We're number 5, we're number 5!!

walshb

What do folks think of the 2500 calorie recommendation? Bit low? So much to consider when asking the question I suppose.

Mellor

ger664 wrote: »

I agree with WalshB here, while obese children most likely turn into obese adults I would say that 100% of the parents of these children will most likely fall into the 61% of adults category. Tackling the issue in adults/teenegaers will have a bigger effect on the number of obese children we have as a percentile in the future. Diet and eating habits are taught/learnt and the biggest influences in our education are our parents.

Firstly, we need to address both, not one or the other.
And nobody is suggesting we try and educate 6 year olds directly. Obvious the parents are the source if correct nutrition, that has no impact on the magnitude if the issue in children.

walshb wrote: »

What do folks think of the 2500 calorie recommendation? Bit low? So much to consider when asking the question I suppose.

It's useless in a practical sense. A 65kg frail 50 year old and a 120kg 18 year old athlete will have totally unrelated needs.

But it's most likely a typical average.

secondrowgal

secondrowgal wrote: »

I may be an outlier, but I don't buy ANY of my F&V or meat in a supermarket - I buy them in a green grocer's and butcher's shop.

Since I started eating properly I've been doing the same. There's always something on offer that I like and quality generally is higher. Especially with things like mince and burgers, I'm properly amazed at the difference between proper mince and the crap in a supermarket.

walshb

Deleted User wrote: »

Since I started eating properly I've been doing the same. There's always something on offer that I like and quality generally is higher. Especially with things like mince and burgers, I'm properly amazed at the difference between proper mince and the crap in a supermarket.

Horizon did a very good programme on Monday about meat and its effects on people. In a nutshell processed red meat is something to watch. Nothing we didn't know already. Natural red meat is good for us as long as we don't over indulge. They recommend 65-70 grams of red meat per day. One expert said that saturated fats isn't nearly as bad for us as we thought. It's all about moderation and balance and variation. The food pyramid is the best guide, and as far as I know it has been updated with exercise steps....

Bruno26

walshb wrote: »

Horizon It's all about moderation and balance and variation. The food pyramid is the best guide, and as far as I know it has been updated with exercise steps....

The idea of a little bit of everything in moderation is rubbish. It does not work.

The food pyramid was and is a disaster. Nobody adheres to the portions and the idea that grains should form the dominant part of diet is just wrong. Take off the bottom and top layers and swap the others around. Then you have a food pyramid with correct guidelines.

Blacktie.

Bruno26 wrote: »

The idea of a little bit of everything in moderation is rubbish. It does not work.

The food pyramid was and is a disaster. Nobody adheres to the portions and the idea that grains should form the dominant part of diet is just wrong. Take off the bottom and top layers and swap the others around. Then you have a food pyramid with correct guidelines.

Or chop out the middle and combine the top and bottom for the happiness hat!

walshb

Bruno26 wrote: »

The food pyramid was and is a disaster. .

No pyramid is perfect. The current one is not a disaster.

Bruno26

Blacktie. wrote: »

Or chop out the middle and combine the top and bottom for the happiness hat!

What is the relevance of your unfunny post to the thread?

Bruno26

walshb wrote: »

No pyramid is perfect. The current one is not a disaster.

It is a total disaster. Since it's creation have people got slimmer?

Alf Veedersane

Bruno26 wrote: »

The idea of a little bit of everything in moderation is rubbish. It does not work.

The food pyramid was and is a disaster. Nobody adheres to the portions and the idea that grains should form the dominant part of diet is just wrong. Take off the bottom and top layers and swap the others around. Then you have a food pyramid with correct guidelines.

It's mainly a disaster because of the fact that no one adheres to the portions.

If you did follow the portions it is possible to be healthy.

The reason that the 'little bit of everything in moderation' doesn't work is because people overdo the 'little' and the 'moderation' parts.

Blacktie.

Bruno26 wrote: »

What is the relevance of your unfunny post to the thread?

Entertainment.

Vet Thrower

25% of 3 year olds are obese? I find this very hard to believe.

