http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/04/health/04obesity.html?em&ex=1175832000&en=470b865b419bd67a&ei=5087%0A
I can't say I'm happy about this. We already know what we need to know about childhood obesity. Kids need to be physically active more (how about not cutting recess time in favor of preparation for standardized tests for a start?). They need to be provided with healthy food choices. They DON'T need to be put on diets, because that's about the worst thing, outcome-wise, you can do for an overweight kid.
It just kind of upset me that we're willing to pledge $500 million toward ending childhood obesity, but not toward making sure all children have health insurance, or pledging that kind of money toward ending childhood starvation around the world. Over ten thousand children starve to death every single day around the world. That we're putting so much time and so many resources towards a "problem" that is only going to be solved by not making such a big deal out of it--the more we obsess about weight and make fat out to be the worst thing in the world, the fatter people get--when there are so many issues far more pressing regarding children's health that are getting almost no money or attention is really depressing.
Plus, you can't end childhood obesity, unless you start killing all the fat kids! Weight, in any society that isn't suffering from famine, falls into a bell curve. There will ALWAYS be people who fall at the ends of the bell curve. We can force every child on a diet and make them work out everyday, and some of them will still be fat. We can forcefeed all of them junk food all day and tie them to the couch, and some of them will still be thin. It's not obesity that's the problem, but that there are things obesity is correlated with--like lack of activity and unhealthy eating habits--that are health problems. But to point to obesity itself as the problem, and not as one possible symptom (which not everyone with those habits will have) of an unhealthy lifestyle is to make children's fat and fat children into some sort of enemy to be eradicated by any means necessary, which is just a bizarre and entirely unhelpful mindset.
Morning Lori! Great article, and very relevant not only to the USA but also to the UK and Ireland as well as i do believe both have targets for dealing with childhood obesity in the long term.
In England i really can see how them investing money into it does make economic sense for the country because we do have a national health scheme providing medical care for all and their concern is if we don't invest now and improve the health of these children at X cost per person when they are obese adults their health care bill will increase government spending tremendously as the adult consequences of childhood obesity which remains unchanged into adolescene and adulthood are far more costly to treat than actually tackling with the problem now, it'll also lead to more adults dependant on welfare unable to work due to obesity related health issues which again will cost the government so i can understand why they are doing this- do i think it is fair though? No.
There are many other areas of medical, social and global concern that this money is being redirected from to fund such programs (in both the USA and my own country through various programs) and it frustrates me- the social and global and other medical issues that cash could be directed towards are not self inflicted and obesity is, I fully understand it is extremely difficult to self-manage but it is possible to do so (i speak as the woman of a 350lb+ husband so believe me i fully understand the burden of obesity on an individual and their loved ones). What annoys me most about childhood obesity is the majority of childhood obesity is the result of little other than parental apathy (granted not all- i accept some is caused by glandular issues but i am uncertain if you classify that as obesity itself or just as another medical condition of which obesity can be a symptom)
It takes effort to allow a child active outdoor and indoor play time, it takes effort to ensure a childs diet is adequately balanced, it takes effort to maintain the level of determination it takes to tell a child no when they constantly want "bad" foods, it takes effort to instill a sense of healthy living through all things in moderation and frankly many parents just don't put in the effort to ensure their children are taught those things and ultimately avoid obesity.
Some children are a larger body type i acknowledge that- my own kids Jude is a massive frame compared to the 2 girls but physically he is still very fit and it is plain he is large, not fat. So i accept not all children will hold the line on average charts when it comes to weight but there is a big difference between being slightly larger and actual obesity which requires management.
So i do largely blame parents when the children we are talking about have began their path onto obesity at an age where they have little/no control over the food at which they are presented with. It can be hard to say no to your child but it is harder still to bury your son at 40 because he's spent a lifetime from childhood obese i am certain of that, i don't think anyone in that situation would see themselves as having been the kind caring mother they thought they were by giving in to a "Eric Cartman-esque" child who wanted to make demands on their own diet poorly.
Now i think the big question is do i think children should pay for their parents poor choices with their own health? No, no child deserves to die young because their parents are too ignorant or stubborn to change their diets and activity levels for the better and for this reason i do see programs instilled into schools such as extra outdoor recess, longer and more frequent gym lessons, more afterschool sports clubs available for free, a healthy eating policy within school as a really positive thing as these children will gain- even if only minimally from these sort of programs.
So as much as it frustrates me that there is an unnecessary need for these things I do think they make sense all the same as kids shouldn't pay for their parents poor parenting choices.
