Currently viewing the category: "childhood obesity"

Kids Bigger by the Decade

By On · Add Comment · In childhood obesity, Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, fast-food, junk food, kindergartners

Just to show you how bad the childhood obesity numbers are getting, a recent study highlighted the problem among our nation’s kindergartners. Research conducted by the RAND corporation showed that today’s children are heavier than their counterparts of the 1970s and 1980s, and that these children run a real risk of becoming obese as adults.

The researchers analyzed data on nearly 6,000 white, black and Hispanic children who participated in the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study–a nationally representative sample–and had their height and weight measured over nine years, in kindergarten, first, third, fifth and eighth grades. They found that nearly 40% of kindergartners had a BMI in the 75th percentile, which means that they are heavier than 75% of their peers. This number is up from 25% in the 1970s and 1980s, when the growth charts were developed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Although the 75th percentile is not by any means overweight or obese, it does show that, in general, children are getting bigger. Overweight (85th-95th percentile) and obese (>95th percentile) numbers for children did increase as well, however, to 28% and 12% respectively, up from 10% and 5% in each category. The largest gains were seen in Hispanic children and black girls.

Experts are unsure of the reasons for these findings but believe that readily available and convenient high-fat, high-sugar and highly caloric snack and processed foods, and less physical activity due video games, TV and less outdoor play time are all potential contributors.

The significance of these findings are not only that the number of overweight and obese children is on the climb, but that a large portion of children are on their way to blowing up, as signified by the high numbers in the 75th percentile. Without a doubt, overweight and obese children should be attended to, but a real danger lurks with these potential bigger kids, those in the 75th percentile, and the direction they might go as they grow.

Less children were on the lower weight end, too–about 14% were in the lowest fourth for weight compared with 25% in earlier generations and 18% were in the second lower quartile compared with 25% in earlier generations. While having some pluses, primarily less underweight and malnourished children, it merely shows how society, as a whole, is blowing up.

I still contend that these numbers are due to the types of foods Americans eat regularly. Processed foods, in my opinion, are the worst, since they are sold a wholesome foods in supermarkets and grocery stores. But too many are relying on fast foods, which is just hamburger joints, but delis, pizza, bagel shops, taco stands, and the list goes on and on. If it’s not whole, natural foods and you are not preparing them at home, then it’s fast food, period. Not good for the health, and certainly not good for the waistline.

Parents you have a responsibility to feed your tykes good food. They will eat junk food on their own–no need to have it around the house. And frozen, canned and packaged food isn’t any better, no matter what the label says. If you ain’t cooking it–it’s crap. Nuff said.

Soda Marketing Targets Black & Hispanic Youth

By On · Add Comment · In American Beverage Association, Black children, childhood obesity, Coca-Cola Co., Hispanic children, Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, sodas

The Yale University Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity report I discussed last post discloses the youth market-grab that soda manufacturers are carrying out in an attempt to secure future sales. For a product like soft drinks, it’s all about brand loyalty, and people set their preferences early on. The big guns in the current soda marketing campaign are Coca-Cola Co and Dr Pepper Snapple Group Inc, the report found.

Successful companies study their markets and invest in wooing their top consumers, something to think about if you (or your child) fall into one of the following categories:

