Early Childhood Obesity Rates are Slowing Nationwide

I think we can attribute future success to the much criticized school lunch program begun by Mrs Obama encouraging students to make healthier choices and including more vegetables and finally not calling pizza a vegetable in the dietary manuals for kids. I think we will continue to see these rates decline.

Early Childhood Obesity Rates Might Be Slowing Nationwide

About one in three children in the U.S. are now overweight, and since the 1980s the number of children who are obese has more than tripled. But a new study of 26.7 million young children from low-income families shows that in this group of kids, the tidal wave of obesity might finally be receding.

“This is the first national study to show that the prevalence of obesity and extreme obesity among young U.S. children may have begun to decline,” the researchers noted in a brief report published online December 25 in JAMA, The Journal of the American Medical Association. (Reports earlier this year suggested that childhood obesity rates were dropping in several U.S. cities.)

This is excellent news that contradicts an earlier thread her on ATS declaring Michele Obama's school lunch program a flop. I think this is where the naysayers should come in and say - Hey good job. One of the most significant problems in the nation was our young people being by and large unfit to serve in our armed forces. Hopefully this is a trend in the opposite direction.



Michele Obama's School Lunches a Flop

Michelle Obama has endorsed the new school lunch guidelines, and in my small town, the new menus are a large flop.

Not so much a flop as they seem to be producing desirable results, as the linked story shows.

reply to post by newcovenant


well considering the survey was from a low income family, wouldn't that make it harder to afford more food to eat to get fat?

Originally posted by Donahue
reply to post by newcovenant

 

well considering the survey was from a low income family, wouldn't that make it harder to afford more food to eat to get fat?

Seriously? You think poor people are the thinnest? Starving people are not necessarily even thin. Most diet conscious people know it is the cheapest foods we eat that make us fat. Food filled with empty calories and low protein. Center isles of the grocery store. Low income food choices like a Happy Meal.

reply to post by Donahue

well considering the survey was from a low income family, wouldn't that make it harder to afford more food to eat to get fat?

Not to mention, that cancer rates amongst children has skyrocketed! We all have seen how cancer is a great form of weight loss...............

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by Donahue

 

well considering the survey was from a low income family, wouldn't that make it harder to afford more food to eat to get fat?

Not to mention, that cancer rates amongst children has skyrocketed! We all have seen how cancer is a great form of weight loss...............

Fruits and vegetables have natural protections against cancer while it is believed things like soft drinks cause it. So no wonder.

Surely we should be thanking her husband? I mean More debt=Less money=Less food, hey he's providing a service afterall

reply to post by newcovenant


You know what they don't talk about though?

The fact that many school kids, get their only good meal from school. Since the program has taken affect, I've heard of kids pretty much starving because they get a lunch that consists of a few vegetables, a grain and some fruit.

It's certainly done some good, and Kudos to her, but I Can't really give her any proprs considering the program isn't even half a decade old. I find it hard to believe they have stats tying her program directly to the decrease.

The researchers, led by Liping Pan, of the Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity and Obesity at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, combed through 12 years of data (1998 to 2010) from the Pediatric Nutritional Surveillance System, which includes information on roughly half of all children on the U.S. who are eligible for federal health care and nutrition assistance.

The data includes 12 years of findings. Stopped merely several months into her program.

Public health agencies and the Obama Administration have made battling childhood obesity a priority, although these findings suggest that early childhood obesity rates, at least, were already beginning to decline nearly a decade ago.

Is it disengenuous to say that her program is the cause of this decline when the article you posted clearly shows it could not possibly be the case?

~Tenth

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by newcovenant

 

You know what they don't talk about though?

The fact that many school kids, get their only good meal from school. Since the program has taken affect, I've heard of kids pretty much starving because they get a lunch that consists of a few vegetables, a grain and some fruit.

It's certainly done some good, and Kudos to her, but I Can't really give her any proprs considering the program isn't even half a decade old. I find it hard to believe they have stats tying her program directly to the decrease.

The researchers, led by Liping Pan, of the Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity and Obesity at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, combed through 12 years of data (1998 to 2010) from the Pediatric Nutritional Surveillance System, which includes information on roughly half of all children on the U.S. who are eligible for federal health care and nutrition assistance.

The data includes 12 years of findings. Stopped merely several months into her program.

Public health agencies and the Obama Administration have made battling childhood obesity a priority, although these findings suggest that early childhood obesity rates, at least, were already beginning to decline nearly a decade ago.

Is it disengenuous to say that her program is the cause of this decline when the article you posted clearly shows it could not possibly be the case?

