Anonymous wrote:The only way to be thin is to consume few calories relative to your exercise. If you don't exercise and want to be thin, you can, just eat smaller amounts of food.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I lived in one of the wealthier cities in Southeast Asia for many years. Holy hell, the amount of snacking was huge there even though, you know- we Americans always shovel food in our mouths. My colleagues would routinely eat 3-4 slices of sweetened bread at their desks as a snack! Portions were indeed smaller, but I actually gained weight there because it was all white carbs, pork and veggies soaked in oil.

The snacks/teas mentioned above do not occur DAILY! They happen on special occasion or as a special treat. I'm from Asia, and we also have a meal we call afternoon tea between lunch and dinner, however, we had this tea no more than maybe once or twice a month. And when did have those teas, the snacks were not sickly sweet.

I studied abroad in London for 6 months, and we had afternoon tea precisely once, at a hotel to celebrate someone's birthday.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A mid-afternoon snack, especially for children, is really, really common all over the world. Even adults take a break for coffee or tea and a light snack in many places. Snacking constantly isn't great, but that doesn't mean that snacking is per se bad.

I lived in one of the wealthier cities in Southeast Asia for many years. Holy hell, the amount of snacking was huge there even though, you know- we Americans always shovel food in our mouths. My colleagues would routinely eat 3-4 slices of sweetened bread at their desks as a snack! Portions were indeed smaller, but I actually gained weight there because it was all white carbs, pork and veggies soaked in oil.

The snacks/teas mentioned above do not occur DAILY! They happen on special occasion or as a special treat. I'm from Asia, and we also have a meal we call afternoon tea between lunch and dinner, however, we had this tea no more than maybe once or twice a month. And when did have those teas, the snacks were not sickly sweet.

I studied abroad in London for 6 months, and we had afternoon tea precisely once, at a hotel to celebrate someone's birthday.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A mid-afternoon snack, especially for children, is really, really common all over the world. Even adults take a break for coffee or tea and a light snack in many places. Snacking constantly isn't great, but that doesn't mean that snacking is per se bad.

I lived in one of the wealthier cities in Southeast Asia for many years. Holy hell, the amount of snacking was huge there even though, you know- we Americans always shovel food in our mouths. My colleagues would routinely eat 3-4 slices of sweetened bread at their desks as a snack! Portions were indeed smaller, but I actually gained weight there because it was all white carbs, pork and veggies soaked in oil.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A mid-afternoon snack, especially for children, is really, really common all over the world. Even adults take a break for coffee or tea and a light snack in many places. Snacking constantly isn't great, but that doesn't mean that snacking is per se bad.

Anonymous wrote:Do people really track the percentile when their kids are teens? I've never heard of tracking so drastically. I also feel that OP needs therapy. Way, way tooooo controlling!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

People born after the Dutch "hunger winter" (1944) have been subject to multiple health problems throughout life; they have been dying early. The latest surprising findings are that their children may also be affected. Audrey Hepburn survived the Hunger Winter and looked slim and elegant all her life, but she had multiple health problems and finally died at 63.

To the first poster here: you describe anecdote. The person below you describes data.

Anonymous wrote:

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..

The kid is at the 95th for height, and the chart is not conditional, so this is thin.
i don't believe the chart is a straight "average of kids in. America" but rather some normalized scale. I used to know the details but have forgotten.

One of my kids was roughly 45th percentile for both height and weight and our pediatrician said that that was as it should be: that the percentiles for height and weight should be close to each other, not many percentage points apart.

Mayb you are both right and the pediatrician wants to get you all out of the office. They have more important things to worry about, like the kid with the BMI of 50

Nope, never heard that. One of mine is 75% and 25%, and the other is 20% and 5%. Perfectly happy and healthy, according to both me and their pediatrician.

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..

The kid is at the 95th for height, and the chart is not conditional, so this is thin.
i don't believe the chart is a straight "average of kids in. America" but rather some normalized scale. I used to know the details but have forgotten.

One of my kids was roughly 45th percentile for both height and weight and our pediatrician said that that was as it should be: that the percentiles for height and weight should be close to each other, not many percentage points apart.

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..

The kid is at the 95th for height, and the chart is not conditional, so this is thin.
i don't believe the chart is a straight "average of kids in. America" but rather some normalized scale. I used to know the details but have forgotten.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

People born after the Dutch "hunger winter" (1944) have been subject to multiple health problems throughout life; they have been dying early. The latest surprising findings are that their children may also be affected. Audrey Hepburn survived the Hunger Winter and looked slim and elegant all her life, but she had multiple health problems and finally died at 63.