  • Black children and teens saw 80-90% more ads than white children, including twice as many for the 5-Hour Energy drink and Coca-Cola’s vitamin water and Sprite.
  • Hispanic children saw 49% more ads for sugary drinks and energy drinks on Spanish-language television, and Hispanic teens saw 99% more ads.
  • In 2010, teens saw 18% more TV ads and heard 46% more radio ads for energy drinks than adults did.
  • 21 sugary drink brands had YouTube channels in 2010, with more than 229 million views by June 2011. Coca-Cola was the most popular brand on Facebook, with more than 30 million fans.
  • The most-visited websites operated by soft drink brands were MyCokeRewards.com and Capri Sun, which is owned by Kraft Foods Inc.
According to the CDC, 15% of children are overweight or obese, and no doubt in my mind that sodas are a major player in that phenomenon. Although I agree that sodas are not the stand alone cause of obesity, using that as a reason to dispute the validity of the above report makes about as much sense as excusing cigarette smoking for its role in lung cancer because air pollution is also a factor.
Susan Neely, Chief Executive Officer for the American Beverage Association said that member companies are “delivering on their commitment to advertise only water, juice and milk on programing for children under 12.”
But Yale’s Kelly Brownell, co-author of the report, says otherwise. He states that there has been a lot of research on the issue of marketing unhealthy food to children. Today’s report, he said, is the first that analyzed data from several firms, including Nielsen Holdings NV, to measure the full picture of youth exposure to marketing and advertising. He also said it is important to consider the online interaction children have with brands, especially since they tend to stay on computers longer than they watch TV commercials.
For anybody falling into one of these groups targeted by soda manufacturers–children, teens, and especially black and Hispanic youth–just understand how you are being wooed, and educate yourself on the risks of consuming large amounts of soft drinks. Understand that ingesting that much sugar (ten teaspoons per can) can lead to excessive weight gain, obesity, diabetes and other metabolic disturbances, as well as rotten teeth. And mind you that all of these body changes occur over an extended period, so just because you don’t see the physical effects happening right now, don’t think they won’t in time. Just take a look at some the adults around whom you might wonder exactly how they’ve morphed into what they have–and realize that could be just what you have to look forward to if you continue your soda habit.
I’m pleased this report has come out, although it’s nothing new in soft drink marketing. Makers of liquid sugar have been wooing kids from the start.  But now we are all watching.  We’ll see where it goes.

Obesity: Primarily a Food Choice Issue

By On · Add Comment · In body fat, calories, childhood obesity, food choices, French fries, genetic theory of obesity, losing weight, nutrition, weight gain

I’ve gotten to experience something very interesting over the last couple of weeks.  Resulting from my posts on childhood statin recommendations and parental responsibility for childhood obesity, I’ve gotten numerous replies, comments and tweets that have both commended and criticized my views.  Being all for intelligent discussion, I’ve welcomed the responses; but something has become very clear to me: People who are attached to a particular point-of-view will fill any holes with their own interpretations and opinions,quite apart from anything that has ever been said or implied.  It’s an interesting phenomenon.  So as promised, I will continue presenting my viewpoint on obesity in general, and specifically, childhood obesity, so I can fill those holes myself, and keep my thoughts from being assumed by others.

Let me begin with the obvious: What is obesity?  From Wikipedia:

Obesity is a medical condition in which excess body fat has accumulated to the extent that it may have an adverse effect on health, leading to reduced life expectancy and/or increased health problems.  Body mass index (BMI), a measurement which compares weight and height, defines people as overweight (pre-obese) if their BMI is between 25 and 30 kg/m, and obese when it is greater than 30 kg/m

Wikipedia is not necessarily the end all be all as a reference source…but, in this case…well, it’s right.  Weight gain, which can lead to obesity, is caused by taking in more calories than you burn, period.  It doesn’t happen from eating one tootsie roll, despite a tootsie roll being an unhealthy food-like item, or from eating one French fry, or even thirty on a Saturday night for that matter; nor does it come from eating a Twinkie, or a bag of chips, or drinking a soda.  No, gaining excessive weight, and developing obesity, comes from eating lots of crap over and over again.

It is what one does repeatedly that matters, so, in that regard, obesity is a calorie issue.  But yes, there is more to it, although I would argue very strongly that the most important factor is overeating.  As a rule, Americans eat too much.  Listen, I am an American.  I eat at restaurants.  My observation is that the portions served in most restaurants are more than most people need under most circumstances.  I also observe how others eat, and can say quite confidently that most people aren’t leaving their plates half-full.  No, most people put it away–all of it–plain and simple.  And this (as a habit) leads to excessive weight gain.

