Articles by Allen

I just received by mail a copy of “The Vision Times” — the newsletter written by Ellyn Satter which is published four times per year.

The subtitle of this newsletter is “Applying the Trust Model for feeding and parenting.”

In my opinion, Ellyn Satter understands the principles of child weight management better than any other person on the planet.

Her work is primarily focused on educating medical professionals (dieticians, nutritionists, physicians) on her “trusting model for feeding and parenting.”

In her most recent newsletter she discusses how people who go into nutrition and dietetics end up devoting much of their time and energy to telling others what to eat. Instead, she says these professionals need to go beyond food selection and emphasize feeding dynamics.

In other words, Ellyn Satter believes dieticians and nuritionists should teach parents HOW TO FEED their children rather than overemphasizing WHAT kids should eat.

If you are considering working with a dietician or nutritionist, you should strongly consider finding somone who is familiar with Ellyn Satter’s work.

Allen Oelschlaeger
Author of The Straight Scoop About Childhood Obesity

Almost every country in the world is trying to get their arms around the increased incidence of overweight and obesity.

The United Kingdom hoped to do this via the development of a “National Childhood Obesity Database.”

The idea was to weigh all 5 to 11 year-olds to create the largest database of its kind in the world — with the hope that having this good-quality data would translate into effective programs for increasing physical activity and improving diet.

Well, I’m not sure how having this data would help with these goals but it looks like they aren’t going to get it anyway.

Only 48 percent of the country’s children were given permission by the their parents to participate in the study. Conservatives in the UK are calling this shambles over data collection “just one more public health failure by this government.”

What a waste:

1. There is no evidence that the goals of collecting this data (increasing physical activity and improving diet) will have any impact on childhood obesity.

2. Even if there was, it’s not at all clear how having this data would help in making these goals occur.

4. Even if having this data would help, it probably not possible to collect it.

When are public health officials going to stop wasting their time on projects that will have no impact on the problem of childhood obesity and start focusing and dealing with the real issues?

Allen Oelschlaeger
Author of The Straight Scoop About Childhood Obesity

A common assumption is that kids don’t like healthy food.

Well, the Guildford County schools in North Carolina are proving that assumption wrong.

Last year these schools switched to healthier foods in their cafeterias — and guessed what happened.

The school officials assumed the kids would end up eating less cafeteria food.

It turns out the opposite happened. Cafeteria meal sales are up 10% from the year prior.

Yep, take the pressure to lose weight off of kids and serve them good food and they’ll eat it up.

Allen Oelschlaeger
Author of The Straight Scoop About Childhood Obesity

The chairman of the International Obesity Taskforce says that the world needs a “Traffic Light” food-labeling system in order to address the increased incidence of overweight and obesity in children.

In his comments he said that Singapore’s “Trim and Fit” programme doesn’t go far enough, despite it’s success.

What’s the Trim and Fit programme?

It was introduced in Singapore in 1992 and, since then, the proportion of obese school children in Singapore has dropped from 14 percent to 9.3 percent.

Wow! With the increased incidence of overweight and obesity in children throughout the rest of the world I’d think folks would be pretty excited about these results.

The program focuses on getting kids to be more physically active and knowledgeable about nutrition. But, here is the key — the promoted benefits of the program are the following:
* Feel more confident
* Increase self-esteem
* Experience fewer medical problems
* Improve blood pressure and cholesterol levels
* Reduce anxiety and stress
* Build healthy bones and muscles
* Be more alert and study better
* Look better
* Control weight

If you’ve been reading this blog, you know my point. Eating healthier and getting more physical activity have wonderful benefits but weight loss isn’t one of them. The Singapore programme promoters understand this. Therefore, kids are encouraged to exercise and eat well for reasons other than losing weight.

That’s the way it should be. By taking this approach, kids can relax about their weight and, instead, just enjoy physical activity and good food.

But, for some crazy reason, this Obesity Taskforce guy thinks more needs to be done. His recommendation? — a worldwide food-labeling system where foods with high fat and sugars would be required to have a “red” label and foods with low fat and sugars would get a “green” label (those in the middle would be required to have a “yellow” label).

So, where is the research that foods high in fat and sugars cause overweight and obesity? And, who is going to decide which foods get which label? For example, does chocolate get a red label even though it has been shown to have positive health effects?

Here’s the reality — there is absolutely no evidence that foods high in fat and sugars cause overweight and obesity. And, until there is (which will never happen because such foods are NOT the cause), we certainly shouldn’t put a labeling system in place which suggests a cause and effect relationship exists.

