Over weight baby - Child abuse?

iguana

One of the things I wonder about with getting a child weighed by health professionals is that the charts work of percentiles. My 5 year old is considered to be a healthy weight because he is in the 56th percentile for bmi. But if we as a societal whole are getting fatter aren't the percentiles going up? Would he have been in the 80th percentile in the 70s or 80s? It worries me because I think our perceptions have changed. We are getting so used to seeing people be overweight that overweight looks normal. I look back at photos from my childhood in the 80s and the kids that we used to consider overweight then look completely average to me now. I don't feel like I can actually trust my own perception.

_Dara_

iguana wrote: »

One of the things I wonder about with getting a child weighed by health professionals is that the charts work of percentiles. My 5 year old is considered to be a healthy weight because he is in the 56th percentile for bmi. But if we as a societal whole are getting fatter aren't the percentiles going up? Would he have been in the 80th percentile in the 70s or 80s? It worries me because I think our perceptions have changed. We are getting so used to seeing people be overweight that overweight looks normal. I look back at photos from my childhood in the 80s and the kids that we used to consider overweight then look completely average to me now. I don't feel like I can actually trust my own perception.

I just can’t get on board with this thinking. I know what size 10 should look like and size 12 and size 14 etc. That hasn’t changed because less people fit the healthy size 8 or 10 jeans.

Same with kids, I know an overweight child when I see it. It’s easy to spot when a child (or adult) is carrying fat where they shouldn’t be.

I see no evidence that we are losing our ability to discern what overweight is.

Raging_Ninja

facehugger99 wrote: »

D

It’s hardly that complicated.

Eat less crap, exercise more.

Not exactly rocket science.

People are disagreeing with you but I've lost a stone and a half in the last 3 months doing just this.

Quite literally reduced the amount of food I ate. Only diet change was from oven chips to homemade sweet potato chips, and replaced the ham and cheese roll at lunch for fruit.

Muscle is gained in the gym, fat is lost in the kitchen.

goz83

biko wrote: »

Are you giving your child meat?
In my vegan opinion that is abuse*

Sugary drinks?
Call da cops!


*everyone is someone else's bad person.

No. Giving a child meat as part of a healthy diet is what normal parents do. Your vegan opinion doesn’t come into it.

One poster was spot on. 20 years ago, there were classes of 30 students and usually only 1 (or none) was a fat kid. I attended a confirmation mass a few weeks ago and was horrified when I noticed that more than half the kids were over weight, or obese.

iguana

_Dara_ wrote: »

I just can’t get on board with this thinking. I know what size 10 should look like and size 12 and size 14 etc. That hasn’t changed because less people fit the healthy size 8 or 10 jeans.

It has changed though because the majority of clothing manufacturers have moved the goal posts. Size 10 clothing now is generally bigger than a size 12 or sometimes even a 14 from the 90s. I tend to bring a tape measure clothes shopping with me and flatter sizing is real. I used to work with vintage clothing and I still have clothing from the 60s to the 90s in my own wardrobe and the size differences for supposedly same sized clothing are comical. It's even prevalent now with children's waistbands getting wider for younger age ranges.

beauf

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

People are disagreeing with you but I've lost a stone and a half in the last 3 months doing just this....

That's not what they are disagreeing with.

_Dara_

iguana wrote: »

It has changed though because the majority of clothing manufacturers have moved the goal posts. Size 10 clothing now is generally bigger than a size 12 or sometimes even a 14 from the 90s. I tend to bring a tape measure clothes shopping with me and flatter sizing is real. I used to work with vintage clothing and I still have clothing from the 60s to the 90s in my own wardrobe and the size differences for supposedly same sized clothing are comical. It's even prevalent now with children's waistbands getting wider for younger age ranges.

Let me rephrase. I know what size 10 as I fitted into it circa 2000 looked like. Despite more people being overweight, we all know slender people. They haven’t gone away. We all have that reference point. And nobody is going to call a circa 2000 size 10 “too thin”. It’s clearly a healthy look.

I just don’t buy the idea that people don’t know what overweight looks like. There are enough slim people around for the comparison to be made.

Mrhuth

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

[/B]

People know that really.

