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?

nowt

Xenia, it is an accepted anthropological fact that there are small, medium and large frame sizes, based on bone width. Do your research first.

But isn't that the point? People don't let their children ever be hungry. If the child say it's hungry it is given food whereas we all need to feel hungry between meals, wait and then eat just like we always did and it's the constant grazing that is making people so colossal.

I think the focus on working class parents and their alleged failings (in general in society) is unproductive, as it does encourage middle class women to think that an expensive diet is an good diet.

A fruit shoot and a sausage roll is not more likely to make you fat that reblochon and organic apple juice. Middle class children are not thinner than working class children (well, they may be in the US, but not in Britain.

'Where income was £33,000 or more, children were 15% more likely to be overweight'

This is from the Telegraph, 23 July 2007, but I have heard similar studies on the National News this year. People just seem to ignore them.

That's interesting because if you compare Kensington and parts of Scotland there is a huge weight difference and money and class is the distinguishing feature. I don't see that many fat children in the private schools around here but I might be wrong or prejudiced about that. Someone mentioned a party where there were 50% of the girls fat but there are about 2 or 3 boys in 40 in my sons' year at their prep school who I'd call overweight.

We could do a straw poll of women on this thread - they should name theirs (or their husband's if they don't earn anything) income and class and BMI so we can see if there's a correlation between those things or not.

i have worked with fat rich children and fat poor children.

i think it's genetics personally

I seem to remember reading (not really linked to class) that in England, the areas with the highest proportion of fat children are London and Durham. I am not sure that really helps the deprivation question, but might be interesting anyway.

Over £33,000 includes a wide range of families, and I suspect that a Kensington private school you would be viewing a sub-group on considerably more than £33,000.

My children are in a rural state primary in Yorkshire, which is middle class dominated, but has a wide range of children. I have only noticed two fat children.

I think parents need to focus less on certain types of people being fat and making comparisons, and instead look at the facts relating to their child.

I believe that in almost every case, if a child is fat then it is because they eat too much fat or they don't burn enough fat.

millyr yout last post was going well until the last bit
"I believe that in almost every case, if a child is fat then it is because they eat too much fat or they don't burn enough fat. "

eating too much fat is not the problem. Eating too much is.

ThumbElf, yes, of course you're right.

Yes, most people get fat when they expend fewer calories than they take in, whatever their age with a few exceptions for people with thyroid conditions etc.

They need a healthy balanced diet ideally without too much junk food. I haven't had a fat child amongst my five but of course it could happen and I've sometimes been heavier than I liked.

What surprises me is how much people seem to eat all the time. We went to the twins carol service, my 22 year old and I and were just amazed at the food. Apart from the fact it was a church but was packed with Jews and Hindus and Muslims who perhaps don't know it's not very polite to stuff yourself and which obviously I can understand as no one issued instructions, but the very fat families were the ones who thought their younger children couldn't sit still for 60 minutes without veritable meals almost, a flask in one case and loads of chocolates. Haven't they had dinner before? Why do we need this constant drip feed of children with food all day long?

'Apart from the fact it was a church but was packed with Jews and Hindus and Muslims who perhaps don't know it's not very polite to stuff yourself'

actually, we do know that rule.

In answer to the original post, in my experience, 90% of statistics announced by or on behalf of the government are complete bollocks. Please feel free to bereate me for speaking my opinion, but it's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. And I'm sorry for the long post.

I was nicknamed 'little orphan Annie' when I was younger because I was so skinny. Nothing unhealthy, it was just the way I was. Both my parents worked full time and mum cooked our weekly meals at weekends and froze them to be defrosted during the week, and we all sat round the dinner table eating foods that had been prepared from fresh with generous helpings of vegetables. When I reached the age of about 9 I started to pile on the puppy fat, for no other reason than I started puberty early. I was of a generation that stayed out from dawn till dusk at weekends, riding my bike for miles and miles. When I started secondary school I started to grow upwards as well as outwards and by the time I was 16 I was 5ft 7ins, a very healthy 9 stone and a size 10/12. My weight went on as an adult as a result of eating too much lard and not moving around enough to burn off the excess calories. It's not rocket science.