Allen Oelschlaeger
Author of The Straight Scoop About Childhood Obesity

Well, it’s finally happened.

A sparsely populated area outside of Fresno California now is the home of the nation’s first weight-loss boarding school — Academy of the Sierras.

Teenagers, who must be at least 30 pounds overweight to be considered for admission, come to the school to lose weight (and, hopefully, learn).

In addition to their school work, the kids keep track of each bite of food (limited to 1300 calories per day and less than 12 grams of fat) and exercise every day for about three hours (e.g., a two-mile walk each day at 6:45 a.m.).

They also take classes in nutrition, cooking and fitness and attend at least four hours per week of individual and group therapy.

The cost? — about $500 per pound lost each month by the average student at the school.

Yep, that’s $5,800 per month! This means a school year cost over $50,000. Wow, now that’s an expensive boarding school.

So what do you think? Is this school preparing their students for a life with no weight struggles? — or are their draconian practices having just the opposite affect.

I’d vote for the latter.

Allen Oelschlaeger
Author of The Straight Scoop About Childhood Obesity

I was so excited when I started reading about a new fitness magazine for kids.

The article I found described how a Miami mother of four went looking for a magazine that would encourage her kids to live healthy, smart lives — but couldn’t find one.

So, she did a very gutsy thing: she started one and it now — two years later — has a circulation of 25,000.

The magazine is meant for kids. Although it always has a professional athlete on the cover (to attract readership), inside it provides fitness alternatives for all kids no matter what their athletic ability.

Sounds pretty good doesn’t it? I thought so, but then I read the magazine’s motto:

“Fighting Childhood Obesity One Kid at a Time”

Wait a minute! Physical activity is supposed to be fun and enjoyable isn’t it? — NOT as a treatment for gaining weight.

It seems to me that the goal of fitness-related activities during childhood is to discover those activities you love and in which you can participate for the rest of your life.

Instead, if we turn exercise into a weight-loss effort, doesn’t that take some (or all) the fun away?

What’s worse is there’s no evidence exercise has any impact on weight. Logically you think it would — but, according to almost all the scientific evidence, it doesn’t.

Why can’t we let exercise be just about fitness? Fitness is a wonderful thing and has incredible health benefits — but weight loss just isn’t one of them.

Allen Oelschlaeger
Author of The Straight Scoop About Childhood Obesity

The “childhood obesity epidemic” is prompting some strange practices.

One of these practices was highlighted in a recent article in the Amherst Times (Pennsylvania newspaper) titled: “In Obesity Fight, Many Fear A Note From School.”

Here is how the article began:

“Six-year-old Karlind Dunbar barely touched her dinner, but not for time-honored 6-year-old reasons. The pasta was not the wrong shape. She did not have an urgent date with her dolls. The problem was the letter Karlind discovered, tucked inside her report card, saying that she had a body mass index in the 80th percentile.

The first grader did not know what ‘index’ or ‘percentile’ meant, or that children scoring in the 5th through the 85th percentiles are considerred normal, while those scoring higher are at risk of being or already overweight.

Yet she became convinced that her teachers were chastising her for overeating.

Since the letter arrived, ‘my 2-year-old eats more than she does,’ said Georgeanna Dunbar, Karlind’s mother, who complained to the school and is trying to help her confused child. “She’s afraid she’s going to get in trouble,” Ms. Dunbar said.”

WHAT ARE WE DOING TO OUR KIDS???

I don’t get it. More and more states are adopting the “obesity report card” (Pennsylvania, Delaware, South Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas are the states I know about) even though there’s absolutely NO evidence they provide any value — and there is a lot of anecdotal evidence (like Karlind’s experience) these reports cause harm (e.g., eating disorders and social stigma, inappropriate actions based on a misinerpretation of numbers, sense of helplessness about high scores).

Here is what Marlene Schwartz, director of research and school programs at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale (in other words, no slouch), says about these programs:

“The practice of reporting body mass index scores in schools has gone from pilot program to mass weigh-in despite ‘no solid research’ on either its physical or psychological impact, and ‘no controlled randomized trial. Entire states are adopting a policy that has not been tested.”

But here’s the BIGGEST issue. If a parent gets a “obesity-alert” report card, what are they supposed to do about it?

