I am a bit dim

mae <[email hidden]> wedi ysgrifennu:

Quoted message said:

I'd say, based on occasional attending of assembly, that there are a dozen or so seriously
overweight children in my kids' schools, from a sample of 630 children. At the headline rates it
should be hundreds. I accept my survey is not scientific, but I doubt it's out by the required
order of magnitude. One does see the odd obese tweenager (especially) about, but I see the
occasional blind person too and I wouldn't extrapolate from that to an epidemic of blindness.

From hebs.scot.nhs.ukprevalence.cfmOpen ↗
(tinyurl.com2xx2u):Open ↗ No current data on the prevalence of obesity in children in Scotland
exist, but there are figures for England (Reilly and Dorosty, 1999):

<Chart Snipped>

The [Body Mass Indecies] of a representative sample of 2600 English children in 1996 were measured,
and compared with data collected in previous surveys conducted between 1978 and 1990. Based on these
data, the researchers expected to find that 15 per cent of the children they weighed and measured
would be considered overweight (BMI >85th centile), and five per cent would be 'obese' (BMI >95th
centile, using the epidemiological definitions).

But as you can see in the figure [snipped], they found many more overweight and obese children and
young people in almost all of the age groups they studied. The prevalence tended to increase with
age, to the point that at age 15, the frequency of obesity was over three times the expected five
per cent level, and overweight was over twice as much as the predicted 15 per cent.

The research team believed that what they were describing was nothing less than an 'epidemic' of
obesity in children in the UK. While the figures they presented were worrying enough, they believed
they were actually underestimating the problem. They also speculated that the prevalence of obesity
could be even higher in Scotland than it is in England.

--
Rob

[email hidden] (marc)typed

Quoted message said:

How many other parents find that the time in the car with their children is "extra" time that they
have together?

Well, my Mum found the same when she *walked* my youngest brother to school. Neither she nor he
wanted to give up this time together, even when offered a lift by well-meaning friends...

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden] Edgware.

Helen Deborah Vecht said:

Quoted message said:

How many other parents find that the time in the car with their children is "extra" time that
they have together?

Well, my Mum found the same when she *walked* my youngest brother to school. Neither she nor he
wanted to give up this time together, even when offered a lift by well-meaning friends...

Walk?? Any teenager would prefer to die than to be seen walking ( or anything else that suggests
choice) with his parents

--
Marc. Please note the above address is a spam trap, use marcc to reply Printing for clubs of all
types jaceeprint.demon.co.ukjaceeprint.demon.co.ukOpen ↗ Stickers, banners & clothing, for clubs,teams, magazines
and dealers.

David Hansen <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 09:33:40 +0000 someone who may be [email hidden] (marc) wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The School run is a symptom of hypermobility ( to quote the duhgling) and our timepoor society,

Quoted message said:

The interesting thing is that motorisation has not saved people time, despite the claims of the
car lobby. The time spent travelling has gone up as motorisation proceeded, though not as much as
the distance travelled. The number of trips has remained about the same. In summary mass
motorisation has resulted in people travelling further and taking longer, to do the same things.

Like most labour-making devices, I suspect. We launder our clothes far more now we have washing
machines, we aren't so careful to keep dishes clean now we have dishwashers, etc...

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden] Edgware.

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 13:47:52 +0000 someone who may be
[email hidden] (marc) wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Walk?? Any teenager would prefer to die than to be seen walking ( or anything else that suggests
choice) with his parents

Teenagers should be able to get to school on their own. Indeed most do and would prefer to die than
be seen with their parents.

Walking with mum is something for younger children.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

On 03 Mar 2004 20:03:48 GMT, [email hidden]

(dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) said:

I admit it, but I can't get my head around this one ;-)

Seems the govt is determined to Do Something about the school run, to discourage the use of the car
to transport kids to & from school. Fine, excellent, admirable. I have no problems with this.

BUT

How are they going to do this? By charging parents for school bus services that were
previously free.

My school charged for the coach and that was over nine years ago - £55 a year if I recall correctly.
I know that is only about a tenth of the actual cost but it's still a fair whack.

Gareth

McBain_v1 said:

... the people carrier (oh so necessary for families these days - my [censored]!) ..

