OUR KIDS ARE FAT!!! And guess what? Most of them are OUTSIDE the Western World.

Oh no now I can't use the term "american fat" to describe someone who's grossly overweight....as in there's fat and then there's american fat.
Ah well theres still they're foreign policy to criticise.

reply to post by DBCooper71

Originally posted by DBCooper71
Ah well theres still they're foreign policy to criticise.

Indeed.

On the thread topic, I have been following the childhood obesity issue for sometime. I think something other than Western diet is clearly at play. Every time I see the assertion it's all about Western food, I go nuts.

No.

Children in the Western world who actually have WAY MORE ACCESS, and presumably eat this crap more consistently in their daily diets, should account for the lion's share of the numbers.

They don't.

Food for thought. (Pun intended. )

Good job exposing more of the bs propaganda that the pseudo scientists who infest our educational systems use.
The truth will never be silenced. This goes way beyond obesity

reply to post by HamrHeed

Originally posted by HamrHeed
...bs propaganda...

Exactly.

...which has the effect of making everyone think the culprit has been identified, and the solutions obvious.

I say, not so fast.

There is clearly something else in play.

Care to share some of your hypotheses on what may be going on here?

Originally posted by Mkoll
Care to share some of your hypotheses on what may be going on here?

edit on 4-8-2012 by Mkoll because: (no reason given)

Many people have crappy diets and it doesn't help when processed foods are packed full of chems to sustain shelf life or other idiotic reasons. Just a guess.

Some people like quantity over quality

That is very interesting, as I always thought it was our high sugar/ fat/ carbos diet and combine that with vid games and pc's etc that is making an increase of kids being overweight, but if indeed the majority of kiddie obesity is in the non-developed world then my original view does not make sense.

So, what do you think might be causing all this global obesity?

s&f.... very good thread.

I'm glad my inflammatory post prompted you to make this thread about an important topic. Though as I responded in that other thread, i was being intentionally controversial to highlight a point... i apologise again.

Cheers ;-j
I will quickly add to the topic of obesity (and will post more later, as it is far past my bedtime)...

As stated in the provided article, globalisation and the introduction of western diets is a major contributing factor, and in fact seems to be the only contributor mentioned specifically in the article... but likely isn't the only factor. Western lifestyles are also mentioned, but not exactly what about western lifestyle that may be a contributor.

Interestingly, as the article states, it is apparently very hard to compare different countries child obesity rates, because many countries just don't have the data. From what is presented, the US, Australia and New Zealand seem to have the best data. Other countries seem to have limited data, and small representative groups to draw conclusions from, though in recent years everyone is getting better, so it will be a few more years before we get some really accurate comparisons.

Based on that article, it seems that western nations (primarily led by the US) have been trying to address the issue for longer than other countries, and that is finally having an effect, so there is a shift away from developed countries having the worst child obesity rates to developing countries now having the worst child obesity rates instead.

In terms of overall obesity rates (including adult obesity) the west is still far ahead of the rest of the world. Hopefully the rest of the world can learn from the Wests child obesity solutions.
Health Issues - Obesity Rates

Cheers

Stop eating crappy food, and exercise and you wont get fat simple!

reply to post by puzzlesphere

Originally posted by puzzlesphere
I'm glad my inflammatory post prompted you to make this thread about an important topic. Though as I responded in that other thread, i was being intentionally controversial to highlight a point... i apologise again.

You didn't have to 'out' yourself in this thread.

reply to post by Mkoll

Originally posted by Mkoll
Care to share some of your hypotheses on what may be going on here?

reply to post by CthulhuMythos

Originally posted by CthulhuMythos
So, what do you think might be causing all this global obesity?

Who knows? But it ain't all McDonald's and CocaCola's fault.

If I were to choose a place to start looking, I would begin with genetically modified foods. Soybean, rice and other grains.

In the US:

Currently, up to 85 percent of U.S. corn is genetically engineered as are 91 percent of soybeans and 88 percent of cotton (cottonseed oil is often used in food products). According to industry, up to 95% of sugar beets are now GE. It has been estimated that upwards of 70 percent of processed foods on supermarket shelves–from soda to soup, crackers to condiments–contain genetically engineered ingredients.

