Schools need bigger furnitire--so that they can accommodate obese students

[TabiCat]

I am NO small person, very obese who has not seen much improvement despite regular exercise and carefully watching what I eat NOW after many years of not doing a good job in either area. When I think of how trim I was in middle school compared to now and then look at a classroom and can see between four and six 12- 13 yearolds who are at least as big as me NOW, it is heart breaking where will they be at my age (if they even make it that far)?   

It is so much easier to maintain a healthy body weight than to regain it. If only they could see and understand the long-term.   

[Arkadia]

I don't think food in schools is anywhere near as big an impact as lack of activity and cultural norms. My non food allergic daughters are offered all sorts of food daily, but don't eat it. Lessons learned in the black community would do us well to apply:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/12/19/143848259/for-black-girls-lack-of-exercise-heightens-obesity-risk

[Arkadia]

Anyways. I agree with Mfamom. More kids need bigger desks and furniture and carseats, just because they are physiologically larger, not obese. Probably just as often as due to morbid obesity. Maybe more often. My mom always asked for a bigger (taller) chair and desk for me at parent orientation (now 5'10")

I know in kinder, only ONE girl is overweight. My daughter is one of the two  tallest (overweight child as tall as her). More kids that would need a bigger chair than those who were in MY kinder class due to stature alone. It's not that unusual anymore.


My daughter's weight fluxes between 52 and 57 lbs, and she's got six pack abs and speed skaters thighs at 5 1/2. She's a foot taller than some of her older peers in kindergarten. <shrug>

Doesn't mean there's something wrong with that and it's more and more common.

My older son was 50 lbs at a year, covered in rolls, and now is lean and towering in height. I wasn't feeding him anything unusual, I wasn't placating with food, it was just his normal development. I think helicopter parenting plays a HUGE role in childhood obesity. I think too many inactive parents set a crappy example and lead their children into a life of physical inactivity (and the comorbid eating out of boredom/too much time to eat/eating as entertainment.) I think charity starts at home.

I think it's easy for those of us whose children (and selves) fall easily within the "norm" to point fingers.  Finger pointing is understandable. It's human nature. It's easy. Harder though, is making physical activity a family thing. Working out together, family bike rides, nature trails, sledding, a walk around the block (several times), rollerblading....etc. Not sure if Wi-Fit is the worlds greatest idea but if it works, more power to ya. The object is to get them off the couch and away from the television....right?

[Arkadia]

I will say, though, that little girl is a very kind, personable, and considerate. Just like her mother. Also noting, her "body type" is very much like her parents. I don't think it's entirely due to nutrition. Heredity plays a HUGE role. I don't think it's impossible to overcome, but I don't think every child can look like a cookie cutter child physically, either. Good lipid profiles don't always come with "skinny" genes, either.    I'm not muscular, not rail thin, but not obese, either. I have some muffin top. But my lipid profile and cardiovascular fitness are something to be envied.  I don't work incredibly hard at it either (good think, I love my shellfish and butter). I might not fit into my highschool genes when I'm old, but God willing,  I run circles around those who do, who aren't dead by then.

[Scout]

I too do not think food belongs in school......however I do not think it adds to obesity.......come on.....Im gonna be unpopular....but I dont see the connection to most kids....maybe some, but not an epidemic.

you can pack your own lunch and even a cupcake a week in class is not gonna make you fat...

my ds (non allergic) buys lunch everyday, and snacks, and probably ever treat handed to him........5'8" andd 137......six pack.

its just his build and he is atheltic......

dd is thicker.....just naturally........she will have a harder time....and she dances 19 hours a week now.......6 days a week **Wednesday is off.

[kouturekat]

...When I think of how trim I was in middle school compared to now and then look at a classroom and can see between four and six 12- 13 yearolds who are at least as big as me NOW, it is heart breaking where will they be at my age (if they even make it that far)?   

It is so much easier to maintain a healthy body weight than to regain it. If only they could see and understand the long-term.

I'm with you, sister, right with you!  This is what I see too. 

I've read or heard this from 3 people (trainers or people in that field) in the last three months.  80% of our physique is what we put in our mouths, 10% genetics, 10% exercise.  Obviously, if you come from a family of large-boned people, you'll probably be large boned.  If you family is tall, you'll probably be tall.  Normally, we are not destined to be heavy.  We do that to ourselves.  Knowing that 80% of that equation is what we put into our mouths is alarming. 