I have 3 children aged under 6. Through them, I have come across an awful lot of 3 year olds over the past few years, and I have yet to see one who was obese.

Blacktie.

Vet Thrower wrote: »

25% of 3 year olds are obese? I find this very hard to believe.

I have 3 children aged under 6. Through them, I have come across an awful lot of 3 year olds over the past few years, and I have yet to see one who was obese.

Depends on what you consider obese to be and what it looks like on 3 year olds. What people consider to be average and acceptable now is overweight for instance. Not talking about 3 year olds here but people in there 20's and 30's mainly.

kevpants

Luckily we in the online fitness community burn off enough calories getting up and down off our high horses to negate this.

A few observations:

- Blaming the food pyramid? Ask anyone currently queuing in a McDonalds drive thru to draw you the food pyramid. If everyone cared enough to study the food pyramid and then stuck to it they'd be fine.

- Veg is expensive. So if fruit. When you have kids, the amount of money you spend making them healthy dinners is staggering. It is infinitely cheaper to buy them crap food and we have a problem with people hovering just above the poverty line.

- Pints. Does this include alcohol?

Some positives:

- Dublin Bike Scheme, there's a rack outside my office that literally never has a free bike in it
-Triathlon/Adventure run culture in workplaces. So annoying, so healthy.
-The amount of obese runners you'll see on the roads in the evening. Hahaha look at fatty improving his/her quality of life.
- Gym culture. Brahs, so many brahs.

My point is in middle class society we're in pretty good shape. We have a serious issue with poorer communities. The aren't educated, they are completely disenfranchised from what we would see as functioning Irish society, anti-social behaviour/domestic abuse/dysfunctional families/mental illness absolutely abound.

Thank god we pay them just about enough dole to keep them alive and relatively quiet whilst allowing them buy lucozade and McCain Micro-fries for their kids so we can roll our eyes at them.

walshb

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

It's mainly a disaster because of the fact that no one adheres to the portions.
.

Agreed

It is nothing to do with the pyramid. It sets and advises. If people don't adhere then that is their issue. It's not an exact science. It's a structured and thought out approach for a world population.

Switching the groupings is a personal issue. Doesn't make the current WHO table a disaster.

walshb

Vet Thrower wrote: »

25% of 3 year olds are obese? I find this very hard to believe.

I have 3 children aged under 6. Through them, I have come across an awful lot of 3 year olds over the past few years, and I have yet to see one who was obese.

It's one in four obese OR overweight. Not one in four obese. BMI 30 or above equals obese as far as I know.

How can you know what is obese from just sight? Anyway, there are all kinds of 3 year olds. Some fatter and some thinner and some taller etc. They're 3. They have a chance in life, but more importantly, their parents have a real chance to guide and help them. Parents can rally restrict their intake if they feel that they child is gaining weight that looks unnatural or unhealthy.

According to the latest population figures: 624 million people under age 5 in the world. Approx 40 million are obese. Huge figure, but not percentage.

Bruno26

kevpants wrote: »

Luckily we in the online fitness community burn off enough calories getting up and down off our high horses to negate this.

A few observations:

- Blaming the food pyramid? Ask anyone currently queuing in a McDonalds drive thru to draw you the food pyramid. If everyone cared enough to study the food pyramid and then stuck to it they'd be fine.

- Veg is expensive. So if fruit. When you have kids, the amount of money you spend making them healthy dinners is staggering. It is infinitely cheaper to buy them crap food and we have a problem with people hovering just above the poverty line.

- Pints. Does this include alcohol?

Some positives:

- Dublin Bike Scheme, there's a rack outside my office that literally never has a free bike in it
-Triathlon/Adventure run culture in workplaces. So annoying, so healthy.
-The amount of obese runners you'll see on the roads in the evening. Hahaha look at fatty improving his/her quality of life.
- Gym culture. Brahs, so many brahs.

My point is in middle class society we're in pretty good shape. We have a serious issue with poorer communities. The aren't educated, they are completely disenfranchised from what we would see as functioning Irish society, anti-social behaviour/domestic abuse/dysfunctional families/mental illness absolutely abound.