Link.

Also:

In 2011, the global area of biotech crops continued to increase for the 16th year at a sustained growth rate of 8% or 12 million hectares (30 million acres), reaching 160 million hectares or 395 million acres (Figure 1). Biotech crops have set a precedent in that the biotech area has grown impressively every single year for the past 16 years, with almost a remarkable 94-fold increase since commercialization began in 1996. Thus, biotech crops are considered as the fastest adopted crop technology in the history of modern agriculture.

Source.

In 2011, a total of 16.7 million farmers planted biotech crops in 29 countries, wherein over 90% or 15 million (up from 14.4 million in 2010) were small and resource-poor farmers from developing countries. The highest increase in any country, in absolute hectarage growth was Brazil with 4.9 million hectares and the highest proportional increase was Mexico with a 146% increase to reach 175,500 hectares.

In summary, during the period of 1996 to 2011, biotech crops have been successfully grown in accumulated hectarage of 1.25 billion hectares (3.1 billion acres).

Biotech crops were grown commercially in all six continents of the world. Of the 29 countries planting biotech crops in 2011, 17 countries planted 50,000 hectares or more to biotech crops (Table 2). These mega-countries included the USA, Brazil, Argentina, India, Canada, China, Paraguay, Pakistan, South Africa, Uruguay, Bolivia, Australia, Philippines, Myanmar, Burkina Faso, Mexico, and Spain.

It is noteworthy that in 2011, Mexico had the highest growth rate (146%) between 2010 and 2011 and Brazil had the highest absolute growth of biotech crops (4.9 million hectares) in any country in 2011.

Now, go back and look at the first link from Harvard.

Interesting correlation, don't you think?

I just don't buy this is a Western Diet thing. (It may not even be GMOs, though I buy that argument much more readily.)

But when you monkey around with the genetics of food- particularly rice, corn, soy, wheat, beats and other staple foods, I think there are bound to be serious consequences.

Our bodies have evolved to expect receipt of macro nutrients in a particular way. The massive shift that has taken place in the last 25 years or so in these staples is deeply troubling.

I say look there first.

From a study conducted three years ago:

A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health

We present for the first time a comparative analysis of blood and organ system data from trials with rats fed three main commercialized genetically modified (GM) maize (NK 603, MON 810, MON 863), which are present in food and feed in the world. NK 603 has been modified to be tolerant to the broad spectrum herbicide Roundup and thus contains residues of this formulation. MON 810 and MON 863 are engineered to synthesize two different Bt toxins used as insecticides. Approximately 60 different biochemical parameters were classified per organ and measured in serum and urine after 5 and 14 weeks of feeding. GM maize-fed rats were compared first to their respective isogenic or parental non-GM equivalent control groups. This was followed by comparison to six reference groups, which had consumed various other non-GM maize varieties. We applied nonparametric methods, including multiple pairwise comparisons with a False Discovery Rate approach. Principal Component Analysis allowed the investigation of scattering of different factors (sex, weeks of feeding, diet, dose and group). Our analysis clearly reveals for the 3 GMOs new side effects linked with GM maize consumption, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly associated with the kidney and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, although different between the 3 GMOs. Other effects were also noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system. We conclude that these data highlight signs of hepatorenal toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM corn. In addition, unintended direct or indirect metabolic consequences of the genetic modification cannot be excluded.

Now, that can't be good.

reply to post by loam


I've always thought babies were supposed to be fat. My daughter was born thin and ballooned up to a cuddly chubby cheeked mass, on breast milk alone. You can't get much more natural than that.

I have noticed that she eats more and puts on weight before growth spurts. She is now a skinny 9 year old.

Outside the Western world people see extra pounds as signs of health and wealth. They are not worried about their babies looking like fashion models. I'm sure there is a point were it is too much but I'm willing to bet that standard BMI for adults don't apply to tots.

