweets. If you want it, you can buy it yourself."

This way you can still limit their intake, but they also have freedom and you don't have to fight everytime your child wants candy and you think it should have. It also is a lot easier to limit their candy intake with a measurable amount instead of by a dozen ad-hoc decisions during the day.

For this to work, it is of course a good idea to start early, and be able to ignore the criticism by other parents who disapprove of giving such freedom to a child and prefer to be emotionally blackmailed by their childern several times a day.

Why? Because his teacher, opposite to the daughters teacher, did some old-fashiond-spelling-exercises.

Did he like his teacher? Did he make him interested and keep him motivated in doing these old-fashioned-spelling exercises? Or did the teacher just force them on the children? There is a big difference.

I do the cooking at home and i try basically to serve "ordinary" food that is meat and potatoes. The boy could live on spagetti forever and the girl really doesn't eat that much but she still manages fine. My point is that i TAKE THE TIME to cook. We have each day a traditionally cooked meal. Like they said in the article, i try to control the meals i can, not the others.

Sounds great. Now tell me: how sure are you that the meals you make have fewer calories than a meal at a fast food restaurant?
Many people blame obesity on fast food. I'm extremely skeptical of this and I assume that many people over-eat at home and only eat fast food occasionally.

Fast food is often demonized as unhealthy, but no one ever blames french cuisine. Did you know that if you eat a single meal in a french restaurant you eat the equivalent in fat of a whole pack of butter? And that's just the fat! There is no way fast food is worse than gourmet food. But it gets all the blame.

BUT BUT BUT, if parents are obese and children are brought up in an evnironment with heavy snacking and fast food they will become obese. Don't try to tell me that a child that has unlimited acces to junk food will choose to eat vegetables.

No, of course not. That's why I said these children need to be allowed to have control over what they eat from an early age.

In the video I linked to you can see that small children usually eat until they are full, which means they often eat less than what they need as energy intake. Older children who learned to 'clean their plate' have often learned to overeat and have no correct concept anymore of what is a reasonable portion. They will clean their plate, no matter how much you give them, even a double portion of what they need disappears in their stomach.

This is only true because they were taught to ignore the signals of their body telling them that they had enough. The best way to avoid teaching them this is to let them decide for themselves when they had enough from an early age, that way their body is the only thing they learn to consider. And they will eat less.

I also once heard of a study (a long time ago, it will probably be difficult to find a reference for it) where children were allowed to choose for themselves what they wanted to eat every day. Of course the first few weeks, it was mostly burger and fries, chocolate and cake... But they grew tired of that and after a while they asked for meals that were quite balanced. Of course, they didn't know it was balanced: it was just what they wanted to eat at that time. Of course none of the jucky stuff some parents push on their children because 'it is healthy' was asked for.

In a way it makes sense that humans, like other animals, know to some degree what is good for them instinctively. Of course instinctive preference isn't a completely accurate way to get a balanced meal, and should not be fully relied upon. But we would not have survived until now if it was worthless and people just liked the things that are bad.

 

[Skeptic]

Well, so far on the JREF forum, there are at least two things "Earthborn" claimed are really pretty EASY to do, if only people would listen to HER and stop being so cranky unreasonable:

1). Raising children.
2). Peace in Middle East.

Sighhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..................

Let me guess, "Earthborn":

1). You have no children.
2). You have never been to the Middle East.

 

[Earthborn]

1). You have no children.

Wow! You must be psychic. Or you can read previous posts.

2). You have never been to the Middle East.

Again, a hit!

2). Peace in Middle East.

Can you send me a quote by me where I offered a solution to the Middle East problem. I can't remember that one, and if I did offer it, it's probably mighty good. Don't hesitate to send it to Abbas, Sharon, Arafat, That Bearded Guy Of Hamas, Bush W if you want.

there are at least two things "Earthborn" claimed are really pretty EASY to do, if only people would listen to HER and stop being so cranky unreasonable

Of course your argument would have been much more convincing if I didn't just parrot the opinions of the experts in the respective fields and backed up all my (actually their) statements with their research results. I bet it would have been much more convinient for you if I presented more of my own ideas and opinions, but unfortunately I don't really have too many of those.

Maybe some other time I will use an argument in a discussion about the paranormal that I also didn't invent myself, just nicked from Randi. I'm sure you will dispute that one too.

 

[Tez]

Well, so far on the JREF forum, there are at least two things "Earthborn" claimed are really pretty EASY to do, if only people would listen to HER and stop being so cranky unreasonable:

1). Raising children.
2). Peace in Middle East.

Sighhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..................

Let me guess, "Earthborn":

1). You have no children.
2). You have never been to the Middle East.

not fair skeptic, Earthborn is making some good points, at least in this thread (I dont think I've read other posts of hers - which probably means she doesnt post much in science!).

Come to think of it, I know realise that this whole changing of the fora was merely to deny me my `once in a blue moon' thread in Banter and to move it back to Science. How could I not have seen it before...

 

[jj]

Well, so far on the JREF forum, there are at least two things "Earthborn" claimed are really pretty EASY to do, if only people would listen to HER and stop being so cranky unreasonable:

1). Raising children.
2). Peace in Middle East.

Sighhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..................

Let me guess, "Earthborn":

1). You have no children.
2). You have never been to the Middle East.

Hey, I'm agreeing with her about children, and there are two of mine sitting next to me playing rollercoaster tycoon right now.

Perhaps you should look up the various kinds of ad-hominem fallacies, just for review.

As to peace in the middle east, I do know one way. It's neither socially nor environmentally sound, though. After it was done, there would be peace, though.