Should obese kids be taken away from their parents?

[YLVD]

Cheryl, I have lived on the edge of the inner city for fourteen years. I am a white woman who lives in an impoverished African-American neighborhood. I have volunteered with inner-city ministries extensively and have many friends and acquaintances who live in the most terrible neighborhoods of Chicago.

 

Hard as it may be to grasp, there ARE places where it is very, very difficult to find actual fruits and vegetables. Convenience stores in the 'hood generally do not stock the items you have mentioned, though I have seen convenience stores in more affluent and/or rural areas that do so.

 

It's even harder to find and prepare good, wholesome food when you've never been taught. There are truly some people who are doing their level best, who are loving parents, and who cannot access decent food easily and who have not been taught even to seek it out or how to prepare it. And frankly, all too often, the most overwhelming need in their daily life is staying SAFE. This concern can and does overshadow many other important things.

 

Just my experience . . .

 

:iagree:

 

I didn't read your post before I posted.

 

I'm also a white woman that grew up in inner city Los Angeles. Compton anyone?

 

Staying safe and getting some food, any food, is very much a priority in those areas.

[Carrie12345]

Now you're talking about issues of education and literacy though, another obstacle in those exact neighbourhoods where fresh food is a problem.

 

None of that is an excuse for why there kids can't eat healthy. What it should be is a call to action for those of us who are in the position to help somehow.

 

:iagree:

I just watched the documentary "Ingredients" the other night. A farm brought city school kids in for a field trip.

Farm person asks "What are vegetables?"

Several beats of silence.

One (older) child offers "What vegetarians eat?"

 

Not unlike Jamie Oliver's experience.

 

We can argue time/money constraints as a genuine issue (and they are), but for children to grow up NEVER being introduced to produce? Not even in, say, a science lesson, let alone at the table? Gee, I almost said "It should be a crime." :001_huh:

[Harriet Vane]

Thank you for your viewpoint. But in the 'hood, is McD's really the least expensive and healthiest option? Have you ever looked at the nutritional info? In the 'hood does the c-store have canned fruit (maybe in light syrup), canned tuna, mayonnaise, bread, peanut butter, jelly? I would still maintain that theses items are healthier than McD's.

 

Every time I mention educating poverty stricken people how to live healthy on the board I am crucified. People can't believe that I am so judgmental that I think just because someone's poor they don't know how to live healthy. I'm glad that a long-time member held in high regard agrees with me on this point. I wish we could get produce into the inner cities, it completely baffles me that we can't. It also completely baffles me the amount of people that don't know how to live healthy!

 

I lived near DC for awhile. We were at the last stop on the Metro, 12 miles from DC. There was a Safeway grocery store there. The prices were cheaper than Salt Lake City and Albuquerque. Why can't people hop on the Metro & pick up a few days worth of food?

 

I find that it takes an enormous, focused effort to find healthy food in certain areas of the city. In those areas, folks are often far more preoccupied with basic SAFETY and frankly don't have a lot of energy for figuring out the vast complexities of getting better food.

 

I have seen convenience stores that are little more than pop, chips, and candy. I have also been in small, neighborhood grocery stores that literally do not have any fresh produce. Often McDonald's is cheaper.

 

Yes, there are poor people that have been taught and who do the work to get better food. It takes a focused, determined effort, and time, to do so. Such people DO get on the bus or the el and make a big grocery run. However, it's a big effort.

 

There is a population, though, that have never been taught the many layers of maintaining a healthy diet. Not having access to reasonable food contributes to that cultural context.

 

My point is simply to not judge. When I hear a mom say that McDonald's is the best she can do, I think of some of the families I have known over the years in the city, and I know that it's likely that that poor mom really is doing her best.

[Audrey]

Those salads sound yummy; our McD's doesn't have either one. :glare:

 

 

They don't???? :confused: I thought McDonald's carried pretty much the same menu everywhere??

 

ETA: Those salads are frikkin' awesome. They've revolutionized my own at-home salad making. If I could just find the doggone dressing they use (my local stores don't carry that brand), I'd eat those things every day.

[Momof3littles]

I find that it takes an enormous, focused effort to find healthy food in certain areas of the city. In those areas, folks are often far more preoccupied with basic SAFETY and frankly don't have a lot of energy for figuring out the vast complexities of getting better food.

 

I have seen convenience stores that are little more than pop, chips, and candy. I have also been in small, neighborhood grocery stores that literally do not have any fresh produce. Often McDonald's is cheaper.

 

Yes, there are poor people that have been taught and who do the work to get better food. It takes a focused, determined effort, and time, to do so. Such people DO get on the bus or the el and make a big grocery run. However, it's a big effort.

 

There is a population, though, that have never been taught the many layers of maintaining a healthy diet. Not having access to reasonable food contributes to that cultural context.

 

My point is simply to not judge. When I hear a mom say that McDonald's is the best she can do, I think of some of the families I have known over the years in the city, and I know that it's likely that that poor mom really is doing her best.

 

Well said. :iagree:

[YLVD]

Thank you for your viewpoint. But in the 'hood, is McD's really the least expensive and healthiest option? Have you ever looked at the nutritional info? In the 'hood does the c-store have canned fruit (maybe in light syrup), canned tuna, mayonnaise, bread, peanut butter, jelly? I would still maintain that theses items are healthier than McD's.