Thank god we pay them just about enough dole to keep them alive and relatively quiet whilst allowing them buy lucozade and McCain Micro-fries for their kids so we can roll our eyes at them.

Anyone who has gone through school in the last 20 years is aware of the food pyramid. Study it or not - nobody sticks to it therefore it does not work. It's only a small part of the problem.

Veg is not expensive. Make a couple of pots of something twice a week- there's your dinner for everyone for the week sorted. Laziness and being unable or not attempting to cook is the reason you are looking for.

Convenience, lack of time excuse, laziness, giant supermarkets, lack of knowledge are the issue.

Your positives are great but they are all about exercise. The fat people can run but if they eat crap they will still be fat. Nobody should need to exercise to maintain a healthy weight. It can all be done through nutrition. You cannot out run a bad diet.

rubadub

With kids you have to bear in mind the BMI charts are far more complex.

Kids have gotten bigger over the years, developing faster. Its very rare for me to hear someone comment on a child being small for their age, its quite common for people to be surprised a child is so large for their age. And this is not just people making a child feel good saying "aren't you a big boy".

Look at this chart



So a boy of 10 with BMI of 23 is deemed to be obese, and at the 15 year old is fine.

Now say this chart was developed 100 years ago, now say 100 years on the typical 10 year old has the build of what a typical 15 year old did back then. Then using that chart is incorrect, the goal posts need to shift accordingly.

You can see the 15 year old & 20 year old are quite differnent, no doubt accounting for an expected increase in muscularity & frame size. Also you can see the graph goes up at the start. I think this is due to the high % of weight being due to the relatively large head on babies.

Charts for adults need to consider changes too, some organisations give Asian people have a different chart. The average height is changing too, the typical 6foot man nowadays is probably a larger frame than a 6ft man 100 years ago, who may have been more lanky on average so so would typically have had a higher % of fat if they were the same weight.

People often say it does not apply to bodybuilders. But as lifting weights has become more popular then general studies are going to include more muscular men which may skew the average in future research.

walshb

Bruno26 wrote: »

Anyone who has gone through school in the last 20 years is aware of the food pyramid. Study it or not - nobody sticks to it therefore it does not work. It's only a small part of the problem.

.

Nobody sticks to it could be the case/excuse for any pyramid or brilliant suggestion given that sees people still being overweight.

There is nothing wrong with the WHO food pyramid. It's a guide. It's not perfect. Adhering to it is the key.

MaceFace

I have to say that never in my life have I gone shopping or planned what to eat based on the food pyramid. Something tells me I'm not alone.

Fact is that people buy what is easy, cheap, looks and taste's good. All influenced by what they were brought up eating, and what big business pushes at us.

Anyone who has kids knows how difficult it is to get them to eat healthy. I can put all the veg or salad on a plate for my kids and not let them leave the table until they are done. An hour later, I'll give in, let them leave the table hungry and they don't get fed.
If I put a salmon darne in front of them they would probably cry.

walshb

rubadub wrote: »

With kids you have to bear in mind the BMI charts are far more complex.

Kids have gotten bigger over the years, developing faster. Its very rare for me to hear someone comment on a child being small for their age, its quite common for people to be surprised a child is so large for their age. And this is not just people making a child feel good saying "aren't you a big boy".

Look at this chart



So a boy of 10 with BMI of 23 is deemed to be obese, and at the 15 year old is fine.

Now say this chart was developed 100 years ago, now say 100 years on the typical 10 year old has the build of what a typical 15 year old did back then. Then using that chart is incorrect, the goal posts need to shift accordingly.

You can see the 15 year old & 20 year old are quite differnent, no doubt accounting for an expected increase in muscularity & frame size. Also you can see the graph goes up at the start. I think this is due to the high % of weight being due to the relatively large head on babies.

Hence why I was saying that you need a real in-depth and researched study, not a few statements about 1/4.....I still think that 1/4 3 years olds (if fairly accurate) being termed obese or overweight is nothing alarming.

