My 51 pound three-year-old girl is not overweight, just BIG

[Anonymous]

My 7 year old girl is 45lbs and is average height. I've seen 5 year olds her height, but never a 3 year old. Op, if you believe your child is active and healthy, don't worry about posting here. But you posted here, which makes me think you feel defensive or are questioning whether or not she is healthy. Whatever you do, don't put that girl on a diet, always tell her she's beautiful, and love her no matter what she looks like!

[Anonymous]

Omg stop posting your kids' heights and weights!! Annoying.

[Anonymous]

Its just sad to see a preschooler who is so overweight. The parents always have an explanation -- we shop in the "older kids" section b/c she is so far ahead. No, she is dangerously over weight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:51lb and 42" tall is overweight.

My five year old is 42 inches tall. He weighs less than 40lbs and he's not particularly thin.

Agree. My almost 5 year old is 42" and 42 lbs and he is a bit overweight. Add another 9 lbs and he would be obese.

So interesting...my five year old is 40 inches and 40 pounds...you can count her ribs and is far from being overweight.

My 4.75 year old is 46" and 40lbs and you can definitely see his ribs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:51 lbs for that height is too much. I have a tall, big child who is muscular and big bones--who weighed a lot less at that height.

Sounds like you've got two things going. Yes, a tall big child but also one who may already be developing a weight problem while you deny it.

What is this with calling kids, kids under the age of 5 "muscular". They are NOT muscular. Kids CANNOT be muscular -- not until beyond puberty. Is this just a failure to acknowledge that your kid is overweight?

I don't know. My just 3 year old is 38" and 33 pounds. He looks "muscular." Even our ped commented on it at his physical. He might not have muscle development but he definitely looks muscular. Odd definition on his upper arms and looks like a 6-pack starter. He looks typical but with some definition.

He's not muscular. You could say "stocky" or "dense" but really it's just excess weight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Omg stop posting your kids' heights and weights!! Annoying.

Agree. What's the point? People now debating whether their kids are the thinnest, muscular, overweight etc. Go away.

[Anonymous]

This is easy.

http://nccd.cdc.gov/dnpabmi/Result.aspx?&dob=1/1/2012&dom=1/1/2015&age=36&ht=42&wt=51&gender=2&method=0&inchtext=0&wttext=0

I put the OP's daughter's info in the Child BMI calculator. Her DD's BMI is at the 99%, which is the in the Obese range. So OP, your DD's doctor is right to be concerned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is easy.

http://nccd.cdc.gov/dnpabmi/Result.aspx?&dob=1/1/2012&dom=1/1/2015&age=36&ht=42&wt=51&gender=2&method=0&inchtext=0&wttext=0

I put the OP's daughter's info in the Child BMI calculator. Her DD's BMI is at the 99%, which is the in the Obese range. So OP, your DD's doctor is right to be concerned.

Actually, I don't think that that calculator is all that useful. My 3 year old boy registers as 94th percentile (18.3 BMI), which is "overweight" and just this side of obese according to that calculator (obese starts at 95%). He is not even remotely fat. Just a healthy, active boy. His pediatrician agrees and has no concerns at all about his weight or BMI. I'm not saying anything about OP's child but I think that relying solely on the BMI calculator is a mistake.

[Anonymous]

First of all, there are exceptions to the rules. We all know that professional athletes who have BMI >30 with no body fat. Secondly, over 99% is a bit different than 94%, don't you think?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:First of all, there are exceptions to the rules. We all know that professional athletes who have BMI >30 with no body fat. Secondly, over 99% is a bit different than 94%, don't you think?

I'm the PP and I actually agree with this. I'm only saying that the calculator is a flawed tool. that said, OP's child has nearly 13 pounds on my (pretty big) kid, so year, I'd be concerned if the pediatrician was concerned. for the reasons that others have already stated. I'm also wondering if there isn't some level of misunderstanding, only because PP seems to thinks that her child's birth weight was in the 99th%, which it obviously wasn't (or maybe she just meant that it got up to the 99% by three months - it's unclear). In any case, yeah, if my three year old was growing that quickly I'd have it checked out.

[Anonymous]

Is the OP ever coming back to answer the questions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is the OP ever coming back to answer the questions?

Nope. I believe she went back to her planet.

[Anonymous]

I think a lot of posters are only looking at the weight, but is not the height/ weight ratio what is important?

Clearly the mother is concerned if posting, but the bitchy "your kid is obese" comments are not helping anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your kid's BMI is in the 99th percentile rank, which is classified as obese. They have done studies that show most parents if overweight kids don't think their kids are overweight. You really should get a referral to a nutritionist.

This. OP use the calculator on webmd and read the results. They aren't great and explain your doctors concern. http://www.webmd.com/parenting/raising-fit-kids/weight/bmi/bmi-calculator

I just plugged my DS info on this calculator and he's considered obese on it. He's extremely tall and lean - you can see his ribs and hip bones poking out. He towers above kids several years older than he is. I brothers who are over 6'8" and they are extremely skinny.

These BMI calculators are obviously missing something!!

Or maybe you typed in the numbers wrong.

Folks just don't want to accept the truth. The calculators don't lie. You can't go by how you look.

The calculators don't lie, but the BMI calculator is not an accurate assessment of obesity for every individual. BMI was created and intended as a way to measure populations, not individuals, so while it's a pretty good gauge for people in the middle, it doesn't always provide an accurate picture of outliers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of posters are only looking at the weight, but is not the height/ weight ratio what is important?

Clearly the mother is concerned if posting, but the bitchy "your kid is obese" comments are not helping anyone.

Yes, the ratio is important. In this case, the height does not account for a weight that is nearly that high.

I think people are being bitchy to the OP because we have all seen overweight kids whose parents feed them crap while claiming "oh, my kid is just big boned/muscular." It's sad when kids are fat because their parents feed them crap and it is 100% the fault of the parent.