 

Every time I mention educating poverty stricken people how to live healthy on the board I am crucified. People can't believe that I am so judgmental that I think just because someone's poor they don't know how to live healthy. I'm glad that a long-time member held in high regard agrees with me on this point. I wish we could get produce into the inner cities, it completely baffles me that we can't. It also completely baffles me the amount of people that don't know how to live healthy!

 

I lived near DC for awhile. We were at the last stop on the Metro, 12 miles from DC. There was a Safeway grocery store there. The prices were cheaper than Salt Lake City and Albuquerque. Why can't people hop on the Metro & pick up a few days worth of food?

 

I'm not crucifying you but I think that you are seeing things through a certain lens.

 

I might too if I hadn't grown up in the inner city. I now live in an area that is very much the opposite.

 

The availability and ease of getting food is so staggeringly different.

 

All urban areas are not the same. Some people do not have the money, even for the bus. Not all inner city's have a grocery store anywhere nearby. There are corner stores with no produce, powdered drink mix and chips. We had a car so we were able to go outside of the area a bit. Most people did not.

 

I grew up in inner city Los Angeles. People did not go outside and wait for the bus without a weapon. That was a rough period in that neighborhood, especially drug activity. Walking down the street was unsafe. Period.

 

When we moved out of that area, we were in a much nicer area. My step-dad was able to stop carrying a gun as he drove around!

 

If I had grown up in my current area, I might not be as aware.

Edited July 16, 2011 by YLVD

[Snickerdoodle]

Very true story: I saw the new employee at the produce section of the grocery store. The manager was taking him around to acquaint him and asking him to name the vegetables and fruits as he pointed to them.

 

The man didn't know a single one. An orange. The manager pointed to an orange and the man didn't know.

 

I could only imagine that it was a language issue.

[cdrumm4448]

Every time I mention educating poverty stricken people how to live healthy on the board I am crucified. People can't believe that I am so judgmental that I think just because someone's poor they don't know how to live healthy. I'm glad that a long-time member held in high regard agrees with me on this point.

 

Others agree with you.

 

People need to stop making excuses for themselves.

[Snickerdoodle]

Often McDonald's is cheaper.

More likely it's the pizza by the slice that's cheaper.

[YLVD]

Others agree with you.

 

People need to stop making excuses for themselves.

 

I'll be sure to tell that to my 15 yr old dd with an endocrine disorder.

[historically accurate]

They don't???? :confused: I thought McDonald's carried pretty much the same menu everywhere??

 

ETA: Those salads are frikkin' awesome. They've revolutionized my own at-home salad making. If I could just find the doggone dressing they use (my local stores don't carry that brand), I'd eat those things every day.

 

We have:

 

Snack size Fruit & Walnut (good, but expensive for snack size)

Bacon Ranch Salad

Southwest Salad

Caesar Salad

Side Salad (cheap, but mainly iceberg lettuce with some sad little tomatoes)

[Audrey]

We have:

 

Snack size Fruit & Walnut (good, but expensive for snack size)

Bacon Ranch Salad

Southwest Salad

Caesar Salad

Side Salad (cheap, but mainly iceberg lettuce with some sad little tomatoes)

 

 

Okay. We have the Southwest, Caesar and the side salad, plus those other two.

 

You need more salads!

 

ETA: Oo! I forgot that there's also a Mediterranean Salad. My dh likes that one. I'm not a big feta fan myself, but he loves it.

[WishboneDawn]

Others agree with you.

 

People need to stop making excuses for themselves.

 

I don't think anyone is talking excuses and I actually think most agree with Cheryl on the basic issue that education is key. They're simply pointing out that it's not the only issue that we need to address or they're pointing out instance where the education might have to be more fundamental then Cheryl might have realized.

 

Cheryl pointed out that one could compare nutritional info of a McD's meal to canned goods in a corner store. I pointed out that itself requires some education and literacy skills, two key pieces that might be missing in an inner city environment.

 

Others have pointed out that basic access to healthy foods is a key problem in those areas.

 

An excuse is when you offer up some reason for something and then throw your hands up and ask, "But what are you going to do about it, eh?" and walk away. Looking for issues that contribute to obesity in some families that live in a particular environment is not about just walking away. It's about informing yourself so that you might be in a position to change things. So that you can help people know better and do better.

 

I really see Cheryl and the other posters talking about the same issue - education.

 

And gosh, if you agree with her, why not add to the discussion and offer further support for her, and your, position?

[Momof3littles]

Nutrition info on Bacon Ranch salad w crispy chicken:

Calories 390

Fat 22 grams

Carbs 24 g

Fiber 4 g

Sugars 7 g

 

Bacon Ranch salad w/ grilled chicken

Calories 230

Fat 9g

Carbs 10 g

Fiber 4 g

sugar 5g

 

Premium caesar salad with grilled chicken

Calories 190

Fat 5 g

Carbs 10g

Fiber 4 g

sugar 5g

 

Quarter Pounder with cheese:

Calories 510

Fat 26 g

Carbs 40g

Fiber 3 g

sugar 9g

 

edited to add "big n' tasty"

460 cal

Fat 24 g

Carbs 37 g

Fiber 3 g

sugar 9 g

 

 

 

Something like the Quarter Pounder or the Big N' Tasty isn't all that strikingly different in nutritional content than the bacon ranch salad w/ crispy chicken. You could argue that at least it has veggies, but I wonder how much nutrition they really render at that point. Again, there are probably "healthier" salads than the premium bacon ranch w/ crispy chicken, but again, we come back to literacy and education. Most people are taught to focus on fat and calories and those two really don't look that different on paper. And that's assuming education and literacy allow the person to make a comparison.

