Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Part of the answer of why children and teens are heavier may lie in how we are feeding our infants. Here are a few links to articles discussing the findings that babies who are exclusively breastfed and are not exposed to solid foods until after six months tend to have lower BMIs when they are older than those who were formula fed and/or given solid foods at earlier ages. Also, the longer time a child is exclusively breastfed, the lower the chance that the child will be overweight or obese.

http://www.foodandnutritionresearch.net/index.php/fnr/article/download/1550/1418

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16902325

http://advances.nutrition.org/content/3/5/675.full

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/6/4/1608/pdf

But formula was widely used back to the 50s, and there were far fewer overweight children in previous decades than now.

I think it's a combination of hormones in our food and larger portions.

I recently hosted co-workers from Europe who had never been stateside and they were astonished by our portions. They said they'd heard about "American sized meals" but never imagined them to be so large. Another co-worker took them to Cracker Barrel while out site-seeing and blew their minds. The one lady ordered meatloaf and didn't understand how sides worked. So she added one thing when the waitress prompted. Then another when prompted again. Then shook her head and picked another when prompted once more. She finally threw her hands up when asked if she wanted cornbread or biscuits and said, "NO BREAD!"

When I took DD & DS to Italy on a work related trip, DS was constantly starving because he was used to larger portions. He was 13 at the time and as most know, 13 year old boys are notorious bottomless pits, but not many meals went by where he didn't say, "is this it?" or "can I order two?" The first day he ordered spaghetti and meatballs. A small pile with two small meatballs arrived and he groaned, "oh man, is this one of those fancy tiny portion places that you and dad go to on date night?" No, son, that's called a normal helping of pasta. I'm sorry they didn't have a sink-sized bowl like Olive Garden for your dining needs.

In Europe, several courses at the restaurant is the norm, so there would be an antipasta or primo course followed by a secondo course.

NP. I was also thinking this about ordering in Italy. It is traditional to order two courses.

Anonymous wrote:Along with most of our socio-political-economic lives, physical bodies seem to be bifurcating.

i.e. kids and adults either letting go and content to look like shit or going overboard (either naturally by hours at the gym, spending truckloads on good and expensive food or unnaturally) and looking sexier than ever.

I look at old pictures from my mom and grandmother days - so many just normal and cute people.

Now you either have a killer body or a frumpy body - nothing inbetween it seems.

My husband and I were at a tag sale and came across a box of old photographs from 1930s-1970s and I said to him, "notice anything about these pics? and he said, "pretty much nobody is fat." Couple of plump people here and there but no one big like you see today. Compare that to an event we went to recently where probably 90 percent of the room was big.
We can't blame genetics people, not when 30, 40, 50 years ago our relatives were slim/average.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Part of the answer of why children and teens are heavier may lie in how we are feeding our infants. Here are a few links to articles discussing the findings that babies who are exclusively breastfed and are not exposed to solid foods until after six months tend to have lower BMIs when they are older than those who were formula fed and/or given solid foods at earlier ages. Also, the longer time a child is exclusively breastfed, the lower the chance that the child will be overweight or obese.

http://www.foodandnutritionresearch.net/index.php/fnr/article/download/1550/1418

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16902325

http://advances.nutrition.org/content/3/5/675.full

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/6/4/1608/pdf

But formula was widely used back to the 50s, and there were far fewer overweight children in previous decades than now.

I think it's a combination of hormones in our food and larger portions.

I recently hosted co-workers from Europe who had never been stateside and they were astonished by our portions. They said they'd heard about "American sized meals" but never imagined them to be so large. Another co-worker took them to Cracker Barrel while out site-seeing and blew their minds. The one lady ordered meatloaf and didn't understand how sides worked. So she added one thing when the waitress prompted. Then another when prompted again. Then shook her head and picked another when prompted once more. She finally threw her hands up when asked if she wanted cornbread or biscuits and said, "NO BREAD!"

When I took DD & DS to Italy on a work related trip, DS was constantly starving because he was used to larger portions. He was 13 at the time and as most know, 13 year old boys are notorious bottomless pits, but not many meals went by where he didn't say, "is this it?" or "can I order two?" The first day he ordered spaghetti and meatballs. A small pile with two small meatballs arrived and he groaned, "oh man, is this one of those fancy tiny portion places that you and dad go to on date night?" No, son, that's called a normal helping of pasta. I'm sorry they didn't have a sink-sized bowl like Olive Garden for your dining needs.