My 5 year old son is exactly the same as me - 'little orphan Annie'. Even though I'm not as good a cook as my mother, I still try my best cooking from scratch and DS has a healthy attitude towards food in general. He knows that fruit and veg are good for you (sports candy - thanks Lazytown!) and that chocolate and crisps aren't sports candy, and he eats both, though the crisps and chocolate in moderation. DP was quite chunky when he was little and when DC is born next month I won't bat an eyelid if he/she takes after his/her dad in that respect.

I think condemning children as 'fat forever' before they've even started school is obscene. If the government is so serious about childhood obesity, children would have free and unlimited access to sports facilities (in the absence of safe wide open spaces on which to play). Parks would be floodlit and better maintained and looked after so that they're not threatening places covered in graffiti and littered with rubbish and empty alcohol containers from where the local youths congregated the previous night as they had nothing else to do with their time. In the case of my local park, the fecking cctv cameras could be turned on so that when someone is beaten up in broad daylight whilst walking across the field on which the park stands, the police stand a cat in hell's chance of catching the thugs who did it and the people who want to use the parks feel just that little bit safer, rather than constantly watching over their shoulders as who might be coming to intimidate them into moving off their 'patch'.

There will always be children (and adults) who are overweight, who think that cheese and onion crisps count as two portions of daily fruit/veg (onion and potatoes). That has always happened and will always happen. At best it's a result of poor education or laziness. At worst it's neglect. Labelling children as 'fat forever' as a resut won't do anything to help children in this position. Teaching them about 'sports candy' and giving better access to parks and wide open spaces along with educating parents/guardians that exercise doesn't have to be regimented and in a gym would also go quite a way to helping this 'time bomb'.

Sorry for the long post/rant. I just really dislike the government along with its 'statistics' and ill thought out public health campaigns.

Oh, I wish cheese and onion crisps did count! (My weakness...)

Seriously, Mrs Archie is right, children's lives are so circumscribed now and there is a lot the government could do about it.

Yes, they should not be labelled for life.

The easiest way to ensure chidlren eat mostly healthy foods is eat that yourself and just don't buy the junk. If it's not there they can't eat it. I've had children friend of mine going through my cupboards absolutely astounded that there isn't a stash of chocolate or biscuits in the house. I'm not saying that's never in the house - they were eating Christmas chocolates today someone bought us, but if it's not always there they wont' go for that first if hungry.

(oh and of course I accept there are different bone sizes but they don't mean you're 3 stone heavier than someone with different bones. The bones themselves don't weight very much and you can be a standard issue size 10 ecto, endo or whatever else there is morph)

Xenia - you're absolutely right. Children learn by example, and if the example they have is parents who eat takeaways and junk food in front of the telly every night then that's what they will take onboard as normal. If you eat a couple of portions of veg with a main meal and finish off with a pudding of a banana or a couple of clemantines then that's what your children will see as normal, with a sickly sticky toffee cheesecake after dinner on Sundays being treated as a treat.

That is another problem in itself though, planting the idea in children's minds that high calorie, nutrient-poor, high fat-and-sugar foods are treats, so that if they do go down the comfort-eating food route, these are the foods they will turn to; and when they have control over their own food intake, this is what they are likely to choose to have, simply because they can.

True, thumbelf, but sweetness and fat are undeniably nice. Fat makes food feel nice in your mouth. Even before modern confectionary, people had rich dishes like stodgy puddings as a treat.

it does, of course, it adds to the "mouthfeel" - I was, as a student, very minorly involved in trying to find a way to recreate the mouthfeel without the fat. It wasn't good.

They are nice of course, but I think that raising them to the level of "treat", rather than just having them as pudding (or whatever your preferred word is), creates associations in some people's minds that might otherwise be avoided. It won't adversely affect everyone, just like watching dubiously violent films and computer games doesn't turn everyone who watches them into violent copycats, but there will always be a minority who are adversely affected by it. In the end, even puddings are food, they are just a sweeter form of food, and maybe it would be better for some if they weren't differentiated from other foods. But this is just my opinion, when all's said and done.

You could not have them at all which is what plenty of people have. Sugar is not necessary. No one needs sugared puddings at all although I accept that's against the cultural norms most children live amongst.