Fat Kids = Neglect?
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=189541
Printed Date: 21 January 2025 at 5:06am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Fat Kids = Neglect?
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Subject: Fat Kids = Neglect?
Date Posted: 28 November 2011 at 10:14am
|
http://news.yahoo.com/obese-third-grader-taken-mom-placed-foster-care-201731761.html - http://news.yahoo.com/obese-third-grader-taken-mom-placed-foster-care-201731761.html
Is letting your 8 year old weigh 200 lbs child abuse? IMO, yes. My opinion is partially based on a child that is in my kids' class. This girl who is only 6 or 7, probably weighs 100lbs or more. It isn't a glandular problem, it is her family feeding her too damn much! I sat and watched her eat her packed lunch on multiple occasions and OMG, the quantity that was packed was incredible as was the amount of processed crap. It was disgusting.
Discuss. ------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Replies:
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 28 November 2011 at 1:28pm
|
Agreed. Letting your kid do whatever they want without protecting them from the consequences is child neglect. Kids don't know any better, you are neglecting to care for them properly = child neglect. ------------- 
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 28 November 2011 at 1:33pm
|
I think that in some cases it is definitely neglect.
Childhood obesity can set a kid on a path of bad health, low self esteem, and poor performance that can last a lifetime. It's just cruel to let a kid do whatever he wants when you the adult know its hurting him. ------------- 
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 28 November 2011 at 1:37pm
|
What's their economic status? Far too often, socioeconomic status and income tend to correlate with childhood obesity (And obesity in general).
|
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 28 November 2011 at 3:11pm
Wait, you mean the dollar menu is not healthy? Bein' lied tah! ------------- 
|
agentwhale007 wrote:Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 28 November 2011 at 3:36pm
------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 28 November 2011 at 3:43pm
|
I'm not sure Whale was talking about poor people, but I could be wrong.
-------------
|
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 28 November 2011 at 3:44pm
|
But poor people tend to eat more processed(cheaper), high fat (cheaper), and less nutritious (cheaper) foods. They are more likely to stop off at McDonalds and pick up a few McDoubles for a few bucks rather than cook a proper, more expensive meal. -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 28 November 2011 at 4:05pm
As do I. I'm speaking of macro-level correlation, though. Of course, we all know about correlation and causation, so I'll shy away from saying that one causes the other, or vice versa. But there has been a recorded correlation between obesity and both socioeconomic status and education. It's interesting stuff to read. The trend was spotted not that long ago, so the studies into figuring out why those two elements tend to correlate are relatively fresh and diverse. Some point to the presumed cheapness of high-fat and high-calorie food compared to healthy alternatives. Some point to subsidies leading from that. Some point to the level of marketing for unhealthy food compared to healthy foods, and how those less educated seem to be more susceptible to marketing campaigns. Nobody really knows for sure. But it's fun stuff to read. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 28 November 2011 at 4:07pm
Price is only one factor examined. Time is the other. If we look at someone who works multiple jobs, or is caring for multiple children with one job, it becomes much more valuable - to them - to save the time spent cooking and expend it on other things. It's the combo of price and free time that seem to be making a big impact, from simply a market standpoint.
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 28 November 2011 at 4:07pm
|
I am also sure being poor doesn't make you fat. He said tends to correlate. That doesn't mean like BAM YOU MAKE THIS YOULL BE FAT ------------- Que pasa? 
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 28 November 2011 at 4:19pm
|
I've read a couple of articles on this as well. Couple of things come to mind. If there is a correlation between obesity and poverty, why is the U.S. arguably one of the wealthiest countries per capita, also the fattest? I didnt say poverty made you fat, what I did say is that I know a lot of poor people that are not fat, I also know a lot of middle class/wealthy people that are fat. I would wager that more than just socioeconomic factors are at play. Things such as geography, population density, education and several other factors are at work as well. Perhaps since poor people would most likely tend to be on the lower side of the education scale, they tend to have less ability to make good eating decisions. Or figure in the people that live in BFE and have little to do other than sit on the couch watching tv and eating. Or latchkey kids that have to stay inside until their parents get home. Or how about us Northerners that are forced inside for 4-5 months a year? ------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 28 November 2011 at 4:21pm
|
My understanding is that, as Whale said, economic status directly correlates to health problems such as obesity.
