Anonymous wrote:FCPS/Fairfax County Health Dept has a very quiet ongoing study re: BMI of kindergartners. BMI listed on kindergarten physical (entry) form is entered and compiled.

It’s alarming to see obese, breathless kindergarteners and very young children. They also sit out at recess, refuse to participate in P.E. and are sweaty just walking to classes.

This reminds me of the scene in wall-e where the people are blobs and unable to walk anywhere. When we lived in walking cities (London, ny), we all had to move our bodies to go anywhere. We now live in a very active hiking/biking/ski town, but it’s still a driving town, so if you are not trying to be active, you are sedentary. It’s a real difference in lifestyle. I used to get 12k steps a day in the city without even trying, just from getting groceries and taking the kids to school, activities etc.

My point is that it seems wrong to have to schedule exercise for your kids by putting them in sports or dedicating time to take them for a hike. Exercise should be part of their daily routine of living, whether it’s walking to school or biking to chess lessons, but most suburban planning doesn’t accommodate that. They are designed for cars.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have two kids, one has always been slim despite eating a ton (and she’s a girl), and the other (a boy) packed on a ton of weight between ages 9-12 and finally is slimming down by 14. Both kids eat healthy foods, not picky, we don’t drink soda or eat out a lot. His metabolism is just more like mine (sorry, son).

Some of his friends pound soda and spend all their money eating junk at the snack bar all summer and after school and are stick thin. He’s my kid who happily snacks on cucumbers after school.

You can judge all you want, but you have zero clue how everyone is actually eating.

No, we don't know how everyone is eating. We do know there is no obesity in POW camps, so it definitely is linked to eating, no matter what you believe about genetics.

It’s obviously calories in calories out, because of physics, but how many calories actually go out is incredibly complicated because the metabolism is not an engine. And how many calories go in depends on large powder on how hungry the kid is, which owes a great deal to hormones, not just activity level. All of these things can be influenced by genetics (though they’re definitely not entirely heritable — one reason physical activity is healthy is because it can alter those hormone levels even if it doesn’t burn a lot of calories.)

Its obviously part of the equation but its not a 1+1=2 when insulin resistance and other factors come into play. What lowers one persons response to glucose wont reduce anothers. Some people respond best to weights others to walking. I have to track my sugars and walking for 20min after every meal has insignificant reduction but weight training for 20-30 min 1x causes a 16-18-hour reduction across the board when compared to the same meals in a previous day where I didnt weight train.

But I would have never known that if I didnt have to track and record and look at data.

And obese children are already on the path of an impaired metabolism and glucose response. Which is why it's a concern, rather than "fat-shaming".

Youre still shaming children commenting about something out of their control. They dont control their food or the chemicals they ingest or the lack of education and research on placenta/pregnancy. Thats society.

The problem is our food and chemicals etc etc. But please continue to share your "concern" about the overweight kids. Its much easier than having corporations held responsible and our government having any teeth whatsoever when it comes to population-level health.

DP. You’re correct that it’s not the kids’ fault they’re fat. You’re ridiculous to pretend it’s the government or corporations fault they’re fat. I think maybe there is some decision maker in between kids and corporations… what are those people called again?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have two kids, one has always been slim despite eating a ton (and she’s a girl), and the other (a boy) packed on a ton of weight between ages 9-12 and finally is slimming down by 14. Both kids eat healthy foods, not picky, we don’t drink soda or eat out a lot. His metabolism is just more like mine (sorry, son).

Some of his friends pound soda and spend all their money eating junk at the snack bar all summer and after school and are stick thin. He’s my kid who happily snacks on cucumbers after school.

You can judge all you want, but you have zero clue how everyone is actually eating.

No, we don't know how everyone is eating. We do know there is no obesity in POW camps, so it definitely is linked to eating, no matter what you believe about genetics.