A fair number of kids aren't being trained on proper nutrition in the home, and to get the extra crap in school is just as bad.  I wish fixing the problem was as simple as packing a lunch.  It isn't.  Sorry, fruit roll ups aren't fruit.  A Lunchable is basically junk food.  Candy bars, cookies, salty, crappy junk food.  Yeah, that's what lunch is these days.   Ask how many kids who have had broccoli, apples, or bananas in the past week and let's see how few hands go up in the classroom.   My younger daughter who is a high school senior says that two pop tarts are a snacktime staple between breakfast and lunch.  Who knows what these kids had for breakfast, although I do know that a few girls are trying to eat healthier salads at lunch.  Then again, it's prom dress buying time.  Their healthy eating habits, if they've acquired them, are likely to be shortlived. 

My big worry are those elementary kids who are large now, and there are far too many of them.  It's much easier to gain control of the situation while they're very young and rebuild their eating habits than it is to let things go.  People get alarmed when they see a stick-thin child.  We should also be alarmed when we see obese children.  They need help now.  Supplying bigger desks is simply putting a bandaid on an immediate, superficial problem.   The real core of the problem is childhood obesity.  I'm glad it's at the top of Michelle Obama's agenda.   

[kouturekat]

Here's another point to ponder.  Ryan says in gym class (in our district), they're doing away with games with "human" targets.  Like Dodge Ball or Battle Ball!  They have to use nerf-style balls but can't play those games.  Kick balls aren't used anymore. 

Here's part of the problem.  Most of the kids like games like Dodge Ball or Battle Ball.  All you need to do is move.  No particular skills are necessary.  The kids can still play Basketball and Soccer, but not all kids are skilled in those sports.  Thus, some kids just lose interest.  I wish gym class was like a small sampling of school which use heart monitors and have kids pick their activity with measurable progress to get an A.  Gym classes are losing kids' interest at a time when it has never been more important. 

[Arkadia]

...When I think of how trim I was in middle school compared to now and then look at a classroom and can see between four and six 12- 13 yearolds who are at least as big as me NOW, it is heart breaking where will they be at my age (if they even make it that far)?   

It is so much easier to maintain a healthy body weight than to regain it. If only they could see and understand the long-term.

I'm with you, sister, right with you!  This is what I see too. 

I've read or heard this from 3 people (trainers or people in that field) in the last three months.  80% of our physique is what we put in our mouths, 10% genetics, 10% exercise.

don't believe everything you hear. Especially when it comes from three um....personal trainers who aren't in research...



bold added.

Frustrated by the fact that no matter how much time you log on the treadmill your body wants to stay the same size? Turns out your genes may be the reason. Researchers at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden found that no amount of dieting will alter the number of fat-hoarding cells in our bodies. According to their findings published in the science journal Nature, it seems that the number of fat cells is predetermined during adolescence and stays the same later in life. How and where you store fat can’t be changed, and is one of the reasons why dieting doesn’t often work for many people.

Read more at FYI Living: http://www.fyiliving.com/diet/weight-loss/dieting-verus-genetics-why-genes-influence-weight-loss/#ixzz1ms2rYCBg

[Arkadia]

Here's another point to ponder.  Ryan says in gym class (in our district), they're doing away with games with "human" targets.  Like Dodge Ball or Battle Ball!  They have to use nerf-style balls but can't play those games.  Kick balls aren't used anymore. 

Here's part of the problem.  Most of the kids like games like Dodge Ball or Battle Ball.  All you need to do is move.  No particular skills are necessary.  The kids can still play Basketball and Soccer, but not all kids are skilled in those sports.  Thus, some kids just lose interest.  I wish gym class was like a small sampling of school which use heart monitors and have kids pick their activity with measurable progress to get an A.  Gym classes are losing kids' interest at a time when it has never been more important.

oh, lordy, please, DON'T bring back Dodge Ball. I play it at the park district, but it's cutthroat. I still get twitchy when people mention the name. It doesn't belong in school, unless you're trying to teach a duel to the death.

[TabiCat]

KK- Not sure they are completely right about that. I never ate all that differently than the people around me in many cases even my worse eating habits were much better than their best yet they are MUCH smaller than I now. I am referring to people I have known for years.