Here’s some basic nutritional physiology: Take in more calories than you expend, you gain weight.  Expend more calories than you take in, you lose weight.  When intake and output (over time) are relatively equal…you maintain weight, no gain, no loss.  Duh.  It blows me away that some people actually try to argue against this simple fact.  Why not, then, argue against the Pythagorean Theorem while you’re at it?

Listen, it doesn’t make sense to try to disprove what we already know about any science.  If it’s an established principle, why try to reinvent the wheel?  Oh no, the Law of Gravity is wrong, and that’s why we can’t unify all theories on physical forces.  No serious thinker would go that route.  Instead they would take what is already known and try to formulate a theory around that.  Freakin’ duh!   So why do some self-proclaimed experts attempt it with nutritional physiology?

There is no doubt that food types matter when it comes to weight gain and obesity.  It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to understand that French fries are a worse food choice than broccoli.  And it doesn’t take a theoretical physicist to understand that eating wholesome foods, as a habit, is better than simply cutting your French fry intake in half.  Freakin’ duh!


What amazes me is that some people think that somehow my previous posts suggested that I advocate a low calorie diet.  When have I ever said that?  Let me be perfectly clear: I’ve never said anything about a diet of any sort.  When I speak of “diet,” I speak in terms of how one eats, the types of foods one eats, and NOT a freakin’ fad diet (and that includes Atkins, or rehashed Atkin’s-like theories).  I simply cannot be any clearer.  The types of foods you eat matters, and how much of them you eat matters too, and how much you burn with physical activity also matters a whole hell of a lot more than your mutated skinny genes (and you thought those were just clothing trends).

Interestingly, the notion that calories in vs. calories out and food type both contribute to obesity presents somewhat of a conundrum to people battling weight.  Some will say, “I don’t eat junk food, and I just cannot seem to lose weight.”  Then you eat too much, is my answer.  No, I don’t eat too much.  Then the types of foods you are eating are poor choices.  No, that’s not it either.  Okay, then what is it?  It’s genetics.  Oh, you mean fatness runs in your family.  Well, no…I have a gene.  But nobody else in your family is fat?  Well yes…both my parents.  Listen that’s called nurture–what you were exposed growing up, your learned behaviors–not necessarily genetics, or nature.  All you are doing when you blame it on your genetics is pulling yourself out of the equation, and I’m sorry, but that just doesn’t cut it.  Genetics, hormones, lack of sleep, blah, blah, blah…yes, okay, they contribute…but not more than your food choices do, both in quantity and quality.

I’m going to discuss hormonal factors in weight gain in the next post on the subject, as well as list some factors that are primary in the development and maintenance of obesity.  Just remember that food choices matter–the types of foods you eat (whole, natural foods that you prepare yourself are best), as well as how much you eat.  Denying basic physiological principles isn’t going to make one dent in the obesity epidemic, so the fools doing just that are merely perpetuating the problem.

Parents Are Responsible for Child’s Weight

By On · Add Comment · In American Academy of Pediatrics, cardiovascular health, childhood obesity, children, cholesterol, HDL, LDL, lifestyle changes, parents, side effects, statins, weight loss

This post is about weight loss.  It’s about basic physiology, and personal responsibility (ooh, dirty words).  I recently tweeted a bunch on a subject I wrote about three years ago.  The number of responses I received was incredible.  The subject was on giving the cholesterol lowering medication, statins, to children.  In 2008, the American Academy of Pediatrics, recommended screening children as young as two-years-old for high cholesterol.  If a child is found to have high cholesterol, the Academy recommended putting him or her on statins to prevent future cardiovascular disease.  My response today is the same as it was three years ago–it’s a freakin’ crime!

I know too much about physiology and human health to accept this as a treatment option for children, let alone the first line of defense.  Statins have side-effects, and they are also based on a faulty premise–that low density lipoproteins (LDLs) are the most important factors in cardiovascular health.  While definite contributors, LDLs are simply not as important as high density lipoproteins (HDLs) when it comes to cardiovascular risk.  To consider giving drugs that most people take for a lifetime to children as a preventative is purely irresponsible.

