Childhood obesity in Zion

[_Dr. Shades]

I don't think it's the state's job to step in for idiot parents at that level.

If it isn't, then who else can we expect to look after the public welfare? If the idiot parents can't or won't then we should just sit back and let a good chunk of the current generation and next however many it takes before society wakes it's ass up go to seed?

Yes. What's wrong with that?

[_Jersey Girl]

Nehor

My solution would be to shorten the school day and let kids play.

When you suggest shortening the day, you assume that kids will play. Play where?

Jersey Girl

[_Jersey Girl]

Let's see what coffee had to say...


I can tell you why a lot of kids and teens (and adults for that matter) are getting fat. It's not because of their religion. last time I looked, I never heard of a serious religion that told it's members to go forth and become tubby.

The problem rests in the laps of both the parents and our education system. The parents are either 1. fat themselves, 2. don't care if their kids get fat, 3. are to weak willed to assert themselves in order to get their kid to exercise or eat healthy, or a combination of the three. The schools for a long time now have been placing less and less emphisis on PE and Health classes.

I agree with you on the reduced emphasis on fitness in our schools, coffee. In your list of reasons you left something out. While I don't have the stats in front of me right now, an overwhelming majority of children are being raised in either 2 working parent or 1 working single parent homes. There are two factors at work in that regard: a hurried lifestyle wherein "quick and easy" (think Big Mac's) overrules nutritious when making family meal choices and a low socio-economic placement that often goes hand in hand with lack of education in developmental needs, including nutrition.

Easy way to fix this...

Every single school in the land that recieves a single dime of tax revanue has to start enforcing a physical fitness standard as a graduation requirment. Nothing extreme, say 40 push ups, 40 sit ups, and run a mile in under 9 minutes. The only people excused from this would be those that have some sort of legitimate physical handicap that prevents them from performing any of the exercises.

One of the biggest mistakes made by our public school systems has been lowering (read:erasing entirely) the minimum standards set forth as a result of the Kennedy administration.

Also, PE classes will stop being an hour of kids playing ball games. Instead, it'll be a required solid hour of cardio and weight training (alternating days or emphasis on one or the other depending on the student's abilities). PE teachers will all be required to be prior-service military, preferably Drill Instructors (I.E. people that actually are physically fit and know who to conduct PT). Ideally, the PT classes would happen with in the first hour of the school day.

And yes, those little darling will be required to hit the shower afterwards so they don't stink up the school.

All schools will remove snack food and soda. All school lunches will be prepared under the supervision of a qualified nutritional specialist with an eye towards low carb/fat-high protien diet for the students.

Many if not most of our schools use some form of the USDA Food Program which allegedly supplies nutritious well balanced meals using Fed standards. For anyone reading this who thinks this ensures a well balanced meal, you might want to look into the high carbs contained in the menu that your child is eating. Carbs are cheaper than protein. Follow the money....

And if "mommy and daddy" have a problem with the state taking a proactive role in the health of our nations children, then they can talk to an investigator from Family Services while said investigator is making sure if they are even fit parents.


I've said it before and I'll say it again... Baring a legitimate medical condition, the only excuse for being a fatbody is laziness and gluttony.

Again, don't forget the lifestyle that Americans impose on themselves and their children. You want fries with that?

[_Mr. Coffee]

Yes. What's wrong with that?

The cost of healthcare associated with a large increase in obesity. Someday my tax dollars are going to end up being spent on taking care of people that were to stupid and to lazy to take care of themselves. In the long run it's cheaper to spend a little bit of money to prevent something then having to spend a lot of money to fix something.



Damnit, Jersey. I thought there was a board rule that forbad us from agreeing on anything...

In your list of reasons you left something out. While I don't have the stats in front of me right now, an overwhelming majority of children are being raised in either 2 working parent or 1 working single parent homes. There are two factors at work in that regard: a hurried lifestyle wherein "quick and easy" (think Big Mac's) overrules nutritious when making family meal choices and a low socio-economic placement that often goes hand in hand with lack of education in developmental needs, including nutrition.

Excellent points. Even more reason for the government to step in and take up the slack.