There are lots of factors that one could probably draw into correlation here such as cost of food, time, different social pressures (being overweight may not be as much of a stigma in the trailer park as it is at the country club), so on and so forth. Healthy eating is definitely one of my more liberal standpoints. I'm in support of more extreme measures to boost both information and incentives regarding healthy food. I know that it can be much tougher to make healthy meals on a budget because that's the plane I currently inhabit. Fortunately I'm a very self aware person and I know to compensate eating habits with more exercise, but there are lots of kids that didn't grow up with the ideas that I did, and when low income families incur health issues, it becomes the burden of the state to treat them when the money would have been better served all around with prevention. -------------
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 28 November 2011 at 4:24pm
I would imagine that the correlation between obesity and poverty in the US as opposed to other poorer countries involves the availability and prevalence of processed foods here. That's purely guessing on my part, but my understanding is that poorer countries tend to rely much more on fresh foods whereas in the US fresh usually means more expensive. -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 28 November 2011 at 4:33pm
That's another element not touched on a lot. Along with the correlation of obesity and poverty, there is also a correlation (I believe, last time I read up on this stuff in a free-time binge) between diabetes, blood pressure and heart disease. Now, you can tie that in with obesity at some level, but also one has to look at the face someone can be not obese and still have significant diet-related illnesses. Someone who is 120 lbs can still suffer from diabetes and high cholesterol. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 28 November 2011 at 4:51pm
You just brought up a really interesting point. One of which I don't really have an answer at all. I've never thought of comparing GDP per-capita to obesity rates. I looked it up, and the U.S. is somewhere between No.7 or No.9 on the list of wealthiest GDP per-capita. The countries consistently ahead of us are: Qatar, Luxembourg, Singapore, and Norway. I have no idea if those countries are facing an obesity epidemic or not. Huh. From an uneducated opinion standpoint: I figure it has something to do with the availability of food resources in the U.S. We're looking at "poverty," as in the definition of what poverty is, based only on the U.S. standard. What we define as poverty is not what other countries would, so that becomes difficult to compare. At our mid-low poverty levels, food is still available, however the food that is available tends to also be high-fat and high-calorie.
You'd be astonishingly correct. There are a ton of variables in play. Just tons. There is pretty much no aspect of the human existence that can be related to a single variable. That makes social science so freaking awesome.
This is one of the proposed issues that is popular right now. The problem is figuring out a tangible way to correct it. Studies have shown that healthy eating PSAs (Which are already underfunded compared to the marketing campaigns of most unhealthy options) really don't have much of an effect on those below a certain socioeconomic and education threshold. Granted, those studies were performed in England. So PSAs are not working with adults. So then the tactic becomes trying to hit children with the education at a young age. But then there are two walls faced: 1) The constant bombardment of marketing and advertising for unhealthy products directed to children (You have kids, you're probably more aware of this than I am), and 2) Libertarian ideals that profess teaching children things is wrong, as we're seeing the backlash now from Michelle Obama's fresh foods initiative. It's a problem without much of a good answer.
Oh man, there is an awesome study about "food islands." If I find it, I will post it. It essentially looked at areas where there simply isn't the ability to shop at places where fresh produce is widely available (I think most areas were in the grain-belt of Iowa, southern Indiana and Illinois) or that the store is so fat away where buying produce is counter-productive -- in that, you need to buy stuff that lasts forever because of how far away you are. It found a pretty big amount of people that did all of their grocery shopping at the equivalent of a 7-11. Let me see if I can find it. (You guys need to stop bringing up such awesome discussion topics. I have stuff to do
 ) |
Posted By: BearClaw
Date Posted: 28 November 2011 at 5:00pm
|
I am not doubting that people need to take a little action towards there childs health and well being but i dont think it can soley be placed on diet. I am 28years old and have been overweight my entire life. I grew up doing and eating much the same as my older brother (technically a half brother as he has a different father). Yet my brother was always in far better shape. Even today my brother is skinnier and lighter than myself. But i cycle regularly eat mostly healthy foods (no diet i just like fruits veggies and meats). I am also in a physical trade were i am very active as a requirement for my job. My older brother eats fast food regularly and sits in a truck as a truck driver all day long. So to some extent i think geanes have a bit to do with it. That being said I think a big reasone we have soo many obbesity problems now is one the costs of good foods and two how many people sit in an office for a living sitting at a computer compared to years ago when everything was hands on physical labor. Oh and for the record in my family im am the ONLY one with no medical issues. The only issues i have are due to some seriouse injuries i sustained early in my career. I also DONT get sick and have not been to a doc in years. Although was forced to go to the hospital in august when i blew my thumb nail off and split my thumb like a banana hehehehe (first time to emergency room in 23years). So not in all cases is being overweight a sign of illness. My brother on the other hand has digestive issues degenerating disks in his lower back and blood preasure issues.
------------- AGD 68 Automag Azodin KPII Sheridan PGP2K Tippmann Crossover XVR Tippmann ProCarbine Tippmann SL68-II Tippmann TiPX |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 28 November 2011 at 5:03pm
| Don't forget education as a factor. There are some stunningly stupid people out there failing at raising their kids because of their lack of general education on life, health, and reality. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 28 November 2011 at 5:05pm
|
Ah ha! http://www.fooddesert.net/?page_id=15 - Food deserts, not food islands.
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 28 November 2011 at 5:42pm
Yeah, I won't turn this into a knock down dragout and throw down my idea for "parent licenses" again...seems like I got flamed pretty hard the last time that came up  That's where my conservative and liberal philosophies come to an intersection and the conservative side wins out. While I am in complete support of educating existing parents and their children on the dangers that their eating habits present to them, on the whole I feel like (to quote Ron White) there really isn't a cure for stupid, and there are LOTS of parents that just shouldn't have kids to begin with. In my humble opinion I think that there should be a few more standards for what constitutes abuse allowing for state intervention. That said, that's the only thing I'm going to say about that in this thread because I really enjoy this discussion and don't want to turn it into another argument. Back to the subject at hand...