With the legal requirements for child seats, I think it would be extremely difficult to raise more
than 2 children these days without a people carrier. This is one of the main reasons that we have
decided not to have more than 2.

(It's also why my sister now owns a people carrier - she's only got 2 kids at the moment, but wants
a couple more).

Children under 3 *must* wear an appropriate child restraint. Children aged 3 to 11 and under 5' tall
*must* wear an appropriate child restraint if one is available, and I think most parents would want
to make one available. I'm not sure how "appropriate child restraint" is defined in law, but frankly
once you've got 2 child seats in the back of a car there's no way you'll get a third person in
there. My Mum used to get 5 kids in the back of her Mini on occasion, but I wouldn't try that now.

Of course, with only 2 kids it should be quite possible to manage without any sort of car, if your
partner is willing to try. Mine isn't.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
speedy5.freeserve.co.ukdannyOpen ↗
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

David Hansen said:

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 09:33:40 +0000 someone who may be [email hidden] (marc) wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The School run is a symptom of hypermobility ( to quote the duhgling) and our timepoor society,

Quoted message said:

The interesting thing is that motorisation has not saved people time, despite the claims of the car
lobby. The time spent travelling has gone up as motorisation proceeded, though not as much as the
distance travelled. The number of trips has remained about the same. In summary mass motorisation
has resulted in people travelling further and taking longer, to do the same things.

It's interesting to consider how many hours of the working week would be spent working for the car.
Then to consider how many working hours would be spent working working for the bike. Subtract the
bike hours from the car hours. Is this difference larger or smaller than the time difference between
cycling to work and driving to work?

Seems to me lots of folk are working long hours in order to earn the money to pay for the labour
saving devices they need because they haven't the time to do things the old leisurely way because
they're working so hard...

There ought to be a word to describe this odd condition. Any suggestions?

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
["]http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Danny Colyer said:

McBain_v1 said:

... the people carrier (oh so necessary for families these days - my [censored]!) ..

With the legal requirements for child seats, I think it would be extremely difficult to raise more
than 2 children these days without a people carrier.

We have four. A tandem trike with kiddiecranks and childseat and a Burley trailer worked fine. More
often the children were split between two tandems, less often just the trike. No problems at all and
thoroughly enjoyable, including several camping trips abroad.

Quoted message said:

This is one of the main reasons that we have decided not to have more than 2.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Of course, with only 2 kids it should be quite possible to manage without any sort of car, if your
partner is willing to try. Mine isn't.

Can't you trade in the partner for a replacement ;-) <not really meant>

John B

"JohnB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This is one of the main reasons that we have decided not to have more than 2.

<snip>

That's one way of achieving that aim :-)

cheers, clive

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 18:39:56 -0000 someone who may be "Danny Colyer"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

With the legal requirements for child seats, I think it would be extremely difficult to raise more
than 2 children these days without a people carrier. This is one of the main reasons that we have
decided not to have more than 2.

I know parents who don't seem to find it extremely difficult. I'm sure that there are difficulties
from time to time, but there are probably more problems with a motorised "people carrier". There are
bikes that are people carriers of course. Cathy is not "just a mother" either, but has done all
sorts of things as well as dealing with the Scottlets. sundayherald.com17815Open ↗

Neither is Cathy unique, I know others.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

In article <[email hidden]>,

James Annan said:

You are the only person I have ever heard describe the alleged childhood obesity epidemic (and
diabetes, stroke, etc etc) to be 'biased accounts of marginal scientific work'. This seems to be a
remarkably strong condemnation of the research, especially as it is such an isolated viewpoint.

I was pretty outspoken about how ludicrous the Roy Meadowes Cot Death claims were too, you know, not
to mention laughing hilariously over ``Satanic Abuse''. I was also fairly sceptical over ``CJD will
be epidemic within ten years'', which was the orthodoxy of a decade ago. As a general rule, anyone
claiming step function changes in health or behaviour is after funding first and truth tenth.

Quoted message said:

However, you could be right. Have you any evidence to support your view?

No. Because proving a negative is very hard, and there's no money in ``people no iller than last
year, no more funding needed''. However, these claims are made in the face of life expectancies
which are rising at such a rapid rate that the funding of pensions in many European countries is a
major threat. Most of the studies are small-scale, and the presumption that BMI, for example, is an
accurate assessment of health is a gross simplification, to put it mildly.