The crap tastes nice and is simple to prepare.

People take the lazy option. Human nature.

And you are an alien I guess?

suicide_circus

"Have you ever wondered why fat parents have fat children or why Chinese parents have Chinese children? It's no coincidence.
It's because of D.N.A.
You take a dash of Dad, a pinch of Mom then we bake for nine months, and- Mmm. That's good Billy."

meeeeh

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

People are disagreeing with you but I've lost a stone and a half in the last 3 months doing just this.

Quite literally reduced the amount of food I ate. Only diet change was from oven chips to homemade sweet potato chips, and replaced the ham and cheese roll at lunch for fruit.

Muscle is gained in the gym, fat is lost in the kitchen.

Congratulations but losing weight is not the biggest challenge, it's keeping it down. Vast majority of people can lose weight but as far as I know over 90% will put it back on.

Edit: there is no denying that we are getting fatter and clothing sizes are becoming more generous. The latest is H&M having to change their UK sizing charts because people were upset because they were a size bigger in their clothing. However we are also getting taller so comparison to sizing in fifties probably isn't the most relevant anyway.

Raging_Ninja

beauf wrote: »

That's not what they are disagreeing with.

One person said "if it was that easy..." and another asked how often that worked.

Fact is, the act of reducing your food intake is not complicated - you only have to eat less food. The hard part is sticking to it.

jigglypuffstuff

suicide_circus wrote: »

"Have you ever wondered why fat parents have fat children or why Chinese parents have Chinese children? It's no coincidence.
It's because of D.N.A.
You take a dash of Dad, a pinch of Mom then we bake for nine months, and- Mmm. That's good Billy."

Emm no...it doesn't work like that

Being overweight is rarely genetic...it's moreso a result of ignoring the energy balance equation

ceadaoin.

meeeeh wrote: »

Congratulations but losing weight is not the biggest challenge, it's keeping it down. Vast majority of people can lose weight but as far as I know over 90% will put it back on.

Edit: there is no denying that we are getting fatter and clothing sizes are becoming more generous. The latest is H&M having to change their UK sizing charts because people were upset because they were a size bigger in their clothing. However we are also getting taller so comparison to sizing in fifties probably isn't the most relevant anyway.

No, h&m clothes were actually out of line with other stores and labelled differently. Everything was one size out. For example, based on measurements, a EU34 is a UK 8, they had it labelled as a UK 6. Now they have fixed it. Nothing to do with vanity sizing.

Pelvis

ED E wrote: »

Drink driving became unacceptable socially and has fallen off a cliff. Time to do the same with obesity.

There is a reason drink driving because socially unacceptable, can you guess what it is?

ED E wrote: »

Its not easy but it is simple. There's no voodoo magic involved, just effort and control.

The concept is simple. Clearly it's not so simple in practice, otherwise obesity rates would be falling, not rising.

Overeating is the cause of obesity, but what is the cause of the overeating. Only when that is addressed will we start to make any progress.

Food nutrition education from an early age would be a good start, and banning all advertising for anything classed as junk food.

BrokenArrows

....... wrote: »

Youd be hard pressed to put together a filling tasty healthy meal for 4 euro and 15 minutes.

Slice up a chicken breast, fry it with a little olive oil, salt and pepper.
Cut up a salad . Lettuce, onion, tomatoes, peppers. Mix in the cooked chicken and ass some salad dressing of your choice.

That's about 5 minutes and very healthy and filling and costs less than 4 euro.

.......

This post has been deleted.

jigglypuffstuff

....... wrote: »

I actually forgot to mention in my post that the pizza would feed 2 adults - it was a large one.

I would still be hungry after just a chicken fillet and salad - thats not a dinner for an adult IMO. A nice lunch.

Add buckwheat pasta 75g per person (100g if a gym goer who lifts)

You won't be hungry then

BrokenArrows

suicide_circus wrote: »

"Have you ever wondered why fat parents have fat children or why Chinese parents have Chinese children? It's no coincidence.
It's because of D.N.A.
You take a dash of Dad, a pinch of Mom then we bake for nine months, and- Mmm. That's good Billy."

No, fat parents have fat children because the parents pass on the same bad eating habits to their children.