That chart relates to percentiles rather than healthy ranges though.

Bruno26

walshb wrote: »

Nobody sticks to it could be the case/excuse for any pyramid or brilliant suggestion given that sees people still being overweight.

There is nothing wrong with the WHO food pyramid. It's a guide. It's not perfect. Adhering to it is the key.

If it's not perfect then there is something wrong with it!

Starting every day with bread and cereal is wrong.

walshb

Bruno26 wrote: »

If it's not perfect then there is something wrong with it!

Starting every day with bread and cereal is wrong.

Ridiculous. It's a thought out and researched guide, it is not meant to be perfect. No food pyramid can be. We're not robots, you know!

MaceFace

MaceFace wrote: »

I have to say that never in my life have I gone shopping or planned what to eat based on the food pyramid. Something tells me I'm not alone.

Fact is that people buy what is easy, cheap, looks and taste's good. All influenced by what they were brought up eating, and what big business pushes at us.

That's another part of the problem. However my dad after some heart attacks got some leaflets and went online. So he was convinced that plenty of bread, spuds and weetabix was what he should base his diet on.
I know plenty of people who were veggies in their teens and always carried weight because they loaded up on pastas, noodles and rice. Less than a year after eating meat again they lost the weight. They couldn't understand it despite having an interest in fitness and the like.

It comes down to several things, laziness, ignorance, portion sizes, poor/ineffective advice etc. The issue with the food pyramid w.r.t. carbs/grains is twofold, the portions are laughably unrealistic and the fact that it's "the base", implying more is fine, whereas it should be vegetables that applies to.

Bruno26

walshb wrote: »

Ridiculous. It's a thought out and researched guide, it is not meant to be perfect. No food pyramid can be. We're not robots, you know!

You said there is nothing wrong with it. Then you said it's not perfect. Contradiction?

Much thought and much research is wrong.


You think beginning the day with cereal and bread is correct?


You might want to do some research into Richard Nixon and what he did to appease farmers in 1972 and the 1977 dietary goals for Americans to see why the pyramid is based on grains.

rubadub

Deleted User wrote: »

That chart relates to percentiles rather than healthy ranges though.

True, but I think my points still apply, I am talking about the natural shifting rather than trying to find an ideal BMI.

walshb wrote: »

I still think that 1/4 3 years olds (if fairly accurate) being termed obese or overweight is nothing alarming.

It doesn't surprise me either. People get all up in arms when they hear the word obese. They picture some lad on discovery channel being taken to hospital on a flat bed truck, when really it does not take much added fat to fall into the obese category. If they showed photos of 100 obese 3 year olds, I bet people would come away thinking "hmm, obese is not as big as I thought". Its sort of simliar to the WHO saying 3 drinks in a row is binge drinking, if I had said "did you know 50% of polictians go on binge drinking sessions in the dail bar once a fortnight?" you might be shocked, until you find out what that actually means.

cletus van damme

MaceFace wrote: »

Anyone who has kids knows how difficult it is to get them to eat healthy. I can put all the veg or salad on a plate for my kids and not let them leave the table until they are done. An hour later, I'll give in, let them leave the table hungry and they don't get fed.
If I put a salmon darne in front of them they would probably cry.

i have multiple children.
I disagree with all above bar the salmon darne part of what you said.

getting my kids to eat meat is an issue I'll admit.
However fruit/veg and carbs sources (spuds/bread) go down teh hatch no problem.
I find protein wise eggs and dairy are the only they'll eat without difficulty.They do eat junk too but I try manage it actively like keeping it for dessert only.

It's not hard in fairness to shove a bowl of grapes or chopped up pineapple on front of them instead of junk food and they'll lap it up.

I'm not trying to pass myself off as a supernanny style super parent(smug bastards ) but it's fairly straightforward to feed them right and set ground rules.

The problem I see with others I know is that they (the parents) don't like healthy food and the kids pick up on that.
my kids see me live my life and pick up my habits. I try to live a healthy life (don't always succeed mind)
I really believe it's that simple.

