To be horrified the NHS classes 5yo DD as overweight?

[mommathatwearspink]

DD (5) had her school night and weight check at school earlier in the week. Received a letter today saying that she is on the 94th percentile and classes as overweight for her age and height.

Im horrified! She doesn’t look overweight, does gymnastics and swimming each week, doesn’t over eat, treats are limited and I cook healthy meals from scratch most days. What the hell am I doing wrong???

Ffs. Sorry!

I don't think BMI is that accurate- according to mine I could lose half my body weight and still have a healthy BMI. I'm not denying I'm overweight for one second and I am trying to lose it, but I'm not morbidly obese. I'm a size 14.

Not really, a healthy weight is quite a broad spectrum so between just under 8 stone to nearly 11 stone for a average height woman.

It's really not a load of shit

Eh? BMI takes weight AND HEIGHT into consideration - that's exactly what it is- a ratio of one to the other
Badly worded. I meant the reasons I think making comparisons between people based purely on weight are unhelpful, are similar to the reasons that I have a problem with using BMI, in that it fails to look at the individual.

When this happened at DN school 70% of her class were overweight, I think to look at the kids you would probably say 1 or 2 of the kids could do with a bit more exercise, the rest were stick thin normal children. Its a load of sht*

Of course it's not a load of 'shit'

If 70% of the class were mistakenly classed as overweight, it's obvious the figures were taken/calculated wrongly.

I would imagine once the error came to light they were taken again.

Human error that's all.

For a girl who turns 10 today that is on the 50th centile height line (138.5cm) the healthy BMI range is 26.2kg to 39.1kg. That's a huge range to account for individual differences, 2 stone.

The separate weight and height centiles do take into account puberty, they have pre puberty and completing puberty lines. here, the boys one does the same too.

Was reminded of this thread as I popped to the local shopping centre this morning. Honestly, I reckon around 80% of the children out shopping were overweight, including a lot who had slim, fit looking parents. I think we have lost sight of what a "normal" weight looks like.

Not really, a healthy weight is quite a broad spectrum so between just under 8 stone to nearly 11 stone for a average height woman. Exactly, there's already a wide range of healthy weights for children too. It's calculated according to both age and height, then the range allows for different body types. It's not a case of a 5 year old boy measuring 110cm having to weigh 18.8kg, any weight from 16.5 to 21kg is fine!

I think the problem is is we need to change our mindset.

We think 'fat' is an insult, there's so much emotion around fat that parents get really upset when their child is classed as overweight as they think that means fat and all the negative connotations. When in reality it means "falls into this category", it's nothing to do with looks either.

A slightly overweight child is not the end of the world, it's easily fixable especially when they are young. But you'd have to be an idiot to just blindly go " my child's not overweight I'm ignoring it". Overweight is term used to describe children over x bmi therefore they are overweight.

I see a lot of DC with my job and I would say at least 60% are overweight, there's probably more because there will be a few DC that are a bit overweight that I'm not really going to notice.

Also saying "they have no fat on them" is stupid, even DC on the lower end have some fat.

My brother was a pretty skinny child, you could see all his bones, his tummy was flat, his legs and arms skinny, he still had some fat! I look at pictures of him now and think "omg he looks so thin" but he wasn't, he was actually healthy we just don't realise how children are supposed to look these days.

I got that letter and to be honest it made me pull back on treats or rewarding with food. DC were chubby and I was in denial.

All over weight kids at risk of diabetes...

What's your point HJWT? Second one looks overweight to me. First one hard to tell as looks like he's breathing in. Also they'd be at risk of type 2 diabetes. Very important to differentiate.

Haven’t read all 22 pages but 5 stone at 5 years of age as one poster said her son was sounds obese to me. I was second tallest in the year and definitely chubby at 10 years old despite swimming, dancing, figure skating and horse riding and weighed 5 stone then! I’d expect a 5 year old to weigh half of that.

Tbh I think it's just as bad to think your child is healthy because they come in average or under on the scale as is it to ignore it if they're above.

I think that the NHS BMI calculator for children becomes a blunt instrument at its extremes. That is that, as far as I can understand, below 2% and above 91% you are automatically classified as under or over weight no matter how short or tall you are. This means that very short children (like my DNephew) and exceedingly tall ones (like my DS) will be forever told they are the wrong weight when they are actually just in proportion to themselves!

@Cornishgorl44
She’s an adult size 10-12 in year 6 or age 10-12?

BUT THE BMI TAKES INTO ACCOUNT BOTH HEIGHT AND WEIGHT

THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!

Memememum but it takes height into account. Bmi isn't weight alone.

Tbh I think it's just as bad to think your child is healthy because they come in average or under on the scale as is it to ignore it if they're above.

Eh? Could you elaborate please?

BUT THE BMI TAKES INTO ACCOUNT BOTH HEIGHT AND WEIGHT
It does, but what do people think this means?

There is no physiological reason to square someone's height. This was created by a mathematician, to measure general trends of obesity, not to determine an individuals health. It's not scientific.

It completely ignores waist size, along with a great deal of other factors.

Just cut down on portions, I had the letter, all I did was start serving his portions on smaller plates, started weighing his cereal (easy to over portion cereal) and cut down on snacks. Started walking with him more to and he was down to a normal weight in no time. And no he didn't look particularly overweight but I'd rather have nipped it in the bud then

Eh? Could you elaborate please?
I've explained already but; two children measure average on a BMI chart, they weigh exactly the same. But one child carries weight evenly over their body and the other is skinny, but carries all their weight around their mid.

One of these children is at risk/unhealthy, the other is not.

Just because a chart says your child isn't over or underweight, it doesn't mean they aren't at risk from weight related conditions.

but a child who is classed as overweight as per bmi is overweight and has the health risks that come with it.

QueenOfAshes thank you. I would also use common sense too, of course, though it seems to be lacking somewhat on this thread...

The range of normal is so wide that it allows for all sorts of variations. If it shows your child as overweight, puberty or no, you should take note imo.

If it shows your child as overweight, puberty or no, you should take note imo.
It's not that I'm saying parents should be ignoring BMI. I actually think it can be useful for bringing issues to the attention of parents and getting them to think. Where it's unhelpful, is solely using charts as guides to measure health.

I think if parents are given these letters, they shouldn't dismiss or take them for granted, but rather further investigate into their individual child's circumstances, using other, simple, but more affective measures, whilst taking differing factors into consideration.