As far as parents working multiple jobs or both parents working... I'll say this. If you cannot make time to be an active and positive influence in your child's life, then you simply do not need to have kids. I served in the Marines working anywhere from 12 to 18 hour days and often went for long deployments overseas while my (ex)wife worked a job of her own. Didn't stop us from being effective as positive and active role models for our kids. If don't see why it should stop anyone else from doing the same as well.

The low socioeconomic status of the lower class gives an even greater incentive for the government to step in. Falls under the catagory of "if the parents are unwilling or unable".

Many if not most of our schools use some form of the USDA Food Program which allegedly supplies nutritious well balanced meals using Fed standards.

The USDA and FDA haven't updated their concept of a "healthy diet" for so long I have serious doubts that they even know what the hell they're talking about any more. Anyone who thinks that a single type of diet or single level calorie intake works for everyone is in dire need of a boot to the face.

For anyone reading this who thinks this ensures a well balanced meal, you might want to look into the high carbs contained in the menu that your child is eating.

For some people a hi-carb diet is needed. I go through a massive ammount of carbs and a very high calorie diet (4-6 thousand cal a day depending on what I'm doing) each day simply because I've got such a high metabolism that I need the fuel. But someone who isn't very physically active doesn't need the carbs or the calories as they aren't using them. Unused carbs/cals turn to fat.

Reason why I want a qualified nutritionalist to supervise the cafeteria staff and to rewveiw each students dietary needs.

And if the kid says "I don't wanna eat this", fine... Starve. Also, no more bringing in lunches from home. Chances are, if the kid is a fatbody it's because his parents are feeding him fatbody chow instead of growing a spine and seeing to the dietary needs of their kid.

[_Some Schmo]

I don't think it's the state's job to step in for idiot parents at that level.

If it isn't, then who else can we expect to look after the public welfare? If the idiot parents can't or won't then we should just sit back and let a good chunk of the current generation and next however many it takes before society wakes it's ass up go to seed?

Yes. What's wrong with that?

I'm curious about this too. I mean, natural selection will do its thing if we let it.

I think it was on The Biggest Loser last season (or maybe I saw this report elsewhere) that the food served in school cafeterias is from privatized businesses, and they, just like any other business, are driven by the market and the bottom line. While some may have healthful options for kids to eat, the majority of what they sell is what the kids want, and it's generally crap. If all they sold were healthful choices, the kids would likely end up going somewhere else to eat lunch. So these small businesses are catering to the kids' desires to attract business, and sacrificing their nutritional needs.

[_Mr. Coffee]

I'm curious about this too. I mean, natural selection will do its thing if we let it.

Natural selection would work except for modern medicine being good enough to keep people that should have died from natural causes or intentional stupidity alive. And the rest of use have to share the budren in the form of higher health care costs and increased tax spending.

[_Some Schmo]

Yes. What's wrong with that?

The cost of healthcare associated with a large increase in obesity. Someday my tax dollars are going to end up being spent on taking care of people that were to stupid and to lazy to take care of themselves. In the long run it's cheaper to spend a little bit of money to prevent something then having to spend a lot of money to fix something.

It's cheaper still to make people responsible for their own lifestyle choices, including making them responsible for the cost of those choices.

The fact is, people are going to screw up. It doesn't matter how good or sound your advice may be, people are going to do what they feel like doing. The answer is certainly not more government intervention; that's for sure.

[_Some Schmo]

I'm curious about this too. I mean, natural selection will do its thing if we let it.

Natural selection would work except for modern medicine being good enough to keep people that should have died from natural causes or intentional stupidity alive. And the rest of use have to share the budren in the form of higher health care costs and increased tax spending.

Yeah, it's for that reason that I think we spend too much on research to cure certain diseases, too (rather than just mitigating the pain of those conditions), but that's a topic for another day.

[_Jersey Girl]

Damnit, Jersey. I thought there was a board rule that forbad us from agreeing on anything...

Sorry about that, your post hit on my "area".

Jersey Girl wrote:
In your list of reasons you left something out. While I don't have the stats in front of me right now, an overwhelming majority of children are being raised in either 2 working parent or 1 working single parent homes. There are two factors at work in that regard: a hurried lifestyle wherein "quick and easy" (think Big Mac's) overrules nutritious when making family meal choices and a low socio-economic placement that often goes hand in hand with lack of education in developmental needs, including nutrition.

