To think nhs school height / weight check is useless

[Ellieboolou27]

Dd is 4.5 she's 3ft 7" and weighs 3st 9lb

The school did the height and weight check a few weeks ago and have sent a letter saying she is very overweight and they would like me to come in to discuss healthy eating.

I'm really shocked as dd is far from being very overweight
She does tap, swimming and multi sports weekly, as a family we eat normal family meals, she wears size 5-6 clothes, 6-7 in some shops like primark where they come up small.

She's certainly not skinny, but most certainly not very overweight!

I think this bmi checker is shit, according to the NHS online bmi checker my dh is obese, he is 6ft 2" and weighs 16st but is an ex body builder so is a big guy with not an ounce of fat on him.

Feeling awful

Natsku, your daughter is a healthy weight. Let her eat butter. Unsalted, of course

I want her to get out of the habit of eating it every time she has toast - she takes quite big bits!

And unsalted is rubbish, only ever salted butter in this house, yum!

My children are all dead skinny and wildly active, and I refuse to allow them to participate in the NHS weigh ins at school. I just don't feel it's appropriate in schools. If I had a health concern about my children, I would take them to the doctor.

So I'm an example of skewing it the other way...

She was classed as being obese but in reality was slightly over weight and no I'm not in denial. The gp told us that she was only just into the obese category

Only just into the obese category does not mean 'slightly overweight', its very overweight if its in the obese category.

here can also be just 1-2 pounds between categories.

Well obviously there has to be a changeover point somewhere!

But the range of weight for "normal" is pretty big. For ds height it is around 13lb which is a pretty big range given how small they are anyway!

I don't understand opting out, actually think height and weight should be checked yearly for children, it is where I live, along with general health check up each year.

I'm sure many people who have been overweight since they were kids, wish that their parents would have tackled it earlier and not dismissed as being a bit plump and just strong.

My mother tackled it with great vigour I was bulimic and shovelling laxatives into myself At 14

she takes quite big bits!

I eat whole slabs of butter. Unsalted, of course.

Cherryskypie what I said was I don't weigh him. I never said he wasn't weighed. He gets weighed every 1 - 2 years by the gp. Usually if he needs medication and I don't know his weight. He's never been underweight. It's very unlikely he dips to that then magically gains weight just in time to be weighed. So no, I haven't proven my own point. I stand by what I said. There's no reason anyone should be in denial if their child is in the overweight category*. Accept the information and use it to your advantage.

*That being said I can understand if it's by a couple of pound. I'm talking more very over weight.

Just to add the point of my original post was more the suprise how different my sons weight clearly was but still be well within a range. So there's a lot of weight to play within each section. It's not a case of gaining a pound then going into a different category. There seems to be a large scale in each one. Am I making sense to anyone else?

I don't see an issue with children being weighed, they should be regularly as part of normality. Ie in the last few months I have weighed and measured heights for medication allowances, to see if tall enough for fair ground rides, to get measurements for rock climbing and ski hire, and to check in the correct car seats. They see us check for the same things also.

I also think one check every 5 years is a long time, helping people with ideas earlier on before it become major issue is better. Ie if child is 1kg overweight, it's better to guide parents info on portions, activity levels etc, rather than when 5-10kg overweight.

lizb30 and Artandco

‘BMI’: Does That Stand For ‘BIG MEDICAL INACCURACY’?

makeyourswitch.co.uk/blog/bmi-does-that-stand-for-big-medical-inaccuracy

Well done OP for listening to the advice. This is a common topic of discussion around my DC class parents just now. The main theme being they know their child is overweight / obese and don't need the school to tell them, yet are doing nothing about it. They are very defensive and it's frightening how many of them there are in this boat. The best thing you can do is listen to the warning and change eating habits for your DD and it sounds like you are taking it seriously. I have the problem at the opposite end of the scale where my DC is bordering on being underweight and we are having to try and introduce things like more glasses of milk to get his weight up a bit.

lovelearning all that link says is that BMI is a blunt tool which is inaccurate in the case of athletes and bodybuilders. I don't think anybody would claim it was anything more.

midcenturymodern, for more evidence, please read the thread.

My 3 year old is about 3ft 3 and 2 stone 9lbs. He is classed as overweight too according to the NHS calculator.
I don't think he is really. He isn't skinny but you can see his ribs and there's no extra flesh to pinch around his middle. His arms and legs perhaps have a little chubbiness to them but only very slight.

I've read the thread. Maybe you should read the link.

And 'evidence' is not people on the internet saying that their child's BMI says they are overweight, or underweight but BMI is rubbish because their child looks fine.

Also, I'm not saying the waist to height ratio is not a better indicator of obesity (as I believe it is based on reading actual peer reviewed papers, rather than this thread). I'm just not accepting that BMI is wildly inaccurate in children who are neither athletes or bodybuilders. Your link isn't saying it's inaccurate either.

Had this with ds1and 2, both now 6ft tall and skinny as hell ( and eating us out of house and home) don't worry

‘BMI’ is meant to stand for ‘Body Mass Index’, a calculation based on your height and weight and something medics have been telling us for years reflects how healthy we are. But it is misleading. Your BMI is calculated by taking your weight in kilos and dividing it by your height in metres squared. If it is between 20 and 25 you are supposed to be in the healthiest bracket, but if it is 25 to 30 you are supposed to be overweight, whilst a BMI of over 30 renders you obese.

Blunt tool

But it is oversimplistic – a blunt tool which is often inaccurate and just plain wrong. It does not distinguish between weight from lean muscle mass and that from fat. So, your average rugby scrum front rower or body builder would be classified on this basis as obese, when in truth they are built like Panzer tanks and very fit indeed. It also explains why broad shouldered, active schoolchildren and teenage swimming champions often bring home a ridiculous letter from school saying they are overweight and need to diet.

I am all in favour of carrying out serial measurements on children as they grow, to alert them and their parents of the need to avoid future obesity and attendant health problems, but the measurements have to be accurate. The BMI frequently is not.

All you need is a tape measure!

Now, researchers at the University of Copenhagen have concluded that people with a BMI of 27 are the healthiest as they have the lowest death rate from any cause, compared to people with other BMIs. They suggest we alter the healthy BMI range upwards 3.3 points to reflect this.

This is all well and good, but we still wouldn’t know whether it’s the muscular people, or the fatter people with the same BMI, who are the healthiest, would we?

So, here's what I think we should do. Measure our height and our waist. If our waist isn't less than half our height, we are overweight. How simple is that? It works for all ages, both sexes and all races. All you need is a tape measure. No calculations either.

It also means no more healthy children being classified as overweight either. Good news all round!

• Dr Hilary Jones.

My 3 year old is about 3ft 3 and 2 stone 9lbs. He is classed as overweight too according to the NHS calculator.

I don't think he is really. He isn't skinny but you can see his ribs and there's no extra flesh to pinch around his middle. His arms and legs perhaps have a little chubbiness to them but only very slight.

What do you consider a little chubbiness? Are you just comparing him to other children? My DD (not same as a DS, I know) is a few years older, 21-22cm taller than your DS, but only 5 pounds heavier.... where is he carrying all that weight?

.

"no extra flesh to pinch around his middle" Young children carrying a bit too much weight have firm tummies, it isn't normally pinchable in the way it might be with an adult. What is important is what he measures around the middle, if it is less than 19.5" he is fine, if it is over that then he is overweight.

I will measure his waist tomorrow.

This is a pic I took of his leg when he had a rash.