That is why I am so particular about my kids eating habits now if they got my families genetics rather than their dad's they have no leeway, no wiggle room. Good eating habits are even more crucial for them than their piers.

       

[CMdeux]

Exactly, Tabi.  I know that is true for my DD.  My eating habits were good.  While they were good and while I was fairly active, I had no serious problems with my weight.

  When I adopted the same kinds of eating habits that my DH was raised with (eating for comfort, to reward myself, for celebration, for social reasons) as a young adult, that was when I began to pile on weight, and no amount of physical activity has been enough to take me back to where I once was. 

[kouturekat]

http://natemiyaki.com/2011/03/24/the-8020-rule-of-fitness-nutrition/

http://www.healthnfitnesscare.com/nutrition-and-fitness-the-8020-rule.html

Just a couple of many.  I know it's hard to believe.  I didn't believe it at first either.  The downside is, if a person simply focuses on diet alone, weight loss will happen.  They may not be fit, but the physique will change.   I thought exercise and activity was way higher.  It's not.  Ditto with heredity. 

Most are not born to be obese.  We do that to ourselves by what enters out mouths.  Ditto with kids.  Part of the crux of the issue is there's no need to be on any diet.  We just need to eat a lot cleaner and practice proper portion control.  It's pretty simple. 

Please don't point fingers and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about because I'm thin.  I could easily be heavy.  I gained 35 lbs. in 3 mos. in college by drinking beer and eating junk.  Lots of it.  That's a huge weight gain for me.  I went home, changed my eating habits to very clean eating and lost 37 in almost 4 mos.  No working out back then. 

School age kids eat a tremendous amount of junk food provided by parents and the school.  It's such a shame. 

[kouturekat]

From your article link, Ark:

Kolata concluded that it’s not a lack of a willpower that keeps us above our idealized target weight. ”Scientists know that animals and people have a range of weights that they can comfortably sustain. Each person’s range is different but any weight much above or below a person’s range is almost impossible to maintain.”  There is no perfect diet, she insists. “In the end,” she adds, “no matter what the diet and no matter how hard they try, most people will not be able to lose a lot of weight and keep it off. They can lose a lot of weight and keep it off briefly, they can lose some weight and keep it off for a longer time, they can learn to control their eating, and they can learn the joy of regular exercise…The effort, the lifelong effort, can be rewarding. But true thinness is likely to elude them.”

So if you’re going to fixate on something, you’ll get better results with concentrating on eating the right kind of foods and getting regular exercise and letting your genes do their thing. Try not to get discouraged by this news, but rather know that you’re just as nature intended you.

"idealized target weight".  Everyone has their ideal.  Compare that with a baseline metabolic rate and and an active metabolic rate for amount of calories one should consume based on age and activity level to get some ideas of numbers.  The numbers help find that range. 

Take out junk food.  Add fruits and veggies.  Limit sugars and crap carbs.  Consume adequate protein.   Eliminate soda and limit juice consumption.   Follow the guidelines of what we should be seeing on our plates at mealtimes.   For virtually every obese young child, I guarantee you nobody is doing this for them, and the parents aren't modeling it either.  Far from it. 

It's not about being thin.  It's about not being obese and having a decent BMI.  I can cite numerous examples of real people who supposedly come from a family of "heavy" genes.  Example 1:  A lunch monitor at our school (and her husband) are large people on the heavy side.  As long as I've known their daughters, they've been heavy and overweight.  The entire family is overweight.  Is it in their genes?  To be a larger size, yes.  heavy no.  How do I know this?  The younger daughter got tired of being heavy and she started eating healthy.  Today she is a normal size for a girl of her height, frame, and age.  The mother has also shed major poundage.  The mother is still large sized, but she is not obese like she used to be.   Could the mother shed more?  Probably, but she has likely added years to her life just based on what she has lost and has kept off thus far.  Her daughter is to be commended for tackling this problem head on in a healthy way and getting her weight under control now.  It will always be work for her.

One of my friends that I've known for 15 years (same age as me).  She's a nurse who works full time but joined my gym about 6 years ago.  She's always been heavy, but works out all the time.  She's not heavy anymore.  She totally revamped her eating program and lost 70 lbs.  She looks terrific.  It will always be work for her to keep it off.  Her focus was blood sugar and HBP levels.  Sounds like me lol.  The goal was to get healthy. 

