Strollerderby : obesity

550-Pound Woman Gives Birth

Madeline Holler — Mon, 18 May 2009 20:28:00 GMT

FOX News is all over the story of a 550-pound woman giving birth to a healthy baby in Russia today.

Doctors at Moscow's Maternity Clinic Number 8 were, as the news story says, patting themselves on the back for delivering the healthy baby of a woman "whose weight would normally preclude conception," according to the docs.

Preclude conception? What's with that?

"The thing is that as a rule, women over 150 kilograms have such severe hormonal irregularities they simply can't get pregnant," Irina Osadcheva, the deputy head of the clinic, explained.

Huh. The 34-year-old first-time mom, who is identified only as Nonna M., had a boy weighing 4.4 pounds after a five-hour induced labor. Good for her! Congrats to Nonna M.

And congrats to this mom!

If This Guy's Going Broke, is There Hope for the Rest of Us?

Babble Talk Radio: Kids These Days!

Federal Agent* Seizes Oat-Based Contraband

Mom Gives 9-Year-Old Marijuana

Crocheted Doll Gives Birth

Photo: thespoof.com

It's NOT Baby Fat

JeanneSager — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 15:28:00 GMT

Think those chubby cheeks are sooo cute? Stop pinching and pull out the scale.

A new study says one in five American four-year-olds is obese. Not chunky. Not husky. Obese.

Sponsored by the National Center for Education Statistics, the study shows a drastically higher problem in minority groups, with thirty-one percent of American Indian children who were obese, twenty-two percent of Hispanics and twenty-one percent of blacks.

By comparison, sixteen percent of white kids were dangerously overweight, and thirteen percent of Asian children were obese. Based on an analysis of nationally representative height and weight data on more than eight thousand preschoolers born in 2001, the study took into account where a child falls on the percentile chart. Those who fell in the ninety-fifth percentile or higher qualified as obese.

Unfortunately, the statistics are not that surprising when you break down the higher numbers of low income families in minority groups - especially living on reservations. Low income families have a pre-disposition toward obesity because of the quality of food they can afford, food that is often carbohydrate rich but lacking in nutritional value. A recent study showed parents in low-income families were also more likely to pass on a habit of over-eating to their children because they look to food as a form of comfort.

It's hard for parents of any income level to distinguish whether or not their kids are overweight, but it's scarier still for parents to face a child as young as four with a weight problem. They're supposed to still have boundless energy at this age, to burn off their food just running like a banshee through the house! And how to tell when a kid is still working off the baby fat?

Just another reason to march them in for the well visit and load them up on the scale.

Image: One Step Ahead

Not Another Tween Beauty Crisis

What Do Madonna and Peanut Butter Have in Common?

Also on Babble:

Off the Charts

Bad Parent: Weight Watcher

For Goodness Sake, Leave Their Tonsils Alone

JeanneSager — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:29:00 GMT

Want another reason not to put your kids under the knife for a tonsillectomy?

Word has it, putting your kids in the hospital so a doctor can cut out those little chunks of lymphatic tissue at the back of the mouth could make them fat. And we're not talking about all that ice cream served up during recovery.

A Dutch study of almost four thousand kids determined that eight year olds who underwent a tonsillectomy when they were younger were at a heightened risk of obesity - regardless of whether doctors had also removed their adenoids. The doctors factored in kids who were already overweight when they were tots (pre-surgery) as a control, and they say they were able to determine the tonsillectomy prompted the obesity.

They're not calling for tonsil surgeries to stop - the numbers performed in the states have steadily decreased since the 1970s anyway. Instead, the researchers call for better nutrition management and education for kids who have had the surgery.

Considering I still have my tonsils, I guess that's one less chance I have to blame my big butt on someone else. Sigh. . . although, I could always blame it on the baby I had three years ago, right? Right?

Image: Kids Health

They Say: Obesity During Pregnancy Raises Risk of Birth Defects

Kate Tuttle — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 20:01:00 GMT

A new study looking at data from dozens of earlier research efforts has concluded that women who are obese cduring pregnancy are more likely to give birth to children with birth defects, in particular spina bifida and other neural tube defects. Other problems, such as hydrocephaly, cleft palate, and some heart and limb anomalies, are also found at higher rates when children are born to mothers who were obese during pregnancy.

