# 18% obesity rate in 4 year olds?



## Observer (Jul 15, 2009)

That is the claim of this article.


----------



## swordchick (Jul 15, 2009)

The article says four year olds, not fourteen year olds.


----------



## Observer (Jul 15, 2009)

Sorry - typo. I changed it.


----------



## Tad (Jul 22, 2009)

To quote the article: "Children whose BMI scores were at or above the 95th percentile on those charts were referred to as obese for the purposes of this analysis. Because obesity rates based on BMI have been increasing steadily for adults and children in the United States over the years, a total of 18.4 percent of the 4-year-olds studied now rank in what used to represent just the top 5 percent of BMI scores among children of the same age."

So this is in no way a 'science' (even by the standards of the whole obesity discussion) definition of obesity, just a statistical definition. It is like when they define the poverty line as the botton 20% of income, and they gasp that child poverty is still so high after all these years.

So really the only observation is that 12 to 18 percent of kids are now as or more heavy than where the heaviest 5% were a few years ago. Which may not be very much average increase, as the spread at that age is quite small.


----------



## MsGreenLantern (Jul 22, 2009)

Okay...once again. As someone who works with kids of every race and age between 4 and 14... They are of all financial situations from the free scholarship kids to the wealthy ones in a 6 bedroom house. I can't say I see it. And ya know.. we're the suburbs of one of the fattest cities in the US. 

People are so freakin' paranoid about fat! It really irks me to no end. I've worked with kids for years, and have seen no _rise_ in obesity either. People who freak out about a chubby child are the same who give their kids body issues and poor self esteem.


----------



## crayola box (Jul 22, 2009)

Generally I don't have too much of a problem with the numerical results of these types of studies. Rather its the implication of, and inferences made from the studies that aggravate me. Rarely is a study done without some specific purpose or outcome in mind, so even though there may be holes in how the data was acquired or analyzed I can see why they did it the way they did. Up to the point where these studies conclude that more adults are overweight/obese/heavier etc. I take no umbrage. It's when these statistics result in a conclusion of "hence people are unhealthy, costing tax payer dollars, lazy etc." that I get upset because it perpetuates that being anything other than some BMI magic number automatically is unhealthy and makes you not only sick but a bad person. 

That being said this study is about children, little children at that. Children at age 4 and 5 are still growing so their weight may be an indicator of...nothing. Additionally the woman who conducted the study admits that BMI is a poor measure in children and thus converted BMI to percentiles. What kind of mumbo jumbo is that? How can you convert a number that you admit is flawed to begin with, without ending up with a flawed result. What's the point!?!

I believe in this case the article mentions the numbers as evidence that "obesity education" needs to begin at an early age. Even if I were to accept the results of the study, as is, I am torn about this being the outcome. Sure, I believe children should be encouraged to make sound nutritional choices from a young age and to that end I can see how to many people this would include making sure children aren't obese. However at this age many of the children are probably just "baby fat", weight that will melt off as they grow (not to mention: so what if some people are bigger than others, but thats a whole different discussion). Of course there are kids who by age 4 and 5 are 50 or 100 lbs overweight but I think these are the statistical outliers. Like Tad said (if I understood correctly), at this age group the spread is small so it doesn't take much to weight to be classified as obese (even taking into account the fact that the children weigh less to begin with, so it takes less pounds to equal a greater percentage of their body weight). My concern is that rather than general education about nutrition, this is going to become anti-obesity education. Just what we need: to unnecessarily give children a complex about their bodies from an even younger age than we already do.

Oh and my favorite part of the article: where she mentions that BMI may not be good on an individual level but is accurate on a societal level when it comes to Americans. WTF. Gee thanks for highlighting the problem with the government, doctors and other health care employees applying statistical data to individual patients and trying to fit everyone in a neat little box. Thanks for validating them with a scientific pat on the back. 


Whew, okay, I have a thousand things about this that irk me on some level but well, when the response is longer than the original article its probably time to stop and step away from the keyboard. I think this being only my second post I wanted to make sure I explained myself well enough to not offend anyone so it got a bit long winded.


----------



## SocialbFly (Jul 22, 2009)

You know, what drives me nuts about a study like that is kids are supposed to chub up then, they hit their growth spurts at 5-6...so it is not unual to be chubby then and thin down again later.

The brain in a child develops until the age of 6...and they need fats for its full development....i can just see all sorts of parents cutting back fats on their kids.....grrrrr....

i am not talking about fast food or snack fats, but average, everyday part of your diet fats....

frustrating and skewed.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Jul 22, 2009)

Yeah, I agree. Flawed. And once again, they're focusing on weight, rather than what these kids are eating and doing. It reminds me of when my son was little. Because he was breastfed only, and he was a great feeder and I had a fabulous supply, he was off the charts, weight-wise. Rather than follow the nice little curve that was created for bottle fed babies, he doubled his birth weight at three months, rather than six and had rolls on his arms and legs. He was very round, very chubby, and very happy.

Fortunately, I had a great pediatrician who bemoaned the height-weight charts and their inappropriateness for breast fed infants, but had I not, I might have started "rationing" him like many parents have. We never talked about putting him on a "low fat" diet, and he drank whole milk, ate whole foods, and a varied and healthy diet. 

Oh and by the way, that "fat" infant thinned out in his toddler years, and is now a nice, tall, svelte young man with nary a roll in sight.

(Never one to miss an opportunity to share a picture, here he is at his recent college graduation).


----------



## SocialbFly (Jul 22, 2009)

Miss Vickie said:


> Yeah, I agree. Flawed. And once again, they're focusing on weight, rather than what these kids are eating and doing. It reminds me of when my son was little. Because he was breastfed only, and he was a great feeder and I had a fabulous supply, he was off the charts, weight-wise. Rather than follow the nice little curve that was created for bottle fed babies, he doubled his birth weight at three months, rather than six and had rolls on his arms and legs. He was very round, very chubby, and very happy.
> 
> Fortunately, I had a great pediatrician who bemoaned the height-weight charts and their inappropriateness for breast fed infants, but had I not, I might have started "rationing" him like many parents have. We never talked about putting him on a "low fat" diet, and he drank whole milk, ate whole foods, and a varied and healthy diet.
> 
> ...



Awesome pic of your handsome son Vick...and thanks for the backup, the rep gods wouldnt let me rep you again, but i think you rock :wubu::wubu::wubu::wubu::wubu:


----------