Corkgirl18

MaceFace wrote: »

I have to say that never in my life have I gone shopping or planned what to eat based on the food pyramid. Something tells me I'm not alone.

Fact is that people buy what is easy, cheap, looks and taste's good. All influenced by what they were brought up eating, and what big business pushes at us.

Anyone who has kids knows how difficult it is to get them to eat healthy. I can put all the veg or salad on a plate for my kids and not let them leave the table until they are done. An hour later, I'll give in, let them leave the table hungry and they don't get fed.
If I put a salmon darne in front of them they would probably cry.

Some kids don't like the look of veggies but there are so many ways to get them to eat them. Make a homemade pizza and tell them they have to put 3 different veg on it, play a game where they have to taste everything and guess what it is, when making spaghetti bolognese or curries or stews or soups or sauces blitz up the veg so they won't know they're eating it.
The effort does pay off.

Alf Veedersane

Bruno26 wrote: »

If it's not perfect then there is something wrong with it!

Does this apply to people as well?

walshb

Bruno26 wrote: »

You said there is nothing wrong with it. Then you said it's not perfect. Contradiction?

.

No contradiction. Just because something isn't "perfect," a subjective word in this instance, doesn't make said thing wrong. What is perfect? Getting bogged down on semantics. You said the pyramid is a disaster. I think that's OTT.

rubadub

rubadub wrote: »

True, but I think my points still apply, I am talking about the natural shifting rather than trying to find an ideal BMI.

No, you're completely misinterpreting it. Look at the axis down the right hand side. At age 20 the 75th percentile is at a BMI of approx. 25.5 meaning 25% of 20-years-olds are above a BMI of 25 from that data. The 50th percentile for the same age is at 23.

All that chart shows (guessing it's some attempt at a new interpretation of BMI for kids) is comparative data. If everyone's BMI increases by the same amount then no-one changes where they would be according to that chart because the percentiles would just rise up.

Bruno26

walshb wrote: »

No contradiction. Just because something isn't "perfect," a subjective word in this instance, doesn't make said thing wrong. What is perfect? Getting bogged down on semantics. You said the pyramid is a disaster. I think that's OTT.[/QUOTE


You still didn't answer my question. Have people got slimmer since it was introduced.

I presume you know the real reasons as I've pointed out to you to research as to why it is based on grains?

walshb

People I know who are adhering to it have got 'slimmer.' What's your point?

Alf Veedersane

Bruno26 wrote: »

You still didn't answer my question. Have people got slimmer since it was introduced.

It's not like it's a law, Bruno. How many people do you think use it as a guide?

kevpants

Corkgirl18 wrote: »

Some kids don't like the look of veggies but there are so many ways to get them to eat them. Make a homemade pizza and tell them they have to put 3 different veg on it, play a game where they have to taste everything and guess what it is, when making spaghetti bolognese or curries or stews or soups or sauces blitz up the veg so they won't know they're eating it.
The effort does pay off.

My 4 year old eats so many hidden veggies it's unbelievable. It's a constant struggle to widen the breadth of what she eats. Sometimes it's exhausting and she gets spaghetti hoops on toast. According to some this makes me worse than Jimmy Saville and ISIS combined.

My 11 month old will eat literally anything, if you hand her a sprig of broccoli she'll munch it down. Yet to find anything she won't eat, including pennies and cat hair.

What sickens me is the smug "kids love parsnip fries just as much as real fries!" brigade. They do in their hoop. Single people in their 20's have literally no clue how much work it is feeding kids the right stuff and they need to shut up about it.

Bruno26

walshb wrote: »

People I know who are adhering to it have got 'slimmer.' What's your point?

Ha. Sure it must be right then! I'd imagine it's quite a struggle for them.

MaceFace

Corkgirl18 wrote: »

Some kids don't like the look of veggies but there are so many ways to get them to eat them. Make a homemade pizza and tell them they have to put 3 different veg on it, play a game where they have to taste everything and guess what it is, when making spaghetti bolognese or curries or stews or soups or sauces blitz up the veg so they won't know they're eating it.
The effort does pay off.

