Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

In my opinion... the reasons kids today are fatter is because they're less active and eat far too much convenience foods.

Back in the day... when I was a kid... we didn't sit around playing xbox and IMing with our friends. We went outside. We rode bikes or walked to each others' houses. If... not when, but if... we went out for dinner, it wasn't to McDonalds or similar, and a pop with dinner was a single 6oz glass, non-refillable. Have you seen the slurpees at 7-11 lately? 64 oz cups. That's 8 cups of mostly sugar, with absolutely no nutritional value. Go to a restaurant, and pop is refillable.

Kids usually know what are good choices and what are bad. Most go for convenience, much like us adults.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

In my opinion... the reasons kids today are fatter is because they're less active and eat far too much convenience foods.

That's the most accurate and blameless thing I have read so far. You're right....older folk simply burned more calories and had access to much less processed food as kids. We even had to push the lawnmower ourselves.

Barbaric!

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I haven't seen fat kids eating dinner at home, but I've seen them eating out in public. If you don't think the meals they are eating at fast food restaurants is a big part of the problem, if you don't think what they eat away from home adds to the problem, I don't think you're aware of a lot that goes on.

Kids don't go to fast food restaurants on their own unless someone is footing the bill. I'm not talking teenagers here. I'm talking children. I don't often see unaccompanied 8 year olds at McDonalds.

Being forced into a "fat farm" for a couple of months, I'm assuming by their parents in the stories you've heard, is a far cry from the state taking children away from their homes. But seriously, you think, as you totally blame the parents, that a couple of months of slimming down is going to have a lasting effect?

I think that while the kids are at the fat farm mom and dad are going to be taking mandatory parenting classes and warned that if they don't keep their kid within a medically healthy weight range they might lose it for longer periods of time, if not permanently.

If being "mocked, jeered, and laughed at throughout [their] entire teenage years" isn't incentive to slim down, what makes you think a couple of months in the hands of the state is going to do it?

There are a lot of things you can do with a kid which are less successful with obstinate teenagers. You have a much better chance of showing and teaching a kid how to eat properly, and instilling in them the virtues and benefits of proper eating before they become a sullen, self-absorbed teenager who rolls his or her eyes at everything you say because they know better than you do about almost everything anyway.

Furthermore, there are a lot of reasons kids are mocked and unhappy. Should we make a list of the reasons and remove all of these kids from their homes?

I"m mostly concerned with health reasons, although I suppose the mockery and jeering can contribute to poor mental health. But in any event, the situation here is one easily resolved by proper parenting. So you slim the kid down and give mom and dad a kick in the arse and tell them to shape up. I'm not saying that will work every time, but it will work a lot of the time.

When you fix a pothole, it generally stays fixed for as long as a fixed pothole is expected to last.

And when you get a kid in the habit of eating a certain way and convince them of how much better off they will be you have a pretty decent chance that kid will be a lot more cautious about his or her eating habits, and so will their parents. The time to stop someone from becoming obsese is not when they're in their twenties or thirties and getting their stomach stapled or their jaws wired shut - it's when they're children.

As far as banning kids from McDonalds - I don't have a problem with it but it wouldn't be necessary if parents simply did their job.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In my opinion... the reasons kids today are fatter is because they're less active and eat far too much convenience foods.

Back in the day... when I was a kid... we didn't sit around playing xbox and IMing with our friends. We went outside. We rode bikes or walked to each others' houses. If... not when, but if... we went out for dinner, it wasn't to McDonalds or similar, and a pop with dinner was a single 6oz glass, non-refillable. Have you seen the slurpees at 7-11 lately? 64 oz cups. That's 8 cups of mostly sugar, with absolutely no nutritional value. Go to a restaurant, and pop is refillable.

Kids usually know what are good choices and what are bad. Most go for convenience, much like us adults.

All of that is true. All of the portions and sizes for every manner of food, especially junk food, has gone up tremendously in the last twenty, thirty years. Remember the size of those little coke bottles, the ones with the hourglass shape? They're like half the size of the current "small" plastic coke bottles. All the cola cans look like they're swollen in the middle since they "supersized" them all what must be about twenty years or so ago. The rest is true, too. There wasn't much to do inside until eight o'clock when the prime time shows came on TV, so everyone went out biking, walking, playing games at the closest park. We used to run up and down through back yards with our toy guns ambushing each other. Now kids slump on their sofa and play battleground games on TV. When I got really bored and there was no one around to play with I'd either get my baseball mitt, go out and throw a tennis ball against the wall, or get my tennis racket and take the ball up the street to hit it against the school wall. Or maybe I'd ride my bike down to the river and explore the woods there, toss stuff into the river, whatever.