It’s obviously calories in calories out, because of physics, but how many calories actually go out is incredibly complicated because the metabolism is not an engine. And how many calories go in depends on large powder on how hungry the kid is, which owes a great deal to hormones, not just activity level. All of these things can be influenced by genetics (though they’re definitely not entirely heritable — one reason physical activity is healthy is because it can alter those hormone levels even if it doesn’t burn a lot of calories.)

Its obviously part of the equation but its not a 1+1=2 when insulin resistance and other factors come into play. What lowers one persons response to glucose wont reduce anothers. Some people respond best to weights others to walking. I have to track my sugars and walking for 20min after every meal has insignificant reduction but weight training for 20-30 min 1x causes a 16-18-hour reduction across the board when compared to the same meals in a previous day where I didnt weight train.

But I would have never known that if I didnt have to track and record and look at data.

And obese children are already on the path of an impaired metabolism and glucose response. Which is why it's a concern, rather than "fat-shaming".

Youre still shaming children commenting about something out of their control. They dont control their food or the chemicals they ingest or the lack of education and research on placenta/pregnancy. Thats society.

The problem is our food and chemicals etc etc. But please continue to share your "concern" about the overweight kids. Its much easier than having corporations held responsible and our government having any teeth whatsoever when it comes to population-level health.

Kids are bigger nowadays, it is true. I don’t think it makes sense to pretend not to see differences. For me, I think all kids are beautiful, wonderful, and skilled in their own ways and I absolutely do not judge kids or their parents for their body types, big or small. The shame needs to come out of the equation for all of us to be healthier. All of us need to work on appreciating the kids in our community. I don’t like all the assumptions that kids are unhappy, unhealthy, etc. You can be overweight and active, happy, etc — and it sure helps if grown adults aren’t giving you sideyeye while you eat the same treat as every other kid.

On a population level I think we should be looking at what is changing our bodies and why. This is part of fulfilling our responsibility to protect and safeguard kids. Love them as they are, while questioning whether the regulations and status quo in this country are good enough. I don’t know a lot of people who are politically active when it comes to things like food, cosmetic and personal products, environmental pollutants, pharmaceutical regulations, etc. But it’s all playing a huge defining role in our lives while we sit and argue about “individual decisions”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have two kids, one has always been slim despite eating a ton (and she’s a girl), and the other (a boy) packed on a ton of weight between ages 9-12 and finally is slimming down by 14. Both kids eat healthy foods, not picky, we don’t drink soda or eat out a lot. His metabolism is just more like mine (sorry, son).

Some of his friends pound soda and spend all their money eating junk at the snack bar all summer and after school and are stick thin. He’s my kid who happily snacks on cucumbers after school.

You can judge all you want, but you have zero clue how everyone is actually eating.

No, we don't know how everyone is eating. We do know there is no obesity in POW camps, so it definitely is linked to eating, no matter what you believe about genetics.

It’s obviously calories in calories out, because of physics, but how many calories actually go out is incredibly complicated because the metabolism is not an engine. And how many calories go in depends on large powder on how hungry the kid is, which owes a great deal to hormones, not just activity level. All of these things can be influenced by genetics (though they’re definitely not entirely heritable — one reason physical activity is healthy is because it can alter those hormone levels even if it doesn’t burn a lot of calories.)

Its obviously part of the equation but its not a 1+1=2 when insulin resistance and other factors come into play. What lowers one persons response to glucose wont reduce anothers. Some people respond best to weights others to walking. I have to track my sugars and walking for 20min after every meal has insignificant reduction but weight training for 20-30 min 1x causes a 16-18-hour reduction across the board when compared to the same meals in a previous day where I didnt weight train.

But I would have never known that if I didnt have to track and record and look at data.

And obese children are already on the path of an impaired metabolism and glucose response. Which is why it's a concern, rather than "fat-shaming".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have two kids, one has always been slim despite eating a ton (and she’s a girl), and the other (a boy) packed on a ton of weight between ages 9-12 and finally is slimming down by 14. Both kids eat healthy foods, not picky, we don’t drink soda or eat out a lot. His metabolism is just more like mine (sorry, son).