 

A bacon ranch salad w/ grilled chicken is only 230 calories. I can tell you that I am a smaller framed woman and I would be hungry shortly after eating that. 230 calories isn't much if we're talking dinner, and the salad is probably not among the cheapest menu options. A premium caesar salad w/ grilled chicken is under 200 calories. I would be hungry. It wouldn't keep me full for that long.

Edited July 16, 2011 by Momof3littles

[RahRah]

 

 

 

But Happy Meal won't? See, PB&J IS comparable nutritionally to a Happy Meal. That was my point. In fact, if you go with whole grain bread, HFCS-free, all natural peanut butter and fruit preserves with no added sugar your PB&J is HEALTHIER than a Happy Meal.

 

I didn't say that a happy meal was healthier - I noted that your option, a PB&J, even on whole grain bread and preserves with no sugar added, are not a good option for an obese, insulin resistant child.

[Pamela H in Texas]

Also, what is the mom supposed to do? Tell the kid "You're too fat-you have to stop eating." If a child is hungry, they need to eat

 

Give them a reasonable amount of food. If they do not have a medical issue, they are NOT hungry after eating a double cheeseburger, fries and a medium coke. They do NOT need four big macs no matter what.

 

When my fd got here, we did not limit her food AT ALL because we felt it important that she and her brothers knew, without a doubt, that food would always be available. They couldn't know, the first few weeks, for example, that there would no doubt be breakfast, snack, lunch, snack, supper. So at first, she would get seconds and thirds. Often, she couldn't eat the last serving she got, but she felt the need to get it and we allowed it. We mentioned it to her though so that when we decided it was safe, we could mention to her that she wasn't actually EATING the thirds so maybe she didn't need it afterall. We also told her when the next meal was. She was TOTALLY fine with it. We waited and then worked on not over-eating. Now we're working on slowing down so you can more easily tell whether you're satisfied or not. It's a process.

 

NO child, even if they previously ate four big macs (and fries, soda, and milkshake), *needs* that much. A parent could pare it back. Maybe they could eat the big mac an hour or two after the first big mac or salad if they were hungry then due to the "restriction." But that would *still* put them at less than half the amt they previously ate.

 

Maybe I'm a mean mom? I wouldn't allow a child to work up to four big macs. If I accidentally did, I would work them back down. I also am mean and make them brush their teeth, go to bed at night, wipe after they potty, say please and thank you, etc. I have no trouble not being harsh doing ANY of these things. But I do insist on what I consider basic things.

 

but when your health is important to you, you make the time

 

But this isn't always true. Though I strongly believe in personal responsibility, fact is that there are a limited number of hours per day and you MUST pick your battles even as a stay at home mom of only two kids. And sometimes, you just don't know what battles are worth your time and effort to learn about. And even when you do, you can only go so far. But NO parent knows everything about every aspect of things that effect their children. So I focused on homeschooling and discipline because those seemed important to me. But for example, I neglected too much thought about immunizations. At first, I didn't even know it was something to think much about and by the time I did, it was a bit late. And I don't really have a choice now, so.....

 

Also, just as another poster was humble enough to say, there is SO much conflicting information that a parent doesn't necessarily know what direction to go! For me? Do I force the child to eat and risk relationship issues and an eating disorder? Or do I just offer the food and if he won't eat, he'll end up with a G-tube? Or do I try a few things inbetween, but what if they don't work and he gets sick and has to be hospitalized because he's not healthy due to his size? Even if I find the topic important and research and ask around, I may not find THE right answer. It's scary. I doubt I'm the only parent who can't figure out the right answer sometimes.

Edited July 16, 2011 by 2J5M9K

[Momof3littles]

Well, I guess we have to agree to disagree, because honestly I don't think most of these parents are feeding their kids 4 big macs, fries and a shake. I'm sure those parents are out there, but I don't think that's happening with the majority of obese children.

[Cheryl in NM]

I'm not denying that produce and healthful foods can't be found in the inner city. I've never been there. I've been 12 miles from there, at the end of public transportation and had the least expensive groceries I've ever seen in my life. That said, after reading the many posts in this thread about taking kids on the metro, I understand. I hated the metro. But I agree with Imp, if you want to, you can make it work.

 

I wasn't judging the McD's mom, just pointing out that there are other options that cost the same or less (so I thought).

 

I've been crucified for suggested that people that live on junk food need to be educated to eat healthy. There is a standard for healthy eating. I have made the point in other threads that some people must not know how to eat healthy and we should educate them. I think that thread was before your time on the boards, YLVD, so you missed the reference. That's the "crucifixtion" I was referring to.

 

I'm not trying to be judgmental. But I find it hard to believe that PB&J costs more at an inner city market than McD's. PB&J takes less time to make than it takes to order McD's.

[tricia]

How about offering help to the family instead of splitting them up. Oh, I know why we don't do that...because we just automatically assume there is bad parenting going on and nothing else can be done. That's America's answer to every childhood problem. Just snatch the kids from the parent because the rest of us are surely smarter and better parents and certainly more capable of working through other people's problems when in fact we have our own to deal with.

 

I admit, I'm being snarky, but in my opinion we here in the good ole USA are getting way to top heavy with experts and professionals.