Was watching a programme on fake cheese being sold as cheese. This is not even labelled to say it is fake, although if you look at the ingredients you see it contains no diary products at all.

I think it is a result of the rubbish they continue to put in our food without our knowledge (even to the extent that the nutritional value of food that looks unprocessed e.g. raw chicken breasts). No wonder our bodies crave more food and we do not feel full when what we eat is full of rubbish and nutritionally lacking.

Also to make another point, I am obese and this is one of the symptoms of the congenital illness polycystic ovarian syndrome, or PCOS, which affects 1 in 10 women. This cannot be cured and the symptoms can vary from very mild to extreame. I can pass it on to my daughter, but I can also pass it on to my son, although he will only be a carrier, and they can both pass it on to their children.

Whenever I see articles on weight they always say its linked to diet and lazyness (which is true of course), but they always fail to discuss PCOS at all. When it is discussed, the articles are not very helpful/sympathetic and they are very dismissive of the syndrome where achieving weight loss is very difficult to start with due to the lack of insulin receptors.

As something which affects 1 in 10 women, it is reasonable to assume that there are many people who have this illness and are not aware/have not been tested for it and they are just told they are overweight because they eat too much and do not exercise enough. A simple blood test will confirm whether or not someone has this.

The ilness also means I am more likely to go on to develop diabetes, which is also on the increase, and undiagnosed/treated PCOS may be the cause of this.

So what you are saying is that our perceived #firstworldproblem is in reality a #thirdworldproblem? Interesting thread, S & F'ed. Let's get to the meat of this ATS... food for thought.

reply to post by MsAphrodite


I think the statistics pretty much make that clear, in terms of childhood obesity.

Would also like to say that our nanny state does not seem to be helping either.

There is a programme in schools in the UK where kids are weighed and measured in their first year of school (age 5). Both my children are short, as my husband and I are below average height. You would therefore reasonably assume that our children will not be very tall.

I had calls from the nurse about both of them regarding their height because they were deemed to be too short. My daughter was also deemed to be overweight. Fortunately we had a Drs appointment around that time and I asked about this (discretely as I did not want to make a fuss and worry her). The Dr agreed that she was fine and there was no reason for me to have been contacted.

I was offered no advice from the nurse either in her initial phone call and the letter that followed other than being told my child was too short and obese without any consideration being given to their parental history. They were both tested after 6 months and I have heard nothing more.

Unfortunately, I feel now that I have failed my daughter and that she has been labelled unfairly. She is very active and I have no reason to worry about her health other than looking out for the PCOS later on once she reaches puberty.

I understand that they need to check for growth problems, but there are no other tests of this kind done after the age of 5 and there is a known growth spurt between age 5 and just before puberty starts. How does this help anyone apart from making them distrust professionals?

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
So what you are saying is that our perceived #firstworldproblem is in reality a #thirdworldproblem?

I think that your perceived #firstworldproblem is not really a problem in the first or third world?

Back in 1998 changes in the BMI criteria moved 25 million americans into the fat zone without them having to gain a single pound. That's 8.3% of the population. Way to create a problem where none existed.

Some health experts reject the new guidelines, claiming people who aren't fat are now considered overweight. For example, under the new definitions, many professional athletes would be considered too heavy.

Yep around here they say the kids are getting fat from eating a lot of MacDonald s...it must be true I like going to Hooters and I like boobs!

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
So what you are saying is that our perceived #firstworldproblem is in reality a #thirdworldproblem?

I think that your perceived #firstworldproblem is not really a problem in the first or third world?

Back in 1998 changes in the BMI criteria moved 25 million americans into the fat zone without them having to gain a single pound. That's 8.3% of the population. Way to create a problem where none existed.

Some health experts reject the new guidelines, claiming people who aren't fat are now considered overweight. For example, under the new definitions, many professional athletes would be considered too heavy.

edit on 4-8-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

BMI is a bull# measurement in the first place and if they are using that system as the metric for who is overweight and obese then that might partially explain why people are getting fatter. I do think that people are really getting fatter but it would make sense if the figure was inflated a bit by poor statistics.