Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:70th %ile in the US is actually quite good, not too thin. This is not what the weight should be, it is the weight relative to other American kids.
Perhaps your understanding of percentiles is incomplete? Percentiles are not grades. The only thing the 70th percentile for weight means is that 70% of kids weigh less and 30% weigh more. A kid could be at the 20th percentile for weight (i.e., 20% of kids weigh less, 80% weigh more) and still be fat, depending on height and muscle mass. Likewise, a kid could be at the 70th percentile for weight and still be too thin, again depending on height and muscle mass..
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It's okay to feel hungry and to be ready for the meal, rather than eat just because food's in front of you, but if your kids are still hungry after eating dinner, then I think you need to adjust your sense of what's normal and healthy for growing teenage boys.
Also, just a note for the posters above, which your ped can confirm for your OP - being 95th for weight would not be overweight if paired with 95th (or something in that ballpark) for height. Your son may indeed be healthy, but being 70th for for weight doesn't mean he's heavy - you have a tall kid, OP. He's also growing. Now is not the time to restrict healthy foods.
Please speak to a medical professional and get some well-informed advice, so that your family's food policy can be well informed and not a misfired backlash against lax parenting trends.
This. Hunger before a meal = good! Hunger after a meal because you were arbitrarily not allowed to eat enough = not good!
I am personally stunned at how much teenagers can eat. Their bodies and brains are going through enormous changes and while they need healthy food, they need food!
Anonymous wrote:
OP here. I am not on a diet. I look closely at his growth and he is gaining weight. I hope to keep him at the 70th%ile for weight as long as his vertical growth continues. He does not know that I am watching him closely as I do my other kids. He eats a ton of protein since I do want him to max out on height. He says he wants to play basketball or something like that.
Anonymous wrote:
I am thin, and my kids are healthy. They play sports and they do so very well.
No one has explained why the people like myself and the war survivors that I know, who were food "deprived" as kids are not obese now. Now one. I know tons of holocaust survivors in my family. They saw starvation as kids. I know others from my country who are my age who did not get fed the quality of food we see, and they are not fat. I guess they aren't food insecure.
Anonymous wrote:It's okay to feel hungry and to be ready for the meal, rather than eat just because food's in front of you, but if your kids are still hungry after eating dinner, then I think you need to adjust your sense of what's normal and healthy for growing teenage boys.
Also, just a note for the posters above, which your ped can confirm for your OP - being 95th for weight would not be overweight if paired with 95th (or something in that ballpark) for height. Your son may indeed be healthy, but being 70th for for weight doesn't mean he's heavy - you have a tall kid, OP. He's also growing. Now is not the time to restrict healthy foods.
Please speak to a medical professional and get some well-informed advice, so that your family's food policy can be well informed and not a misfired backlash against lax parenting trends.
Anonymous wrote:This is a completely bizarre post on many levels. Why is OP posting--what kind of feedback was she expecting when she uses a title like why is it not OK to feel hunger? Her closest friends are telling her what she is doing is not ok and then she comes here to what? Get validation it is okay?
I also don't get this snacking is purely an American thing. It is pretty universal that in nonimpoverished households all over the world that kids have a snack when they come home from school. The stretch between lunch and dinner is typically much longer than the stretch between breakfast and lunch.
I went to a French high school and they even served snack (goutee) at the school in the afternoon. As I recall we had a choice between an apple and a wedge of la Vache Qui Rit or--horrors--a baguette and squares of chocolate. The bread came straight from the bakery and was warm; we stuck the chocolate squares inside and they melted. This is what bread and chocolate means and it is quite yummy.
The British have always had afternoon tea with a scone or two.
The Spanish have light tapas to tide them through to their very late dinners.
A snack in the afternoon is not evil, It is pretty much a world wide thing even among the thinner and of course much superior Europeans.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:70th %ile in the US is actually quite good, not too thin. This is not what the weight should be, it is the weight relative to other American kids.
Perhaps your understanding of percentiles is incomplete? Percentiles are not grades. The only thing the 70th percentile for weight means is that 70% of kids weigh less and 30% weigh more. A kid could be at the 20th percentile for weight (i.e., 20% of kids weigh less, 80% weigh more) and still be fat, depending on height and muscle mass. Likewise, a kid could be at the 70th percentile for weight and still be too thin, again depending on height and muscle mass..
I get that. My point is that ideal body weight is different. The ideal weight for a child in the 95th%ile for height very well might be the 70th%ile.
Or it might not. There is no way to know, just looking at the numbers. There is also no way for OP to know what the ideal weight is for OP's son, especially since OP's definition of "ideal weight" is "the weight that I think my son should have, so I'm going to control how much he eats".
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:70th %ile in the US is actually quite good, not too thin. This is not what the weight should be, it is the weight relative to other American kids.
Perhaps your understanding of percentiles is incomplete? Percentiles are not grades. The only thing the 70th percentile for weight means is that 70% of kids weigh less and 30% weigh more. A kid could be at the 20th percentile for weight (i.e., 20% of kids weigh less, 80% weigh more) and still be fat, depending on height and muscle mass. Likewise, a kid could be at the 70th percentile for weight and still be too thin, again depending on height and muscle mass..
I get that. My point is that ideal body weight is different. The ideal weight for a child in the 95th%ile for height very well might be the 70th%ile.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:70th %ile in the US is actually quite good, not too thin. This is not what the weight should be, it is the weight relative to other American kids.
Perhaps your understanding of percentiles is incomplete? Percentiles are not grades. The only thing the 70th percentile for weight means is that 70% of kids weigh less and 30% weigh more. A kid could be at the 20th percentile for weight (i.e., 20% of kids weigh less, 80% weigh more) and still be fat, depending on height and muscle mass. Likewise, a kid could be at the 70th percentile for weight and still be too thin, again depending on height and muscle mass..
Anonymous wrote:70th %ile in the US is actually quite good, not too thin. This is not what the weight should be, it is the weight relative to other American kids.