This is partially my fault for not specifying an important exception in my posts-there is certainly the genetic factor that no amount of economic factors can offset. I'm speaking directly to obesity as a result of gross negligence in diet. Here's my philosophy on the subject of parenting-if you are economically unable to provide YOURSELF ALONE with a healthy, happy standard of living, you're a complete moron for INTENTIONALLY (very important here) bringing a child into the world. Typically I try to be reserved on most subjects, but this is one I'm pretty passionate about. I don't think there's a black and white to it. I realize that some people have children completely by accident (sort of, sex is a choice but we all do it and there's no denying that), but then there are those that are living with their in laws / mom and dad and make absolutely no effort to prevent having ANOTHER child on top of that. I saw it all the time in the ER, people couldn't afford preventative treatment for their children yet were giddy and happy about their third one. This is, in my opinion, where you have to be careful with your humanitarian efforts. I'm going to do my best to avoid using the term liberal any more than I have to because I really don't feel this is a political conversation, but I think that assistance should never be confused with acceptance. To be more clear, I think that there SHOULD be a stigma attached to having a child when you're not ready to so. I think that we should be willing to help those that need it, but as a society we've gone far past condemning single mothers / broken homes all the way to the point of victimizing them. Having a child is certainly a choice, even if it was an unwanted side effect. In my opinion, one child = mistake, three children = stop screwing until you figure out how to take care of your younguns. I realize that seems disconnected from the topic at hand, but from a purely ideological standpoint I feel it's pretty relevant. Of course, as we've been over on the forum before, there's really no way to enforce ideals, so you have find legal outlets to minimize the human cost of stupidity. I personally support healthy school lunches, and really that seems like a captain obvious statement, yet many on the right feel like the left is trying to tell them what they're going to eat. Much like with the prayer in school subjects, this isn't a matter of the statel telling you how to feed your kids, it's simply saying that they're not going to be responsibly for feeding them unhealthy food. Secondly, and this is where I'm getting into territory much over my head, there has to be some kind of initiative available to encourage fresh food sales vs processed food. I really have no idea, maybe healthy eating tax breaks or farming incentives, but something to offset the cost and effort of switching to fresh foods. Thirdly, I haven't been in school in years so this might be a non issue, but it seems to me there should be a heavy focus in school on cooking and healthy eating. Kids should come away from high school with a good idea of how different types of fats work, how much exercise it takes to offset calories, and an idea on how to cook healthy on a budget. I find that alot of issues in society can be improved at the educational level, and I feel it's shameful that a developed nation is spending gross amounts of money every year paying people to get diet information. -------------
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 28 November 2011 at 6:03pm
|
School lunches are a tough subject. I remember growing up and pretty regularly, we actually got fresh fruit on our trays. Apples, bananas and oranges mostly, but it was actually fresh, not processed fruit. I don't think I have ever seen fresh fruit on my kids menus aside from packaged apple slices that are almost always served with caramel dipper sauce. Schools also used to actually cook lunches. I do not beleive much of it was frozen or prepared. I remember the large vats of food that would be cooking in the kitchen everyday. I also remember school lunches actually not being that bad. Granted, not as good as home cooking, but not bad. I have gone to eat with my kids a couple of times over the years since they passed the healthy food initiatives and gawd the stuff is awful. I mean REALLY awful. The pizzas taste like cardboard with unsweetened ketchup and glue on them and the "chicken and noodles" literally had no taste. I think all of the cheese is fake and nothing is salted.
And Whale, my BFE comment was more directed towards places where there is little outdoor activities like where I live compared to somewhere like Central Florida that has year round decent weather and lots to do. Or the difference between urban living where people walk nearly everywhere and rural/suburban areas where people drive their car two blocks to pick up icecream. But your point is interesting, I had never heard of this problem before. Growing up in CF, I was pretty spoiled with the constant availability of fresh foods. I think we rarely ate processed foods besides the occassional bag of Oreos or Chips Ahoy. And I'll bet those used to be a lot better for you than they are now.
Which brings up an interesting aspect of this issue. I saw a segment on 60 minutes last night about a company that solely makes flavoring additives. It was interesting and frightening. One part mentioned that some foods contain "natural flavoring" to acheive a Raspberry flavor. They neglect to tell the consumer that this flavor is derived from an excretion from the gland on the back of a beaver. I nearly hurled. The point being, with all of the chemical additives and such, how much nutritiion are we really getting from processed foods? At what point does something no longer qualify as food? ------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: Lightningbolt
Date Posted: 28 November 2011 at 7:57pm
| I'm going to correlate kids sitting on their fat asses playing video games all day with fatassery. Just like go out and run through the woods or something and blame yourself. |
Posted By: *Stealth*
Date Posted: 28 November 2011 at 9:02pm
|
I blame the rap music. But seriously, as a medical professional; I advocate childhood obesity constituting abuse. I understand the multifaceted socioeconomic conditions and myriad of other contributors which lead to the condition. I however, do not view them as acceptable. You wouldn't knowledgeably feed your child poison, no matter how fast, cheap, or foolish you were about the subject. There needs to be a greater understanding of the health ramifications obesity leads to, and the overall acceptance and tolerance needs to end. Then again, I believe medicine to be entirely too wishy washy now a days, appealing to an individuals sensitivities is not always doing that person a favor. It is the parents duty to oversee the welfare of their child, allowing them to become excessively obese is accomplishing just the opposite. Reasoning and factors aside; raising a child is difficult and forcing a more active lifestyle or a healthier diet is one of those difficult, but responsible, factors. Do note: "Excessive obesity".
