To think we have lost sight of what teh correct weight for a child is

[sassysally]

All these parents have gone, outraged to the mostly national press because they don't think their child has an ounce of fat on them, and the newspapers have published them,but to me are all clearly too heavy

1

2
3

Toby I don't serve puddings except maybe some grapes if she is still hungry. I really don't see how giving her back dinner if she isn't hungry at dinner time but is an hour later is forcing her to eat. If she isn't hungry she doesn't eat, if she is hungry she does eat. No cajoling or encouraging required. I suppose you could say I am making her eat her good healthy dinner instead of offering her alternative food options but firstly this is about eating when she is hungry not about food preferences so its not really relevant and secondly I firmly believe offering alternative options at the drop of a hat simply leads to fussy eating and more food problems.

Can I ask a question? DD was always an overweight baby and toddler - way off the charts for both height and weight, but obviously overweight. As far as I knew, and was told by HVs, I was feeding her ok, small portions, home made food and very little in the way of sweets/crisps etc. Now she is 7 I have just weighed her and in the red book charts she is now on exactly the same line for height and weight (inbetween the 91st and 98th percentile). Does this mean that she is ok, or do I need to aim to get her down even further? She swims, dances twice a week, is always out playing, running, dancing, and riding he bike, and up until recently did climbing and gymnastics, but an injury means that she cannot do these last 2 activities at the moment. I am 5'' 10" and just over 8st in weight, DH is around 6 feet tall and I'm not sure what he weighs but has a 32" waist, so we are not a big family. DS has just been weighed/measured in reception and came out as normal.

I have been under no illusions that my DD was overweight and want to do right by her. She seems to be going the right direction, but I know she is still bigger (and taller by a head!) than the rest of her friends. So is it ok that she is on the same line for weight and height or do I need to get her lower?

Miaiw, you misunderstand, there is no witch hunt of tall kids (dramatic and obtuse, much?!)

It has all been explained in the thread

Both weighed and measured recently and giving no cause for concern according to the medical bods doing it

So what exactly is your problem Miaow? They're not overweight, according to your "medical bods", so why would anyone be interested in them?

I have two tall children (with two tall parents) and the only comment we have ever had is that they take after their parents. dh is 6'5", and both ds and dd are rapidly approaching six foot in their early teens (I'm 5'10" and the shortest now). dd has always been at the very top of the charts if not off them for height. I can't remember what her BMI is but I seem to recall that it was mostly around the 30th centile (might have changed now as she's gone through puberty and changed shape quite a bit). ds is very thin and tends to measure between the 5-10 centile and that's never been flagged as an issue either.

We lived in the States for a while where children are sadly even fatter than in the UK and when we took them for their check up with the pediatrician she was obviously delighted to see thinner children. I was a bit taken aback really. Where we live now is very outdoor orientated and I think as a result there seems to be less obesity in general.

One thing about being tall though is that you can carry a lot more fat before it's obvious. I am currently over weight (too much driving where previously I would have walked) but everyone still thinks I am thin. dh has developed a worryingly big gut but it really doesn't show when he is dressed. If he was a foot smaller he would be much more obviously overweight.

1 and 3 look a little overweight. 2 looks fine.

Does anyone know if they weigh the children with there shoes on?

Just curious as this would make quite a difference to weight

When I go to the hospital they always weigh me with boots or shoes on I am not to take them off, this is then used for statistical purposes but my weight can be different depending on which scales they use, by two kilo.

I don't have a problem with this as I know that the scales are not acurite but for some this would be a problem.

I've been thinking a lot about this thread over the past few days. Someone posted early on about kids being skinnier in the 1970s. I'm was born in the late 70s, so grew up in the 1980s and was a very skinny child.

I've been thinking about what we ate as children, and from what I remember it certainly wasn't as healthy as the meals and snacks for today's children described on MN a lot of the time. There was lots of processed stuff: spaghetti hoops, fish fingers, angel delight, vitalite (remember that? Grim). There was a tuck shop at school during break and we all stuffed ourselves with crisps and drank Ribena until it came out of ears.

I think the elephant in the room is not so much diet or portion size as sedentary lifestyles and car-dependency. In the 1970s and early 1980s, it wasn't unusual to not have a car. Now - according to many posters on here - if you don't drive or have a car you're not a fully-functioning adult and must spend your life scavenging lifts. It seems utterly incomprehensible to some folks that it's possible to get around by walking, cycling or using public transport.

"Excersise" is going to the gym or playing sports, something removed from everyday life. I used to work in a second floor office with people who would spend every lunch break in the gym but would never dream of taking the stairs. They thought I was mad to walk a couple of miles to work and back everyday.

I feel quite passionate about this. If I'm honest, my diet is a bit crap. I like chocolate, beer and pizza, and I've never been on a diet in my life. I'm slim (UK size 10) because I walk everywhere. Usually pushing a heavy double stroller, or with the baby in a sling and running after the toddler.

I live in the US, in a city that is both one of the fattest and the least walkable. Sidewalks are in poor condition or non-existent (thank goodness for the all-terrain stroller). It's normal to get in your car and drive just two or three blocks and the amount of parking space needed to accommodate this dependency leads to massive urban sprawl, which makes it even less walkable! It boggles my mind that nobody here makes any of these connections!

I see some terrifyingly fat children here, and my heart breaks for them because they don't seem to stand a chance. They will most likely be obese and have health problems all of their lives.

Mrs Frumble, I salute you for walking in the US!

I had my babies in Mexico city, which is not a walkers paradise, and walked everywhere I could.

My PILs are Dutch and don't do exercise as such, but always cycle to the shops or to see friends (they are in their 70s), and it is integrated in their lifestyle, they would not even think they ever do any exercise, yet they cycle an hour daily. They are fit and slim and eat what they like.

Sadly the car industry does make the connection between urban sprawl and car use just as the oil companies have made the same connection but they are only concerned with one notion and that's not the obesity crisis. In fact they would quite happily fund research if the conclusion exonerates them