I'm not going to even suggest that I did any of this because I wanted exercise. If computers and X-boxes had been available back then I'd have been inside all the time myself. But these things ARE available now, and we have not, as a society, done anything to counter their physically debilitating effects on kids. And all that is simply compounded by the "supersize me" marketing ploys of the junk food industry. At the same time, we have drastically cut back on gym time, on physical exercise at schools. It all makes for a very bad mix, especially when you add in the number of single parent families around now (compared to almost none thirty years back), or busy parents who don't have or don't take the time to properly supervise their kid's upbringing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All of that and more. While we were allowed to wander around outside. too many parents won't let their kids do that for fear of something happening to them. We drive them to and from their friends and their ball practices. We don't really let them have their freedom.

Along with the pop sizing... how about chips? If you look at the nutritional label, some of the "small" bags actually contain 2 or even 3 servings... as if they're going to be shared! Popcorn at the movies too... they're huge... and refillable.

There's far too much sugar, salt and fat in kids' diets. Never mind what all else is being added.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Prof. Bellissimo, an assistant professor at Mount Saint Vincent University in Halifax, has spent the past decade studying the underlying roots of the obesity epidemic in children, with his former professor Harvey Anderson, director of the food safety, nutrition and regulatory affairs program at the University of Toronto's faculty of medicine.

They want to determine how children can stay at a healthy weight by looking at how appetite, satiety signals and food regulation interact with physiology and environment. “We want to understand these factors so we can prevent kids from getting fat,” Prof. Bellissimo said.

For the TV and gluttony experiment, 14 boys participated on four different consecutive Saturdays. Some of the boys, aged 9 to 14, ate the pizza lunch while watching two episodes of The Simpsons , while others ate without the TV on.

Some were given a sweet snack (water with glucose) before the pizza lunch.

The researchers found that those who watched TV kept eating past their satiation point, including those who had had the snack beforehand.

Those who didn't watch TV ate less. And those who didn't watch TV and who received a prelunch snack ate the least of all. This finding shows that snacks between meals help control a child's appetite – but only if the TV is off so they can feel the effect of the snack.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health...article1219500/

We never had a TV or computer in the dining room or the kitchen and the children were not allowed to eat meals in the living room or den. This was the rule whether or not we all ate at the same time. A birthday might mean a trip to MacDonald's but it was not a regular outing. And one thing I learned from my mother, which I passed on to my kids, was to eat slowly and not gobble down food. Not only was this good for the digestive system, your brain and stomach told you when you were full and should stop eating. There were no obesity or serious stomach problems in my family. A little common sense helps in preventing future major problems.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my experience, hunger is often controlled by how much of your attention is taken up by your activity. Surfing the internet and many other things tend to be terrible, and those are the times when the munchies really tend to hit hard. But, at least for me, strangely, it is when I am completely engrossed in something like a video game when I do not get the munchies, at all.

Anyway... What is this thread really about, Argus? I do not believe that taken peoples kids away for being fat is really what you are trying to argue. It is too inconsistent in a sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyway... What is this thread really about, Argus? I do not believe that taken peoples kids away for being fat is really what you are trying to argue. It is too inconsistent in a sense.

Well, to be honest, what I was intending to do was compare and contrast this thread with the one about the racists having their kids taken away. Just what is more dangerous to a kid's future welfare - a negligent parent who lets their kids get fat - with all the social and health problems that causes - or a parent who tells their kids that black people are inferior?

But I really do think the state needs to develop a strategy to combat obesity, because for all the sociological reasons I enumerated in my last post, our culture is leading to a lot of obese kids who become unhappy, obese teenagers and unhappy, obese adults who die early and have all kinds of health problems - which, and here is the state's ultimate interest - cost the state a fortune in health care costs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Like I said in a previous post, I do carry around my own water. The point of this thread, however, is whether government should intervene in cases where people are getting too fat..... Not only is it unacceptable for the government to intervene this deeply in the affairs of its citizens to begin with, it also may have a negative impact on public health.

Well it does seem assbackwards to ban water but not pop. Ask around in places, see if other good drinks can be brought in?

