Doctors say childhood obesity is neglect - do you agree?

[mylittlefreya]

The article is here

I think it's interesting the comment about undernourished children being automatically a cause for concern, but its almost not politically correct to say the same about overfed children.

I also think peoples perceptions can be quite distorted - there is a big difference between chubby, and obese, but often I don't think people see this.

At some level this worries me and at another it relieves me.

What do other people think?

but my friends dd is "obese" but it is not to do with what she eats - its to do with a medical condition and medication she is on. My friend has been lectured from here to there from docs and school, she has been overweight for a few years, but only diagnosed last year - my issue with people automatically thinking obese = abuse means that my friend could have been dealt with by SS when it was to do with an undiagnosed medical condition. She's already had her DS taken from her, SSs getting involved about her DD would have really hurt her.

(Expat, I apologise about my ignorant comment. Its just my post before that was slightly ignorant and I thought you'd called me on it, sorry)

sounds like your friend's dd is the exception to prove the rule, elf ie a few kids, but not many, will be obese due to a medical condition. Alternatively, maybe she's overweight rather than clinically obese? There's a huge difference if you pardon the expression!

I think she's borderline between the two classes tbh. She has a whole host of problems (ADHD, DiGeorge Syndrome, missing a hormone that regulates sleep, started puberty at 8 years of age etc etc).

mm22bys-in answer to your earlier post, yes, 4 - 6 slices of bread each day would be a lot but what they are saying is 4 - 6 servings of bread, potato, cereal or rice. So for example some cereal and a slice of toast for breakfast, maybe a slice of bread as a sandwich for lunch and then some potato or rice as part of dinner.

When I see a very overweight child I think that their parents are being unthinkingly cruel and that someone should help the family. Our GP already has the power to prescribe exercise and can give free memberships to sports clubs and swimming pools which can help. If a health visitor could be trained to give advice and support on portion size that wasn't bloody stupid (I hated the two health visitors I have had contact with) that would help too. Taking someone into care because they eat too much chocolate is just daft. How is that going help?

I think it nearly always needs some family help. Overweight children very often have overweight parents. It's a family pattern of underexercising and overeating. A situation where the child is on a restricted diet and the parents and the rest of the family continue with their usual meals is a recipe (ha!) for trouble.

I think that part of the problem is that there is so much misinformation out there that people do tend to choose the bits of information that they like. How many people have you heard for example saying things like - oh well of course I never eat carbohydrates - why not? Also portion size is not necessarily a problem provided it is healthy food. It is better to eat larger portions of healthy food if that means you would then not snack in between meals. This can only really be done if cooking from scratch. Also, buying a jar of dolmio sauce and adding it to some mince is not cooking from scratch. My DDs do have in between meal snacks but only if they ask me and I agree. They do have the freedom to eat from the fruit bowl at any time without asking.

I do think genetics plays a part as well.
I have two sisters with the same mum, but one of us has a different dad. My "real" sister and I are the same height and build. My "half" sister is same height, but as skinny as a rake. She can eat what she likes and does not gain weight. My other sister and I only need to look at food and our bodies put on weight!

I am larger than my DH. I eat less than him though have a less physical job. I'm heavier than he is. He can eat what he likes and stays skinny.

DD is 20 months. I've cribbed this from another thread of mine, but this is her average food on a daily basis:

• One bowl of ready brek each morning
• 2 Munch Bunch youghurts (big pots)
• 1-2 sticks of cheese
• Banana
• Mango
• Cooked lunch (eg fish pie)
• Couple of biscuits @ the CM's
• A few mini cheddars
• A box of raisens
• Cooked tea (eg chicken with rice, peas & sweetcorn)
• Slice of bread
• Another box of raisens
• Juice drinks & a few oz milk.

Am I overfeeding her? 'Cause she's steadily NOT gaining weight! If we have another child, they may eat to the same level but take after me rather than DH and be prone to putting weight on.

Expats I am aware that things have changed from 30 yrs ago. But there is no excuse for parents not finding time to make sure children have excercise, and decent meals. I am also aware that some children are obese due to illness or medication. Obviously there are exceptions but when a parent is happier to throw a childs health away in favour of easiness there is a form of neglect being practised.

'Mums in the kitchen'? Give me a break.

Why in hell's name aren't fathers copping it for not cooking enough??????????