Those are good points, Beka. To clarify, I have no problem with efforts going towards helping children and parents make healthier choices. My problem is with giving the money to obesity researchers. When we know that being more active and making better food choices dramatically improves people's health, no matter what size they are, why spend $500M on research to discover a magic pill to make them thin, or to try to track down genetic obesity markers so we can mess with people's genes to make them thin, or whatever these researchers want to do? Why not just take what we absolutely know is true--that being more active and eating better foods makes everyone healthier, no matter what size they are or end up being--and put money into making those things more doable for everyone?
I don't know how we can think that another dozen studies of obesity is going to help anything. We've already put more time and effort into studying obesity than things that are much, much more important, pressing issues. Also, a lot of obesity research funding gets given out to researchers affiliated with diet companies, and it would surprise me at all if a good portion of this money ends up in the hands of bariatric surgeons and diet companies, which actually have a vested interest in keeping people fat, and promoting superfical rather than real change. Otherwise, they'd stop making money.
The things that we need to change to help children be healthier has nothing to do with research, or giving money to researchers. We need better funding for schools so that gym class isn't cut, and more emphasis on play rather than academics, so kids can run and have recess and not be stuck in their desks all day. We need parents to stop being so afraid of their kids getting abducted that they refuse to let them out to play, and change parents' belief that their kids are somehow safer sitting on their butts in front of their computer or video game all day than they would be riding their bikes around town or playing at the park. We need to ensure that all families have access to quality, healthy foods, no matter how much money they make, and to have quick, easy ways for single moms and other busy parents to make their children healthy meals and snacks. But none of that is going to happen if we keep funnelling money to these researchers rather than to the programs we already know would be the answer.
I'm just constantly amazed that it goes unnoticed in the media that, the more they harp on how evil obesity is and how dangerous and disgusting fat is, the fatter people get. But it makes sense. Somebody who is continually told they are unhealthy and disgusting isn't going to make good choices. Somebody who believes that, in order to be "healthy," they need to look like the reporter telling them they're too fat, when they know that is never, ever going to happen for them, isn't going to be motivated to make good choices, because nobody is going to put serious effort into acheiving an unattainable goal.
I just have zero trust in obesity researchers, especially given how they tend to interpret their results. They almost never control for things like activity levels, which, when they are controlled for, yield much different results. They promote their findings as "weight loss improves health dramatically!" without noting that it was actually more activity and better diets that improved health, even in cases where it led to a very small weight loss or no weight loss. There was an almost funny study where, in order to prove something about obesity, researchers studied an indigenous Mexican ethnic group that tends to be overweight. They found that the members of the group living in New Mexico, where they were more sendentary and ate more, were much heavier than the group living in Mexico, where they worked long hours doing physical labor. Their conclusion was that the people living in Mexico had a healthier lifestyle, because they were thinner. They failed to note that the life expectancy of the slimmer Mexicans was 40 years of age, while the fatter New Mexico group lived to an average age of 70.
I just hate the way this research is done, and I'm not looking forward to the dozens of news stories about how awful fat kids are that are sure to come out of this money. The number of people sending their children for bariatric surgery is just insane, at least in the United States. They are putting their child through a surgery that will mean that, for the rest of their lives, they can't absorb certain nutrients. If an adult wants to do it, fine, but people are having it done on kids, all because we think that obese is the absolute worst thing any child can be (except maybe gay ;)). That parents think that bariatric surgery so their kids can be thin is the answer, when it will lead to lifelong nutritional problems, whereas simply encouraging their children to be more active and make better food choices most of the time isn't (because their kids might be healthier, but they still might not be thin) is just sad, and I do blame this research for it.
I agree with you Lori- the research is unnecessary when the money would be much better spent putting into action what we already know to be true, the way i see it is money being poured into research trying to find further causes to obesity is a comfort zone trying to provide an excuse for those who aren't willing to take responsibility for their own physical shape, when i've tried to explain away David's obesity to avoid him embarassment more than once he's stopped me in my explainations and admitted that no, actually nothing it to blame but his own nature in his reluctance to maintain a healthy diet and his lack of excercise, no ammount of research can get a person to admit those things and if anything it'll give a small % of the obese population more backing for their reasoning that everyone and everything but their own actions are responsible for it. I understand it is very easy to become obese- David is- but i don't like the "pass the buck" society we are becoming, until people are ready to resume responsibility for their own choices the problem won't be tackled.
I do also find what you point out to be worryingly true as well- it is more than likely this money will ultimately result in diet firms coming up with more high cost dieting solutions whereby people will resign themselves to the fact if they can't afford X program they can't return to a healthy weight (I very often have heard people mention in ability to excercise or diet because they can't join WW or a gym- my father frequently reminds me no where near as many peope were obese in the 70s and hardly anyone went to a gym or WW but consumerism has blinded us so badly we've been conditioned to see those organisations and products as the only way and not being able to afford them again alleviates responsibilty for taking control of your own diet and fitness levels.)