thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,414
|
Post by thyme4change on Feb 8, 2011 14:28:51 GMT -5
I agree that this variable is kinda non-sensical. If you are looking to see if kids who eat more fast food have a statistically higher BMI - then ask that question. Don't ask "Does Mom work?" and then say "Working Moms probably buy more fast food."
We know that weight is heavily effected by 3 factors:
1) Health / Genetics 2) Diet / Portions 3) Exercise / activity level
Maybe we should do a study that proves that children's obesity rates went up at the same time as the initiation of the registration of sex offenders. That seems like it has as much to do with the lowered activity levels of children than anything else.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,414
|
Post by thyme4change on Feb 8, 2011 14:33:38 GMT -5
Gee, my kids were both given solid food before they were 1, and neither of them were overweight at 3 or any time since then. My son was a hungry baby. If I hadn't given him solids, he would have had to suck on a bottle all day to get enough. He has never been more than 55th percentile for weight, even though he has always been above the 75th percentile for height.
My daughter was dangerously underweight at 6 months. She didn't even make the chart. My doctor asked me if she would eat a spoonful of mayonaise. She is still a little stick figure with hair.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Feb 8, 2011 16:06:57 GMT -5
Here is the link to the actual study: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01541.x/fullThe study actually looked at several variables to try to account for the increase in BMI including time physically active, time unsupervised, time in front of the TV, mother's work schedule, & presence of a 2nd adult in the household. Not really a statistician, but what I took from the study is that they found no link between a mother's employment & a child's obesity at any given time, but rather the number of years a mother was employed correlated to obesity. But, it said that additional employment time was associated with a 10% of a standard deviation increase, which seems so small that I'm surprised it is even statistically significant, but what do I know. They did say those with a non-standard work schedule show a small BMI increase, but it isn't statistically significant. It also appears they didn't find a statistical significant link between any of the studied variables (TV time, unsupervised time, etc) & the increase in BMI. They said that the two factors that could account for the difference, but were not studied were eating habits & sleep habits. I love the headline Fox used when writing about the study : Mom's Work Schedule is Making Kids Fat www.foxnews.com/health/2011/02/04/study-moms-work-schedule-making-kids-fat/ I understand why they do such studies & it seems to me that while the findings do correlate working mothers & obese children (which overall I could understand). I don't think the findings indicate that working mothers have nearly the impact on obesity as other factors like physical activity or eating habits.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Feb 8, 2011 16:25:01 GMT -5
Here is an article on the study of obesity & timing of solid foods: www.suite101.com/content/timing-of-solid-food-introduction-linked-to-childhood-obesity-a344715There was no correlation between timing of solids foods in breastfed babies. Formula fed babies were 6 times more likely to be obese at 3 if they were started on solids before 4 months compared to babies who started at 5-6 months. 10% of the kids in the study were obese at 3. Not sure what it takes to be qualified as obese, but I find it sad that so many kids are obese so early in life.
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Feb 8, 2011 16:47:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by justwhoever on Feb 8, 2011 16:56:07 GMT -5
Oh yes I agree it's all BS. I just caught it on the radio the other day and laughed. Also thought of this thread.
When I had my first baby, what I heard about parenting I took as being The Word. But then I realized I was freaking the heck out over every little tiny thing and said Whoa! I am the mother here. He's almost 15 now and I haven't killed him or made him some sickly or obese teen so I think I am doing ok.
Now please don't ever ask me to keep your flowers alive....I can look at those and they die. Kids I seem to be doing ok with.
|
|
cronewitch
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:44:20 GMT -5
Posts: 5,974
|
Post by cronewitch on Feb 8, 2011 16:59:26 GMT -5
Maybe we should do a study that proves that children's obesity rates went up at the same time as the initiation of the registration of sex offenders. That seems like it has as much to do with the lowered activity levels of children than anything else. Read more: notmsnmoney.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=finance&action=display&thread=2920&page=2#ixzz1DPA8C4wmI think this is the main reason children are heavier than we were. When I was a little girl I had no restrictions to running and playing until I hit puberty and my brother never even then. Mom didn't know child molesters would bother little girls or ever bother boys so felt safe letting us run until I looked more womanly. Even then I could walk to the store after dark if I took a brother. Now everyone is afraid to let the kids run free and if parents don't go with them or have them join groups they will not get enough exercise. They will watch TV, read a book or play on a computer or video game if not allowed to leave the parents or guardian's sight.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 19:50:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2011 17:04:30 GMT -5
Oh man - what did I do wrong? I've been a SAHM since day 1, breastfed, didn't start solids till 6 months and DS was in the 100th percentile for the longest time. That's right - I had the fattest baby in the nation. There was the weight chart with DS waaaay off into the top. But he's thinned out since then.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Feb 8, 2011 17:26:17 GMT -5
LMAO, I thought my daughter was so chubby, I figured she had to be at least 75th percentile or more. When I took her in for her 4 month visit, she was only 50th percentile in both height and weight. Apparently she is just an average chubby baby, LOL. I guess I am not around enough babies to know when one looks fat.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,414
|
Post by thyme4change on Feb 8, 2011 17:30:17 GMT -5
Maybe he had been working out. After all, muscle weighs more than fat.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 19:50:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2011 17:48:57 GMT -5
Think pint sized sumo wrestler.
|
|
Abby Normal
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 12:31:49 GMT -5
Posts: 3,501
|
Post by Abby Normal on Feb 8, 2011 18:00:18 GMT -5
So if I work- my kid is overweight. If I went to college, they are not.
Good thing I went to college and got a job!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 19:50:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2011 21:13:11 GMT -5
Maybe he had been working out. After all, muscle weighs more than fat. I know you meant this as a joke but it is a pet peeve of mine when people say that. 1 lb of muscle = 1 lb of fat. It is just that muscle take up less space than fat. I am currently 250 lbs because I bulk during the winter but my doctor and everyone around me thinks I weight 210 tops. And yes I am extremely obese per BMI which I really don't care about since my body fat never goes above 15% during the winter and 7-9% during summer and fall.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,414
|
Post by thyme4change on Feb 10, 2011 10:06:20 GMT -5
I know it is your pet peeve and that is why I phrased it exactly that way. Looks like my attempt to irritate you, worked! Success!
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Feb 10, 2011 11:44:01 GMT -5
Doesn't that mean that muscle (for its size) does weigh more than fat. I don't see how it is a pet peeve when there is truth in it (assuming a person actually understands what this means).
1 lb of feathers = 1 lb of gold, but no one would argue with the statement gold weighs more than feathers. That sort of statement is usually meant in terms of volume & it is true that 1 cubic ft of muscle weighs more than 1 cubic ft of fat, just like 1 cubic ft of gold weighs more than 1 cubic ft of feathers.
|
|