------------- |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 28 November 2011 at 9:04pm
Yeah, you know those 9 year olds, they sure do think like a 20-something don't they? Oh that's right, they don't. That's the entire point of this thread. It is on the parents to guide that behaviour, the kid simply doesn't know any better/ different. Yeah it is generally your own responsibility, but again it comes down to being an attentive parent. Who knows where I'll be when I have kids, but I think I would try to get in good shape while the kid was on his way. I want to be able to run around with them, carry them, chase them down, explore etc without being the winded out of breath no fun dad. |
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 28 November 2011 at 11:01pm
|
High. Fructose. Corn. Syrup. |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 28 November 2011 at 11:08pm
| As separate words they're great. |
Posted By: Lightningbolt
Date Posted: 28 November 2011 at 11:19pm
| My parents guided me to big macs and whoppers. I still managed to be ranked in the top 100 in the country in swimming |
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 29 November 2011 at 3:16am
|
This place is better than fark because it hasn't devolved into a rice and beans and farmers markets are the cheapest place to purchase food thread. ------------- 
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 29 November 2011 at 8:31am
While on the subject, anyone that says McDonalds is a cheaper alternative than eating real food is full of it. For what three Happy Meals and a supersized Big Mac meal cost, you can put together a decent, somewhat healthy meal. Another problem with the cost of food argument is that too many people go for quantity over quality. It's the only explanation I have as to why the Golden Corrals stay in business. ------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 29 November 2011 at 9:45am
|
O RLY? -------------
|
Posted By: Lightningbolt
Date Posted: 29 November 2011 at 9:48am
This is my point. Kids need to go build a tree fort or something and get off their duffs. I used to get in trouble because I would constantly be late for dinner. Too busy running in the woods, climbing trees, riding bikes, playing ball, building tennis ball cannons, fighting neighborhood hoodlums, playing army men and chasing neighbor girls I guess. |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 29 November 2011 at 10:04am
|
I spend a lot of time working in a school that's in a really rural part of NY. In fact I'm there now. Not actually working, but we'll look beyond that for a moment. Is childhood obesity abuse/neglect? I don't know, but I do know that there has to be a correlation between geographic location and all of the other contributing factors which lead to the kids turning into little fatties. My science is not exact, but hear me out. I grew up in an area similar to the one where I'm working now. My parents were constantly saying things like "Go out and play." - The thing is...we COULD. There were vast expanses of woods, fields, and yards to play in. We ate as kids did too, a wide array of things from fruit at lunch time to sweets and the occasional fast food if we were on the road somewhere. The fact is though, that no matter what we ate, the opportunities were there to burn off those calories. If you're living in poor, crime infested areas, "Go out and play" could be the same as saying "Go get stabbed." The opportunities that I had as a kid aren't there. That leaves the schools to play catch-up with the work out time that was missed at home, which can't often be done. One could almost argue that a chubby kid in an inner city area is NOT neglected....but just doesn't have the ability to burn off whatever caloric intake they might have given the lack of exercise opportunities, where "Go out and play" isn't a viable option. Geographic location, which often ties with socio-economic status has got to be a factor. Going back to the school I'm working in, the vast, overwhelming majority of these kids are NOT obese, or even remotely overweight. There's a few standouts, as always, but the population on the whole appears healthy. Why? Because they're outside most of the year, be it skiing, hiking, playing sports, motor sports, farm work, etc, etc....all things that will help you regardless of what you eat, all things that you can't get into if you're penned into a concrete jungle with rusty playgrounds overrun with crack dealers. Of course, this is a malformed thought in my head, I'm not insinuating that everyone who grows up in areas like that are fat and poor- but from the angle I'm seeing, when the opportunity for regular exercise is missing, there's going to be a problem. And in areas where you've got a high poverty or low-income population, this could be exactly what's happening. This does not excuse parents who don't properly regulate what their young kids are eating though. If you KNOW that you can't get junior out and running through the woods, a box of Softees donuts probably isn't the best breakfast idea. It boils down to the parents needing to know what opportunities they can give their kids to freakin move around, and feed them accordingly. Failure to do THAT may constitute neglect. ------------- ? |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 29 November 2011 at 10:04am
We're saying essentially the same thing. I just feel that parents do have a responsibility to take care of their kids. Kicking them outside to go and play or telling them to push away from the table should be part of those responsibilities and they should be accountable to someone if they don't uphold them. Much like giving them proper shelter and medical care. ------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 29 November 2011 at 10:09am
Problem though, is that how many of these kids sit at home alone for 2,3,4 or more hours alone with a cabinet full of junk food? It's hard to resist. I gained probably 15-20lbs at least when I started working from home. ------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 29 November 2011 at 10:12am
