to think that this 'epidemic' of overweight children is bullshit

[EssenceOfJack]

For example, article here about a child who is 'overweight'
According to this children's BMI calculator my DD1 is on the 93rd percentile and is overweight when if you look on my profile you can clearly see that she is nothing of the sort.

Are they just measuring these small children when BMI means feck all (the calculator reckons it can tell you results for children from 2 to 20) and declaring them overweight based on arbitrary measurements and then the NHS using these figures to tell us all our children are fat?

I ask in all seriousness as at DD1's primary school I can genuinely say I haven't noticed one overweight child, and we live in a mildly deprived area so are supposed to be rife with 'fat kids'. yes, some have baby fat still, but they aren't fat

So AIBU?

Families were starving before the war too though, and indeed had been for many years before that, given the lack of any real safety net. It is also worth bearing in mind that rationing went on long after the war finished (nine years). It may be more the reaction that people had to rationing being lifted that was the problem, when meat, fat and sugar became widely available again, and people just had too much. Indeed that is part of the problem now, food is very widely available and generally cheap (perhaps especially the bad stuff). However it is probably the lack of exercise that is the real difference, our lives have become much more comfortable, with many of the day to day ways that used to eat up the calories disappearing (less walking, household tasks being less labour intensive, more and more people working at desks, children not playing out etc etc)

That little girl on the DM pic is NOT overweight. Here in Japan (the land of skinny) that little girl's body would be totally normal for a 5 year old. Kids have little sticky out bellies (effectively babies bodies) until about the age of 4 when they begin to lose the puppy fat. CHildren have bigger HEADS than adults, sticky out bellies, and puppy fat. I think around 6-8 is when its normal for a child to begin to be skinnier. Perhaps an 8 year old should be skinny looking, or perhaps the further away from being a baby they are the more slender and lean a healthy child should look. BUt I have to say again that the little girl in the DM pic is NORMAL, beautiful.

I agree BMI might not be the best indicator and growth charts etc can be misleading but I do think it's plain to see that there are a lot more overweight kids around than there were when I was a kid. It's really noticeable where I live in London.

It's their fitness levels that concern me more than their BMI's. We saw some year 7/8 boys doing cross country locally and the number of them walking the course, refusing even to jog was horrifying, whether they couldn't do it or couldn't be arsed it was still not what you'd expect from lads their age with so much energy to burn.
And they weren't puffed out, sweaty or red so not like they'd run 3 miles and taking a break either.

I agree MMM, and not just for small kids either

Gym three times a week and a dress size 16 got to be better than no exercise but very slim like my incredibly unfit dh

Likewise my boys- skinny as anything and currently fit but am aware am battling the demon screen (and Dh is a devotee too so am an ally short)

nooka - indeed, both my parents, born late '45 have VERY clear memories of sweets 'coming off the ration'.

When my dd started gymnastics, and the end of her first term the instructor said "she's got no flexibility and not much grace [harsh but fair lol!] but she's the fittest 3 year old I've ever come across" She is a string bean, but I put it down to the fact that I don't drive and she got kicked out of the pushchair by her brother at the age of 2. She probably walks an average of about 10 miles a week.

She has classmates who literally never walk anywhere apart from the car into various different buildings. I can totally see how this can happen (I don't work so don't have to drop kids and then go off somewhere else), but I do think it contributes to children becoming more obese overall.

Aren't kids naturally active? Do they need structured activity? My kids are always on the move even in the house. They never sit still. They have a bit of structured activity (ballet and tennis) but that doesn't account for most of their activity.

MMM thanks you have just reminded me that a few months ago, despite being 'obese' my ds came 10th out of 75 in a one mile cross country race at school. I feel happier now!

Dros I am finding with my boys that as they age it becokes less the case, once over active ds1 needs to be forced into anything and ds2 has always been that way inclined albeit he can't actually be truly stil;l, sadly recbounding off the sofa is not sufficiently aerobic LOL!

AS adults most people structure tehir exercise so it's not a bad habit I think, at least for a % of activity with all the walking etc thrown in to boot.

Sorry to chime in a bit late but TBH BMI is utter rubbish, its mathematically flawed eg. The formula for Body Mass Index in metric units is:

BMI= Weight (in kilograms) / Height(in metres) squared

The formula in Imperial Units is:

BMI = ( Weight (in pounds) / Height (in inches) squared ) x 703

One of the basic flaws in the body mass index formula is that the denominator of height is only squared, which means that a short person will have a much lower BMI than a tall person, even though they may have the same body shape and equal body fat percentages. This is because the formula ignores one fundamental law of physics, that being that volume (and therefore mass & weight) increases by the cube of the scale factor rather than the square of the scale factor.

Asteri Wow. I am impressed. So could you suggest a more accurate formula.

well, public specialists are moving towards waist circumference, which is more accurate reflection of unhealthy excess weight (stored around your abdominal organs).

But would love to have a cleverer version of BMI from Asteri!

I love Asteri's explanation as it fits with ds - he is tall and strong, plenty of muscles, so I think Asteri's suggestion that height should be cubed, not squared, demonstrates why BMI is not a good measure for him.

Respect! (Asteri). I didn't quite follow, but it sounded good

"Send em up to clean the chimneys & feed em on gruel & the lash"

No I couldn't do that with mine either

I'm glad that the last 5 of mine are just above the skin & bones level & generally fit doing all sorts of activities from long distance running to aerobics & swimming etc. 1F however has turned into an elephant since leaving the nest to live with her bf. No breakfast, doing nothing but sitting & gossiping at work whilst shovelling in cakes & bazooka sandwiches then to the pub for beers & a curry/kebab on the way home. She's living with a really nice guy & I obviously don't have any say in her lifestyle now but I keep gently suggesting to her & her bf that she does something. She was a bridesmaid recently & looked like a cartoon dancing hippo princess in her lilac dress. She says I'm nagging & her boyfriend, whilst a really lovely guy, is a bit spineless. She wants to get married next year & whether she's size 8 or 80 I'll love her the same but Im sure that she's doing proper harm to her health but will not take any advice saying it's her pill & she enjoys the weight & so does her bf.

any suggestions bar kidnapping & forced liposuction (it makes the best soap I hear so maybe selling the blubber would pay for the treatment)

Hi, thanks ladies. Well the absolute perfect body fat percentage does NOT exist. Age and gender make a big contribution to the ideal value.
As a guide however, I do use this system:
Body Fat Formula For Women
Factor 1 (Total body weight x 0.732) + 8.987
Factor 2 Wrist measurement (at fullest point) / 3.140
Factor 3 Waist measurement (at naval) x 0.157
Factor 4 Hip measurement (at fullest point) x 0.249
Factor 5 Forearm measurement (at fullest point) x 0.434
Lean Body Mass =Factor 1 + Factor 2 - Factor 3 - Factor 4 + Factor 5
Body Fat Weight Total = bodyweight - Lean Body Mass
Body Fat Percentage (Body Fat Weight x 100) / total bodyweight

Sorry it took me so long to respond.

Asteri, thanks for that, that was kind of my point for this thread, apart from the fact that I don't see overweight children round here.
BMI is not a logical way to determine whether someone is 'fat' or not. DD1 is very tall adn pure muscle so hers is very high.
I was just wondering if the government were using statistics pulled form BMI measurements to state how many overweight children there are (and thus vastly overstating it) but sadly I think that is not the case.

Wow Asteri I am even more impressed now.