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

I can't understand the umbrage. If you think the letter is BS then bin it. What is damaging about a letter that "suggests" there might be a problem?
Argh.
Funny how nobody with underweight kids goes to the press; does the NHS flag up kids below the 5th percentile, too?

In y6 DD's 3 best mates were all plump. Only one of the 3 consented to be weighed iirc. I got impression that all 3 sets of parents were unbothered about it & did not want the issue raised for their PDD. I would have been quite worried if DD had been built like that.

Layl77 makes a good point about the charts not being sufficient to judge whether a child is overweight or not and that people shouldn't be sent out a bog standard letter.

DS1 got a letter at the end in yr 6 (so he was very nearly 11) saying he was overweight. He genuinely didn't look it and in fact if he were 2 yrs older with the same weight and height, the charts would have put him firmly in the normal area. It was just bizarre that age should have that much impact. Either you have too much fat on you for your height or you don't. One look at him would have told you he was going through puberty, he was developing muscle and his skeleton was broadening and but instead we get a letter telling us he needed to control his weight.

I don't doubt that some parents are deluded about their children but the message is easy to ignore if you see people in the paper whose children have been given a letter when it wasn't necessary. It is easy to shrug off the letter and say 'they've got it all wrong' if in fact they do send out letters to some children without really thinking about whether it is appropriate or not.

brokenhearted55a - "I don't look overweight but I am"

I reckon there's loads of denial going on. Lots of people think 'oh, so-and-so is lots fatter than me, I can't be overweight', or 'my child is solid, not fat', but they just don't understand what a healthy weight should actually look like because they're used to seeing overweight people.

That's funny. The mother in that story in the link is in the same situation I was in a few months ago (although I wasn't attentionseekey brave enough to go to Da Paperz). My 5 yr old ds was weighed and measured in Reception like all the other kids but due to his unusual heaviness (in relation to his heigt), he too was branded overweight. He is totally 'normal' looking, no belly, no excess fat, his trousers often need a belt, normal height for his age, eats very healthily (there's nothing he won't eat, luckily), and never stops moving...but he really is exceptionally heavy! His best friend is the same build and height but a lot lighter. If anyone picks up ds they usually grunt with the effort . Heavy bones, maybe? In any case, I was quite annoyed for a while, especially thinking that for the next few years he would be on a computer system at county offices categorised as unhealthy and in need of observation, when anyone who looks at him can see he is fit and healthy. I have had to do my best to not stay annoyed and ignore the accompanying information to the letter, giving me advice on how to better look after my healthy and fit son

If a child is tall for their age, and heavy for their age, they'll come out with a BMI in normal range.

DD3 was measured by the school nurse last month at 4.11. She was tall (>75th centile, 112.8cm) and heavy (>75th centile, 20.5kg). Her BMI is a healthy 66th percentile. That's because she's in proportion.

Just to give an idea of how our perceptions have shifted,

Childhood obesity 1971 vs childhood obesity 2005

The thing is the 1971 Augustus Gloop would probably merely be considered as "big boned" or even "normal" now.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt!

Completely agree with Sybil, people have just gotten so used to seeing overweight children they think it's normal.

My DD was weighed in year 6 and the letter came back to say she was overweight. She is not fat, she swims at club level and plays basket ball, netball and tag rugby on a regular basis. I have always had to buy bigger dresses for her as they are too tight around her chest (you can see her ribs so don't go thinking I'm talking about a child with rolls of fat here. She eats three reasonable meals with sensible portions per day and does not snack in between. She is just developing physically so is going through a lot of body changes at present.

I chose not to go to the media, nor do I tell her "the system" says she is overweight. I shredded the letter. I became quite ill through anorexia as a student and would rather my just turned 11 year old eats a sensible diet and exercises in an environment where she feels comfortable instead of fretting about her body image. There is too much pressure on youngsters to look like skinny airbrushed models IMHO

In general, society is way off on what a "normal size" is, for all ages. Sizes keep increasing with the numbers changing. And, likely from hormones in foods, girls in particular are developing far too early - teenage girls used to be skinny, hips and breasts are developing earlier and earlier.

But I wouldn't worry about any of those three children at this point. Not more so than other children in terms of having a healthy diet. They particularly look to me like they're going through the sort of growth spurts where you gain weight before a jump in height - many thin children have "chubby" periods.

You'd think that Lougle but my DS was 90th centile for height and 85th for weight and still got a letter. Children of 11 apparently shouldn't be whatever it was he weighed at the time regardless of whether he was tall or his build.

Apparently, normal weight in kids means you should see ribs. Can't remember source but have seen this a few times. So those thinking no belly / no excess fat - it goes further than that.

I work with kids and seemingly chubby is the new normal. Nothing gigantic - I am just talking about slight rolls of excess flesh on the arms / chubby hands / thicker necks etc. We also have many many more obviously overweight little ones.

Those pics OP posts are therefore the new normal. Yep - overweight in old money.

Quite a few comments on here along the lines of 'ahhh so long as they are fit and healthy...' but they are NOT. They huff and puff.

As a society we are all in denial.

What the answer is - who knows!

What I also find fascinating, is that different areas if the country seem to have different normals. When I visit my dp' s the area they live in seems to have a generally much fatter adult population ( and consequently some very overweight dc).

Where as where we are currently living many adults are slimmer and so too the dc.

DS was at a swimming class last week and out of twelve kids only him and another boy weren't actually chubby - most of them had pudgy hips and rolls of belly fat. It's really sad :(

DS himself was overweight until last year. The BMI chart alerted us and he's slimmed down fine without much effort on our part. I don't understand why people get angry. This information is important for the health of your children.