But, really, the criticisms I encountered weren’t about points I made on statin use in children.  They were mostly directed at a particular line, an idea,

“Childhood obesity? Excuse my language, but…that’s effin’ child neglect and abuse by lazy, undisciplined, ignorant parents.”

Now many people said, “Bravo! Thank you for telling it like it is.”  Many others, however, felt it was callous, off-base and out-of-sync with the real causes of obesity.  Some tweeters informed me that my understanding of basic physiology was prehistoric, and that my solution to the obesity problem (I didn’t know I had actually given one) was short-sighted and erroneous.  So in the next few posts I will attempt to clarify my thoughts on weight loss/weight gain, the obesity epidemic and parental responsibility as it relates to the weight–and health–of a child.

I am actually going to start with my thoughts on parental responsibility.  I contend that if you as a parent are not responsible for your child and his or her health, then who is?  This question is only obvious to those parents who share this philosophy, and won’t be to those believing (either consciously or subconsciously) that health is the responsibility, and byproduct, of something outside themselves.

Every parent will say that they take full responsibility for their child, but far too many act otherwise.  What you do your children will do, period.  They eat what you eat, they think like you think, and they care for themselves in the same way you care for yourself.  How is your child’s weight, then, independent of you?  Oh, you didn’t shove the cookies down his or her throat…but did you buy them?  Maybe you thought it was harmless to feed your child cookies as a baby…I hope you know better now (Plenty of tweeter critics claimed to not feed their children junk food…listen, your obese child is eating junk food–WAKE UP!)

Parents of heavy children have lots of support for their innocence.  The concept that “your illness is not your fault” is preached by many doctors, psychologists, talk show hosts, media celebrities and support groups; and while it’s true that illness is not a fault, it certainly isn’t true that we have no hand in how our health plays out.  More importantly, though, everyone has the potential to achieve and maintain great health, no matter what the current circumstances.

When health issues arise, the most important thing to do is determine where changes need to be made.  Whether talking about major lifestyle modifications–like quitting smoking, or changing food habits, or exercising–or simply getting checked by a professional, change is an absolute necessity in correcting any health problem.  How soon you make that decision can mean the difference between life and death.  Symptoms are your body’s way of telling you something needs attention.  Ignoring them is the worst possible approach you can take toward your health.

Obesity, as a morphological symptom, is a major change–and it just doesn’t happen overnight.  Once parents see it unfolding, they have a responsibility to act (neither children nor teens can make this decision on their own) and create change.  For parents of chubby or obese children, this also means how you decide to change.  A child isn’t going to change independently from his or her parents.  Are you going to change your diet to a more healthful one?  Are you going to eat less, and decrease your intake of junk foods, fast foods and sodas?  Are you going to work out, play sports with your kids or take fitness classes together?  Your child isn’t going to change without you–you’ve got to change as well.  And simply dishing them off to Little League will not do either, as building their confidence before they compete in groups will be paramount to their psychological health and well-being.  The bottom line is that parents must get actively involved in the obese child’s life, if they are to stand a chance of losing weight.

For new parents, it simply begins with creating good habits from the very start–the foods you expose your children to, the activities you share, how much television you watch, and so on.  You control the environment, and your choices contribute to your children’s bodies, and their health.

Obesity is reversible, that’s a fact.  How you see things, and how you approach the world determines your chances of overcoming (or your child overcoming) obesity.  Too many people lose weight for it to simply be a ‘hopeless situation’.  Blaming obesity on genetics, hormones, depression, lack of health insurance or anything else will not change the fact that everybody is capable of being either obese or anorexic, as well as everything else in-between; it just comes down to one’s habits in determining where one will weigh-in on the scale.  You have the power to change anything with regard to your health, or that of your child’s.  Understanding this, and fully embracing it, is the only way to create lasting changes.  Denying it will only get you the same, which is definitely your prerogative, but don’t act as if you have no hand in the matter.