Excellent points. Even more reason for the government to step in and take up the slack.

The government has already stepped in to some degree, Head Start with it's emphasis on parent education is at least a half-hearted attempt. What needs to happen is far more complex than I can address on this screen. One area to address, and keep in mind that even small areas of change cost tons in tax dollars if nothing more than documenting changes alone, is fitness across the extended curriculum, starting in the early years. We can't regulate parenting, but we can take preventive measures to reduce the rate of childhood obesity and perhaps even make a dent in substance abuse. As I stated, an emphasis on fitness in terms of "learning and doing" (even into the cafeteria as you suggest) and in the latter years of highschool, I'd like to see some child development classes as a requirement of the curriculum. I'd also like to see an extension of that education in required practical experience that is to say...theory in practice by placing all high school Juniors and Seniors in community service settings in our child care centers so that they can learn just what is needed physically, intellectually, emotionally and socially by the infants they themselves will create. A nice side benefit of that is trading the flour sack infants for real experience of the demands of parenting....really great form of birth control, believe me!

As far as parents working multiple jobs or both parents working... I'll say this. If you cannot make time to be an active and positive influence in your child's life, then you simply do not need to have kids. I served in the Marines working anywhere from 12 to 18 hour days and often went for long deployments overseas while my (ex)wife worked a job of her own. Didn't stop us from being effective as positive and active role models for our kids. If don't see why it should stop anyone else from doing the same as well.

Again, you can't regulate parenting. What we're talking about here is creating widespread social change, coffee. Rome wasn't built in a day and the generational transmission of parenting skills and education no longer exists in this society as norm. What we're talking about, in essence, is letting the government step in and take over the roles previously played out by parents and grandparents. I say that education is the key and that surely can be done without stepping on parental toes.

The low socioeconomic status of the lower class gives an even greater incentive for the government to step in. Falls under the catagory of "if the parents are unwilling or unable".

I think I addressed this.


Jersey Girl wrote:
Many if not most of our schools use some form of the USDA Food Program which allegedly supplies nutritious well balanced meals using Fed standards.

The USDA and FDA haven't updated their concept of a "healthy diet" for so long I have serious doubts that they even know what the hell they're talking about any more. Anyone who thinks that a single type of diet or single level calorie intake works for everyone is in dire need of a boot to the face.

Follow the money, coffee, that's all I can say. It's a viscious cycle. An example, it's been a while since I worked in elementary schools but when I did, the number of federally funded lunch meals had a direct correlation to the Title 1 federally funded reading program. I can tell you without question that the applications for those reduced and no cost lunches were fudged by at least some applicants and that the recipients of those lunches were not neceessarily the recipients of the Title 1 program. Do you see what I'm saying? If not, I'll try to re-word that later so it makes more sense, I'm working online today and need to get that done first.

Jersey Girl wrote:
For anyone reading this who thinks this ensures a well balanced meal, you might want to look into the high carbs contained in the menu that your child is eating.

For some people a hi-carb diet is needed. I go through a massive ammount of carbs and a very high calorie diet (4-6 thousand cal a day depending on what I'm doing) each day simply because I've got such a high metabolism that I need the fuel. But someone who isn't very physically active doesn't need the carbs or the calories as they aren't using them. Unused carbs/cals turn to fat.

Reason why I want a qualified nutritionalist to supervise the cafeteria staff and to rewveiw each students dietary needs.

The public school systems that I interact with do employ nutritionists and dieticians whose professional hands are tied by the very beauracracy that employs them.

And if the kid says "I don't wanna eat this", fine... Starve. Also, no more bringing in lunches from home. Chances are, if the kid is a fatbody it's because his parents are feeding him fatbody chow instead of growing a spine and seeing to the dietary needs of their kid.

[_Jersey Girl]

One more thing, coffee....the programs that support the types of issues that we're discussing here have been literally (does the general public know this?) slashed to bits as billions have been diverted to support the war in Iraq. One more time for emphasis....follow the money, it'll make your head explode.