My husband and I were in Japan a few years ago and there was a restaurant called "America" that served "American sized portions" except everyone split them because they were so large. We are fat, because we eat crap and eat double helpings of crap.

PS: Olive garden? just...no.

Anonymous wrote:I agree. I'm a 44 year old woman that weighs and fits in the same clothes I did at 20 because I have worked out (hard--not yoga/stretching shit) my entire life. I could get away with a midriff too (though never would at my age). I've had 2 kids and still the fittest woman in my morning spinning class filled with single 20-30 year olds.

Is it the plastics??? The hormones they were exposed to in food? Too much social media, not enough activity?
The majority of Teen/college girls didn't have fat guts and love handles in the 80s.

Hmm.. They do menstruate earlier too. Gotta be something.

What do you do for a living?

ugh. OP. just ugh.

Anonymous wrote:they look like they are in their thirties, complete with muffin tops, cankles, saddle bags, potbellies.
When I was young, teens had flat stomachs and cute hips. We looked good in tight jeans and bikinis.
These poor kids aren't even going through that phase of having a nice figure. They go straight from tween years to chubby.
I thought that everyone could remember a time when they blossomed and looked great.

You're a bitter bitch if you are competing with 15 year olds on what you used to look like and what they looked like now.

Cool story, bro.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Part of the answer of why children and teens are heavier may lie in how we are feeding our infants. Here are a few links to articles discussing the findings that babies who are exclusively breastfed and are not exposed to solid foods until after six months tend to have lower BMIs when they are older than those who were formula fed and/or given solid foods at earlier ages. Also, the longer time a child is exclusively breastfed, the lower the chance that the child will be overweight or obese.

http://www.foodandnutritionresearch.net/index.php/fnr/article/download/1550/1418

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16902325

http://advances.nutrition.org/content/3/5/675.full

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/6/4/1608/pdf

But formula was widely used back to the 50s, and there were far fewer overweight children in previous decades than now.

That may be so, but the science shows that kids that are exclusively breastfed for at least six months have a much lower chance of being overweight or obese than formula fed kids. It doesn't mean that every breastfed person is thin, or that every formula fed person is fat, it just means that being exclusively breastfed is connected with being more likely to be a healthy weight. Clearly there are other factors involved as a child grows, but a person who has been exclusively breastfed is less likely to be overweight or obese. I like the idea of the odds being tilted in my favor if at all possible.

I don't have any scientific info on this, but observations from my my own experience and family is as follows: Sister and I were not breastfed at all, in 70s, I am very skinny, sister was really skinny and now is somewhat heavier but nothing much compared to US standard. All of my cousins were also formula fed, back then as well, and all are regular middle aged people, on the slim side all. Formula was very popular back then, in Europe. Out of 7 cousins today,(my DH, his sister and his brother's kids) mine two were barely breastfed due to very poor supply(don't judge, I tried everything) and are the skinniest teens you could ever see. DS so much so, we are at the nutritionists every month. DD is not scary skinny, and she loves sugar, which I am trying to discourage. Other 5 cousins were breast fed. Two breastfed the longest are very heavy, one cousin is obese, her brother is very heavy, but tall and passes as a "big boy," but he has a huge gut, that he tries to cover up. Other three cousins are from the FIL, one very skinny girl, one not heavy but heavier than sister and youngest 10 year old very active and perfectly normal slim boy, not skin and bones at all. The last three were breastfed for around a year or a bit less. My own sister has no kids, so I can't compare my genetic side, so to say. I will say that FIL's kids are fed much healthier than SIL's kids, we all know that, as are mine. We both put ton of emphasis on home made meals, fruits and veggies, and SIL(the one with heavy kids) and her husband absolutely never cook. I am European, and at first I was fascinated with the abundance of food and portions and it was hard to resists, I have to be honest, but I got bored with too salty and too sugary choices and cook like my grandma did, long,long ago.Yes, I use butter and even lard. FIL(one with slimmer kids) is quite OCD. Even when they come for a visit I have ton of fish and healthy foods, and he still goes and buys more fruit. SIL means well, but she doesn't care so much about food and is very, very busy, in her defense. I also wanted to add that my MIL(whom I adored) cooked home made meals but somehow, maybe because she was SAHM didn't teach her kids to cook, so they never learned Anyway sorry I got carried away, it is like my own little family study.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Part of the answer of why children and teens are heavier may lie in how we are feeding our infants. Here are a few links to articles discussing the findings that babies who are exclusively breastfed and are not exposed to solid foods until after six months tend to have lower BMIs when they are older than those who were formula fed and/or given solid foods at earlier ages. Also, the longer time a child is exclusively breastfed, the lower the chance that the child will be overweight or obese.