The point I tried to make was simply that 'kicking them outside' might not always be a safe option. There isn't a parent in the world who wouldn't love to throw their kids outside for a few hours every day. But what about areas where you just...cant do that? Regardless of diet, if there's no oportunity for regular exercise, there will be health ramifications. A chubby kid in a dangerous urban area could be a possible sign of GOOD parenting, since there's an unwillingness on the parent's part to throw the kid into the streets for a few hours. (That's a stretch, but you can see where blanket assumptions might be a bad idea.) ------------- ? |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 29 November 2011 at 10:17am
Yeah, that's a huge issue. Kids CANNOT regulate themselves. If they're left to their devices, which is often the case in today's culture, they're going to eat poorly. Here again, the parents need to KNOW that little timmy is going to be home alone and cut back on the crap food that stocks the cabinets if there's going to be no regular way to burn that stuff off. Parenting needs to be more pro-active when it comes to this. If you can't realize your situation, know your kids, and be able to make proper purchases and choices that are going to be right for your child's health...then yeah, it could be neglect. No question. ------------- ? |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 29 November 2011 at 10:20am
Whats sad as well is that some schools are beginning to do away with or limit the amount of physical activity that is required every day at school. If I am not mistaken, our local school now accepts band for a Phys Ed credit. While I can understand this for kids that march during football season, during winter they get little or no physical activity that I am aware of. ------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: Lightningbolt
Date Posted: 29 November 2011 at 10:23am
I'd get left at home alot. I'd ride my bike 5-10 miles to the Burger King for a Whopper or I'd snag a pizza from Little Ceasars and ride home one-handed hauling the pizza delivery dude style. It didn't really seem like that big of a deal to polish off an entire bag of Lay's potato chips for dinner and then go play Malachi Crunch on the bikes or go try to hold hands with a neighbor girl or something. You could have put me in a cardboard box as a youngster and I would have found a way to do what kids do. Oh wait is that watching pron and posting on assface book now? It's not like we used to hand-mill wheat grain for food back in the day. Yay for eating entire boxes of Pop Tarts and popsicles when you're a kid. |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 29 November 2011 at 10:34am
You are correct. If there's no chance to burn off the calories, as Lighteningbolt is talking about, then the caloric intake has to be regulated. Not doing that is piss poor parenting. One teacher around here got in trouble a while back because her class was being rambunctious, so she took them outside and had them jog around the soccer field to burn off some energy. There's lip service being paid by schools to make kids healthier, but I don't see much of it going into practice. ------------- ? |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 29 November 2011 at 10:39am
|
LB, no one here is arguing that kids shouldnt be more active. The argument is, that if the kids choose not to be active, than the parents need to "parent" and either controll caloric intake or force the kids to be more active. Parenting isnt setting your kids loose and letting them do whatever cranks their tractor, it's helping them make the right decisions when they are unable to. Unfortunately, many parents don't have the ability to make good decisions for themselves, let alone others. I would venture a guess that the parents of the kid in question are fatasses as well. Pretty hard to tell your kid to put down the box of HoHo's when you are shoving them into your piehole as fast as your chubby little fingers can get the wrapper open.
BTW, I think the teacher getting in trouble for having her kids run around the soccer field is ludicrous. ------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 29 November 2011 at 10:55am
Oh, hello root of the problem. ------------- ? |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 29 November 2011 at 11:04am
------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 29 November 2011 at 11:06am
|
You're opening an all new can of worms now. While I agree completely, that's an agrument in and of itself which could take days to hammer out. Shifting cultural norms are absolutely at the heart of many of the major issues we're seeing today, but I don't see a way to reverse the trend. ------------- ? |
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 29 November 2011 at 12:22pm
| /bracing for whale's response |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 29 November 2011 at 12:31pm
I generally don't read Whale's responses in threads like these. He has a tendency to make me look silly by using big words and actual honest-to-goodness logic that exploits the numerous holes in my thought process that is the cause for barely intelligible postings on controvercial matters. No, I'm quite happy with my illusions that my opinions are gospel.
------------- ? |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 29 November 2011 at 1:10pm
I don't forsee much that can be disputed. IMO, social stigma is an excellent enforcer of socially acceptable behavior. Much like parents who lack basic parenting skills fail their children, society fails its members by improperly defining what is correct and incorrect behavior. When a child throws a tantrum, he gets a time out. When a member of society behaves poorly, they get shunned. When either behaves correctly, they are allowed back into society. When no boundaries are set for a child, they do not know right from wrong. When society fails to impose boundaries, we get fat lazy kids and Jersey Shore. ------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 29 November 2011 at 1:21pm
|
What's sad is that the schools that do poorly on the standardized tests. Get rid of recess so they can focus more on class time. Thanks a lot No Child Left Behind. It's also sad that we have commercials telling kids to go out and play 60 minutes a day. I'm buying stock in insulin companies. 1/3 kids will develop diabetes. |
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 29 November 2011 at 1:34pm
What's wrong with promiscuity?