Do they put the kid on a diet (proven to not work — in fact, studies show that diets actually cause weight gain over time), do they encourage more physical activity (also proven through numerous scientific studies to not work - see my last blog), do they send the kid to fat camp at a cost of several thousand dollars per month?

What EXACTLY do the schools expect the parents to do about their obese children?

I think the assumption is that obese kids are the result of parents who don’t know their kid is overweight and, thus, just keep pumping them full of junk food. Instead, if parents knew their kids were overweight, they’d quit feeding them so much unhealthy food and the children would lose their extra weight.

HOGWASH!

Allen Oelschlaeger
Author of The Straight Scoop About Childhood Obesity

Isn’t is an established fact that increased physical activity prevents weight gain and is a critical component of any weight-loss program?

I read a lot about overweight and obesity and I can tell you that almost every weight-loss book, magazine article, program (e.g., Weight Watchers, Nutrisystem), media report, and news article recommends exercise as essential for losing weight.

This advice really is universal. Everyone “knows” that, to lose weight, you just need to increase your physical activity and eat healthier.

As a result of this assumed truth, there has been a massive effort to find ways to get kids to exercise more (e.g., requiring gym class, building side walks, creating bike paths, constructing recreational facilities, installing treadmills in schools — and even preschools).

But, there’s one problem with this emphasis on exercise for weight-loss — IT DOESN’T WORK.

Let me share the results of just one recent study.

In November 2006, the British Medical Journal published the results of a study performed in Glasgow, Scotland. 545 children in their preschool year were split into two groups. One group had no intervention and the other were required to participate in an enhanced physical activity program (3 thirty- minute sessions a week over 24 weeks, home based health education aimed at increasing physical activity through play and reducing sedentary behavior).

The results? At six-months and twelve-months follow-up, the researchers found that physical activity did NOT reduce body mass index in these young children.

Although most people might be surprised by this result, these researchers were not. Here is how they began their paper:

“Systematic reviews have reported a dearth of evidence from randomised controlled trials on interventions aimed at preventing obesity in children. Most intervention studies were short term, underpowered, and had other weaknesses such as failure toinclude a control group. More recent interventions have usually been unsuccessful. Only a single long term randomised controlled trial found benefits to the interventions.”

So, if there’s little data supporting the use of exercise for weight loss, why is exercise such a common recommendation?

Well, I think it’s because it sounds like such logical advice — to lose weight, just burn off more calories by exercising.

It might sound logical to exercise in order to lose weight. But, here’s the reality — it doesn’t work.

Allen Oelschlaeger
Author of The Straight Scoop About Childhood Obesity

The Univerity of Baltimore has been publishing an assessment of state’s efforts to address the “obesity crisis” for the last three years.

Their assessment evaluates the quantifiable efforts by state legislatures to pass laws related to addressing the obesity problem. Currently, eight different types of legislation have been introduced and in some states, passed. The types are as follows:
* nutrition standards—controlling the types of foods and beverages offered during school hours
* vending machine usage—prohibiting types of foods and beverages sold in school and prohibiting access to vending machines at certain times
* body mass index measured in school
* recess and physical education—state-mandated additional recess and physical education time
* obesity programs and education—programs established as part of curriculum
* obesity research—legislative support for other institutions or groups to study obesity
* obesity treatment in health insurance—expanding health insurance to cover obesity treatment where applicable
* obesity commissions—legislature-established commissions designed to study obesity

It turns out only three states, in the opinion of the assessment’s authors, are doing an “A” job — California, New York, and Tennessee.

Here’s my opinion. The state legislatures are grasping at straws.

The truth is that there’s been no research on if any of these legislative actions will have a positive (or a negative) impact. But, the states are under such pressure to do something, they are passing laws that seem to make logical sense but may cause more harm than good.

For example, states received points for passing legislation requiring school students to have their body mass index measured and reported to their parents. Is this a good idea? Personally I think it is a terrible idea and so do many others — but laws are being proposed and passed none-the-less.

Before we pass legislation willy nilly, we should understand the true impact of proposed laws so we don’t make the problem worse rather than better.

Allen Oelschlaeger
Author of The Straight Scoop About Childhood Obesity

The President and Mrs. Bush met with corporate leaders about the “childhood obesity epidemic” on February 1, 2007.

David Kessler, a former FDA commissioner, applauded the meeting but said: “That still leaves the question of what to do. Talking about it is a first step. It is a very large public health challenge, the consequences of which we have only begun to understand.”

Exactly.