http://www.foodandnutritionresearch.net/index.php/fnr/article/download/1550/1418

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16902325

http://advances.nutrition.org/content/3/5/675.full

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/6/4/1608/pdf

But formula was widely used back to the 50s, and there were far fewer overweight children in previous decades than now.

I think it's a combination of hormones in our food and larger portions.

I recently hosted co-workers from Europe who had never been stateside and they were astonished by our portions. They said they'd heard about "American sized meals" but never imagined them to be so large. Another co-worker took them to Cracker Barrel while out site-seeing and blew their minds. The one lady ordered meatloaf and didn't understand how sides worked. So she added one thing when the waitress prompted. Then another when prompted again. Then shook her head and picked another when prompted once more. She finally threw her hands up when asked if she wanted cornbread or biscuits and said, "NO BREAD!"

When I took DD & DS to Italy on a work related trip, DS was constantly starving because he was used to larger portions. He was 13 at the time and as most know, 13 year old boys are notorious bottomless pits, but not many meals went by where he didn't say, "is this it?" or "can I order two?" The first day he ordered spaghetti and meatballs. A small pile with two small meatballs arrived and he groaned, "oh man, is this one of those fancy tiny portion places that you and dad go to on date night?" No, son, that's called a normal helping of pasta. I'm sorry they didn't have a sink-sized bowl like Olive Garden for your dining needs.

In Europe, several courses at the restaurant is the norm, so there would be an antipasta or primo course followed by a secondo course.

I suspect that what is considered "chunky" by the average DCUM poster is probably within the normal range of a healthy weight for a given person's height. Most of the moms at my kids' school look like they haven't had a carbohydrate or a gram of fat in the last 30 years and they are often skinnier than their healthy looking daughters. I hate to think of people fat shaming a 15 year old because she weighs 125 lbs.

Both of my kids were breastfed for six months or less, have always eaten junk food in moderation, don't play sports, and went through periods during puberty where portion sizes went out the window. Small-boned DD is a size 2 and DS might weigh 120 1bs at 5'7". They might just be lucky - they didn't get that from me!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Part of the answer of why children and teens are heavier may lie in how we are feeding our infants. Here are a few links to articles discussing the findings that babies who are exclusively breastfed and are not exposed to solid foods until after six months tend to have lower BMIs when they are older than those who were formula fed and/or given solid foods at earlier ages. Also, the longer time a child is exclusively breastfed, the lower the chance that the child will be overweight or obese.

http://www.foodandnutritionresearch.net/index.php/fnr/article/download/1550/1418

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16902325

http://advances.nutrition.org/content/3/5/675.full

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/6/4/1608/pdf

But formula was widely used back to the 50s, and there were far fewer overweight children in previous decades than now.

That may be so, but the science shows that kids that are exclusively breastfed for at least six months have a much lower chance of being overweight or obese than formula fed kids. It doesn't mean that every breastfed person is thin, or that every formula fed person is fat, it just means that being exclusively breastfed is connected with being more likely to be a healthy weight. Clearly there are other factors involved as a child grows, but a person who has been exclusively breastfed is less likely to be overweight or obese. I like the idea of the odds being tilted in my favor if at all possible.

I breastfed all three of my kids. However, breastfeeding rates are also highly connected to SES.

It's silly to attribute the success of breastfeeding babies only to the milk itself.