Very very few people in the world are fat due to a genetic problem.

Some people may gain weight faster compared to another person when they eat **** food. But it's your choice to continuing to eat **** food.

Some people seem to think you can turn a salad into 50 kilos due to DNA.

asteroids over berlin

I suggest you mind your own business, as somebody else pointed out, there are developmental checks at various stages of the childs life. Fcuking social media is causing mental illness on a dramatically large scale - too many stupid people sharing stupid opinions (i class the op in this bracket). Mind your own business, who in gods name would report a parent for having a child overweight. Even if the child is obese, it's not your business, i am sure a family member would mention it too, you stick to minding your own business luv. Get it together peeps!

Hector Savage

It's so unnecessary , there was a program on the BBC a few years ago about parents like these (in the UK), not just obese kids but kids with no teeth because of all the sugar they were given.

Poor kids don't have a choice here ... they don't know any better, one girl had no teeth cos her mother used to give her tomato ketchup like it was milk, she thought it was healthy as it "is full of tomato"

She was astounded when told it was full of sugar.
You could see the dentist was so angry cos he knew it was so easily avoidable.

There was another 5 year old kid that was HUGE, he couldn't walk much he would waddle and they would take him to school in a wheelbarrow, the poor kid jesus!!

wexie

Hector Savage wrote: »

Poor kids don't have a choice here ... they don't know any better, one girl had no teeth cos her mother used to give her tomato ketchup like it was milk, she thought it was healthy as it "is full of tomato" !

One of your 5-a-day innit?

Hector Savage

You'd be amazed the amount of people that think tomato ketchup is actually healthy ... I have to bite my lip so much.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Raging_Ninja

....... wrote: »

At the end of it all - the pizza is still tastier for a lot of people, less work and less hassle overall. So its easy to see why bad choices are getting made.

I'd say it's only tastier because people don't know what they're missing out on...

Have started making my own bolognese and honestly not sure if I could go back to dolmio.

.......

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo

pone2012 wrote: »

Emm no...it doesn't work like that

Emm yes..... it does. Or do you have another explanation as to why Chinese parents tend to have Chinese children?

pone2012 wrote: »

Being overweight is rarely genetic...it's moreso a result of ignoring the energy balance equation

Well no, pretty much everything that happens about such things is genetic. What happens to food, and how it is laid down as fat in your body, is entirely controlled by genes.

What you likely mean is that being overweight is rarely SOLELY genetic. That would be more correct. There have been rare conditions identified where obesity seems to be caused solely by genetic mutations. Bardet–Biedl springs to mind.

However we need to be careful with words like "rare". Because what is "rare" in one population could be very common in another. For example Yang/Kelly/He write in "Genetic epidemiology of obesity" and note that "Heritabilities for obesity-related phenotypes varied from 6% to 85% among various populations."

I do not know about you but 85% is not "rare" to me. Whereas 6% is more so. But even then what is "rare"? Estimates on the number of homosexuals in our community vary from 2 to 10% in studies I have read. And look how much they are part of our society and culture.

Raging_Ninja

....... wrote: »

A lot of people dont have the time or inclination to be making their own bolognese when they can use a jar of dolmio.

Its a much busier world. When I was a kid my mother didnt work so she had the time, daily, or every second day, to go to the supermarket (walked there, no car), choose the freshest ingredients - including cheaper cuts of meat, and then make a great dinner from scratch over about 4 hours (because those cheap cuts of meat needed a lot of slow cooking). She was able to produce really healthy home cooked meals at a good price because quite simply - she had the time.

I certainly dont have that kind of time. I do the weekly food shop on a Saturday and then I have certain dinners I premake and others that I can make fast after work. I dont have the luxury of taking my time to get the freshest ingredients and eat meals that take more than about 30-40 minutes to produce. Yet I still make as much as I can from scratch.

But for loads of people, they just hit convenience and with the cheap rubbish being cheaper than healthy food and quicker to prepare - its dolmio all the way.

I'm just speaking from my own experience, but making my own bolognese takes the same amount of time as making spagbol with dolmio - I just put the tomatoes on first while waiting for the water to boil. The same goes for making my own sweet potato chips - takes about 1 minute of chopping and slicing and sprinkling with rapeseed oil and paprika.