The rate of spina bifida was strikingly higher in these cases, with obese mothers 2.2 times more likely to have a child with that condition; spina bifida ranges in severity but can cause paralysis, incontinence, and other serious medical challenges.

The paper, which appeared this week in the Journal of the American Medical Association, looked at the results of 39 previous studies and was authored by Judith Rankin, a researcher at the Institute of Health and Society at Newcastle University in the UK. Rankin told the New York Times that she and her co-authors had also found increased risk to the children of mothers who were classified as overweight, rather than obese, but that further research was needed.

Pregnant women and women planning to become pregnant are routinely advised to take folic acid to lower the risk of neural tube defects, but some doctors now suggest a link between those defects and insulin resistance and undiagnosed diabetes.

Whatever the precise mechanism, the message is pretty clear -- losing weight before conceiving is in the best interest of your future child. How that advice is played out in doctor's offices and homes is another story entirely -- we live in a time and place of mixed messages about weight and health, in which we are bombarded with advertisements for unhealthy food and at the same time urged to lose weight at all costs (and often merely to look good, rather than to improve health). I hope that studies like this can help shine a clear light onto what really matters -- women's health and healthy babies.

More By This Author:

Kittens Have Their Say (Aided by Nutty Six-Year-Old)

Twenty-Year-Old Kidnapping Solved

Little Girl with Bowel Disease Kept Alive on Donated Breastmilk

They Say: More Abuse, Neglect Among Bottle-Feeding Moms

Dad Shackles Overweight Daughter to Bed to Stop Her Eating

JeanneSager — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:33:00 GMT

It started with chains and locks on the cabinet doors of the family home to keep his daughter away from the food. When Robert Blue found his fifteen-year-old was getting past them, police say he decided to chain the girl to her bed and beat her with a stick.

The problem? The teen was twenty pounds over the weight her father thought appropriate.

Theres's no excuse for it, but the extreme methodology to make a child lose weight may not be that uncommon.

Obese kids are often at risk of being treated poorly by their peers - and obese adults by other "skinnier" adults. Then throw in the stigma for parents of obese kids. Malnutrition and neglect are most often linked to the words "child abuse," but these days childhood obesity is earning parents the stinkeye - for being too permissive and putting their kids at significant health risks. Two years ago, a British mother was told to put her eight-year-old on a diet or she'd lose custody.

So what are parents doing? Mostly uneducated themselves about proper nutrition and weight loss (studies have also shown most obese kids have at least one obese parent), they go to extremes. They enforce strict diets and padlock the cabinets. They impart little knowledge of how to eat well, exercise and modify their lives, instead believing they can discipline away the fat - which, any of us who have ever lost weight know, doesn't work.

The methods described by Blue's local Nevada TV station are nothing short of criminal - and clearly abusive. But how many parents are just a few steps short of this themselves? Sadly, studies have actually proven child abuse can be a trigger FOR obesity into adulthood. Which points directly back to the Blue case. Child abusers break down a child's self-esteem, upping their chances of overeating. And what happens then? More abuse.

Image: Fox News Vegas

Adoption Application Turned Down Due to Prospective Father's BMI

Shannon LC Cate — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 20:00:00 GMT

A UK couple was denied the opportunity to adopt due to the husband's weight. He is 2% over the body mass index limit of 40%. I don't know much about adoption law in the UK, but I immediately wondered if this was a one-off or a policy across the board, nationally. (This particular case was an attempt at public adoption through a city council, not a private adoption agency.)

But more than that, I wondered if there are laws banning single parents from adopting in the UK. Because the rationale given the couple was that the man's morbid obesity was a dangerous enough health risk that he might be seriously disabled or die because of it. I can understand that concern, but I cannot understand banning a couple from adopting if only one member of it has such a health concern. If they would allow the wife to adopt as a single mother, they should overlook the husband's weight, I think.

Of course, it also depends on what kind of adoption the couple is seeking to do. If they are looking for a rare healthy newborn, that's one thing. But if they are hoping to welcome a child who might not otherwise grow up in a stable family setting, 2% BMI is no reason to deny them.

What do you think of these kinds of restrictions on prospective adoptive parents? Is this an "ism" rooted in our obsession with thin bodies or a reasonable concern? What about some of the other restrictions that sometimes come up in adoption, like a history of using anti-depressants, a marijuana arrest at age 21 or other things breeders don't think twice about when becoming parents? Should there be higher standards for adoptive parents, period?