It seems to me that promiscuity is not the problem, but rather the way in which we handle it (don't worry about condoms or birth control, just don't have sex and you won't need them LOL) -------------
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 29 November 2011 at 1:41pm
|
Exactly what is the info you posted supposed to be supporting? You're gonna have to splain it better. I guess I do not define promiscuity as simply having sex. Unsafe sex, unprotected sex with mulitple partners with no concern of the outcome is what I am talking about. I think the example of the unwed mother of three kids from three different dads was the exact example I gave. Considering one of the definitions of promiscuous is "careless", IMO this is an accurate usage of the term. ------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 29 November 2011 at 2:00pm
Much to do today. I'll take some time late this afternoon for posting some responses.
 I didn't mean to convey that we were arguing, or even really debating. I just thought we were having a cool discussion. |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 29 November 2011 at 2:07pm
------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 29 November 2011 at 2:10pm
|
Not a problem. In the U.S., the teens that are getting pregnant and having children with multiple fathers received sex education that consisted of false information to scare children away from sex (the old BB's representing HIV and a tennis racket representing a condom demonstration) and "Don't have sex until you are married." This is what I believe leads our kids to participate in your definition of promiscuity. As far as promiscuous meaning "careless", this is a definition I have never seen and I feel like most people would define it the same way I do, as having sex with multiple people. -------------
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 29 November 2011 at 2:22pm
------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 29 November 2011 at 2:28pm
|
Yes, there are houses like yours, who take the common sense approach, and it shows in that your children made good decisions. I would bet that the number of "oops" pregnancies where the birth control failed is far lower here than the number of "oops" pregnancies where there was no birth control to fail. Obviously it will fail from time to time, but not using birth control does not keep kids from having sex. It is better to have one or 2 lines of defense aside from pulling out, than having no lines of defense when the activity is still going to take place. -------------
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 29 November 2011 at 2:47pm
|
I probably need to be more clear, my oldest child was an "oops" baby. We've told her the story a few times of how here mother was on birth control and still got preggers. My point was teaching that birth control is not foolproof and if a mistake happens it can ruin your life. Understanding the consequences of being sexually active is important. And she is only 13, she better not even be in situations where she has to make such decisions yet. Hopefully, when she does, she will be decently informed.
I also feel that the statistics that you have thrown out have some basic issues. For one, it does not provide information regarding actual ages/percentages etc. Considering 18 and 19 year olds are still "teens", it causes an issue. I think there is definitely less stigma on kids having sex once they leave home. I wonder what percentages of the teens surveyed were early vs late teens? Does Germany have as many 14 year olds having sex as we do? More info is needed. Second issue I see and think I have mentioned before is that I feel it is a somewhat unfair comparison between the U.S. and these other countries. Aside from the UK, I would venture most of those countries mentioned are consdierably more homogenous. It would be like comparing the pregnancy rate of a rural school in the bible belt to an inner city school in a major city. Trying to compare a country where 90-95% of the people share the same culture and ethnicity to one as multi-ethnic and cultural as the U.S. is questionable. ------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 29 November 2011 at 2:59pm
The problem with that particular statement is that this is a discussion of morality, and there really is no common sense approach here I wholeheartedly agree with oldpb's methods myself, if I ever have children that's likely the approach I'd take. I personally feel that sex is a part of human development, and if the methods exist to control STD / pregnancy risk, than it's kind of *shrug* situation for me. We all did it. But that leads me to the next point, which will soundly contradict the point I just made.... There are many families in America that believe sex out of wedlock is as wrong as stealing, and for those families the idea of giving your children access to birth control is like saying "Don't drive daddy's porsche but here's a helmet if you decide to". You have to be very careful here, because this isn't a black and white discussion of concrete fact, this is a discussion of family morality. I don't believe you can equate abstinence philosophy to poor parenting or lack of common sense. This is where I believe the educational system is responsible for being the great equalizer in sex education. At an appropriate age (like not kindergarten) children should be taught by the school about contraception, STD's, risk factors, so on and so forth. Just like my previous rant on teaching kids how to eat healthy and cook, I think school should prepare them for this part of life as well. I was never taught any form of sex education by my parents. Literally, every time I asked as a kid I was given the "you'll learn when you're ready". See, my parents came from the line of thought that you sat a kid down on his / her first date and gave them the steady stream of horror stories that would override their hormonal instincts, and this failed miserably, because they never ever met my first date. So there's certainly a wrong way to anything, and I think that pregnancy among conservative / abstinence teaching households comes less from the teaching itself being insufficient and more from parents that are, for whatever reason, too timid to approach the subject to their kids. In fact, just as pure speculation, I wonder how many kids actually got a real sex talk from their parents. My sister is incredibly liberal with her kids, she's a nurse and her philosophy has always been that kids will do waht kids will do. Yet, being a single mom, she felt awkward having the "talk" with my nephew, and tasked me with doing it. Fortunately, by the time he came to me with questions the school had already done its part and I didn't have to give any gory, awkward details, but I'd love to see a study on how many parents even approach their kids with the topic of sex. OF course, a study like this would be completely impractical, as I'd imagine most people aren't going to admit they didn't have a big enough pair to talk to their kids about sex, but still, I'll bet it would be a frightening statistic. -------------