[Cheryl in NM]

Others agree with you.

 

People need to stop making excuses for themselves.

 

Thank you! Sometimes I feel like the *Personal Responsibility Queen*! ;)

[Cheryl in NM]

I didn't say that a happy meal was healthier - I noted that your option, a PB&J, even on whole grain bread and preserves with no sugar added, are not a good option for an obese, insulin resistant child.

 

Oh, I understand. I don't think there is anything at McD's that is good for an IR person either. Check the carb counts on those meals.

[Momof3littles]

I'm not denying that produce and healthful foods can't be found in the inner city. I've never been there. I've been 12 miles from there, at the end of public transportation and had the least expensive groceries I've ever seen in my life. That said, after reading the many posts in this thread about taking kids on the metro, I understand. I hated the metro. But I agree with Imp, if you want to, you can make it work.

 

I wasn't judging the McD's mom, just pointing out that there are other options that cost the same or less (so I thought).

 

I've been crucified for suggested that people that live on junk food need to be educated to eat healthy. There is a standard for healthy eating. I have made the point in other threads that some people must not know how to eat healthy and we should educate them. I think that thread was before your time on the boards, YLVD, so you missed the reference. That's the "crucifixtion" I was referring to.

 

I'm not trying to be judgmental. But I find it hard to believe that PB&J costs more at an inner city market than McD's. PB&J takes less time to make than it takes to order McD's.

 

I am sure that every poster here is in favor of education. I wonder how much guidance these folks are getting from their PCPs and so forth. Again, that's assuming they have access to medical care. Even if they have access to medical care, it may be at a clinic where they see a different nurse or doctor each time. IME there is often not good continuity of care, and that's assuming someone is getting healthcare in the first place. IME, many PCPs are woefully uneducated (or under educated) and misinformed on basic nutrition, and do a poor job of really helping patients. They don't have the time, and sometimes they lack the education needed. My parents have a neighbor who is a very middle class middle aged male. He is severely overweight and was recently dx'd with diabetes. In conversation, he told my mother that he had no idea that he shouldn't be eating so many carbs. He thought potatoes and the like were fine as long as he wasn't eating sugar :confused: . This is a male with access to health care, and who is college-educated.

 

PB&J may or may not be more affordable than McDonald's, but again, I don't know that it is necessarily going to make a positive impact on an already obese (and likely IR) child. In one of your posts you mentioned HFCS-free bread and jam, etc. I usually shop at WFs and the like, and recently ran to the chain grocery that is 5 mins away. I was buying bread for my kids, and I looked at about 10 loaves of bread before I found one without HFCS. I don't think the bodega is going to stock that type of thing. More likely Wonderbread and HFCS-containing jam, and sweetened PB with hydrogenated oils.

Edited July 16, 2011 by Momof3littles

[Pamela H in Texas]

How about offering help to the family instead of splitting them up.

 

How child welfare in this country generally works, when there isn't "oh my goodness, get the kids out this second" danger is that the family:

 

**is investigated to see if there is an issue

**if there is an issue, the family is offered services to help them get things worked out

**if the family refuses services or continues to place their children in harms way, the children are removed.

 

And this already happens in this country for this issue (and it's counter-issue of starving children).

 

No one is talking about "obese" children. We're talking about kids so severely obese, they very well may have a heart attack within the year, who can barely walk they are so heavy, etc. Honestly, I don't think I've seen children at this level of obesity except on tv. And we're talking about ones without a medical reason or whose parents refuse to find out about a medical reason. And we're talking about parents who have chosen to subject their children to this level of medical/nutritional neglect over time, even when offered help and support.

 

I think we *do* need to be very very careful about this. It could be a very slippery slope. But CPS is already involved in other slippery slopes. What is neglectful supervision, a beating, filth, etc? It's all subjective and if we allow them to do it at Z point, then maybe next year, they'll move it up to X point. But at some point, doesn't the child need protection from his parents sometimes?

[Paige]

Nowhere in the article did it say that these children are in impoverished communities with no access to healthy food. The mother said she couldn't afford the special diet, but nobody knows what else was going on in that family or what sort of food she has access too. She said she asked the doctors for help, but there wasn't any comment as to what the doctors advised, if they were compliant, or anything beyond that. I don't have enough information to say if she was treated fairly or unfairly. Yes, obesity is more common in lower income areas but I don't think that's really the problem or the main issue. Plenty of low income people are not overweight, are educated, and provide healthy meals for their children. Plenty of wealthy people are extremely overweight. I think it is paternalistic to say that people simply don't know better and are helpless because they are poor. Would we say that people are overweight because they are uneducated? I disagree that more education and awareness will help much. As a country, we are more educated and heavier than we have ever been. Maybe they choose to spend money on foods they enjoy, maybe they have underlying health issues that cause the body to store fat more easily, maybe they make a decision that they'd rather spend time reading books than chopping veggies or driving farther to a better store, but I don't believe they are helpless and don't know that fruits and vegetables are part of a healthy diet. Additionally, it is possible to eat no veggies and have a healthy diet. It's possible to eat a really high carb diet and not be overweight- for most of agricultural history people lived primarily on staple grains/carbs. Were they healthy? No....but I doubt many were morbidly obese.