I agree and know all this and don't want to get into a conversation how I can make my kids eat healthier as they do eat very well... considering.

But, take the spag bol as an example. Served it yesterday with peppers. 3 year old who loves it suddenly won't go near it because there are "yellow bits in it". Kids are irrational - they make up their minds before trying something.

Besides, someone should not have to blitz up veg or hide it. This just goes to show the reasons why people serve unhealthy food to their children - it can be hard work to do otherwise.

Another example - the "5 a day". Everyone knows it, but how many people follow it?
The results of "unhealthy eating" are a slow one - slowly putting on weight or building up to heart problems or diabetes over 20 years.
So, while we all know we should eat healthier, the fact is there are reasons why we don't and blaming it on the food pyramid is wrong.

walshb

MaceFace wrote: »

I agree and know all this and don't want to get into a conversation how I can make my kids eat healthier as they do eat very well... considering.

But, take the spag bol as an example. Served it yesterday with peppers. 3 year old who loves it suddenly won't go near it because there are "yellow bits in it". Kids are irrational - they make up their minds before trying something.

Besides, someone should not have to blitz up veg or hide it. This just goes to show the reasons why people serve unhealthy food to their children - it can be hard work to do otherwise.

Another example - the "5 a day". Everyone knows it, but how many people follow it?
The results of "unhealthy eating" are a slow one - slowly putting on weight or building up to heart problems or diabetes over 20 years.
So, while we all know we should eat healthier, the fact is there are reasons why we don't and blaming it on the food pyramid is wrong.

A sensible and real world example if I ever saw one. We need to be less rigid and more relaxed. Being relaxed doesn't mean we have to be reckless.

Ralphdejones

walshb wrote: »

A sensible and real world example

Quick, kill it with fire !! before it infects La La land

Now where did I put my tablespoon of Salmon and Broccoli

Bruno26

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Quick, kill it with fire !! before it infects La La land

Now where did I put my tablespoon of Salmon and Broccoli

The salmon must be from the sea.

Ralphdejones

Bruno26 wrote: »

The salmon must be from the sea.

Caught fresh this morning just off sellafield

Corkgirl18

MaceFace wrote: »

Besides, someone should not have to blitz up veg or hide it. This just goes to show the reasons why people serve unhealthy food to their children - it can be hard work to do otherwise.

Another example - the "5 a day". Everyone knows it, but how many people follow it?

Surely blitzing up some sauce for 2 minutes doesn't constitute as hard work? If parents care enough about their kids and are well informed enough about food they will take the extra steps needed to make sure they are getting the right nutrition.
I'd say most people hopefully follow the 5 a day. Its the most useful thing to come from the pyramid

rubadub

Deleted User wrote: »

No, you're completely misinterpreting it.

I am not sure what you are getting at, do you disagree with any of my original points? i.e. ideal/OK BMI changes with body structure, so you have different "ideal BMI" figures & graphs depending on age.

They are using age as an easy estimate of what your body structure is. So if the chart is very old it might need to be updated, as a typical 5 year old may be far more developed.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index#BMI-for-age

BMI is used differently for children. It is calculated the same way as for adults, but then compared to typical values for other children of the same age. Instead of set thresholds for underweight and overweight, then, the BMI percentile allows comparison with children of the same sex and age.[9] A BMI that is less than the 5th percentile is considered underweight and above the 95th percentile is considered obese for people 20 and under. People under 20 with a BMI between the 85th and 95th percentile are considered to be overweight.

Recent studies in Britain have indicated that females between the ages 12 and 16 have a higher BMI than males of the same age by 1.0 kg/m2 on average.

If I use a regular chart

So if a 6ft man is 200lb he is deemed overweight. If this chart was from 100 years ago I would expect that the lines need to be shifted, a 6ft man 200lb nowadays could be in the normal section.

Also the previous chart with ranges

rubadub

rubadub wrote: »

I am not sure what you are getting at, do you disagree with any of my original points? i.e. ideal/OK BMI changes with body structure, so you have different "ideal BMI" figures & graphs depending on age.