It's a lot cheaper too. I've been learning that a lot of the little things we use like dolmio and frozen chips and shop-bought sliced bread are just a false economy.

Haven't started making my own bread yet, but in terms of preparation it's actually quite low-maintenance.

In terms of the overhead for purchasing ingredients - I do my shopping on Saturdays. Marinated chicken for Sunday, pulled pork or something similar for Monday Tuesday, freeze mince for Wednesday and Thursday and figure out something for Friday and Saturday. Total time shopping is less than an hour. Granted I don't have kids to feedbut I imagine that's just a matter of buying more rather than needing to spend significantly more time sorting it out. Once you get into a routine then the time spent is lowered dramatically.

And I'd rather slit my wrists than spend more than 30 minutes preparing a meal.

meeeeh

ceadaoin. wrote: »

No, h&m clothes were actually out of line with other stores and labelled differently. Everything was one size out. For example, based on measurements, a EU34 is a UK 8, they had it labelled as a UK 6. Now they have fixed it. Nothing to do with vanity sizing.

I know that was stated. But they are Northern European brand and their clothing size 36 is about a size bigger than Spanish or French size 36. Another company from the same group COS state that on their size guide where Eur 34 is UK 8, FR/ES 36 and IT 40. German companies like S.Oliver will have similar. I have a pair of trousers from Cos size 38 and I could probably take them in 5cm and easily fit into them and I have pair size 38 from Mango and they are tight.

noble00

Gosh while I know there is a lot of over weight children and I also think this is terrible to see but abuse no , my son was nearly 10 pounds in weight when born I'm not overweight , he was a very chubby baby nothing in the world I could do about it unless I starve him, as soon as he starting walking the weight starting to fall off him and he is now 15 5f8 slim build and still growing, your talking about a baby here , people need to stop looking at others and concentrate on their own.

meeeeh

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

I'm just speaking from my own experience, but making my own bolognese takes the same amount of time as making spagbol with dolmio - I just put the tomatoes on first while waiting for the water to boil. The same goes for making my own sweet potato chips - takes about 1 minute of chopping and slicing and sprinkling with rapeseed oil and paprika.

It's a lot cheaper too. I've been learning that a lot of the little things we use like dolmio and frozen chips and shop-bought sliced bread are just a false economy.

Haven't started making my own bread yet, but in terms of preparation it's actually quite low-maintenance.

In terms of the overhead for purchasing ingredients - I do my shopping on Saturdays. Marinated chicken for Sunday, pulled pork or something similar for Monday Tuesday, freeze mince for Wednesday and Thursday and figure out something for Friday and Saturday. Total time shopping is less than an hour. Granted I don't have kids to feedbut I imagine that's just a matter of buying more rather than needing to spend significantly more time sorting it out. Once you get into a routine then the time spent is lowered dramatically.

And I'd rather slit my wrists than spend more than 30 minutes preparing a meal.

Well what you are making is not Bolognese sauce. It's some version of minced meat and tomato sauce. Proper Bolognese takes couple of hours to make and difference in taste is spectacular.

I like cooking but as everyone I don't overly have time during the week so Bolognese, roasts and similar are kept for weekends. Best fast healthy food is fish and there are some that can be bought relatively cheaply. Chicken fillet, bulgur and some salad is food for people who don't care about taste of food. Some excellent meals can be made from those ingredients but you will need time to marinade or at least add spices to otherwise extremely bland chicken fillets, get loads of different herbs to ad to bulgur and make proper dressing. I have yet to come accross shop bought salad dressing that isn't disgusting.

I wouldn't call myself a good cook but my cooking tends to be quite popular among adults. (I have yet to persuade kids that hake in tomato and chickpea stew is lovely). However decent meals take a bit of time and planning and for those of us who enjoy food chicken breast and a bit of lettuce just isn't worth making.

facehugger99

meeeeh wrote: »

Well what you are making is not Bolognese sauce. It's some version of minced meat and tomato sauce. Proper Bolognese takes couple of hours to make and difference in taste is spectacular.