Fast Food Fascism

By On · Add Comment · In childhood obesity, fast-food, obesity epidemic

I don’t mean to be obnoxious…well, OK, yes I do, but I couldn’t help but notice today while lunching at The Cheesecake Factory the young girl at the table across from me enjoying a pizza (a large one solely for her) and a very large coke. Wow! As I watched this intriguing display of gluttony, I wondered: Health officials are really banging their heads trying to figure out the childhood obesity epidemic? Duh!!!

I, for one, do not blame the makers of junk food for the epidemic–temptation is all around all the time; discipline is a virtue. So I don’t really applaud any research that proves junk food leads to obesity, like the latest study out of Columbia University and UC Berkeley, which showed that fast food restaurants near schools increase obesity rates. You don’t say. That’s where our research dollars are going? And do you think video arcades near schools lead to more sore thumbs? May I repeat–Duh!!!

Even worse is that the esteemed opinion of the researchers is that banning fast food restaurants will decrease obesity? Will it? Not without also banning Doritos, or Pop Tarts, or Dominos, or Frosted Flakes, or wait…how about Coke?!?! That’s right, is the government ready to ban the biggest culprit of obesity in the modern world, soft drinks? Seeing that Coca Cola is one of the biggest companies on the planet, I doubt it.

Fast food is the new tobacco. Like smoking yesterday, indulging in fast food is getting blasted from all angles. Instead of calling it like it is–an educational issue, an upbringing issue, a cultural issue, a discipline issue–let’s just play victim and blame the fast food itself. People don’t get fat, buckets of chicken do.

It’s not that I am so enthralled with fast food that I must defend it, or the businesses selling it; I just don’t like the government stepping in and minimizing my choices of eateries. I don’t personally make Taco Bell my first choice in grub, but I’ll eat it in a pinch. And it’s not like there’s no benefit to fast food. You know if you’re starving and have very little time, a Whopper will do–you know that. You know that if you are starving after your late night bar shift, you’ll eat a damn Big Mac–don’t lie to yourself.

So stop trying to feed me this useless science that says we need a ban on fast food. Maybe instead they can do fast food profiling like they do with antihistamine sales in pharmacies now (you know they do that, right?). Anyone entering Mickey D’s will need to give up his or her ID card and have their fatty-grub usage tallied. More than two visits per month and you’ll only be allowed the McSalad. Sound good? Yeah, not to me either. I guess we’ll just have to kiss the neighborhood KFC goodbye.

Not the Answer

By On · Add Comment · In calorie counts, childhood obesity, commercials, fast-food, obesity, television, TV advertising

Some medical experts are so perplexed by the obesity epidemic that they are now grasping at straws. Take the latest study looking at the effects of fast-food advertising on childhood obesity to get a glimpse of the newest far-fetched fantasy–blaming businesses for people’s poor decision making, and then trying to regulate them. That’s what happened in New York City this year with mandated calorie count menus, and we may now see Federal regulation of television advertising for fast-food restaurants.

The study on childhood obesity–afflicting nearly one third of all American children–will be published this month in the Journal of Law & Economics. It looked at TV advertising, finding that as much as 23 percent of the food-related ads kids see on TV are for fast-food restaurants. Some estimates have children seeing tens of thousands of fast-food commercials every year. The study then used a statistical test which assumed fast-food ads lead to obesity, but made calculations to address other influences such as income and the number of nearby fast-food restaurants. They also took into account that some children might be obese despite their television watching habits. The conclusions of the study were that banning fast-food TV ads would reduce childhood obesity by 18% in young children and 14% in older children–basically five to six out of every hundred kids.

Oh heavens. OK, these kinds of studies make my stomach turn. What a bunch of nonsense motivating and perpetuating this type of research. Do television ads drive people toward consumerism? No doubt. Do television ads geared toward children influence their buying habits? Absolutely. Does eating fast-food repeatedly make people fat? Without question. Does banning fast-food TV ads really make sense in our pro-commerce society? Not to me it doesn’t. Another recent study showed that watching television in general increases the risk of childhood obesity. Should we ban television? As a matter of fact, plenty of studies point to television as a source of idiocy in its worshipers. Should we ban television to reduce idiocy? Should we ban alcohol because of the numerous deaths it leads to, or the violence, or the promiscuity, or the running naked through sporting events? Yeah, they tried that once–it was called Prohibition. It didn’t work.

