To be upset with NHS over DDs weight?

[Fudgefudgefudge]

DD is 4 and is in reception. Recently she had her vision, hearing, weight etc measured at school and yesterday I received a letter from the NHS saying that they are referring her to Morelife. Having googled it I'm mortified, I had no idea my child was that overweight! I checked the NHS site which measures their BMI and using the measurements they provided it shows DD being obese and on the 99th percentile

Now I breastfed DD up until her 1st birthday and she was a big baby back then but over the years she's slimmed up if you know what I mean and to me she just doesn't look overweight. She has a healthy appetite and I am well aware of how to eat a healthy balanced diet etc but I do allow a treat for good behaviour. And DD is a very active, she would rather run than walk and I don't drive so she's used to walking places.

AIBU to be upset about this? What do I do? Ask the GP their opinion? It's made me doubt my abilities as a mother as I never even considered she could be obese.

Ideally everyone should be in the healthy range, especially children as being overweight generally makes it harder for them to exercise

Childs BMI is massively flawed IMO.

I have two dc - ds1 (age 8) is overweight according to the NHS scale. Ds2 (age 6) is hovering just a tad into the underweight section. Neither of them are anything like under or overweight.

To look at them, they seem to have the same amount of 'fat' on them (ie if you look at their ribs or back bones they are equally visible iyswim?). The difference is build. Ds1 is huge...his hands are massive, he has to wear age 14 hats, he has size 5 feet. His legs are chunky...not an ounce of fat but completely solid. Ds2 is much, much smaller of build. Although there's two years between them, the difference in shoulder width/chest width is massive (more than for a typical 2year gap).. Ds2 has no muscle on his calves (stick legs) where as ds1's calf muscles are...bulgy? Even at 8.

They both have good appetites, are both very active and do several bouts of hard exercise/team sports a week. Both completely fit and healthy, just built incredibly differently.

Hoddtastic, clearly you have misread my post entirely. I have not said that I need to feed him the way school does?

And I think weighing children at school is a big reason for that. BMI is faulty, the only reason it's used is because it's easy, not because it's accurate. Accurate health assessments are far more costly and require more attention. Much easier to divided height by weight and tell someone they are unhealthy. There should be more of a focus on healthy lifestyles, and less of a focus on a person's actual weight. Especially children's

Unfortunately weighing at school is the only way to make sure as many children as possible are assessed because many parents won't realise there's an issue, some won't be bothered to take their child to the GP, things like that.

Fuller health assessments would be much better of course but that costs a lot more money and people will question whether or not that's the best use of NHS money (personally I think it is - catch potential health problems while young and a lot more money can be saved in the future). The way its done where I live is that each school has a nurse and adoctor and they conduct health check ups on each child every year, and indepth check ups in the 1st, 5th, and 8th grades which parents are included and questioned about home circumstances etc. that can affect the child's health (physical and psychosocial). Less chance of children slipping through the health cracks which is important.

Natsku are these health checks compulsory? What happens if parents don't co-operate?

Bearing in mind many people in England refuse to allow the current tests can't imagine they would be happy with more in depth ones. Likewise the compulsory no choice school dinners

Mygiddyuncle
That is just excuses. My ds was big boned. He was olway on 90% for height. Barrel of a chest, and swimmers triangle body as he got older with broad shouldersHe never ever came out as overweight. He was 6ft at 13, and still is at 21.

I'm really not sure if they are compulsory or not but there's a greater tendency to trust doctors here. I suspect most parents just view the check ups as a necessary part of school. Don't know what would happen is parents don't co-operate, maybe if there's other concerns the school social worker would get involved.

Mygiddyuncle. That is just excuses

Really? So what do you suggest I do? Put my 8 year old on a diet...to lose weight from where exactly?

I'm not a blind parent who thinks her precious kids are just perfect or that it's 'puppy fat'. There is no fat on ds1. Like I said, he has the same amount of visible flesh on him as 'underweight' ds2. You can count every rib on him (without him raising his arms). He has no flab, no rolls...when he sits, his stomach looks the same as when he stands...completely flat and firm. He's above the 98th percentile for height and has been, without wavering, from birth.