What I do is make a lot in one go. It's not a huge amount of difference time wise between making 20 portions vs 2 portions.

Then I put them into tupperwares, label and freeze them and take them out as required.

I do this with a load of other meals too, loads of curries, goulash, chilli con carnies, soups, cottage pies, lasagnas, etc.

I find I might have to spend a day every 6 weeks or so doing a fairly extensive cooking day but it frees up the rest of the weekends. When I'm doing cooking I just stick on some music and nobody asks you to do anything else around the house - which I like.

Now granted, you'd need a large chest freezer to do it this way, but it means I have home cooked food pretty much everyday. I never use jars, couldn't go back to them to be honest once you get used to your own cooking and I would have been mad for the ragu in my student days.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

I was thinking about this thread driving home from work yesterday and really noticed, for the first time, just how many people are overweight nowadays. I'd say over half the people I drove past were overweight or obese. It definitely wasn't like that years ago.

Ubbquittious

Everything is child abuse lately. Smoking in the car, teaching religion, letting them go for a run outside. All f*cking child abuse according to the tweeting mobs

.......

This post has been deleted.

iguana

_Dara_ wrote: »

Let me rephrase. I know what size 10 as I fitted into it circa 2000 looked like. Despite more people being overweight, we all know slender people. They haven’t gone away. We all have that reference point. And nobody is going to call a circa 2000 size 10 “too thin”. It’s clearly a healthy look.

I just don’t buy the idea that people don’t know what overweight looks like. There are enough slim people around for the comparison to be made.

We can certainly recognise when someone is slim but for the most part the boundaries of what we consider slim have widened. People think they "could probably stand to lose a pond or two when they" are nearly or actually obese. People who are morbidly obese have no idea and assume they have a stone or so to lose. Few people realise that the difference between a healthy weight and obese can be as little as 2-3 stone while also not recognising that the little bit of flab they recognise on themselves is that 2-3 stone rather than the pound or two they admit to.

I'm 155cm. At a healthy weight I'm a size 8-10 depending on manufacturer/era the clothing was made. If I'm overweight, I'm a 10-12, though a modern 12 will be baggy. If the modern 12 fits me well, I'm in a weight range classified as obese. Even despite the fact that I am short in height, nobody assumes a size 12 adult woman could possibly be obese. A little bit overweight, absolutely, but obese? No way.

.......

This post has been deleted.

seligehgit

Pac1Man wrote: »

It is a form of child abuse in my opinion (although not from a legal standing). You're giving them such a disadvantage starting out, both medically and socially. You can't blame a lack of knowledge now either with the information that is available to us.

4 recognised forms of abuse.

Neglect
Physical
Emotional
Sexual

_Dara_

iguana wrote: »

We can certainly recognise when someone is slim but for the most part the boundaries of what we consider slim have widened. People think they "could probably stand to lose a pond or two when they" are nearly or actually obese. People who are morbidly obese have no idea and assume they have a stone or so to lose. Few people realise that the difference between a healthy weight and obese can be as little as 2-3 stone while also not recognising that the little bit of flab they recognise on themselves is that 2-3 stone rather than the pound or two they admit to.

I'm 155cm. At a healthy weight I'm a size 8-10 depending on manufacturer/era the clothing was made. If I'm overweight, I'm a 10-12, though a modern 12 will be baggy. If the modern 12 fits me well, I'm in a weight range classified as obese. Even despite the fact that I am short in height, nobody assumes a size 12 adult woman could possibly be obese. A little bit overweight, absolutely, but obese? No way.

Have they? Despite the After Hours exaggerations, there are still plenty of properly slim people about. There’s nobody here who doesn’t know some. No matter what vanity sizing comes in, as a 5’3.5” woman, I know that I start getting chubby in the low ten stones which incidentally is when my BMI goes over 25. If I fit into a pair of size 10s at 10.5 stone, I know I’m not really a size 10. Many people know well when they are overweight and the rest are likely in denial.

I think size 12 will only be obese on women who are around the five foot mark. If I fit into a size 12 in most shops these days, that means I’m less than 11 stone, if I’m over 11 stone, it’s size 14. A 12 won’t go near me. And at 11 stone, I’m not even obese! Work it out. 11 stone and under at my height is overweight but not obese. You have to be very short for even a modern day size 12 to signify obesity.

