to think they'd think of this?

[DontOpenDeadInside]

Dd3 (5) was weighed at school the other day. I got a letter yesterday saying that at 108cm and 21kg she is "overweight". Now they probably weighed her in her boots and school jumper, but I weighed her this morning and she is 20.3kg which puts her into the healthy range. Now not only could this cause upset to parents (not me, I was sure she was healthy) but national statistics will have one more overweight child, when she is not, I am sure there will be others, as such a small amount of weight can make a big difference at that age.

needascarf - no, I can see his ribs (front or back) when he stands. But they're just a lot more prominent when he moves his arms up (I don't like to look, I have a 'thing' about sticking out ribs that makes my legs go wobbly )

Should you be able to see a child's ribs arms up or down? Does this apply to adults too and if not, at what point does it end?

I had the letter telling me dd was overweight for her height / age. To be fair, when the measurements were taken on that day, she probably was. But 8 weeks later, she's grown another 4cm after being the same height for ages before that and is now in "healthy" range. But they only take one reading, and dd always grows out a little first before she grows up the way.

It doesn't apply post- puberty as adults will have hormone and gender related fat distribution.

Children don't need/lay down fat stores in the same way, so a child should naturally have little body fat.

Mine you can see ribs easily, whatever position. Also Sholapur blades and vertebrae. Muscle definition too, as they don't have the underlying body fat.

Like this: (first pic that popped up on google..)

Body fat % Needascarf BMI is not as reliable, I think its meant for population studies really

OK, thanks Cactus. It does sound a bit odd, now you mention it, to be given an exact very heavy weight as 'ideal' rather than a range. Maybe I misunderstood her.

I ignored the letter when I checked the details they gave me. Apparently DD was 103Kg in weight and 18cm tall. I called them to suggest that maybe, just maybe they had filled in the figured in the wrong boxes - and that if she was really that size/shape someone would have said something to me a little earlier.

MyFirstName.... you've made me laugh!

O/t but my DSis once got a routine report saying that her DD weighed x.y kg including her boobs - she was seven at the time!

myfirstname that's brilliant!

Is it just good sense to suggest that for accuracy, there should be three readings taken over three months before a judgement is made on whether a child is over/under weight? This would then factor in growth spurts etc?

Micah, I would say that the boy on the far right of the photo looks a bit chunkier. My DS is 8 and looks like the 'skinny' boys. He's naturally been like that since he was about 4 though. He can eat a lot and not put on any weight, I do think in that sense genes comes into it. My DD is 4.3 and weighs 16kg and she's slim but not skinny. However, your DD is 5 and that's a big difference, your DD looks fine to me.

Don't know if I'm being misunderstood- those 3 boys are how "normal" should look. They're not skinny, or underweight, they're normal children.

I think many would say they're skinny, but that's our current perception as children are getting fatter.

How do you know they're not underweight just from the photo? The one on the far right looks chunkier.

Kind of the point- the photo is an example of what many people think is underweight but is in fact normal. You can tell they're not underweight in the same way you can tell they're not overweight. We rely to much these days on scales and bmi, rather than what our eyes see.

Original article: transdermaltechnology.co.uk/blog/why-children-are-really-gaining-weight/

I picked the photo without reading it, but they are healthy children, not underweight.

What is the point of having a normal/healthy range if people come along and define 1 kg inside that range as a problem? It is by definition normal/healthy and therefore not a problem.

The term puppy fat was used for a reason when I was a kid, I can remember several children who carried body fat, and no you couldn't see their ribs, but most "shot up" at some point and became much leaner. Some children are sturdier and thicker set and will never look like that black and white photo. Op your dd looks perfect to me.

Puppy fat is supposed to dissapear when a child starts walking. Babies lay down fat stores in preparation for learning to walk and moving more. When they start walking they use up the fat stores. People who say their school aged child is fine being a bit chubby because it is just puppy fat are just deluded and in denial about their child actually being overweight.
Many many children were the size of the children in that black and white photo when I was at school. Obese children were very rare and even chubby children were something that most classes of 30 didn't have many of. But then lots of people didn't have cars back then and children had to walk a lot more. Children also had more freedom to play out unsupervised and would burn the calories that they consumed.
Nowadays childhood weight problems are so prevalent that we have plus sized school uniforms available on the high street from normal school suppliers.