They are using age as an easy estimate of what your body structure is. So if the chart is very old it might need to be updated, as a typical 5 year old may be far more developed.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index#BMI-for-age


If I use a regular chart

So if a 6ft man is 200lb he is deemed overweight. If this chart was from 100 years ago I would expect that the lines need to be shifted, a 6ft man 200lb nowadays could be in the normal section.

Also the previous chart with ranges

Those charts are just representing data, they don't actually say what's healthy.

You get how percentiles work, yes? If everyone under the age of 20 put on 2 stone tomorrow none of them would move on a percentile chart which makes it next to useless.


The "regular" chart represents definitions of overweight/obese/normal/underweight based on height and weight, just like BMI. The percentile one doesn't say anything useful. It can't apply to a fat population and also apply to a healthy population. No matter what 100 people you choose according to that chart the top 5 of BMI are obese and another 10 are overweight. It's nonsensical to use purely comparative data when trying to define obesity.

MaceFace

Corkgirl18 wrote: »

Surely blitzing up some sauce for 2 minutes doesn't constitute as hard work? If parents care enough about their kids and are well informed enough about food they will take the extra steps needed to make sure they are getting the right nutrition.
I'd say most people hopefully follow the 5 a day. Its the most useful thing to come from the pyramid

It might be if you're making a sauce you can hide it in but not so good with spuds and chicken.

And as for the 5 a day...
Why 5? The Japanese go for 17 a day. These are all just arbritary numbers based off what people believe at one moment in time and are often misguided by bad studies, lobbyists or sticking a finger in the air.

MaceFace

MaceFace wrote: »

It might be if you're making a sauce you can hide it in but not so good with spuds and chicken.

And as for the 5 a day...
Why 5? The Japanese go for 17 a day. These are all just arbritary numbers based off what people believe at one moment in time and are often misguided by bad studies, lobbyists or sticking a finger in the air.

It's a minimum and it's probably to avoid scaring people. :pac:

rubadub

Deleted User wrote: »

Those charts are just representing data, they don't actually say what's healthy.

You get how percentiles work, yes? If everyone under the age of 20 put on 2 stone tomorrow none of them would move on a percentile chart which makes it next to useless.

If every 20 year old put on 2 stone of fat then the "recommended classification" side would have to change for 20 year olds. As I said before "I am talking about the natural shifting rather than trying to find an ideal BMI."

I get what you are saying about that chart but as I said before I think my points still stand and you are arguing about a pretty moot point.

I am still not sure if you are disagreeing with any points I made about body structure changing, and how calling 25% of 3 year olds obese now might wrong, depending on when the charts were made. Do you agree with that single point?

Also do you agree that a "regular" chart for a 10 year old girl would/should be different than for a 20 year old woman?

Ralphdejones

Corkgirl18 wrote: »

I'd say most people hopefully follow the 5 a day. Its the most useful thing to come from the pyramid

It should be 7 a day according to the UK

rubadub

rubadub wrote: »

If every 20 year old put on 2 stone of fat then the "recommended classification" side would have to change for 20 year olds. As I said before "I am talking about the natural shifting rather than trying to find an ideal BMI."

I get what you are saying about that chart but as I said before I think my points still stand and you are arguing about a pretty moot point.

If we apply the same principle to the entire population then there can never be an increase in the proportion of people who are overweight/obese.

I am still not sure if you are disagreeing with any points I made about body structure changing, and how calling 25% of 3 year olds obese now might wrong, depending on when the charts were made. Do you agree with that single point?

Depends what you mean by "wrong"? Doing it by percentiles is certainly wrong.

Also do you agree that a "regular" chart for a 10 year old girl would/should be different than for a 20 year old woman?

To some extent. It's still complete nonsense to go by percentiles.

EDIT: Body composition has an effect, but by 20 someone is fully-grown. Also puberty is the main effect on body composition. Their height is accounted for in the calculation of BMI already and I don't think there's been a massive increase in muscularity in the under-10s.