I would guess that every person in the U.S. is aware of the increasing incidence of overweight and obesity among our nation’s youth. How could they not be with all the media attention on this issue?

So, awareness isn’t the issue — the issue is figuring out what to do about it. In fact, the President said, “We believe it is necessary to come up with a coherent strategy to help folks all throughout our country cope with the issue.”

This meeting — like all other public policy meeting I’ve read about — stressed the importance of two things:
* Healthful eating
* Physical fitness

The problem is that there’s no evidence “unhealthy eating” and decreased physical activity has caused the problem — or is there any evidence that healthy eating and increased physical activity will solve it.

In fact, hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent trying to promote healthful eating and increased physical activity and the problem just keeps getting worse.

In a press release distributed in conjunction with the meeting, all the programs the federal government is implementing to fight obesity were listed — at a total cost of $600 million dollars!

Wait a minute! We’re spending $600 million dollars at the federal level and probably an equivelent amount at the state, community and school level to fight obesity, with NO POSITIVE RESULTS! Don’t you think that would prompt someone to question the value of what the money is being spent on?

But, for some reason it doesn’t.

When are we going to get serious and settle on the real cause of the “obesity epidemic” so we can work on real solutions?

Allen Oelschlaeger
Author of The Straight Scoop About Childhood Obesity

A study was just published which showed that, in suburban US neighborhoods, children who live near a major supermarket had a lower risk of obesity.

What’s going on here?

Maybe the families who live closer to supermarkets can shop more often and thus have more fresh fruits and vegetables around the house?

If you’ve been reading this blog, you know I’m being sarcastic.

Sure, we can try to guess what factors are contributing to this association — which is what commonly happens. Some study is done with a surprising result and the researcher (or worse, the journalist reporting on the study) makes up some reason for the result. Then, what makes the headline? — the made-up reason.

“Kids without access to fresh fruits and vegetables are at higher risk of obesity”

This type of reporting is crazy — but it happens all the time.

The other reaction we could have is to chalk the results up to inapproriate use of statistics.

As Disraeli said, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

The February 22nd issue of The Economist had an article about this titled, “Why so much medical research is rot.”

The article reported on a presentation by Peter Austin of the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences in Toronto where he stated that “people born under the astrological sign of Leo are 15% more likely to be admitted to hospital with gastric bleeding than those born under the other 11 signs. Sagittarian are 38% more likely than others to land up there because of a broken arm.”

Dr. Austin’s point was to “shock medical researchers into using better statistics, because the ones they routinely employ today run the risk of identifying relationships when, in fact, there are none.”

The article concludes by saying, “So, the next time a newspaper headline declares that something is bad for you, read the small print. If the scientists used the wrong statistical method, you may do just as well believing your horoscope.”

Allen Oelschlaeger
Author of The Straight Scoop About Childhood Obesity

TV watching is often given as one of the primary reasons for the increased incidence of childhood obesity.

This is because many studies show a correlation between TV watching and weight. In other words, kids who watch more TV seem to be heavier.

In the January issue of the Journal of the American Dietetics Association this correlation was seen again. 8,459 children were tracked from kindergarten through third grade with the following results:
* “Children who watched more television and ate fewer family meals were more likely to be overweight for the first time at spring semester of third grade.
* Children who watched more television, ate fewer family meals, and lived in neighborhoods perceived by parents as less safe for outdoor play were more likely to be persistently overweight.”

However, the researchers also found that:
* “Child aerobic exercise and opportunities for activity were not assoicated with a greater likelihood of weight problems.”

So, what’s going on here? TV watching is associated with weight — but physical activity is NOT associated with weight. How can you make sense of these results?

Well, first of all, an “association” doesn’t mean that one factor CAUSES the other factor. So, just because TV watching is “associated” with weight doesn’t mean that TV watching CAUSES weight gain. For example, it could just as easily mean that weight gain leads to more TV watching.

However, most people assume that the reason TV watching is associated with weight is because TV watching leads to less physical activity, and less physical activity leads to weight gain.

This makes sense doesn’t it?

It might make sense but it turns out not to be true. Almost no research has found an association between TV watching and physical activity. In other words, kids that watch more TV don’t generally have lower physical activity levels than kids who watch less TV.

What this means is that the reason TV watching is associated with weight probably has nothing to do with physical activity levels. Instead, there’s something else about TV watching that creates this association.

No one know what this something else is but one theory is that, when kids watch TV, they mindlessly eat high-caloric snack food at the same time.