Provided children are active and eat a reasonably well balanced diet

I think this is part of the problem. People seem to have this strange idea that just because they/their children eat healthily means that can't possibly be overweight. I've seen it on threads here and even in those articles about outraged parents of kids who have been labelled overweight - "oh little Johnny eats a healthy balanced diet and never has burgers/crisps/chocolate, etc so he can't possibly be overweight!".

The thing is though, weight isn't determined by what you eat, but rather how you eat. It's a matter of energy in, energy out. It is perfectly possible to eat a healthy balanced diet yet still be overweight. If you're taking in more calories than you need then you will gain weight regardless of how those calories are delivered. Likewise it's possible to live off junk food but be slim as long as you aren't consuming more calories than you need.

Also, what is meant by a "reasonably balanced diet"? Because I think that's part of the problem too - a lot of people have a very weird idea of what a healthy diet actually is. I remember reading an article where a mother was outraged that her son had been labeled overweight and she said that he ate a very healthy diet. She then went on to list what he ate in a typical day and stressed how he would only ever eat Special K for breakfast and he never ate eggs . Obviously Special K isn't healthy and eggs on the other hand are, however this woman genuinely thought that processed sugar filled shit in a box stodge with very few nutrients was healthier than eggs with plenty of protein, nutrients and healthy fats. The rest of his diet was pretty shit too BTW but she seemed to think it was healthy.

That was only one example but how many others out there think cereal is healthy and low fat products are healthy? Going from people I know in real life and from posts on here there are loads. I'm sure there are plenty of people who think they/they're DC eat a healthy diet but again people have a very weird idea of what's good and bad for us and what a healthy diet actually looks like.

I do agree that what is now deemed as normal is larger than it should be. When I was at primary school the (80's) the majority of children were slim with 1 or 2 in each year larger (considered overweight then but probably average now). Now it appears the opposite is true.

That said the majority of children do tend to chub out a bit before a growth spurt. I know my DD does (she's goes between the 11th and the 15th centile) I suppose some of the children who are on the cusp of normal / overweight could be tipped into the overweight category if measured just before a growth spurt.

What annoys me most is child's clothing sizes have increased to reflect the new average. The result if this is now children who are actually a correct' size (according to the BMI charts) can not get clothes to fit.

If you order clothes online from European countries (like vertbaudet from France etc) most people complain the sizing is very small, however the children who are on the low to middle of the centile charts will fit into them no problem.

That alone should tell us that as a nation our children are larger than they should be - unless the rest of Europe has it wrong?

I think lack of activity is a big problem.School playing fields being built on, or it being too muddy for 8 months of the year to allow them to play on.Lots of children not playing out so much, the cost of sports clubs.In winter kids are at school for virtually all the daylight hours , so perhaps more PE in schools is necessary?

I think for sure some people have lost sight of what constitutes a newsworthy story.

So - you get a bit of paper saying your kid may be overweight. Just look at them honestly - are they plump or muscular? If the latter, tear up the bit of paper and got . If the former, take some advice on healthier eating and exercise - or not, but whatever don't go whining to the newspapers. Your kids won't thank you if their friends come across the 'story' in years to come.

Funny how nobody with underweight kids goes to the press; does the NHS flag up kids below the 5th percentile, too?

I wouldn't have gone to the press about it, but we did get a letter about keeping an eye on our youngest because she was on the small side. She was always tiny and it caused grief on occasions, despite the fact that she is very bright and rarely ill. The health visitor insisted she needed top up feeds, but that was a complete disaster, so we quickly ignored that advice. Both of our children were very slim (like their dad) and had very healthy appetites. In fact the eldest eats the most astonishing amounts of food.

They are now in their 20's and size 6.

So yes "underweight" children do get the same attention, it's just easier to cope with as a parent I guess.

Sorry, top up feeds as a baby, not as a child.

I think that's the point though, fireside. My dd was 'flagged up' as a baby for being on the 2nd. I haven't had her weighed recently, but she is tiny relative to the rest of her class. I don't think it would get flagged up now she is 5.

It's hard to see your own child objectively, though. They just look like themselves, unless they've had a sudden grow in one direction or another.

I stick by "if they put their arms to the sides, you should be able to count their ribs" as an objective measure.

I don't think there is anything wrong with a child being a bit chubby.

I think some mothers play out their own food issues trough their children.

When we went swimming last week 2 people commented "isn't he a skinny thing"

he is 4, according to the children BMI charts he is on about the 40th centile so pretty much slap bang in the middle of the healthy range. I can only assume because you can clearly see his ribs they felt this made him skinny.

I do think some people will be in denial about their childs weight, and I think in general we do struggle to see what is 'normal' now because overweight is so normal

I received one of those letters about DS2 telling me he was overweight. He clearly isn't overweight and I do not have blinkers/rose-tinted glasses/distorted views on weight, he just isn't fat

But, he did weigh over 9lbs when he was born but you wouldn't have looked at him and thought he was a whopper so I assume he is just 'heavy' but not big iyswim.

Merry, I think my daughter was about 6 or 7 when we got the letter from the school after the weighing and measuring session. I seem to remember them checking her again about 6 months later and we never heard another thing after that.

I suppose there's not much that can be done about a naturally slim child, as long as they aren't being starved, but a lot you can do for an overweight child.

I'm overweight myself, so I'm not taking a high moral ground here.