|
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 29 November 2011 at 3:16pm
|
I never got the talk from my parents. I got the "your body is changing. No, that wasn't pee in your pants when you woke up" class in 5th grade and the scared straight class in 8th. Other than that, I learned most of it from scrambled HBO. I did mention the differing societal views in my discussions as well as timid parents, which I think we are on the same page with. There are probably some discrepancies in my statistics, but I don't see how have multiple races as opposed to a single race would cause that large of a gap. Unless you are insinuating that non-whites are more promiscuous than whites or that minorities are responsible for getting the majority races pregnant at a young age, which I doubt that you are. I just don't see the relevance. Fun fact: The age of consent in Germany is 14 and there are no statutory laws. -------------
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 29 November 2011 at 3:18pm
|
I do feel that morality should be taught Strato. I think there is a lot of open space between "no sex until marriage" and letting your 13 year old host an orgy at your house. While a lot of people want to try and say that there is nothing wrong with teenagers having casual sex, they are also prone to considering a girl who sleeps with a different dude a couple of times a week a whore. BTW, I was the one to have the initial big sex talk with my daughter a few years ago. She asked about it because some kids at school had said some things and I gave her a very clinical explanation of how things worked. I let her ask questions and answered them. It was probably easier to do then, than it would be to do now.------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 29 November 2011 at 3:30pm
For sure, part of why I feel that there's no common sense approach to this subject is because there are so many different ideas regarding sexual morality. I don't consider one superior to the other for the sake of discussion, unless kids are being taught that it's okay to diddle like rabbits and let the state take care of their babies (you'd be surprised), in which case those parents are doing more damage to the US than any terrorist or hippy. This may be a little off subject, but continuing the idea of poor parenting, I wonder how you guys feel on having children being a right. I heard that alot in the hospital waiting room, people would complain to me that Medicaid was taking too long, and that it was the government interfering with their ability to raise their kids. It's like people feel it's a constitutional right to reproduce regardless of financial status, and then it's the government's responsibility to compensate for said status. It's shockingt to me how many girls feel that they're perfectly ready to raise children when they haven't even graduated high school yet. One of my favorite conversations involved being cursed out by a new teen mother because I asked for her Medicaid card, and, not knowing what Medicaid was, ranted at me for several minutes on how she wasn't rich enough for insurance and to F'ing get her baby back to the doctor before she F'ing sued me. I kid you not. So obviously a moron like that is probably not going to be educating their child on eating habits, sexual responsibility, etc etc. I'm not going to pretend that people like her make up any statistical percentage of teen moms because I have no basis for such a statement, but it's always made me wonder about America's value system, and where we, as a society, developed such a sense of entitlement and how much that sense of entitelement was going to affect us as a society. I think that this plays at least a part in the discussion of child welfare. -------------
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 29 November 2011 at 3:33pm
Edited, for link to stats: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/USTPtrends.pdf - http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/USTPtrends.pdf . Pregnancy rates for Hispanics and Blacks was double that of Whites and triple that of non-white/non-hispanic minorities. ------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 29 November 2011 at 4:19pm
Or is it intelligence? Income vs intelligence Obesity vs intelligence ------------- <just say no to unnecessarily sexualized sigs> |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 29 November 2011 at 4:25pm
------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 29 November 2011 at 7:44pm
|
If fat people would quit spending money they didn't have on food they didn't need, they wouldn't be poor.
I just solved 3 issues with one idea! Score. ------------- 
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 29 November 2011 at 8:03pm
I was watching South Park when you posted this, so naturally I read it in Cartman's voice. Funny stuff -------------
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 29 November 2011 at 8:11pm
|
Can't cure stupid. ------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 29 November 2011 at 11:22pm
We just have a tendency to intervene with natural selection... So says the Paramedic. -------------
|
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 30 November 2011 at 10:23pm
| Speaking of: http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/30/health/california-mcdonalds-happy-meals/index.html - http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/30/health/california-mcdonalds-happy-meals/index.html |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 30 November 2011 at 11:41pm
Haha great story. -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 01 December 2011 at 12:05am
This thread turned from obesity to boning. I'll address the boning later.
The changes you note - the reliance on frozen prepared things, the decrease of fresh fruits and veggies, etc. - happened with more schools started relying on "catering" and distribution companies like Aramark. Shipping fresh fruits and veggies is expensive. It's much cheaper to send quasi-prepared meals with preservatives. And school districts started relying on these companies more and more when budgets started stagnating. There also is little enforcement. Students are given the option between something quasi-nutritious and chicken fingers and fries, they're picking the chicken fingers. School lunches are a depressing subject.
The problem, however, is that the demographics that are most susceptible to obesity are also the ones that PSAs concerning food education and obesity don't reach.
There is some interesting stuff about HFCS, and I too am suspicious of their presence in a lot of things. I'd place more of the blame on a convenient society than HFCS, though, when it comes down to it. We don't move around. We hardly walk. We don't do manual labor. Things don't require much activity anymore. An advanced and convenient society happens to also be a fat society.