If the goal is to address the “childhood obesity epidemic” maybe we should be less concerned about TV watching and more concerned about kids eating at the kitchen table instead of in front of the TV set.

Allen Oelschlaeger
Author of The Straight Scoop About Childhood Obesity

Over the last several years there have been numerous reports blaiming schools for the childhood obesity problem. Unhealthy school lunches, vending machines, infrequent gym class, and birthday snacks have all been blamed.

Even Bill Clinton has gotten into the act by forming a partnership between the William J. Clinton Foundation and the American Heart Association to “increase physical activity and improve nutrition in schools across the nation; provide standards for schools to improve the food served in cafeterias and vending machines and improve opportunities for enhanced physical activity both in school and after school.”

In addition, States and schools are taking action to address the “childhood obesity epidemic” on their own by reporting student’s BMI to their parents and banning treats at birthday parties.

Personally, this never made much sense to me. From my experience with two children it seemed like they eat better and get more physical activity in school than I did back in the 50s and 60s when there was no “childhood obesity epidemic.”

The school lunches I had would certainly not be considered “healthy” by today’s standards and, although I had gym class, I don’t remember ever getting any real exercise. Instead, I remember standing around a lot waiting for other kids to do some skill drill.

Anyway, The American Journal of Public Health just published a study (April 2007) that suggests I’m right — and that schools are doing a pretty good job with nutrition and physical activity.

The study “stressed that schools provide structured eating patterns, limited access to excessively caloric foods and beverages, and a fundamental education of the benefits of a balanced diet, as well as encouraging sufficient exercise.

In fact, the researchers found that children are more prone to weight gain during holidays when they do not have this order in their daily regimen.

Bottom line, schools aren’t the cause of the increased incidence of overweight and obesity among our nation’s youth.

Allen Oelschlaeger
Author of The Straight Scoop About Childhood Obesity

I just read an article that offered the following statistics:

* Children as young as five are being diagnosed with anorexia.
* Typical age of onset of anorexia is not between 12 and 14, compared to an average age of 16 just five years ago.
* Since 2001 there has been a 20% increase in the number of children being admitted to the hospital with anorexia.
* Physical impact of anorexia in pre-pubescent children is much more severe than in older children.
* The Eating Disorders Foundation has seen a quadrupling in the number of calls about eating disorders over the past five years.

Were you aware of this national epidemic? I’d bet not. Somehow the entire world has become focused on obesity and has ignored the problem of self-starvation.

And here is what’s sad — our focus on obesity is one of the primary causes of anorexia.

Yep, eating disorder experts blame our national obsession with obesity for the shocking rise in the number of youth being treated for anorexia. Television shows, cartoons, websites, games and toy figures have promoted a “thin” ideal among children and the almost constant emphasis on eating the “right” food has created a backlash in children where some feel compelled to cut out all the “bad” foods (e.g., fat, carbohydrates, dairy).

So, what do you think? Is obesity a bigger problem in the US or is anorexia among our youth? Which should get more of the media’s attention?

Allen Oelschlaeger
Author of The Straight Scoop About Childhood Obesity

If you watched the news at the end of 2006, I’m sure you saw the report about the impact of the Thanksgiving holiday on college-student weights.

The study was presented at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society in Boston. Here’s a summary:

94 college students were weighed the week before Thanksgiving and, again, within a week of their return to campus — and the average weight of the students increased by 1.1 pounds.

Wow! That’s pretty darn interesting. A whole pound!!

I don’t know about you but my weight varies by several pounds — up and down — over a two week period. I’m sure this is due to how much food I have in my stomach, how much water my body is retaining, how precise my scale is, what clothes I’m wearing, how full my bladder is, and other factors I probably don’t understand.

I also know that I might gain real weight for a few days and then my body responds and I naturally eat less and lose the weight.

So, it doesn’t surprise me at all that 94 student’s weight might vary by a pound between two weighings over a 12 days period.

But, it sure seemed to surprise the researchers and the national media — and led to all sorts of silly explanations as to what was going on.

The most prominent explanation for this one pound of weight gain is that students have such lousy food at school that, when they get an opportunity to eat home cooking again, they can’t help themselves. Then, to make matters worse, doting relatives put pressure on the kids to eat.

But, guess what? The researchers did a third weighing of 84 of the 94 kids in mid-January (just a couple of weeks after the Christmas holiday) and most of the average extra “Thanksgiving pound” had disappeared.