Not every 'big boned' child is the same...and because your son has a large build and average weight does not make this the universal experience for all dc.

He was 6ft at 13, and still is at 21.

6 foots not that tall for a man. And swimmers generally have small to medium builds....Wide shoulders, but narrow torso's and hips.

Likewise the compulsory no choice school dinners

They're not complulsory!

*compulsory, even!

Compulsory where I live HeCant which is what I assume Ineed was referring to.

Somehow I don't think many primary school aged have the athletics bodies or muscle mass of Michael Phelps.

Sorry for the confusion, I was referring to the country where Natsku lives. In an earlier post she had given an example of a menu for a nursery school saying that school dinners were compulsory and there was no choice. I just wondered how that would go down here.

Pretty sure introducing it suddenly wouldn't go down well in the UK! The school dinners here have been here for almost as long as there's been schools so its just the norm, the parents had the school dinners, their parents had them, so why would they question their children having them? Probably similar with the health checks.

Threads like this bring the orthorexics of mn out in force

Don't they just. The outrage at children getting a "pudding" every day with school dinner, like it causes demonstrable harm.

There's evidence that we actually need something sweet after a meal for our brains to agree that we're full and not want more food. So I've no issue with puddings per se. My issue is with the generally poor quality of the school meals offered to lots of children.

i think threads like this remind me that most of MN have kids who are built like athletes.. whether that athlete is a sumo wrestler (but really really healthy) or a world champion swimmer (despite kids not being able to build muscle that way) and cos school dinners are / can be pretty shit (sometimes) they're gonna keep going and 'fight' the system.

#bringdowncapitalism #bringdownstatecontrolofourkids #bringontype2diabetes

scaevola Also, even for adults there is a range, which allows for things like frame size (and nork size).

Aren't breasts made of fat? I mean, I know in general we are encouraged to see big boobs as a plus, figure-wise, but is it actually healthier to carry weight there, as oppose to arse/thighs for example? I know theres a waist to hip ratio thing... is there a nork to waist ratio guideline too?

I'm not so sure why you're upset with the NHS.

Despite all the bitching and sniping this has been an interesting read.

I have identical twin boys, and one of them is noticeably slimmer than the other. He's about a cm taller, but I can see the difference. They were 5lb 10 and 4lb 7.5 at birth so there was a difference which has continued.

I think I need to weigh all my kids because to me, DTS1 looks a little plump but I genuinely don't know if this is because DTS2 is slimmer? Maybe he's actually normal and DTS2 is underweight? I know I can see all his ribs and he has 'abs' (not really, he's just got no fat on him to cover them at all!). Both DH and I are overweight so although I feel like we eat healthily enough, I know none of us do enough exercise.

I'm surprised no one has said though that clothing is not an accurate indicator of size - children's clothing (in the main) is cut absolutely massive to allow for growth. This is borne out with loads of threads on here asking for clothes with adjustable waistbands!

Once - I can't answer your question but I have had DD boobs from age 12 (well, they're much bigger now....!) and have always skewed heavier. I was ten stone throughout high school whereas all my smaller boobed friends were generally more like 9.

Nice bit of anecdata for you!

Definitely. Saying that your child is in the 'right age' clothes or that as an adult you wear size 12 so can't be overweight is meaningless.

My clothes size drops each decade. I'm definitely not getting smaller, but what is now called a size 10 would have been at least a 14 thirty years ago.

DD is in age 10-11 jeans for her height (she's only just 9) they are so big that the tightest elasticated button thread leaves them all bunched up at the bum with a cluster of spare fabric.

The only clothes that manage to stay up is inches too short. She can't keep tights up or leggings (although I do accept that maybe as kids get pre-pubescent their body shape changes)

DD2 is in age 10 jeans at age 7. Lengthwise, not width.

Threads like this make be realize that people don't understand basic science, nutrition, statistics, etc. Which is why BMI is still used