Two problems here. 1) The "cost" isn't the same. The cost-per-unit is much lower if you do it yourself, but not the initial cost. With the Big Mac, you're purchasing the product up front, where-as with any home-cooked meal, you're paying more money for more ingredients up front. You cannot go to the store and purchase exactly a cup of rice and six stalks of asparagus and a quarter cup of turkey breast. You have to buy $18 worth of goods for the meal upfront, yet it makes $3 plates. To some, that $18 initial investment is not worth it. 2) Time is a big factor, especially for someone working multiple jobs and dealing with the logistics of small children. While time may not equal money, time is a limited commodity.
I'd not thought of that as a factor, when considering socioeconomic factors. Damn, that's good. I wonder if anyone has formally done anything on this.
|
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 01 December 2011 at 12:06am
Intelligence is far too broad of a term to be used meaningfully here. Intelligent/aware people can simply weigh their preferences however it suits them, and make a rational, intelligent decision to enjoy certain foods rather than focus on their health. The thing to consider, though, is a child's incapacity to make that choice, and the subsequent blind-acceptance of terrible foods as 'what I eat.' As Whale stated, there's a correlation to note between socioeconomic status and the quality of food one eats, but I think that it's an irrelevant concern if we are speaking strictly about neglecting the well-being of a child. The nutritional content of what your average fat kid is eating is incredibly deficient, and by supplying a child with that sort of food, they are actively denying the child of their health. That's the most immediate concern I have with childhood obesity; it's being caused by the people who are charged with protecting and providing for the kid. ------------- 
|
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 01 December 2011 at 1:11am
|
I never understood when I go to the grocery store, and I look in peoples carts to see what they have. And the people obviously are on the lower end of the economic scale. Their carts are filled with frozen pizzas, chips, and soda. I for one do not have a lot of money to spare for food. I am also lazy and don't like cooking. That is why I buy a lot of staple foods when they are cheap. And cook a lot at one time, and have left overs for a week. Whether it be spaghetti, chili, stew etc. These people are fat because they stop by the gas station a few times a day, and guzzle down 100oz of fountain soda. Crap that is loaded with high fructose corn syrup. Which is ingested completely different than normal sugar. The same people who will get a couple of McDoubles for lunch, because they didn't "have time" to throw some left overs in reusable container. |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 01 December 2011 at 1:31am
There's a science about what makes junk food unhealthy, and of you're not careful, you can come out just as unhealthy if not worse with homemade food. Healthy eating is probably one of the toughest lifestyle changes you can make. Quitting drinking, going to college, religion, none of these were particularly difficult for me compared to learning how to eat. I was raised to eat whatever tasted good and that diet food was bad. Of course, until I find a job, I'm back full circle to going over to my parents' to eat dinner. I feel like I'm funneling straight poison into my system. When you really analyze the specific details of what you're eating, you start to realize that everything you're used to is bad. Lunchmeat, canned foods, frozen foods, all of these things have negative aspects, be it sodium or whatever. I find that the more I get away from these things, the less I enjoy them. I hate most lunch meats, fried food makes me queasy, same for cheesy foods, and I gravitate more to seafood if the option exists. But at the moment I have little control over my food content, so I focus on portions and getting plenty of exercise. My only real vices to speak of are sodas (I've quit like three times, but they always pull me back) and ramen. -------------
|
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 01 December 2011 at 3:06am
-------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 01 December 2011 at 1:46pm
|
I wrote that late last night, and had a feeling when I turned off my computer, I wrote it wrong. Digested/absorbed etc. It's harder to break down than normal sugar, and a lot of it makes it to the liver. |
Posted By: Lightningbolt
Date Posted: 04 December 2011 at 11:08am
| So I've been watching collegiate sports quite a bit on ESPN U and I have to say that it's radical how wide girls butts are that play college volleyball and soccer. What on earth gives man? I just seem to remember that wide-loads were an exception not the rule in these sports. |
Posted By: Lightningbolt
Date Posted: 04 December 2011 at 11:17am
|
Hang on there's a slight possibility that I may have just potentially caught a glimpse of a soccer chick that might have a skinny butt. IDK hang on I'll brb need more time searching for a skinny butt brb mkay. It's tough #1 Duke vs #1 Wake girls soccer it's tough. They must have filled the roster with speed skaters, downhill skiers and power lifters. |
Posted By: The Guy
Date Posted: 04 December 2011 at 11:38am
|
The first thing I did to save money on my shopping? I stopped buying meat. Dried/canned beans are WAY cheaper. One of the problems for those that DO cook home meals, is that everyone prepares meat based dishes. 4 people sitting at a table eating 4 steaks for a combined 32oz, and only eating veggies as a side. When one of those 8oz steaks could be chopped up and put into a much larger dish. You get steak flavor, for less fat, less cost, and more food. ------------- http://www.anomationanodizing.com - My Site 
|
Posted By: Lightningbolt
Date Posted: 04 December 2011 at 2:26pm
| Thank God for Winter nationals swimming and over-aged, over-the-hill skinny female swimmers. There's still hope |