Instead of perpetuating this victim mentality that seems so pervasive in our culture, why not be honest with ourselves and say it like it really is: children are obese because their parents are either ignorant or child abusers. No way a child learns to eat McDonald’s every day on his or her own. They learn from, and are enabled by, their parents. You know it’s true. I know it’s true. So why the hell is the federal government funding a study to find blame with the fast-food industry? Where’s the personal responsibility? I don’t like pop music; and I think much of today’s rap music teaches kids poor life lessons; but I don’t want to ban it. And any attempt to do so is usually met with massive resistance.

So why this attack on fast-food restaurants? Simple. Because when people (adults) have no self-control of their own–they overeat, eat crap, don’t exercise–they can’t fathom forcing self-control upon their children. So instead they blame. Blame everybody but themselves. OK, post calories on menus; then people will have nobody to blame but themselves, because posting calories won’t give people self-discipline. Printing warning signs on cigarette packs hasn’t stopped people from smoking, nor has printing warning signs in bars kept people from drinking. So banning TV commercials won’t lower the childhood obesity numbers. Only banning fast-food altogether will do that. Throw in a ban on Coca Cola and television, as well as mandating five days of exercise for every child, punishable by jail time for failure to sweat sufficiently, and maybe…just maybe…childhood obesity will decline. But is that really the world we want to live in?

Now This is Getting Sick!

By On · Add Comment · In child abuse, childhood obesity, children, cholesterol, diets, magic bullet, obese, parenting, pediatric, statins
Okay, now I’ve heard it ALL! Check this out: the American Academy of Pediatrics has issued guidelines stating that children as young as two should be screened for high cholesterol. And even better, get this: they are recommending that children as young as eight should be started on statins. Whoa, ho, ho…hold on, Nellie…isn’t that the sickest thing you’ve ever heard? Our nation’s pediatric association–the professionals taking care of our children–is recommending statins, cholesterol lowering drugs, for our youngsters? I don’t know about you, but I’ve effin’ heard it all now.

Let me get this straight: the American Academy of Pediatrics is recommending that American children should be screened for high cholesterol and given statins to combat any risk of future heart disease, instead of getting their asses up and moving and exercising like normal kids? Holy crapoly!

Now to be fair, I understand where this idiocy stems from; I mean, let’s face it, Americans are blowing up to gargantuan proportions. Recent reports disclose that the number of obese Americans has grown significantly, yet again, over the last two years, making the current numbers 25% of the general population. I spend a great deal of ink on this tragic situation in my book, The Six Keys to Optimal Health, and, yes, it’s a many-faceted problem for the obese adult.

But childhood obesity? Excuse my language, but…that’s effin’ child neglect and abuse by lazy, undisciplined, ignorant parents. There, I’ve said it, and you all know it’s true. Letting your kid drink more than one Coke a week is child abuse. Feeding your kid Frosted Flakes is asinine and inexcusably ignorant or neglectful, or both. Letting your kid sit his or her fat ass in front of the T.V. for hours watching the Kardashians’ fat asses is equally ignorant and neglectful, and is also child abuse. According to a recent Canadian study on childhood obesity, kids who watch television while eating lunch take in 228 more calories than those who ate without the television on. Duh! Wake the eff up, parents! Sitting on your ass all day watching the boob tube and stuffing your face makes you fat. It does the same to your kids who–guess what?–learn from you! Duh!

And another study points out that parenting styles are what have the greatest effect on children’s eating habits. Duh! We need a study to know that? Wake the eff up, parents! Being too permissive in what you let your children eat will eventually lead to obesity. Yes, Junior wants PopTarts. Too bad…you’re getting an apple…now put down that WiiFii and go out and play.