 

We have a growing problem in wealthy nations with obesity in all social classes. I don't think children should be taken away unless there is a larger issue of neglect. Are the parents trying to address their child's weight issue? Are they disregarding medical advice when they do have access to other foods and education? I do not think it is at all comparable to the situation in homes where people allegedly feed their kids junk all day and their kids are skinny. Not even close. What I think it is actually comparable to would be the parents of an anorexic who refuse to put their child in treatment or hospitalize them despite the doctors warning that their child is starving to death. Sure, treatment and hospitalizations are expensive, and very time consuming but those parents don't get a pass because it is too hard.

 

I don't think it should be the child's weight that determines whether the state intervenes, but rather the parent's and family's response. We wouldn't want to take an anorexic child away from parents who are desperately trying to save their child, but if they blindly shrug and say, "she'll eat when she's hungry," then there's a problem. Similarly, if we have a 200lb 4yr old whose parents are actively trying to help her it is very different than if the parents shrug their shoulders, tell the doctors to back off, and say that they let her eat whatever she wants when she's hungry.

Edited July 16, 2011 by Paige

[Laura Corin]

I disagree since even though I consider obesity a disease (and am currently truly suffering from the same). I believe most cases result from overeating and lack of exercise. I do believe that metabolic problems such as insulin resistance do develop after becoming obese which makes it very hard to lose weight. I also believe that some people are more genetically prone to obesity but I also believe that does not make it inevitable that a person will be obese in most cases.

 

I lived in China when food was very scarce, and when it became more plentiful: on the first occasion I knew one overweight person (who had political access to extra food) and no obese people; on the second occasion, some people were overweight and a few obese. During the first period there were few cars; during the second, more people had cars or could afford to take taxis. Whilst I am sure it is harder for some people to remain slim or lose weight, there is still a basic relationship between food absorption, energy use and weight.

 

If the parents' actions are endangering the health of the child, then I do think there is a case for removing them, if the removal is likely to result in a much better outcome.

 

Laura

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

How child welfare in this country generally works, when there isn't "oh my goodness, get the kids out this second" danger is that the family:

 

**is investigated to see if there is an issue

**if there is an issue, the family is offered services to help them get things worked out

**if the family refuses services or continues to place their children in harms way, the children are removed.

 

And this already happens in this country for this issue (and it's counter-issue of starving children).

 

No one is talking about "obese" children. We're talking about kids so severely obese, they very well may have a heart attack within the year, who can barely walk they are so heavy, etc. Honestly, I don't think I've seen children at this level of obesity except on tv. And we're talking about ones without a medical reason or whose parents refuse to find out about a medical reason. And we're talking about parents who have chosen to subject their children to this level of medical/nutritional neglect over time, even when offered help and support.

 

I think we *do* need to be very very careful about this. It could be a very slippery slope. But CPS is already involved in other slippery slopes. What is neglectful supervision, a beating, filth, etc? It's all subjective and if we allow them to do it at Z point, then maybe next year, they'll move it up to X point. But at some point, doesn't the child need protection from his parents sometimes?

 

:iagree:As a nurse, I cannot imagine any health care professional advocating removal of a child as a first step or even a second or third step. I also believe this article is only referring to morbidly obese children which means they are severely obese and their life is endangered. A family member worked for child protective services for many years and said that the goal is always to try and keep families together.

[cdrumm4448]

I'll be sure to tell that to my 15 yr old dd with an endocrine disorder.

 

My remark wasn't directed at her. I've read every excuse in the book regarding why this situation exists. There are always exceptions, but...

 

Generally, if a person eats more food than their body can expend in energy, they will gain weight. I'm tired of hearing how parents need the state to run their lives, their families, their children. There are consequences to actions.

 

If you live near a food desert and dislike it, move.

[MomLovesClassics]

If this becomes the norm, removing children because of weight issues, what will the next norm be? What other reasons will they dream up to take children away from parents? I may not agree with each and everyones parenting style, and others may not agree with mine, but when is enough enough? One thing leads to another until everyone is following a stict regime that dictates every aspect of the home life, that is where things are heading and I don't like it.

[twoforjoy]

Generally, if a person eats more food than their body can expend in energy, they will gain weight.

 

The problem is, bodies aren't bunsen burners. The amount of calories a body expends varies a lot. And, for some people, their body will work very, very hard to hold on to weight, and so certain processes that are responsible for most of our calorie burning--because most of it isn't exercise--will slow down dramatically when their food intake is reduced. Everybody does not burn the same number of calories at rest, not even close.

 

As a personal example, I CANNOT lose weight while breastfeeding. I literally cannot. (Well, at least not with my first two babies, you can never say what will happen at a different time.) With my DS, I nursed for 26 months, and didn't drop a single pound the entire time. It didn't matter how much or how little I ate, or how much or how little I exercised. Those things certainly mattered when it came to my mood and energy levels, but not my weight.

 

Then, once I weaned him, I dropped about 30 pounds in two months without changing a single thing about my eating habits or exercise. That should defy all logic, right? I mean, breastfeeding is supposed to burn MORE calories, so logically I should have gained weight after I weaned him, since I didn't start eating less. But, that didn't happen. For whatever reason, and through whatever mechanisms our bodies do these things, while I was breastfeeding, my body simply would not lose weight. I could eat less, and it would somehow compensate for that. Once I weaned, my body apparently stopped feeling the need to do that, and I lost the weight.

