Obese children "set" before the age of 5 - how to tackle it

[thumbElf]

So, the latest research indicates that 90% of excess weight is put on in girls before the age of 5, and in boys it is 70% before the age of 5.

One mother thinks that parents should just be told, straight, that it is down to them to ensure that this excess weight gain doesn't happen - but will this work?

There so often seems to be a backlash against the "nanny state" when parents are put in a culpable position for their children's weight issues - which then gives people an excuse to say "I'm not being told by any Government how to feed my children, they're my kids and I'll give them what I want to."

What do you think? Will people backlash against it or take advice to help their children?

I think the 'everyone was healthier in the days of rationing' line is a bit of a myth, tbh. My godmother was a young woman in those days and says she and other young mothers were starving. They were in a town, so couldn't grow their own, and weren't at work (had babies) so didn't get fed at the British Canteens. She says all those people who point to WW2 as the height of public health achievement haven't got a ruddy clue.

I don't think it was healthier, edam it was just that people couldn't eat too much sugar or fat.
I think a lot of the food stories are a myth. You would think that elderly people would be non fussy eaters having lived through at least one war and having strict, 'eat what is on your plate' rules as a child ,and yet most of the elderly people I know are fussy in the extreme! (a lot are worse than DCs!).

I wasn't really suggesting that it was healthier in the war years, just that people managed to make do with the most basic ingredients then because they had to; and it wouldn't be a bad thing to go back to cooking from scratch and using more of the foods we have, rather than wasting so much.

Not that long ago there was a thread from someone whose sister had thrown away half a roast chicken after the meal was finished, rather than save it and do any number of things with it - sandwiches from the cold meat, use the bones for soup stock, make a risotto or stew from the smaller meat scraps. Or, as the OP suggested, give it to her - she would have been very grateful!

These days, expectations are much higher in terms of people's "rights" to foods - i.e. they think that they should be able to buy their luxury items like cakes, biscuits, sweets, meat, fizzy drinks; or time-savers like ready meals, pre-prepared veg and salad etc. etc. - there isn't the widespread culture of making food from scratch that there used to be.

No, there isn't a culture of making food from scratch or of using up leftovers. But I think we should be very careful not to hark back to some golden age where everyone ate healthy food and was bursting with vitality. It certainly wasn't the case in WW2.

I don't think a lot of people ever cooked from scratch-although admittedly it was more common.

Thumbelf yes, I'm sure you know me very well and can define what issues I have

but I wasn't doing that, edam, that's what I was trying to say!

I'll get me coat, shall I? Think we've been talking at cross purposes or something...

no no, your input is very valuable but I think you are reading what you are expecting someone to say (on past experience of threads like this) rather than what I am saying - either that or I am really bad at expressing myself

maybe I should get me coat...

to clarify what I think I was trying to say - lack of money for decent food isn't an excuse to eat badly and get overweight, because there was similar financial deprivation in the war years and people made do; whatever they did eat they mostly didn't become overweight.
Perhaps that is because, like your gran, they were half-starving most of the time - but what they did eat was mostly real food, not the cheap empty calorie junk food that is around now, that (i believe) contributes enormously to the obesity problem.

Last time someone told me my input was very valuable it was the prelude to the old heave-ho...

Must ask my godmother for more details.

My parents, born in '45, both remember the thrill of sweets coming off ration in (I think) 52 or 53. The idea of being able to eat as many sweets as you could afford was just unbelievable, apparently. Seems like a whole word away...

yeah, I know - my mum told me about the time she had her first banana - lots of people didn't realise you had to peel them first so ate the peel as well - EEEUUURRGH!
I think rationing ended in '52..

Seems sweets came off ration in '53 but rationing still existed for another year. [[http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/5/newsid_2737000/2737731.stm no wonder my grandparents' generation] were so concerned about 'eating it all up'.

darn

• yes I sometimes forget that I don't need to use my feeble memory banks, I could just google the info and make sure I got it right!

people in the war years were more physically active too. They walked to work, school, the shops. They carried their shopping while controlling their toddlers. The kids played out and walked too.
They would think we were big sissies nowadays.