Oh, did you miss that fact in the report you saw or heard? Somehow the media left out that little nugget of information from most of their reporting.

Instead, they interviewed obesity experts to get advice as to what to do about this MAJOR problem. Here are the three suggestions I read:

* Don’t encourage students to “gobble” so much when they are home for the holidays
* Don’t fill up with snack mix or appetizers prior to the Thanksgiving meal
* “Bank” calories by being especially virtuous the week or so before the holiday

This kind of media coverage makes me so angry. No wonder the incidence of obesity is going up!!

Allen Oelschlaeger
Author of The Straight Scoop About Childhood Obesity

The best strategy for kids to lose weight is easy — right? Just eat less and exercise more.

Logically this advice makes all kinds of sense but, in practice, it just doesn’t work.

For example, check out the results of a study with 1704 Native American children from 41 schools.

The participants in the study were split into two groups, with one group getting a better diet, more physical activity and classes about healthy eating and lifestyle. The surprising results? — after three years there was no difference in body fat between the two groups.

One of the authors of the study was quoted as saying, “We threw tens of millions of dollars at the best investigators in the world — and they found absolutely no effect.”

The reality is that a causal link between eating less/exercising more and obesity is hard to pin down. I’m sure you’ve heard at least some of the numerous theories for why the incidence of childhood obesity has increased (less PE in schools, more computer game playing, larger portions in restaurants, more TV watching, increased advertising of junk foods). The problem is that there’s no evidence that any of these reasons are valid.

We shouldn’t be telling kids to eat less and exercise more to lose weight — there just isn’t any evidence to show this works. And, in my opinion, such advice causes more harm than good.

Allen Oelschlaeger
Author of The Straight Scoop About Childhood Obesity

Last week I reported on an article which suggested that the new video console — the Nintendo Wii — may help address the childhood obesity problem (not!)

Now a researcher in the UK has just published a study which looks at the health impact of an older video game — Dance Dance Revolution (DDR).

DDR is one the available games for the Sony Playstation. It consists of a dance pad with pressure sensors which hooks up to the video-game console and TV. The player stands on the pad and steps on the different sensors according to the instructions displayed and in rhythm with the game’s music.

My son used to play this game and seemed to be huffing and puffing pretty good after several games. I tried it but never got good enough to get much of a work out.

Anyway, what Dr. Liverpool (the primary author of this UK study) learned is that playing the game did increase kid’s heart rate but not their breathing intensity (I guess my son was a more aggressive dancer than the kids in the study).

Based on their findings, the researchers concluded that a child would need to play the game for more than an hour every day for it have any impact on kid’s weight.

Here’s the reality — this research on video games as the solution to childhood obesity is barking up the wrong tree. The right tree is kids learning how to eat.

Allen Oelschlaeger
Author of The Straight Scoop About Childhood Obesity

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

A British company has introduced a treadmill for kids — a brightly-colored mini-version of the contraptions in gyms and some people’s homes.

In less than a year, more than 120 nurseries and primary schools have purchased this product in the UK. The company (Gymkids) also makes miniature rowing machines and stair-steppers.

How are these products being promoted? — yep, as an approach to tackle the childhood obesity epidemic. The company says that the contraptions are fun to use and will help kids develop the exercise habit early in life.

What happened to playing? You know, climbing, swinging, tag, dodge-ball, four-square, and all the other activities that most kids find fun.

Does anybody really think that having kids walk on a treadmill will develop a life-long love of physical activity?

And, what about the impact on the kids self-esteem? Are the users of these products giving children the message that calories are bad things which must be burned off? That’s the belief of anorexia patients.

Here’s the surprising revelation which I share in my course — the only way to get people to participate in physical activity is to get them to do things they absolutely love to do.

The reality is that some people just love to run on a treadmill. They like how their body feels during and after the exercise and they enjoy the break from their hectic day.

However, I’m pretty sure that’s not true for a majority of the population — so why would it make sense to encourage them to do something they hate? No matter what the motivation level, what’s the chances they are going to keep up this activity for the rest of their lives?

Instead, people need to figure out what activities they love to do. And, isn’t that what childhood is all about — discovering what things you are good at and that you enjoy doing?

Sure, if a kid loves walking or running on a treadmill, they should be allowed to do it. However, I bet — if given the choice — few kids would pick this activity over doing something fun.

Allen Oelschlaeger
Author of The Straight Scoop About Childhood Obesity

According to an article I just read, yesterday was the beginning of a worldwide reversal to childhood obesity.