 

So, you can very, very easily end up with two people of the same height who eat the same number of calories and exercise the same amount of time, but are two VERY different weights. There are two ways we can respond to that. We can say that the heavier person, even though they are eating just as much as the lighter person, is still eating too much, and expect them to keep reducing their food intake and upping their exercise until they hit some "ideal" weight, if that ever happens. (The problem, of course, is that it's very likely their body will compensate for their decrease in calories and increase in activity by slowing down other calorie-burning processes, and in the vast majority of cases they will not lose significant amounts of weight and definitely won't keep it off long-term, as their body adjusts.) Or, we can say, "Hmm, maybe human bodies vary in size, and it's possible to be healthy while falling outside of the narrow range that, in 1998, our government decided meant a healthy weight. Maybe Person A is simply meant to be a different size than Person B, and that's okay. As long as both are eating well, being active, and healthy, perhaps it's fine for their bodies to be whatever size their bodies will be."

 

Unfortunately, we seem to think that the latter is a "cop-out" or excuse, and the former is the only right way to go, despite the fact that our efforts to reduce people's body weight has been a resounding failure. In fact, all that most weight-loss efforts result in is people ending up fatter than they would have if they'd never gone on a diet in the first place.

 

I'd highly recommend that everybody read Health at Every Size at some point. It's an eye-opening, life-changing book.

Edited July 16, 2011 by twoforjoy

[YLVD]

My remark wasn't directed at her. I've read every excuse in the book regarding why this situation exists. There are always exceptions, but...

 

Generally, if a person eats more food than their body can expend in energy, they will gain weight. I'm tired of hearing how parents need the state to run their lives, their families, their children. There are consequences to actions.

 

If you live near a food desert and dislike it, move.

 

I'm sorry but, are you kidding me with this?

 

People in impoverished areas...rural areas, etc...cannot just up and move or we would all be living in areas with great access to food, etc. I'm in such area and I'm going broke because of it!

[YLVD]

Give them a reasonable amount of food. If they do not have a medical issue, they are NOT hungry after eating a double cheeseburger, fries and a medium coke. They do NOT need four big macs no matter what.

 

When my fd got here, we did not limit her food AT ALL because we felt it important that she and her brothers knew, without a doubt, that food would always be available. They couldn't know, the first few weeks, for example, that there would no doubt be breakfast, snack, lunch, snack, supper. So at first, she would get seconds and thirds. Often, she couldn't eat the last serving she got, but she felt the need to get it and we allowed it. We mentioned it to her though so that when we decided it was safe, we could mention to her that she wasn't actually EATING the thirds so maybe she didn't need it afterall. We also told her when the next meal was. She was TOTALLY fine with it. We waited and then worked on not over-eating. Now we're working on slowing down so you can more easily tell whether you're satisfied or not. It's a process.

 

NO child, even if they previously ate four big macs (and fries, soda, and milkshake), *needs* that much. A parent could pare it back. Maybe they could eat the big mac an hour or two after the first big mac or salad if they were hungry then due to the "restriction." But that would *still* put them at less than half the amt they previously ate.

 

Maybe I'm a mean mom? I wouldn't allow a child to work up to four big macs. If I accidentally did, I would work them back down. I also am mean and make them brush their teeth, go to bed at night, wipe after they potty, say please and thank you, etc. I have no trouble not being harsh doing ANY of these things. But I do insist on what I consider basic things.

 

 

 

But this isn't always true. Though I strongly believe in personal responsibility, fact is that there are a limited number of hours per day and you MUST pick your battles even as a stay at home mom of only two kids. And sometimes, you just don't know what battles are worth your time and effort to learn about. And even when you do, you can only go so far. But NO parent knows everything about every aspect of things that effect their children. So I focused on homeschooling and discipline because those seemed important to me. But for example, I neglected too much thought about immunizations. At first, I didn't even know it was something to think much about and by the time I did, it was a bit late. And I don't really have a choice now, so.....

 

Also, just as another poster was humble enough to say, there is SO much conflicting information that a parent doesn't necessarily know what direction to go! For me? Do I force the child to eat and risk relationship issues and an eating disorder? Or do I just offer the food and if he won't eat, he'll end up with a G-tube? Or do I try a few things inbetween, but what if they don't work and he gets sick and has to be hospitalized because he's not healthy due to his size? Even if I find the topic important and research and ask around, I may not find THE right answer. It's scary. I doubt I'm the only parent who can't figure out the right answer sometimes.

 

:iagree:

 

Good points

 

There are ways to cut down and make small changes to begin with.

 

I know that I struggled a LOT with how to help my DD with weight loss, once she was diagnosed with the endocrine stuff, and not spur an eating disorder.

 

It was tough but we just put the focus on health, for all of us in the house. While we are not perfect, the focus is on eating for health most of the time. We let ourselves have "cheat" day on fridays, which was something that our doctor recommended. Without that, he said that she would have a tougher time.

 

We signed up at the community center gym up the street and go workout together. That has been a lot of fun and good for both of us!

 

It's a hard balance but it can be done. Small changes lead to big changes. Put the focus on strength and health. Make sure that children get to see different body shapes when they are healthy.

[WishboneDawn]

My remark wasn't directed at her. I've read every excuse in the book regarding why this situation exists. There are always exceptions, but...

 

Generally, if a person eats more food than their body can expend in energy, they will gain weight. I'm tired of hearing how parents need the state to run their lives, their families, their children. There are consequences to actions.

 

If you live near a food desert and dislike it, move.

 

:confused:

 

People are talking about the obstacles folks in some areas face. The idea that that somehow translates into the state running peoples lives is your own, not theirs.