There is a point to this not to be missed:

Frustrated by the fact that no matter how much time you log on the treadmill your body wants to stay the same size? Turns out your genes may be the reason. Researchers at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden found that no amount of dieting will alter the number of fat-hoarding cells in our bodies. According to their findings published in the science journal Nature, it seems that the number of fat cells is predetermined during adolescence and stays the same later in life. How and where you store fat can’t be changed, and is one of the reasons why dieting doesn’t often work for many people.

Everyone has an optimal weight.  Our bodies do want to remain at that optimal weight.  Yes, genes are the reason for that.  If everyone ate following proper dietary principles, they'd find out what they're weight should be.  If the number of fat cells is predetermined during adolescence, isn't it imperative that we tackle the issue of childhood obesity as early as possible?

How and where one stores fat can't be changed.  I agree.  It's why we talk about apple shapes and pear shapes.  Dieting doesn't work.  Agree again.  Healthy eating and portion sizes DO work.  The problem is, most parents and a lot of kids simply don't know what healthy eating is.  They think they're eating healthy, and they're not.  They're consuming far more calories than they ever should in a day. 

I don't want the point of this article to be missed.  Genes play into the equation.  But they are not nearly as much as you think.  Genes will determine things like frame size, where are fat deposits will be, etc.  I reiterate though, most of us are not born to be obese.  We do that to ourselves.  If we blame our size on genetics, we our doing ourselves a dis-service. 

I always thought I did have heavy genes in my family tree.  My maternal grandmother was a heavy woman.  I grew up seeing her that way.  When I was 16, she collapsed in her kitchen and was rushed to the hospital.  She hadn't seen a doctor in 20 years, but at age 69 she was diagnosed as a diabetic with HBP and glaucoma.  The RD developed a nutritionally sound meal program for her along with her diabetes meds.  We visited her a year later and my jaw dropped.  My grandmother was not a heavy woman at all.  Give her sound meal plan which my stubborn, German grandmother followed, and her "ideal" weight was a result of that plan.  It was at age 17 I realized there were no "fat" genes in my family.   My grandmother was formerly heavy because she was eating far too much of everything, including junk food.   

Some kids will be bigger than others due to genetics.  Their frames sizes may be bigger.  But most of those obese kids in school can be helped.   Obesity is not in our genes.  Not in most of us anyway.   I love Michelle Obama's platform.  She's trying to bring attention to this.  Until parents get on the bandwagon though, I don't see any real change.  Heavy kids need to be helped like starving kids.  It's that serious a health issue.  Maybe not immediate like starving children, but it will be later in their lives.  It's a terrible situation.  I hate seeing kids being made fun of due to their weight too.  But that's a different social issue. 

[kouturekat]

Ark, the kids can't even play Dodge Ball with a sponge ball!  Yes, I did say sponge ball which is as light as a feather.  The kids can only aim below the belt.  If they hit higher, they are removed from the game.  And now they can't even play that at all. 

The new rules are far from "old school".  When I was a kid, we'd throw anywhere from head to toe with something like a kick ball.  I mean, if you got hit, chances are you got a bit of a sting.  Get hit with a sponge ball below the belt?  It's like nothing. 

[Arkadia]

Ark, the kids can't even play Dodge Ball with a sponge ball!  Yes, I did say sponge ball which is as light as a feather.  The kids can only aim below the belt.  If they hit higher, they are removed from the game.  And now they can't even play that at all. 

The new rules are far from "old school".  When I was a kid, we'd throw anywhere from head to toe with something like a kick ball.  I mean, if you got hit, chances are you got a bit of a sting.  Get hit with a sponge ball below the belt?  It's like nothing.

the point is, it doesn't matter what "the rules" are. Kids are going to break them. They ARE going to aim dirty and take cheap shots. It's the nature of the game, particularly with immature adolescents and emotional children. Scores will be settled....

but wrtypp:  The point is, physical fitness shouldn't have the primary GOAL of whether you fit in your hs jeans or not. That fitting in your hs jeans isn't a good indicator of how "fit" you are. That even if you manage to do it, if you have to struggle to maintain it, it's probably not going to last. That life long "flip flopping" is counterproductive. But that's another thread...