There are probably more overweight children than there were. This may be a bad thing. To believe
it's a public health problem on anything like the scale of, say, the increase in young women smoking
is laughable. What we should be doing is encouraging exercise and better patterns of diet, not
demonising ``bad parents'' (it's the poor ones with their fast food you know).

ian

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Seems to me lots of folk are working long hours in order to earn the money to pay for the labour
saving devices they need because they haven't the time to do things the old leisurely way because
they're working so hard...

There ought to be a word to describe this odd condition. Any suggestions?

Progress?

Ian G Batten said:

In article <[email hidden]>, James Annan

Quoted message said:

You are the only person I have ever heard describe the alleged childhood obesity epidemic (and
diabetes, stroke, etc etc) to be 'biased accounts of marginal scientific work'. This seems to be a
remarkably strong condemnation of the research, especially as it is such an isolated viewpoint.

I was pretty outspoken about how ludicrous the Roy Meadowes Cot Death claims were too

I hope that all resonably numerate people immediately realised that the 73 million to one figure was
bogus. I had difficulty believing it was really what he had said and not the press misrepresenting
it...and then the RSS produced their letter shorly afterwards.

It's not so much that he said it (there will always be a tendency for 'expert witnesses' to say what
they are paid to say), but what really worried me is that the defence was so incompetent as to not
pick up on the error.

There is still plenty of bogus presentation of DNA statistics in criminal cases, too.

Nevertheless, none of this is particularly relevant to the issue under discussion here.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

However, you could be right. Have you any evidence to support your view?

No.

Fair enough, at least you are honest about that. I see someone else has presented evidence that
clearly contradicts your view. There also appears to be plenty of consistent evidence about exercise
and eating patterns. Not that I've followed it in great detail, I did not believe that the idea was
contentious, and indeed I still don't think it is, apart from one rant on usenet I read recently...

James

"Ian G Batten" wrote in message >

Quoted message said:

There are probably more overweight children than there were. This may be a bad thing. To believe
it's a public health problem on anything like the scale of, say, the increase in young women
smoking is laughable. What we should be doing is encouraging exercise and better patterns of diet,
not demonising ``bad parents'' (it's the poor ones with their fast food you know).

The nature of the health problems of childhood obesity is that they will become apparent some time
later in life. Similarly to smoking I suppose. I have no special knowledge of this problem, and no
real opinion. Can we not extrapolate though, from the health of, for instance overweight americans?
Mike Sales

Ian G Batten said:

In article said:

I was looking at first communion and confirmation school photos recently (1957 and 1962). Groups
of about 70 each. There was NO boy in either photo who nowadays would not be considered rather
skinny. Not one.

I'd be interested to see the actual studies on which elaborate claims of massive child obesity are
based. I'd say, based on occasional attending of assembly, that there are a dozen or so seriously
overweight children in my kids' schools, from a sample of 630 children. At the headline rates it
should be hundreds. I accept my survey is not scientific, but I doubt it's out by the required
order of magnitude. One does see the odd obese tweenager (especially) about, but I see the
occasional blind person too and I wouldn't extrapolate from that to an epidemic of blindness.

Scare stories of the form ``youth today, dreadful...'' make good media, but the reality is that
society doesn't change anything like as quickly or as radically as is claimed.

And it's interesting to see here on u.r.c that biased accounts of marginal scientific work are
accepted wholesale when they suit the prevailing zeitgeist --- cars are getting more dangerous,
people are getting fat --- but not when BHiT is involved. Scepticism is a good thing for _all_
alleged `facts'.

Your estimate is meaningless. For one, you haven't weighed any of the children concerned. For
another, your idead of what constitutes a healthy weight might be biased by seeing people of an
unhealthy weight as normal. I used to work with a guy who told me he was obese by the clinical
definition, yet I didn't think he was obese at all. I had one colleague as well who was hyper-obese.
He had a stroke at 34, though he made a good recovery. I am considered "skinny" by most people that
know me. In reality I am a normal, healthy weight.