Did you read the articles at the links?
There have been studies of kids in a variety of home situations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Part of the answer of why children and teens are heavier may lie in how we are feeding our infants. Here are a few links to articles discussing the findings that babies who are exclusively breastfed and are not exposed to solid foods until after six months tend to have lower BMIs when they are older than those who were formula fed and/or given solid foods at earlier ages. Also, the longer time a child is exclusively breastfed, the lower the chance that the child will be overweight or obese.

http://www.foodandnutritionresearch.net/index.php/fnr/article/download/1550/1418

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16902325

http://advances.nutrition.org/content/3/5/675.full

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/6/4/1608/pdf

But formula was widely used back to the 50s, and there were far fewer overweight children in previous decades than now.

That may be so, but the science shows that kids that are exclusively breastfed for at least six months have a much lower chance of being overweight or obese than formula fed kids. It doesn't mean that every breastfed person is thin, or that every formula fed person is fat, it just means that being exclusively breastfed is connected with being more likely to be a healthy weight. Clearly there are other factors involved as a child grows, but a person who has been exclusively breastfed is less likely to be overweight or obese. I like the idea of the odds being tilted in my favor if at all possible.

I breastfed all three of my kids. However, breastfeeding rates are also highly connected to SES.

It's silly to attribute the success of breastfeeding babies only to the milk itself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Part of the answer of why children and teens are heavier may lie in how we are feeding our infants. Here are a few links to articles discussing the findings that babies who are exclusively breastfed and are not exposed to solid foods until after six months tend to have lower BMIs when they are older than those who were formula fed and/or given solid foods at earlier ages. Also, the longer time a child is exclusively breastfed, the lower the chance that the child will be overweight or obese.

http://www.foodandnutritionresearch.net/index.php/fnr/article/download/1550/1418

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16902325

http://advances.nutrition.org/content/3/5/675.full

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/6/4/1608/pdf

But formula was widely used back to the 50s, and there were far fewer overweight children in previous decades than now.

That may be so, but the science shows that kids that are exclusively breastfed for at least six months have a much lower chance of being overweight or obese than formula fed kids. It doesn't mean that every breastfed person is thin, or that every formula fed person is fat, it just means that being exclusively breastfed is connected with being more likely to be a healthy weight. Clearly there are other factors involved as a child grows, but a person who has been exclusively breastfed is less likely to be overweight or obese. I like the idea of the odds being tilted in my favor if at all possible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Part of the answer of why children and teens are heavier may lie in how we are feeding our infants. Here are a few links to articles discussing the findings that babies who are exclusively breastfed and are not exposed to solid foods until after six months tend to have lower BMIs when they are older than those who were formula fed and/or given solid foods at earlier ages. Also, the longer time a child is exclusively breastfed, the lower the chance that the child will be overweight or obese.

http://www.foodandnutritionresearch.net/index.php/fnr/article/download/1550/1418

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16902325

http://advances.nutrition.org/content/3/5/675.full

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/6/4/1608/pdf

But formula was widely used back to the 50s, and there were far fewer overweight children in previous decades than now.

I think it's a combination of hormones in our food and larger portions.

I recently hosted co-workers from Europe who had never been stateside and they were astonished by our portions. They said they'd heard about "American sized meals" but never imagined them to be so large. Another co-worker took them to Cracker Barrel while out site-seeing and blew their minds. The one lady ordered meatloaf and didn't understand how sides worked. So she added one thing when the waitress prompted. Then another when prompted again. Then shook her head and picked another when prompted once more. She finally threw her hands up when asked if she wanted cornbread or biscuits and said, "NO BREAD!"

When I took DD & DS to Italy on a work related trip, DS was constantly starving because he was used to larger portions. He was 13 at the time and as most know, 13 year old boys are notorious bottomless pits, but not many meals went by where he didn't say, "is this it?" or "can I order two?" The first day he ordered spaghetti and meatballs. A small pile with two small meatballs arrived and he groaned, "oh man, is this one of those fancy tiny portion places that you and dad go to on date night?" No, son, that's called a normal helping of pasta. I'm sorry they didn't have a sink-sized bowl like Olive Garden for your dining needs.

Anonymous wrote:How do you know they are fifteen? They could be 25 and just look younger.

I've made the same observation as OP and I know the girls aren't 25 because the girls I see are at high school. Many of them are athletes, but are still heavy. I don't want anyone to have an eating disorder or be consumed with body image, but I do find it somewhat disconcerting that so many teen girls are already chunky because it only gets harder to break the habits that contribute to being chunky and our bodies certainly don't make it easier to get leaner as we age.