People are more clued in than people give them credit for. We all know what a slender person looks like.

.......

This post has been deleted.

fattymuatty

Surely everyone knows that there is a difference between a chunky baby (a kid under 1 like in the OP is a baby) and an overweight 8 yo. I've got 2 kids the first was born long and lanky and stayed that way. The youngest was huge, rolls on her thighs and big cheeks. She is now a tall, very slim 8 yo old. Except starve the poor child there was nothing I could do about her weight as a baby. She had a voracious appetite. She finds it amusing now looking back at photos of herself when she was young, you would never guess looking at her now that she used to be built like a tank.
Gaining fat is what babies do, it is expected. It certainly isn't child abuse.

Pac1Man

Pac1Man wrote: »

It is a form of child abuse in my opinion (although not from a legal standing).You're giving them such a disadvantage starting out, both medically and socially. You can't blame a lack of knowledge now either with the information that is available to us.

Technically, child neglect is by far the most common form of child abuse in Ireland.

The first interim report of the Child Care Law Reporting Project found that child neglect accounted for over a fifth of 333 cases, involving 573 children, which came before the courts between December 2012 and July 2013.

The second most common reason for an order being sought before the courts (17.7 per cent of cases) was on ‘multiple’ grounds, which might include neglect, abuse, domestic violence, alcohol and/or drug abuse and mental illness.Neglect most common form of child abuse

Child neglect is the most frequent form of child abuse, with children born to young mothers at a substantial risk for neglect...

_Dara_

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I disagree. Saying slender or slim isn’t indicating abnormality. That was always the phraseology used - slim, slender, trim. Trim was normal. But it was still trim. It’s just that more people used to fit into that category.

Pac1Man

seligehgit wrote: »

4 recognised forms of abuse.

Neglect
Physical
Emotional
Sexual

Deleted User wrote: »

Technically, child neglect is by far the most common form of child abuse in Ireland.

Hmm. I stand corrected.

4ensic15

What should happen is that there should be collections for the fat babies same as there used to be collections for the black babies. That would focus attention on the issue.

.......

This post has been deleted.

mariaalice

Its very complex, yesterday went to the beach for a swim, a very overweight child of about five got into paddle her mother was large enough as well they were with a group of what I would say we're friends and family.

The thing is the other children and adults in the group were all average/normal size, how would you tackle that is it really abuse at least the child has been out walking swimming and exercising on a Sunday, but if the child was left to run around while the parent or parents spent Sunday afternoon in a pub now there two concerns about neglect.

One concern where a child is otherwise in a loving household is not abused in and of its self.

Pelvis

mariaalice wrote: »

Its very complex, yesterday went to the beach for a swim, a very overweight child of about five got into paddle her mother was large enough as well they were with a group of what I would say we're friends and family.

The thing is the other children and adults in the group were all average/normal size, how would you tackle that is it really abuse at least the child has been out walking swimming and exercising on a Sunday, but if the child was left to run around while the parent or parents spent Sunday afternoon in a pub now there two concerns about neglect.

One concern where a child is otherwise in a loving household is not abused in and of its self.

What?

Dakota Dan

FFred wrote: »

Scuttery cow .. Scuttery calf

But a scuttery calf loses weight.

mariaalice

Pelvis wrote: »

What?

It's not abused to have an overweight child, but it might be an indication of neglect if other factors indicating neglect are present.

Neyite

_Dara_ wrote: »

People are more clued in than people give them credit for. We all know what a slender person looks like.

A lot aren't unfortunately.

Dressmaking patterns have even veered in sizing from couture days and even those differ hugely from what sizes are in the shops. An 8-10 in high street shops translates to maybe a 14-16 on some dressmaking patterns if you go by actual inches or centimetres:



But if you grab a tape measure and measured actual inches, it's a very interesting (if depressing!) experiment. Start with the hip size which you measure as 9" below your waist point, and that's your basic pattern 'size'. You adjust all other measurements such as bust, height etc on the pattern but the pattern size you buy will be the one that will fit your hips as that's the widest part of the female body.