Simon

"Chris Malcolm" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Seems to me lots of folk are working long hours in order to earn the money to pay for the labour
saving devices they need because they haven't the time to do things the old leisurely way because
they're working so hard...

There ought to be a word to describe this odd condition. Any suggestions?

Consumerism.

After all, these days things seem to cost bugger all. TV's used to be a major item - not if you
"only" want a 19" one. As for cars, there are decent, reliable ones that don't cost much. (Even in
the 80's a 10 year old car would be a right pain to keep running)

Ian G Batten said:

In article <[email hidden]>, James Annan
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You are the only person I have ever heard describe the alleged childhood obesity epidemic (and
diabetes, stroke, etc etc) to be 'biased accounts of marginal scientific work'. This seems to be
a remarkably strong condemnation of the research, especially as it is such an isolated viewpoint.

Quoted message said:

I was pretty outspoken about how ludicrous the Roy Meadowes Cot Death claims were too, you know,
not to mention laughing hilariously over ``Satanic Abuse''. I was also fairly sceptical over
``CJD will be epidemic within ten years'', which was the orthodoxy of a decade ago. As a general
rule, anyone claiming step function changes in health or behaviour is after funding first and
truth tenth.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

However, you could be right. Have you any evidence to support your view?

Quoted message said:

No. Because proving a negative is very hard, and there's no money in ``people no iller than last
year, no more funding needed''. However, these claims are made in the face of life expectancies
which are rising at such a rapid rate that the funding of pensions in many European countries is a
major threat. Most of the studies are small-scale, and the presumption that BMI, for example, is an
accurate assessment of health is a gross simplification, to put it mildly.

Gross simplifications are what statistics are all about, and are an extremely useful trend-
spotting tool.

Life expectancy should be considered in conjunction with length of *healthy* life, i.e., how long
you can be expected to totter around on your own feet, shopping and cooking for yourself, etc.. The
US come high on life expectancy, but low on length of healthy life, i.e., a lot of the extra years
are spent in expensive care. Why? Largely, IMHO, the ills associated with eating too much and
exercising too little.

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
["]http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

In article <[email hidden]>,

Mike Sales said:

have no special knowledge of this problem, and no real opinion. Can we not extrapolate though,
from the health of, for instance overweight americans?

Another interesting factor where lumped statistics don't tell the whole story. I was in the Bay
Area last week, amongst, bluntly, the middle classes. I was staying in Palo Alto, commuting up to
Sun's place on the edge of the bay to hang with the Solaris Kernel development people, shopping
in the Stanford shopping centre (reputedly one of the most expensive malls on a square foot basis
in the US).

In those places I don't think I saw a single overweight person. Certainly, sat amongst the thirty-
ish year old gang that work on Solaris --- stereotypical geeks, yes? --- there was not a single
person who wouldn't be described as athletic.

However, to drive from Palo Alto to Sun you have to drive through East Palo Alto. That's one of the
most depressed places in the Bay, although only playing at it by the standards of some of the
rougher parts of LA, and there were a lot of severely obese people in the streets.

Obesity is coupled with poverty, to a massive extent. Back here in the UK, living a fairly sheltered
professional life, I don't think I know _anyone_ who would qualify as more than ``oh, I could lose a
few pounds'' overweight. Looking around the office, and indeed through the glass into the factory
floor, I likewise can't see anyone overweight.

My deduction? Obesity is just another way in which the health disparity between the affluent and the
poor manifests itself.

ian

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 21:55:06 +0000 (UTC), Ian G Batten
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, James Annan
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

There are probably more overweight children than there were. This may be a bad thing. To believe
it's a public health problem on anything like the scale of, say, the increase in young women
smoking is laughable. What we should be doing is encouraging exercise and better patterns of diet,
not demonising ``bad parents'' (it's the poor ones with their fast food you know).

Not only have levels of obesity in children increased, according to the largest surveys done.

Types of obesity only heretofore found in adults have now been spotted in children. (To do with
distribution of fat within the organ cavity, iirc).

Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: gawnsoft.co.srgawnsoft.co.srOpen ↗ Symbian/Epoc wiki: html.dnsalias.nethtml.dnsalias.netOpen ↗
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) html.dnsalias.netsmalltalkOpen ↗