Some of his friends pound soda and spend all their money eating junk at the snack bar all summer and after school and are stick thin. He’s my kid who happily snacks on cucumbers after school.

You can judge all you want, but you have zero clue how everyone is actually eating.

No, we don't know how everyone is eating. We do know there is no obesity in POW camps, so it definitely is linked to eating, no matter what you believe about genetics.

It’s obviously calories in calories out, because of physics, but how many calories actually go out is incredibly complicated because the metabolism is not an engine. And how many calories go in depends on large powder on how hungry the kid is, which owes a great deal to hormones, not just activity level. All of these things can be influenced by genetics (though they’re definitely not entirely heritable — one reason physical activity is healthy is because it can alter those hormone levels even if it doesn’t burn a lot of calories.)

Its obviously part of the equation but its not a 1+1=2 when insulin resistance and other factors come into play. What lowers one persons response to glucose wont reduce anothers. Some people respond best to weights others to walking. I have to track my sugars and walking for 20min after every meal has insignificant reduction but weight training for 20-30 min 1x causes a 16-18-hour reduction across the board when compared to the same meals in a previous day where I didnt weight train.

But I would have never known that if I didnt have to track and record and look at data.

Anonymous wrote:Sorry Larlo, I know you’re still hungry but you can’t have another piece of salmon because a lady on the internet thinks you look gross.

Enough with the excuses and delusion. Larlo isn’t getting fat off of an extra piece of salmon. Just like people aren’t going bankrupt due to one time four-figure medical bills. Those things are just the straw that broke the camel’s back because you’re not bothering to do the fundamentals correctly.

In this (stupid) example, if you hadn’t let Larlo eat high calorie, non satiating snacks throughout the day, he’d have plenty of room in the calorie budget for more salmon. But God forbid you take him to the playground for two or three hours without his precious Goldfish and yogurt tubes

Anonymous wrote:So much of it is genetics. It’s why you want to procreate with the right people only.

Yeah not pigs like you

FCPS/Fairfax County Health Dept has a very quiet ongoing study re: BMI of kindergartners. BMI listed on kindergarten physical (entry) form is entered and compiled.

It’s alarming to see obese, breathless kindergarteners and very young children. They also sit out at recess, refuse to participate in P.E. and are sweaty just walking to classes.

Sorry Larlo, I know you’re still hungry but you can’t have another piece of salmon because a lady on the internet thinks you look gross.

So much of it is genetics. It’s why you want to procreate with the right people only.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reason for this societal problem is on display in this thread. Nothing but denial, excuses, and blame-shifting.

You are reading negativity into people searching for reasons.

I do not believe most of the respondents on this thread are sincerely searching for reasons. Unless you mean reasons why it’s not their fault?

If your kid is overweight he’s eating too much. You can talk about chemicals and sports and medications and ultra processed versus organics until the cows come home, but if you’re avoiding looking at the actual number of calories consumed it’s most likely because you KNOW your kid is just eating too much.

+1. This just goes back to the current parenting problem overall right now. An inability to tell the child "No." and mean it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reason for this societal problem is on display in this thread. Nothing but denial, excuses, and blame-shifting.

You are reading negativity into people searching for reasons.

I do not believe most of the respondents on this thread are sincerely searching for reasons. Unless you mean reasons why it’s not their fault?

If your kid is overweight he’s eating too much. You can talk about chemicals and sports and medications and ultra processed versus organics until the cows come home, but if you’re avoiding looking at the actual number of calories consumed it’s most likely because you KNOW your kid is just eating too much.

I’ve got 6 kids. My most active, muscular child that is always busy, moving and does the most amount of sports is my “heavy child”. 8 and weighs 70 lbs. We received nutritional counseling at the last check up. We all eat fairly healthy, occasional desserts and junk food. Just crazy that one child is heavier while the rest are stick thin. So, sometimes it truly is just genetics. But, I do see a lot of very overweight children and it breaks my heart.

Holy shit