~Tenth

Oh I'm sure she had nothing to do with it. LOL

No it isn't disingenuous.

focusfeatures.com...
First lady Michelle Obama speaks during an event to discuss her Let's Move! initiative to combat childhood obesity, at the Lenfest Police Athletic (PAL) Center, Wednesday, July 18, 2012, in Philadelphia (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)

In March 2010, Michelle Obama stood on a stage in Washington and leveled a challenge at the food industry’s biggest players. “We need you all to step it up,” she told a meeting of the Grocery Manufacturers Association. Just a month earlier, she’d launched the Let’s Move campaign, the Obama administration’s flagship anti-obesity program, which is aimed at reversing the childhood obesity epidemic by 2030. About the Author Bridget Huber Bridget Huber is a health and science writer based in Oakland. Also by the Author Walmart's Fresh Food Makeover (Food Movement) Can the retailer known for its poverty wages solve the problem of urban “food deserts”? Bridget Huber 6 comments The first lady hit talking points that would make any children’s health expert happy. She urged the manufacturers of products like Doritos, Froot Loops and SpaghettiOs to make them healthier, to cooperate with the government on new food labels, and to get serious about reining in junk food marketed to kids. “What does it mean when so many parents are finding that their best efforts are undermined by an avalanche of advertisements?” she asked. The speech was a thrilling display of Mrs. Obama’s mettle and a watershed moment, raising expectations among health advocates. Marion Nestle, professor of nutrition, public health and food studies at New York University and a tough critic of Big Food, put it this way: “It was a knockout. An absolute knockout.”

~ First

reply to post by newcovenant


Try correlating the facts that their parents are having a hard time finding a good job with these phoney stats! I am sure Mr. Obama deserves more credit for children losing weight than his wife......

reply to post by newcovenant


Yes. Rousing success. Congrats to you and Michelle.

My 16 year old son, mesomorph, healthy everything including appetite; is eligible for the free lunch program because of my dismal rate of pay, and when they requested the updates of my income and proofs later in the Fall, I didn't even bother. I responded to their many phone calls with a polite "No, thank you.", and my version of my son's opinion of the food.

He says "they're just terrible". Not only that but portion size is just enough for a snack. No wonder the poor kids aren't as fat any more. I'm sure their parents are just as pleased as I am that "our" (Amerika's) children won't grow up to be obese useless drains on society. Sieg Heil baby.

Aaaanywayyy....

He just won't eat the stuff this year. I send him with a lunch every day because I know he won't eat otherwise. Do the stats show what percentage of the food is uneaten?

reply to post by newcovenant


So you prove my point.

If they stopped collecting data for this study in 2010 and her program only started in 2012, how do you connect the two?

How can you say that her program helped drop these rates if they haven't used any data from the time her program was started up until now?

~Tenth

I'm lucky enough that I can afford to feed my family, and feed them well, but my kids need some substinance in their meals and the school lunch just doesn't provide enough of that. My kids are healthy, thin but muscular and very very active! They need real food!

Thing is, for the folks that I know personally, kids are losing the weight b'cuz they don't have enough food at home, and the ones that are overweight, are still overweight, because they go home after not getting enough to eat and snack on empty calories in front of the tv.

They took away my sons organic oatmeal raisin cookies and gave him pretzles!!! I was furious! My son was bordering on UNDERweight and he NEEDED THAT FAT! In my opinion, the government has no right to tell me what I can and can not feed my family.

Originally posted by Donahue
reply to post by newcovenant

 

well considering the survey was from a low income family, wouldn't that make it harder to afford more food to eat to get fat?

Not exactly. The foods they can afford, are usually heavily processed boxed meals, processed and frozen meats (like chicken patties, chicken nuggets, etc) and other High Fat, High Sodium processed foods that have long shelf life and require few ingredients. The foods they can't afford, are the healthy fresh fruits and vegetables, organic foods, and non processed fresh cuts of meat.

Its not necessarily the quantity of food that they're eating, its the quality.

Originally posted by Dustofenese

Originally posted by Donahue
reply to post by newcovenant

 

well considering the survey was from a low income family, wouldn't that make it harder to afford more food to eat to get fat?

Not exactly. The foods they can afford, are usually heavily processed boxed meals, processed and frozen meats (like chicken patties, chicken nuggets, etc) and other High Fat, High Sodium processed foods that have long shelf life and require few ingredients. The foods they can't afford, are the healthy fresh fruits and vegetables, organic foods, and non processed fresh cuts of meat.

Its not necessarily the quantity of food that they're eating, its the quality.

Which proves my point.

