To be shocked at how many overweight kids there are here?

[glasgowsfinest]

Have got my fireproof hat in place, here goes...! I'm currently at a Butlin's-type holiday park on the south coast. As you can imagine, it's jammed full of kids of all ages. I'm genuinely shocked at how many of them, from pre-schoolers to older teens, are significantly overweight. I don't think puppy fat can be used as an excuse for all of them. Thinking back to my childhood, overweight kids were the exception, not the rule, but now it seems the opposite. I have two children who by no means have a perfect diet, and eat more chocolate and watch more TV than I thought I'd allow, but they're active too and don't seen to have any fat on them at all! Maybe they're just "lucky", I don't know. But the sheer numbers of chunky kids made me feel quite sad.

When you see statistics like this:

24% of men and 27% of women are obese; 41 percent of men and 31 percent of women are overweight.

Is the over-weight percentage inclusive of those who are obese or in addition to it?

upperlimit as far as I'm aware the overweight figures as reported generally include everyone with BMI of 25+ - i.e. it also includes the obese.

Thanks accrual. There seems to be a set way that people report the figures and I couldn't work it out

Yeah upper.

I just read the most recent report from the government

In 2015, 58% of women and 68% of men were
overweight or obese. Obesity prevalence
increased from 15% in 1993 to 27% in 2015.

• In 2015/16, over 1 in 5 children in Reception,
and over 1 in 3 children in Year 6 were
measured as obese or overweight.

• In 2015/16 there were 525 thousand admissions
in NHS hospitals where obesity was recorded
as a factor.

:(

Where is the line between over-weight and obese? Is it as aribitary as picking a BMI and going with it or does it mark a significant threshold for health risk?

And what about between normal (normal, how?) and over-weight? How and why was that decided?

I have seen reports that it is healthier to be a little over-weight than underweight. Is this because 'normal' is arbitrary and not related to health or is it because figures are skewed because the underweight include anorexics, those who are ill and drug users who are more likely to die earlier than those who are suffering and dying as a result of/ whilst being obese?

www.redonline.co.uk/health-self/nutrition/low-fat-diets-could-increase-the-risk-of-early-death-study-finds

We always have these really long, drawn out threads on MN about obesity.

The problem's simple.

There's too much cheap, shit food available and people sit down too much.

That's all there is to it.

The incidents of people with genuine disorders causing weight gain are tiny really when compared to people who are simply eating too much and not moving enough.

Whole streets are given over to fast food outlets. The supermarkets have killed proper shops and that's given rise to cheap, shit shops.

It's all about industry...and income.

Overweight and obese is categorised by BMI, it gives a rough indication of how much tissue a person is made up of, which can be used to estimate how much adipose (fat) a person has. It's the adiposity that is then linked to adverse health.

So high BMI = high adiposity = health problem

People complain about BMI because obviously, BMI cannot differentiate between fat mass and muscle mass, but BMI was created for an average somewhat active somewhat sedentary person and has been found to be accurate and useful for the majority - I know personally from my own work that I've never really come across anyone where I've had to step in and be like 'nope, we cant use BMI for this person it's not an accurate representation'. People I would do that with are people I can physically see are not what the BMI is telling me, including body builders.

I believe in regards to what limits to use, most countries follow the World Health Organisations [WHO] recommendations (so worked out using how much body fat a healthy person should have, to work out what body mass they should have) however some countries do have higher or lower limits when it comes to classifying overweight and obese people. So, for example I've just read that the US lowered it's overweight limit so overnight people went from unhealthy to overweight - they did this to be in line with the WHO's recommendations of healthy BMI.

from healthy*

It's very foolish to say overweight is better than underweight because for an overweight person, the issues for underweight people are completely irrelevant. So the only benefit to even mentioning it is to make overweight people feel 'well it could be worse, I could be underweight' which is helpful to literally no one.

My DH was classified as obese by BMI but was an ironman at the time. So it was not relevant to him. People can point out these anomalies with BMI but really, it's no excuse to ignore BMI for most people.

Yep karate, you'll still get people decrying BMI though. We will tell people that they're overweight or obese, I have to say its from working out the BMI but I can also see it, but then they'll have friends and family telling them 'oh bmi is a load of crap, its just a number, doesnt account for muscle, you're fine, dont take them on' etc...

I feel like saying open your eyes.

Well, that wasn't really the thought I was grappling with, Karate.

Foolishness aside, I was wondering where the tipping points for risk fall. So, how much more risk is it to be obese, rather than over-weight and again normal.

I wasn't sure if 'being a little over-weight' might be less risk for some, over others - sex, age, hormones.

Mostly I have been made a little cynical by the way health news is presented, or simplified for the masses.

Anyway, I haven't got much beyond that - but I'm not foolish or over-weight, ta.

If you think about it, a normal BMI person who loses 6 stone will likely die. If they gain 6 stone, they'll just be obese. So there the body has a capacity to be extremely overweight but can't afford to go too much into the underweight direction.

Thanks Tiggy. I really appreciate answering my question.

Yes, that's what I was saying Karate. I wasn't sure if it was that which makes it more safe to be a little over-weight, a statistical blip because of that fact or if for some it's genuinely better to be a little over-weight. For instance, doesn't fertility in women increase when they move from a BMI of 23 to 26? Or, something like that?

I've just been looking into that study that said overweight may be better and can see some flaws.

What the findings say is that it might be better to be overweight because those who are low grade overweight have a small reduction in their risk of death than optimal weight people. However, there was no limiters put on the cause of death here, they went for all causes of death which really isn't useful because we now cant actually see if overweight people live longer because they're overweight, or it's because optimal weight people are living not as long because of other lifestyle choices they're making.

I (and the NHS from what I'm reading) think we would need a study that actually breaks down the causes of deaths to see what we are working with.

Fertility is an interesting one because from what I understand it takes quite a bit of extra weight to have an impact but going even slightly underweight, one of the first things to go is your period. I guess it makes evolutionary sence. If the body thinks it's about to hit a starvation period it won't take on another being to feed.

because optimal weight people are living not as long because of other lifestyle choices they're making

as a group I should have said. For example, drug addicts are more likely to be optimal weight.

Or people who skydive!

I was wondering if they'd included accidental death in there, I need to look into that

giles I have the same uniform problems. Bought age 4, age 7 and age 9 skirts for DCs.
They are aged 7,9 and 11 so I was already sizing down to start with.

Anyway, the 11yr old wears the age 7 ones and the 9yr old wears the age 4 ones.

The 7yr old is in she 3/4 ones that the eldest one wore when she was that age but aren't as baggy so maybe they are making the uniforms bigger now due to demand?

The age 9 ones would probably fit me on a good day.

I have found m and S best for school uniform for ds - not only to they do slim fit trousers they also do them with slim or skinny legs because regular legs look massive on him and he would end up tripping himself up!

Thanks sirzy
The last ones were from John Lewis. I've ordered some from Next so need to go and pick them up and try them but if they are too big I'll try M and S.