And being too strict isn’t any good, either. You know exactly who I’m talking about, Food Nazis. Let the kid have an ice cream every now and again. Being authoritarian when it comes to food practices can also lead to obesity…the closet kind. I don’t know why Junior is blowing up, he only gets radishes at home. Duh!

According to nutritional experts conducting the study, the best thing parents can do to influence healthy eating habits in their children is to “set a good example with their own diets.” Duh! Both strict and permissive parents typically fail to serve as good dietary role models for their children, according to the researchers.

But here is my biggest beef: What the hell is wrong with the parent who sees their kid blowing up and doesn’t make him run his fat ass around the block every damn day till he gets back in kid shape? But he doesn’t want to…Yeah, no kidding. Get up and run, Engelberg! You mean, you’d rather give your kid statins than make him exercise or send him to military school? WTF?!?! And the American American Academy of Pediatrics recommends this???

According to one idiot doctor: “If we are more aggressive about this in childhood, I think we can have an impact on what happens later in life…and avoid some of these heart attacks and strokes in adulthood, says Dr. Stephen Daniels, of the academy’s nutrition committee. You know, this is what’s so pathetic about our current health system and it’s downright brain-dead paradigm: drugs like statins have been developed for lazy, undisciplined individuals who know better but just can’t get themselves to do what’s right because they have zero willpower. Doctors know this, and many will rightly say, “Patients don’t comply.” Yeah, that’s why they recommend statins and other meds, because they know the average lazy American (or busy, or challenged, or depressed, or underprivileged, or whatever convenient BS excuse is needed to not work hard) won’t do what it takes, so give ’em the ol’ magic bullet. Kids, however, are under the guidance, and yes, control of their parents. In no way should non-compliance be allowed–not by doctors, not by P.E. teachers, not by parents, nobody. Period!

So now you know how I feel. If you want to eat whatever you want to, at whichever quantity you want, if you don’t want to exercise, if you would rather be obese than do the work to bring it down, I’ll be the first to say, “That’s your choice, killer…do as you please.” But when it comes to your kids, if you are not teaching them the right dietary habits, if you are not acting as proper role models for their health and future well being, if you are not insisting that they go outdoors and play and exercise like normal kids should be doing, and you are thinking about giving them statins, then you are a child abuser plain and simple. Don’t do that to your kid. Shape up!

Kids Do As Their Parent Do

By On · Add Comment · In child, childhood obesity, dietary habits, dieting, epidemic, exercise, fad diets, kids, parents, pre-teens, weight

Here’s a disturbing fact: Thirteen percent of 9-13-year-olds have reported dieting in the last month. Dieting pre-teens?

You might think, “What’s the big deal – it’s only 13%”? But I’m blown away that any child that age would be dieting at all. Dieting, as we commonly use the term, rarely means changing one’s dietary habits to healthy ones, but instead means following one of the current fad diets, or just not eating at all. In the 9-13 year old age range, it’s probably more like the latter.
Where on earth do kids this age learn about dieting anyway? Probably from their parents. And at the risk of sounding sexist – I guess I’m going to go out on a limb here – probably from their mothers. Whether we want to admit it or not, children observe and copy everything we do. If you smoke, expect your children to smoke; watch a lot of T.V., expect your children to watch a lot of T.V.; look in the mirror and say, “Ugh, I need to lose 10 lbs.”, expect the same from your child.
Okay, you may, in fact, really need to lose ten pounds. But how many women (men too, but mostly women) are trying to live up to some standard set by fashion magazines or the film industry? Knowing what I know about the epidemic rise of childhood obesity, I really doubt it’s the kids who actually need to lose weight that are dieting. My guess is that it’s more likely kids trying to emulate mom, and those looking up to the Lindsays and Nicoles of super-celebrity stature.
Do your kids a favor: eat healthy, well-balanced meals, exercise regularly, and stop obsessing about your weight. They’re watching you – and even though they won’t admit it – they’re copying most everything you do.
Copyright © 2013 Dr. Nick Campos - All Rights Reserved.