'Many years ago mums used to work, keep a home, shop, care for children etc and still cook a meal'...yes, quite.

Thank f*ck that isn't the case for all of us these days.

I think we should wash less and cook more, personally.

How many of the people who haven't got time to cook shower once or even twice a day?

ROFL

And wear less deodorant

Everyone who says, "thank f**k life isnt like that for us now". For some people it is. Those who have a disabled spouse, child or other relative they look after. They do do all those things and cope with it. If someone in that situation can cope with finding time to cook then why can't everyone. Mums and dads.

theladyevenstar - you are right. Things have changed, but that doesn't give anyone an excuse not to take decent basic care of themselves and their children.

Some things have got harder (safe outside play space in the UK has decreased ninefold in a generation according to one report I read recently) but many things have got much easier - washing machines, tumble dryers, dishwashers, food processors, decent vacuum cleaners etc etc all save huge amounts of tedious labour.

Giving your children three balanced meals a day and no snacks, making sure they take a daily bath or shower, giving them clean clothes (and the cost of basic clothing has come down hugely in recent years) and ensuring they walk to and from school and/or play in a playground or garden ought to be priorities for every parent. Before TV, DVD, computers, junk food and junk toys, alcohol, cigarettes etc etc

No snacks is bollocks actually.

There's quite a lot of research to show that we are not evolved to need 3 square meals a day, but six to eight small meals.

Of course six to eight small meals doesn't fit in with the working day, so we teach our children to go without for a few hours. But there is absolutely nothing whatsoever wrong with snacks, as long as they are decent food.

This thing of "if some people can do it why can't others?" Er, for the same reason some people can climb Everest, run marathons, learn Ancient Greek, do archery, and others can't. Because we're all different and respond to our circumstances in different ways. I just don't accept the "if she can do it, so can she" argument, it's not valid.

Anna8888,

If you read the messages here you will see I have said exactly the same as you. It is others who think I am wrong for being of the opinion, Parents used to cope when they had much more to deal with than now yet now they cannot cope with making a decent meal and ensuring their childrens health is a priority.

VSS - here in France, the official nutritional recommendations are to stop snacks - children are no longer allowed to take a mid-morning snack to school and parents requested to ensure they have a good breakfast.

theladyevenstar - yes, I was trying to show support for your very good position..

When I was at school, we had breakfast before we went, we had a break at 10:00 where we were encouraged to have a snack, then lunch, then a break in the afternoon and encouraged to have a snack, then home for dinner.

My DD has snacks - but they're healthy. For snacks she has things like raisens, a banana, a mango, a chunk of cheese or a youghurt. As I said, she's perfectly healthy, a skinny minnie and very active - if I did not give her snacks, she'd probably wither away!

How bizarre, is that new Anna, or is it something the French have always done?

Maybe it's because people were sending in kids with unhealthy snacks. At my DC's schools, they have to have fruit or yoghurt, no other snacks are allowed because they have to pitch the rules towards the stupidest.

Daily bathing has been blamed for the MASSIVE rise in eczema in this country, Anna.

At DD's exceptionally unposh nursery school, every child is supposed to bring in a piece of fruit in the morning. The fruit is then chopped up by one of the lovely helpers who makes up mixed fruit plates. At snack time the children then sit at little tables of 6 or so with one of the helpers, and they pass around the fruit plate and take a few pieces for themselves. They are also expected to pour themselves some diluted juice from a covered jug and the helper will start some "conversations".

How blinking civilised and simple is that!

Also advantage is if you forget your child will get a decent snack as you only need 60-70% of them to remember for everyone to get a decent snack. You can also send in some fruit that yor own child doesn't like on the basis that she might not be eating it anyway but someone will.

Would it be neglect or abuse? Same goes for underfeeding a child.

There are always going to be children that are going to be big and those who naturally are skinny but if it is down to what the parent feeds them then there is that fine line. I don't know if neglect would be the right term, I would settle more for abuse, you are doing not providing the right food and nutrients for your childs wellbeing. Neglect would be more if the kid was left to fend for themselves with only junk in the house to eat.

I always go with my Granny's saying of "everything in moderation."

Fruit should be subsidised though so that it is cheaper to buy a punnet of strawberries than a sweetie. Or sweeties made more expensive, taxed like they tax cigarettes, that way they would be a treat rather than part of a daily diet!