Yes, people that care can and will bring their own bottled water or whatever they like to drink. But many others will not, and will now purchase pop rather than having the option of purchasing water. This is inevitable. You keep trying to make it personal, "you forget", "who will you blame", "you the victim", etc, but that is not the issue. I bring my water with me everywhere anyway. The issue is that many do not, and will not, and will drink pop instead. It is not an issue of victimization, but of the government for some reason deciding to restrict people's choice as to what beverage they can buy. It is entirely inappropriate.

Stop being the victim and take things into your own hands, which you have. Others will eventually get it as well. Money talks, and if the vendors/government are not getting money, they will change their strategy/product. IN the end I am going to agree with you. It should be a vendors choice and not the governments. Something called supply and demand.

Wow where were you? I hike out in the mountains within a few hours of Vancouver just about every weekend, and there are almost invariably sources of clean water along the way. Alpine streams, waterfalls, snow that you can melt, etc. You can also look into some water treatment systems for when you're hiking, either the chemical tablets or the hand-pump filters, if you have suspicions about the cleanliness of water in the area of a given hike.

It was Grousse Mountain, not far from the city, we did not venture too far. If I had a couple bottles of water with me, I would have been fine. Despite me feeling utterly crappy with dehydration, it was beautiful scenery. I'd love to go back to Vancouver.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well it does seem assbackwards to ban water but not pop.
IN the end I am going to agree with you. It should be a vendors choice and not the governments. Something called supply and demand.

Excellent, I'm glad we agree that it doesn't make sense to ban the sale of water.

Edited by Bonam
Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health...article1219500/

We never had a TV or computer in the dining room or the kitchen and the children were not allowed to eat meals in the living room or den. This was the rule whether or not we all ate at the same time. A birthday might mean a trip to MacDonald's but it was not a regular outing. And one thing I learned from my mother, which I passed on to my kids, was to eat slowly and not gobble down food. Not only was this good for the digestive system, your brain and stomach told you when you were full and should stop eating. There were no obesity or serious stomach problems in my family. A little common sense helps in preventing future major problems.

Great point. Eating smaller portions and eating slow will help. Gobbling it all down tricks your stomach and brain into thinking you are not full, then you overeat and ..... bloated, lethargic food coma. This is a good deal my problem. I have been quite consious lately to eat slower and less. Also, I am amazed how full(satisfied) I am after a single banana.

The one thing I will say about exercising is that it is boring, unless you have a buddy to workout with. It's always better to do it with someone else.

Remeil

But, at least for me, strangely, it is when I am completely engrossed in something like a video game when I do not get the munchies, at all.

I have had the same experience, however after a good hour or so of intense TF2 action, I do get peckish. The brain does need some food, but often I make the wrong choices.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The one thing I will say about exercising is that it is boring, unless you have a buddy to workout with. It's always better to do it with someone else.

The real key is to find some physical activity that you enjoy, rather than just exercising for the sake of exercising. I've met people that go jogging and hate every minute of it but feel like they have to do it. Meanwhile I am out hiking/mountaineering just about every weekend enjoying myself and staying in great shape. Of course having some company adds to the enjoyment, as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, to be honest, what I was intending to do was compare and contrast this thread with the one about the racists having their kids taken away. Just what is more dangerous to a kid's future welfare - a negligent parent who lets their kids get fat - with all the social and health problems that causes - or a parent who tells their kids that black people are inferior?

That whole comparison is two pronged though, Argus. The question, " Is it better for little Reinhardt to be fat or a militant white supremacist? " must always be accompanied by the question, " Is it better for everyone else for Reinhardt to be fat or a militant white supremacist? "

And before anyways answers, consider a hypothetical case in which a child is brought up to be a psychopathic narcissist (supposing that it was a question of nurture) and finds contentment and happiness living the precipice above the pit of serial killers. The alternative is to be deeply unhappy and depressed with a different rearing. Clearly, in one sense it certainly seems good for this person to be the psychopathic narcissist, but is anyone really going to suggest that be approve that course?

Link to post
Share on other sites
That whole comparison is two pronged though, Argus. The question, " Is it better for little Reinhardt to be fat or a militant white supremacist? " must always be accompanied by the question, " Is it better for everyone else for Reinhardt to be fat or a militant white supremacist? "

Yes, but the western world is chock full of very pleasant, centrist and even liberal people who will ruefully tell you their parents were out and out racists. No matter what mom and dad say there's no guarantee little junior is going to join a neo nazi group once he hits his teens. On the other hand, the practical dangers of obesity are well-known, and is is FAR harder to cure someone of the mindset which brings it about after they've become accustomed to that behaviour pattern.