And another thing to add, you only get fat when you don't exercise. You can burn off a major amount of calories after eating garbage by doing some good ol' fashion cardio. You can't substitute laziness with a magic diet pill or michelle obama's magical idea

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by newcovenant

 

So you prove my point.

If they stopped collecting data for this study in 2010 and her program only started in 2012, how do you connect the two?

How can you say that her program helped drop these rates if they haven't used any data from the time her program was started up until now?

~Tenth

Ignore the facts if it suits your paradigm better. Who am I to educate you or any of the other ignoramous who despise the first lady so much they won't assign credit where it's warranted. Jealous much?

That spring seemed to be a season of promise that the blight of childhood obesity—which is on track to make today’s kids the first generation of Americans to live shorter lives than their parents—might still be beaten back.

Seedlings were pushing up through the soil in the White House kitchen garden, which was in its second season since the first lady had resurrected it; now she was using it as a focal point for a national conversation about food.

A presidential task force was charting an ambitious action plan to meet the goals of Let’s Move.

And at the forefront of it all was the enormously popular mother in chief, who had surprised and impressed many when she chose to make the contentious issue of childhood obesity a focus of her White House tenure.

But three and a half years since the ground was broken on the White House garden, many of those who’d had high hopes say the first lady has logged only modest successes.

Experts credit Mrs. Obama for her instrumental role in reforming school lunches, limiting TV watching and increasing healthy food at childcare centers—and, perhaps most important, using her bully pulpit to bring issues of food and nutrition to national attention.

But, they say, reversing the childhood obesity epidemic in a generation requires more of the bold action that Mrs. Obama hinted at in her address to the Grocery Manufacturers Association.

Spoil sports!
Nobody called you an expert after all.

reply to post by newcovenant


Clearly I am not ignoring facts you are.

Let's break this down adn perhaps you can just answer the question instead of deflecting.

The study ran for 12 years. Starting in 1998 and finishing in 2010. Do you agree?

Since the study was completed in 2010 and Mrs. Obama's program started AFTER the study was compiled and completed, you CANNOT state that her program has helped droped rates in accordance with this study.

So again, please explain how you tie the two together?

This study is COMPETELY unrelated to Mrs. Obamas program. Period.

~Tenth

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by newcovenant

 

Clearly I am not ignoring facts you are.

Let's break this down adn perhaps you can just answer the question instead of deflecting.

The study ran for 12 years. Starting in 1998 and finishing in 2010. Do you agree?

Since the study was completed in 2010 and Mrs. Obama's program started AFTER the study was compiled and completed, you CANNOT state that her program has helped droped rates in accordance with this study.

So again, please explain how you tie the two together?

This study is COMPETELY unrelated to Mrs. Obamas program. Period.

~Tenth

Are you under the impression it takes 12 years to lose weight?

Mrs Obama's program was well under way when the study was completed.

Reading is fundamental: You will see below reports obesity rates were dropping were noted earlier this year. They are speaking of 2012 and Obama's school lunch program has been in effect 4 years. In four years not only can you lose weight, you can lose child status. You are twisting facts to suit your argument. These numbers had a lot to do with healthy eating promoted by the White House.

(Reports earlier this year suggested that childhood obesity rates were dropping in several U.S. cities.)

What part of EARLIER THIS YEAR are you having a problem with?

well....I think that if kids would put down the remote controller for video games and play sports instead like most of US did when we were younger, then child obesity would be non existent. Couldn't keep me inside when I was in elementary school. Too busy outdoors playing basketball, soccer, football, even throwing on the gloves with the neighborhood friends and have boxing matches.

All kids should be required to play a sport from youth on. Teaches discipline, hand eye coordination, and how to actually lose and win.
Now in days, everyone gets a medal in wrestling meets just for participating. PREPOSTEROUS! Wrestled all my life, in the beginning, it was expected to get your ass whipped. But later on, with more experience and technique... all wins

Originally posted by resoe26
well....I think that if kids would put down the remote controller for video games and play sports instead like most of US did when we were younger, then child obesity would be non existent. Couldn't keep me inside when I was in elementary school. Too busy outdoors playing basketball, soccer, football, even throwing on the gloves with the neighborhood friends and have boxing matches.

All kids should be required to play a sport from youth on. Teaches discipline, hand eye coordination, and how to actually lose and win.
Now in days, everyone gets a medal in wrestling meets just for participating. PREPOSTEROUS! Wrestled all my life, in the beginning, it was expected to get your ass whipped. But later on, with more experience and technique... all wins

I was discussing this recently with a friend. When we were kids it was difficult to get us to stay in and do homework or that sort of thing because we were always on the run. This generation sits.