This is such a big deal that I’m sure you’ve heard about it. In fact, I’d bet that a vast majority of the population in developed countries know about it.

Do you know what I’m talking about? It’s the introduction of the “Wii” — Nintendo’s newest video game console.

How is it possible that a video game (which is often blamed for the increase in childhood obesity) could now be the solution?

Well, the new Wii has a wireless, motion-activated game-control device that requires players to wave it around rather than just push buttons with their thumbs.

So, to play tennis, you must stand up and swing at the ball on the screen just like you’d swing a real tennis racquet. In fighting games, you throw punches at your on-screen opponent. Users have reported being drenched with sweat after just a couple of games.

Personally, I think this sounds very cool. I can’t wait to get to my local Best Buy to try it out. However, I’m very confident it won’t do anything to address our childhood obesity problem.

Sure, it makes all kinds of sense for kids to be more active — doing things that are fun. Without question, exercise — in ANY form — is the very best thing we can all do for our health.

But, more exercise is not the solution to childhood obesity — for any age group. In my course, I explain why.

Allen Oelschlaeger
Author of The Straight Scoop About Childhood Obesity

The BUPA Foundation in the UK (I’m not sure who these folks are) just gave $25,000 to a UK hospital for their “innovative work in tacking child obesity.”

Here’s what they came up with.

From what I can tell, their innovation is a food plate which is attached to a set of scales. The scales are then attached to a computer.

Here’s how I think it works.

Someone loads up the plate with food and programs the computer with how much food the kid should eat. The kid starts eating and the computer tracks how much food is leaving the plate and then “signals” (I can imagine a screeching alarm) when the prescribed food limit is reached.

The person leading the program at the hospital is quoted as saying “Obesity is a major threat to our children and we owe it to them to do everything we can to protect their health.”

There is so much wrong with this “innovation” that I can’t imagine how anyone could think these researchers deserve some kind of award. The most obvious problem is impracticality. Do the obese kids have to eat all their meals and snacks via this contraption? Who programs the computer and how do the programmers know how much food the child needs at that specific time?

But, here’s the more important question. What does using such a contraption do for the child’s perception of food and eating? Are they learning to fear food? And, if so, what does that mean to their long term ability to manage their eating habits?

I’m sure these researchers have their hearts in the right place and are genuinely interested in helping these obese kids. The problem is, in my opinion, they are doing more harm than good.

Allen Oelschlaeger
Author of The Straight Scoop About Childhood Obesity

Here’s some sad news.

Between the periods of 1988-1994 and 1999-2004 the prevalence of abdominal obesity (higher levels of visceral fat) among children between the ages of 2 and 19 years, increased by over 65%.

This is a real problem because visceral fat has emerged as an important predictor for heart disease and type 2 diabetes.

I think everyone knows that our kids are getting heavier, but researchers can only guess what that will mean to their long-term health. There just isn’t any good data that predicts — with great confidence — the impact of higher weights among kids.

However, there is a large body of evidence that high levels of visceral fat does predict future health problems. This new study should create grave concern

I’ve said it before. We as a society need to get real about addressing the problem of childhood obesity.

Allen Oelschlaeger
Author of The Straight Scoop About Childhood Obesity

Have you ever heard of the “Freshman 15″?

It’s widely stated that a lot of college freshman gain 15 pounds during their first year.

Well, it turns out that’s not true. Researchers have now discovered that the weight gain is more like 5 to 7 pounds.

But, here’s the problem — that’s followed by a gain of another 2 to 3 pounds in the sophomore year.

The researchers didn’t know why — but they’re trying to figure it out. Here are what they think are some of the possibilities:

* More drinking of alcohol
* More socializing that involves eating
* More high-fat foods in dorm cafeterias
* Less physical activity

I don’t agree. I think it’s because many of the kids were not taught how to eat before they headed off to college.

How to eat certainly isn’t something you learn by watching food advertising or reading about weight-loss diets. And, according to my kids, it isn’t something that’s being taught in health class.

So, where do kids learn how to eat?

Allen Oelschlaeger
Author of The Straight Scoop About Childhood Obesity

If you’ve reached this page and are not familiar with me, I encourage you to review the About Allen page to gain some understanding of where I’m coming from. If you do, you’ll learn that I’m on a personal mission to discredit the mainstream and fad beliefs about weight loss that have so-obviously failed us (and which are totally unsupported by the evidence) – and to convince the world there is a completely different approach to losing weight that actually works due to its precise alignment with the true nature of human physiology. To learn more about this mission, please visit Truths Publishing.