On the social side, I'm actually curious, now, about whether anyone has ever done a sociological study on obese people, asking them what their teenage and young adult years were like in terms of social interaction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Half of the problem with over weight people is the FOOD and the ingredients of what goes into it. Look at labels of all food labels and you will see FRUTOSE. its in everything processed, pop, gum, dairy products and it one of the reasons diabetes is on the rising in North America. Also, the computer, video games etc. people are sitting more than outside moving. Have any of you watched, the show Diners,Drive-ins and Dives? its about a guy named Guy, who travels without the US and goes to these places to check out what Americans are eating. Most of the food is high in fat, high carbs, the whole nine yards. So it doesn't surprise me why so many North Americans are overweight. So the fat kids will also be until the manufacturers do something on their part and parents do something on the rest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What does it matter? Being fat is hardly the only cause of mental distress. Should you take away the children of people who refuse to teach their kids to fight in order to beat up the bully?

True, people need to stand up for themselves. Or you get a generation of pushovers and wimps that you can manipulate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Half of the problem with over weight people is the FOOD and the ingredients of what goes into it. Look at labels of all food labels and you will see FRUTOSE. its in everything processed, pop, gum, dairy products and it one of the reasons diabetes is on the rising in North America. Also, the computer, video games etc. people are sitting more than outside moving. Have any of you watched, the show Diners,Drive-ins and Dives? its about a guy named Guy, who travels without the US and goes to these places to check out what Americans are eating. Most of the food is high in fat, high carbs, the whole nine yards. So it doesn't surprise me why so many North Americans are overweight. So the fat kids will also be until the manufacturers do something on their part and parents do something on the rest.

Fructose, sucrose, lactose... they're all sugars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely, the government should intervene. Not only does it hinder the individual throughout their life, reduces said life, and as mentioned ushers forward a lifetime of mockery and ridicule, but it hinders the presentation of the country as well. Think about the stereotype that one thinks of Americans, and as with many stereotypes its exaggerated blatantly, but it's a fat redneck watching television.

Not only would enforced - or for you leftists, "strongly encouraged" - physical fitness programs be beneficial to the population, but also to the country itself, as well as its presentation to the global community.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When they are done taking away the chubby kids will they start on the stupid ones? Then the red heads, where does this nation nation mentality end? Honestly the socialist scare me witless, they are such meddlesome do gooders who think they are the upmost authority on every subject. Children are usually obese because their parents are, go into a grocery store on pay weeks and you'll see an obsese mother with a couple of obese children eating a bag of chips behind her. If you are going to take the kids will you place the parents in re-educamacation camps where they shall become good little socialist dumb bots?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I notice how you pointed out one of the causes of the problem, but then scoffed at a possible solutions, education.... interesting. Do you think that we should do nothing?

Edited by Smallc
Link to post
Share on other sites
Heh, ironically they are banning the sale of bottled water in public buildings in Vancouver. Pop is still allowed though. Got love our bass ackwards Vision government.

Both should be banned. One produces a lot of garbage and an unhealthy body. The other produces a lot of garbage and puts water distribution in corporate hands.

Merely being fat doesn't necessarily indicate that someone is just lazy and eats too much, or has a poor diet. Some people are genetically predisposed to a slow metabolism. Adversely, some skinny people simply cannot get fat because their metabalism works too well.

What would be more realistic is if doctors made semi-annual rounds to schools to do some basic checkups, with the permission of parents, and then make recommendations based on any findings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TrueMetis
Both should be banned. One produces a lot of garbage and an unhealthy body. The other produces a lot of garbage and puts water distribution in corporate hands.

Merely being fat doesn't necessarily indicate that someone is just lazy and eats too much, or has a poor diet. Some people are genetically predisposed to a slow metabolism. Adversely, some skinny people simply cannot get fat because their metabalism works too well.

What would be more realistic is if doctors made semi-annual rounds to schools to do some basic checkups, with the permission of parents, and then make recommendations based on any findings.

I thought only about 2% of people are genetically predisposed to a slow metabolism?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought only about 2% of people are genetically predisposed to a slow metabolism?

That would depend what you consider "slow" metabolism. Though I have done no particular research on this subject, it is very like that metabolic rate, like just about any other human attribute, has an approximately Gaussian distribution.

What would be more realistic is if doctors made semi-annual rounds to schools to do some basic checkups, with the permission of parents, and then make recommendations based on any findings.

How about parents take their own kids to their own check-ups at their family doctor? Why do we need to handhold everyone through every aspect of their life?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...