 

I'm tired of people claiming that they're tired as a way to avoid talking about real issues.

[Pamela H in Texas]

I know that I struggled a LOT with how to help my DD with weight loss, once she was diagnosed with the endocrine stuff, and not spur an eating disorder.

 

I'm struggling with getting a kid to eat without hurting my relationship with him or spurring an eating disorder (or more of one). I'm also with struggling on how to get two boys to gain weight without causing issues with another who doesn't need to gain any.

 

It can be soooo incredibly difficult to know what to do. That is why, though I strongly believe in personal responsibility (and have been called on it both on this board and in real life), I don't think it's quite as easy as saying, "if one just believes it is important, they'll find a way." There are too many variables and we simply can't be perfect in all areas even if there *was* a single correct answer.

[Perry]

I think the original editorial has been misrepresented. Here's a response by the doctor who wrote it:

 

Doc feels heat over foster care idea for obese kids

Opinion piece in medical journal has triggered a backlash

By Lauren Keiper

updated 7/15/2011 7:07:43 PM ET

 

BOSTON— Boston pediatrician David Ludwig,

the center of a media firestorm this week,

wants to set the record straight on his view

that a state should intervene in the most

extreme cases of child obesity.

Ludwig and co-author Lindsey Murtagh at the

Harvard School of Public Health triggered a

backlash with an opinion piece in a leading U.

S. medical journal about what could be done

about highly overweight youngsters.

They argued that when all other efforts failed,

a state should consider putting high-risk

obese kids in foster care, and said doing so

may be the more ethical choice that could

avert drastic measures like weight-loss

surgery.

Ludwig, of Boston's Children's Hospital, has

since responded to dozens of e-mails this

week from angry and terrified parents. Other

medical experts have questioned the rationale

of removing a child from an otherwise

functional and supportive family if they are

obese.

In his first interview since the backlash began,

 

Ludwig said the article was meant to promote

a dialogue on childhood obesity, which has

become a life-threatening problem for many

youngsters.

"It's absolutely understandable that if

someone with an obese child heard the

government could swoop in and take that

child away, (they would) be frightened and

outraged," Ludwig told Reuters. "I want to

emphasize that foster care should only be the

last resort when all other options have failed."

 

Story: Obesity alone is no reason to

remove kids from their homes

 

In his replies to parents, Ludwig has

provided copies of his opinion piece,

published this week in the Journal of the

American Medical Association, that says there

is a role for the state when it comes to helping

obese children, but removing them from a

home is very rarely the solution.

"It's just been heartbreaking to see how the

story has been wildly exaggerated by some of

the media, causing a great deal of pain and

suffering for people," Ludwig said.

With at least 20 million overweight and obese

children in the United States and some 2 m

illion of those kids at the very highest risk,

childhood obesity may be the "most important

threat that exists to this generation of children," he said.

But placing a youngster in foster care "should

absolutely not be an option" for most of the

highest risk cases.

And that is what Ludwig and Murtagh wrote in

the piece, he said. To prove his point and calm

the fury that has erupted, JAMA is making the

full text of the piece available free to the public

for a week at http://jama.ama-assn.

org/content/306/2/206.full.

Ludwig explained that state intervention could

include financial support to families, social

services, access to safe recreation areas and

even parenting courses to help manage a

child's uncontrolled eating habits.

In 99 percent of the most serious cases,

removing a child from a home is not an option.

Ludwig said that in over 15 years of treating

some 10,000 patients battling obesity he only

knows of one case where the child was taken

from parents.

"The ultimate answer to the obesity epidemic

is not to blame parents, it's to create a more

healthful and supportive society," Ludwig said.

"But until we get there, what do we do about

that 14-year-old, 400-pound (182 kg) child

who's not facing increased risk of illness 20

years from now, but who's facing life-

threatening complications today?" he said.

 

Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for restrictions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[jewellsmommy]

But that's the problem. You can't make a clear connection between food intake, body size, and health problems. You just can't.

 

Many kids who eat tons of junk food are thin.

 

Many fat kids don't end up with diabetes, high blood pressure, or any other health issue.

 

And, there are kids with Type II diabetes, high blood pressure, and other "obesity-related" conditions who are normal weight or even underweight.

 

So, to just say "if a parent has a fat child, they must 1) be doing something wrong and 2) not care about their child's health" is simply not true. And the converse, that if their child is thin, that parent must be feeding their child well and that child must be perfectly health isn't true, either.

 

Of course it's emotional when people start making moral judgments about other people's parenting based on the body size of their child.

 

 

 

My dd just turned 9. She is in the 15% percentile for weight and 50% for height. So, she is not overweight, however she has high cholesterol. It was 255 at her last check (which is down from a year ago). She eats quite healthy and is very active. I mention this to show that we don't have all the connections figured out. I suspect there is much that we do not understand about nutrition and weight.

 

I do believe that society's push toward low fat foods, in part, caused the weight problems we see today. We have processed our food to death and added sugar to hide the fact that we removed some of the healthy fats because we are so afraid of even the word.

[Haiku]

I wish we could get produce into the inner cities, it completely baffles me that we can't.

 

When we were discussing excluding soda from food stamp purchases, I suggested that if we cut junk food from food stamp eligibility, convenience stores in inner cities would adjust their offerings accordingly. That would be one way to get produce into inner cities.