This blog is one component of my efforts that’s focused on childhood obesity. Here I review recent media reports related to this topic and try to clarify the confusing, contradictory and inaccurate information that’s so prevalent. My goal if for you to understand the fundamental and unchanging truths about child weight management so you can be confident you’re doing the right thing to support your child’s health.
———————————————————

It was reported recently that a school in California banned serving deserts at in-school birthday parties for kids. The specific culprit they were concerned about was cupcakes.

Do people really think that think that school birthday parties are one of the causes of childhood obesity?

We had birthday parties at school when I was a kid and the incidence of obesity was much less.

If we are going to address the problem of childhood obesity, we need to abandon most of the goofy ideas which are getting so much attention. Here are some of my favorites:

* Tax “happy meals” at fast food restaurants.
* Weigh every student and notify parents if their child is overweight.
* Focus gym classes on burning calories rather than having fun.

And, here’s my all time favorite — increase the weight of toys so kids burn more calories and increase their heart rates more when playing.

Come on folks, let’s get real. Childhood obesity is a serious issue but we need to address the real fundamental causes if we have any hope for success.

Allen Oelschlaeger
Author of The Straight Scoop About Childhood Obesity

If you’ve reached this page and are not familiar with me, I encourage you to review the About Allen page to gain some understanding of where I’m coming from. If you do, you’ll learn that I’m on a personal mission to discredit the mainstream and fad beliefs about weight loss that have so-obviously failed us (and which are totally unsupported by the evidence) – and to convince the world there is a completely different approach to losing weight that actually works due to its precise alignment with the true nature of human physiology. To learn more about this mission, please visit Truths Publishing.

This blog is one component of my efforts that’s focused on childhood obesity. Here I review recent media reports related to this topic and try to clarify the confusing, contradictory and inaccurate information that’s so prevalent. My goal if for you to understand the fundamental and unchanging truths about child weight management so you can be confident you’re doing the right thing to support your child’s health.
———————————————————

Why would the William J. Clinton Foundation and the American Heart Association team up?

You probably know because it’s been all over the news since they formed the Alliance for a Healthier Generation in 2005. Their goal? — to combat childhood obesity.

The first thing they accomplished in May of 2006 was to negotiate an agreement with beverage industry leaders to sell only water, unsweetened juice, and low-fat/nonfat milk in elementary and middle schools.

Then, in October of 2006, they announced a deal with several food companies to make school snacks healthier. Under the guidelines, some of the major snack-food companies (Kraft, Mars, Campbel Soup, PepsiCo) agreed to not sell foods that derive more than 35 percent of their calories from fat and more than 10 percent from saturated fat — and that have more than 35% of their content as sugar.

So Snickers bars are out — at least with its current formula.

So, what do you think? Is this the answer to childhood obesity?

Personally, I don’t think so. First, we can be pretty sure that the food companies will develop snack foods that are just below the agreed-to thresholds for fat and sugar. But, more importantly, I doubt school snacks are one of the primary causes of kids being overweight.

What Clinton and the AHA are doing is certainly admirable — but not because it’s going to solve the significant problem of childhood obesity.

Allen Oelschlaeger
Author of The Straight Scoop About Childhood Obesity

If you’ve reached this page and are not familiar with me, I encourage you to review the About Allen page to gain some understanding of where I’m coming from. If you do, you’ll learn that I’m on a personal mission to discredit the mainstream and fad beliefs about weight loss that have so-obviously failed us (and which are totally unsupported by the evidence) – and to convince the world there is a completely different approach to losing weight that actually works due to its precise alignment with the true nature of human physiology. To learn more about this mission, please visit Truths Publishing.

This blog is one component of my efforts that’s focused on childhood obesity. Here I review recent media reports related to this topic and try to clarify the confusing, contradictory and inaccurate information that’s so prevalent. My goal if for you to understand the fundamental and unchanging truths about child weight management so you can be confident you’re doing the right thing to support your child’s health. 
———————————————————

Thanks for visiting.

If you want the straight scoop about what you read in the media about childhood obesity, this is your source.

Whenever you see a big media story (or even some small stories) on this topic, you can expect I will post something here within a couple of days which shares the truths behind the story.

I look forward to keeping you up-to-date.

Allen Oelschlaeger
Author of The Straight Scoop About Childhood Obesity