1960s - how our mother fed up: Cooked breakfast - so fairly basic protein rather than processed foods. I still have this.

No snacks at all between meals.
Lunch - we came home for cooked lunch the main cooked meal which was something like potatoes, meat, veg so from scratch. Like my lunches now.

Tea - that varied over the years. She and my father tended to have open sandwiches or when we were in senior school and stayed for school lunch a cooked meal.

It is not expensive to cook from scratch or time consuming.

My mother also used to push the pram with baby and toddler and me walking about at least a mile to my school in the morning. Then walk home. Then come out again to collect me aged 5 and back for lunch, then back again at 1.40pm. Then out again at 3pm until she passed her driving test and they could afford a car. The chdilren's father like most of the children in his state primary in 1960s used to talk to school alone, walk home alone at lunch time for lunch and back and then back and home at the end of the day.

Food was not all around and accessible as now and if there were the odd chocolate machine most people couldn't afford them anyway.

without wishing to sound entirely ignorant about nutritional issues, some folk are designed to be heavier than others.

my DD is fat. I would say chunky, but no doubt I will be accused of being wishy-washy, or having my head in the sand. So fat it is. She eats a balanced diet, more so than many of her peers. Fruit and veg are amongst her favourite foods, and I keep an eye on portions. She goes out to the park each day, and I encourage her to play until she tires.

And she is still heavier than her peers.
As was I at a similar age. I feel able to relax as I know I slimmed down a little. But, you know what, I am a tall lady, and my equilibrium (when I am not trying to lose weight, not comfort eating) is a size 16. Weight on the upper side of normal BMI, but definitely well covered.

Obesity may be a problem, but all the same we are not all going to fit within a narrow range of normal.

In the same way, I see kids fed exclusively on sausage rolls and fruitshoots (TM) who are skinny as rakes.

That's fair, it is not jus the obese who are at risk of diabetes and other problems caused by a poor diet.

that is a good point paddingtonbore but I believe you are in a minority rather than a majority. The one thing that concerns me about all the research into a "fat gene" is that a lot of people who are overweight BECAUSE they overeat can sit back and say "oh well there's nothing I can do about it, it's me genes" (my sister is one who would be quite happy to do this).

OTOH I have 4 friends who are genetically big - very light on their feet, nonetheless, but big-framed. And all of them also had PCOS (which may or may not be related). One was in my ballet class and was better at pointwork than me; 2 of the others did fencing at school and were pretty good at it. One friend had to wear a man's watch because her wrist was too large (NOT fat, it was the bone structure) for a lady's watch.

So yes, there are wider ranges of normal - but they may have associated health risks nonetheless. I am only still in touch with 2 of these 4 girls and one of them has diabetes already, aged 40; and both of them have bad PCOS.

Obesity is a strong risk factor for type II diabetes; but outward obesity does not always equate to inner levels of visceral fat - which is the real problem. High levels of visceral fat (internal fat around the organs) are very well correlated with heart disease, type II diabetes etc. and you can have high levels of visceral fat and still have a "normal" BMI and look quite slim.

Hi Lancelottie,
Have you noticed how all the slim petite little ladies often used to be very chubby little girls?
If her diet is healthy and balanced i'm sure she'll grow out of it.
It is round about the age of puberty when the adult figure starts to show and puppy fat disappears.

No, I haven't noticed that. In fact the research shows 90% of girls under 5 who are fat are the fat adults, I thought it was saying on here.

Most teenagers with lots of puppy fat become fat adults.

No one leaves a concentration camp fat so that tends to prove that all the nonsense about big bones, heavy bones, metabolism etc is a load of rubbish. That doesn't mean it's easy to stay a healthy weight however if you don't stop eating when you're full and you eat junk food.

well Xenia, if we are to use your ridiculous and ill-considered example, then yes, we could all be thin. But if you are seriously suggesting that I should leave my daughter hungry so that she fits in with someone else's idea of what size she should be, then you can jog on.

concentration camp is irrelevant. Now to do with people who have access to ordinary food.