 

Tara

[cdrumm4448]

I'm sorry but, are you kidding me with this?/QUOTE]

 

Nope.

 

ETA: My grandmother was dirt poor. Paper dresses, cardboard shoes, one chicken a week for 8 people. She spent her childhood with a dirt pile for a playground and toys. She (like the rest of my grandparents) didn't get past 8th grade. She got a job in a factory making slave wages. She worked her entire life, paid off two houses in 7 years each (on the same factory salary - piecework), got pregnant (unmarried) at 16, got married at 18, had another child, and raised them in the city. She ended up with much more than she had growing up by working for it. This knowledge colors my ideas about the world. She pulled herself out of abject poverty and worked to give them a better life.

Edited July 16, 2011 by cdrumm4448

[cdrumm4448]

:confused:

 

People are talking about the obstacles folks in some areas face. The idea that that somehow translates into the state running peoples lives is your own, not theirs.

 

I'm tired of people claiming that they're tired as a way to avoid talking about real issues.

 

The real issue is that the state has no business taking children away from parents because they consider their children's weight outside the norm.

[Haiku]

How about offering help to the family instead of splitting them up. Oh, I know why we don't do that...because we just automatically assume there is bad parenting going on and nothing else can be done. That's America's answer to every childhood problem. Just snatch the kids from the parent because the rest of us are surely smarter and better parents and certainly more capable of working through other people's problems when in fact we have our own to deal with.

 

 

That's not true, in my experience. I was a social worker for many years. I worked with many kids in atrocious, truly atrocious, family environments, and because the parents made minimal steps toward progress, the kids remained in these atrocious environments that never actually improved. It's NOT easy to remove a child, regardless of the horror stories we hear in the news.

 

The family I referenced earlier in this thread received intervention many times before the child was removed. Strangely, the child lost significant amounts of weight while in foster care. Strangely, the child regained most of it upon returning home.

 

Sometimes there just are bad parents, parents whose decisions are not based on what's best for the child.

 

Tara

[Parrothead]

I'm sorry but, are you kidding me with this?

 

Nope.

Do you have any idea how much it costs to move? The last move we made, we moved ourselves with a U-haul and only moved across the state. It costs over $7000.00. How in the blue blazes is a poor family who is struggling to put food on the table supposed to come up with money to move?

[cdrumm4448]

Do you have any idea how much it costs to move? The last move we made, we moved ourselves with a U-haul and only moved across the state. It costs over $7000.00. How in the blue blazes is a poor family who is struggling to put food on the table supposed to come up with money to move?

 

No one said to move across the state. I have to ask what you spent $7,000 on.

[Harriet Vane]

When we were discussing excluding soda from food stamp purchases, I suggested that if we cut junk food from food stamp eligibility, convenience stores in inner cities would adjust their offerings accordingly. That would be one way to get produce into inner cities.

 

Tara

 

Hmmmm . . . intriguing . . .

 

My only question then is whether or not it would truly have that effect due to the sale/swap that happens with welfare benefits? I don't know exactly how they do it, I just know they do. (I know this from having been told so directly by welfare recipients.)

[Parrothead]

No one said to move across the state. I have to ask what you spent $7,000 on.

Where would you have them move? Even the most simple move just across town costs quite a bit. People in the inner city simply do not have the means to simply pick up and move.

 

We spent the money on the moving truck, and supplies, first and last months rent plus security deposit, deposits for water and power. Those alone cost several thousand dollars. The house hunting trip prior to moving was an easy $1500. It adds up quickly and it isn't cheap at all.

[Teachin'Mine]

Perry thank you so much for posting Dr. Ludwig's rebuttal.

 

I was happy to read the following, but I'm not sure why

some of this couldn't be initiated by the pediatrician

without involving the state. Of course for financial

support, state intervention would be needed. But I

think that the doctor could provide the information on

the program, if an appropriate one is available, and allow

the family to follow up on their own.

 

Ludwig explained that state intervention could

include financial support to families, social

services, access to safe recreation areas and

even parenting courses to help manage a

child's uncontrolled eating habits.

 

 

[WishboneDawn]

The real issue is that the state has no business taking children away from parents because they consider their children's weight outside the norm.

 

Oh heck, I agree with that. Who's said they don't?

[KatDilan]

Sounds like Nazi Germany to me. Whatever failings we individuals might demonstrate in any area of life, I can guarantee you the government can and WILL do worse. After all, it has been clearly demonstrated that following the government nutritional guidelines to a tee do not guarantee health or a good BMI, sooo...

 

That is not to say that some cases of childhood obesity are not symptoms of gross neglect and/or abuse, but the problem would have to be much bigger than obesity.

[cdrumm4448]

Where would you have them move? Even the most simple move just across town costs quite a bit. People in the inner city simply do not have the means to simply pick up and move.

 

We spent the money on the moving truck, and supplies, first and last months rent plus security deposit, deposits for water and power. Those alone cost several thousand dollars. The house hunting trip prior to moving was an easy $1500. It adds up quickly and it isn't cheap at all.

 

Again, no one said to make a major move. And, moving in with relatives is substantially cheaper than what you describe.

[cdrumm4448]

Oh heck, I agree with that. Who's said they don't?

 

I don't have time to quote all the supporters. Read the thread.

[WishboneDawn]

I don't have time to quote all the supporters. Read the thread.

 

:rolleyes:

[cdrumm4448]

:rolleyes:

 

Cute.