Study Finds Girls "Prefer Chatting" to Being Physically Active

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 23:00:00 GMT

New research has found that women of all ages are less active than men. Observing schoolchildren at play, researchers have concluded that girls would rather socialize than play sports.

While I don't doubt the study’s findings that men are more physically active than women, I have some reservations about the explanation that girls simply like to sit around chatting, while boys like to run around and get dirty.

Until I graduated high school, I considered myself the least athletic person I knew. It was a big joke among my friends that any activity requiring physical exertion was off bounds for me. But once I realized that being active did not have to mean doing Indian sprints at Varsity field hockey practice, I became very athletic. I now bike everywhere, do yoga, dance, hike, surf, and run.

I certainly didn’t shun sports because I “prefer to chat.” But a casual observer could easily have drawn this conclusion from watching me on the sidelines during gym class, laughing with a girlfriend instead of trying to get in on the athletic action. The truth is, I was too intimidated to participate in traditional team sports, since I seem to have inherited a gene which makes me physically incapable of throwing and catching a ball. Even the sports that I did enjoy—gymnastics and track—were unappealing to me because I had no interest in competing. I just wanted to move around and have fun.

Perhaps it’s not girls’ natural inclinations that make them less active than their male counterparts, but rather the way sports are taught in school.

Photo: The Telegraph

NY Proposes Taxing Non-Diet Soda

Miriam Axel-Lute — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 19:00:00 GMT

OK Gov. Paterson: I know you've got a wicked budget hole, and we all have to "share the pain." I also know that this country has a severe health crisis with escalating rates of diabetes, heart disease, etc. and that soda and related sugar-water drinks (or, more specifically, high-fructose-corn-syrup drinks) are bad for us and our kids.

But can we work through a few of the logical problems with your proposed "obesity tax" here?

1. It only applies to "nondiet" sodas (and fake juice drinks), thereby giving the implicit healthy stamp of approval to "diet" drinks full of artificial sweeteners, which cause many people a wide range of health problems, from dizziness to migraines, while to others they just taste gross. They also interfere with efforts to adjust to a healthier, lower-sugar diet. Not to mention that carbonated diet sodas still are acidic enough to eat away at kids teeth and still don't hydrate like water or provide nutrients like milk. Remember also that soda—diet and nondiet—is also a major source of people's caffeine fixes (and young kids having caffeine worries me more than their having sugar, frankly).

Basically, this just shows the folly of trying to decide on high what's healthy for people: it varies. I have some extremely health-conscious friends whose son is super allergic to tons of things—so right now he's eating a lot of Fritos (all corn, no cross-contamination). If you tried to tax "junk food," for example, you'd be hitting them hard.

2. Like any sales tax, this going to fall most heavily on the poor, who buy a lot of soda often because it's what's sold at the corner store. Study after study has shown that living in a "food desert" is a primary cause of unhealthy eating choices. Without changing that, adding a tax is like raising the gas tax without investing in public transportaiton. (If the tax is high enough to make bodega owners stock healthier drinks instead, we might see some benefit, but I'm skeptical.)

3. Recent studies have shown that it's possible to be both fat and fit. You say you don't want to make kids feel bad for being overweight. So don't. Instead encourage the good stuff, which is what will really make the difference: access to healthy food and drink, enough sleep, and exercise (recess! later school start times! healthy foods in schools! walking and biking to school!). I know that won't balance the budget. I'm sorry.

Photo by Qfamily.

More by this author:

Is This Baby Obese? Aussie Mom Says No

Kate Tuttle — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:02:00 GMT

Are we too quick to call babies overweight and obese? One Australian mother thinks so, and she's pulled her infant from a daycare center for fears the staff there, who labelled her ten-month-old overweight, will fail to feed her adequately. Olivia Villella, ten months old, is hitting the 75th pecentile for weight and the 25th for height -- maybe a little on the round side, but nothing most doctors would worry about -- but her teachers at the ABC childcare center in Australia have called her fat and obese (which her four-year-old brother mis-heard as "a fat beast"), prompting her mother to worry they will withold food from her should she remain there.

I'm all for helping parents feed their children a healthy diet, and even giving them tools to know when their child might need expert help, but the knee-jerk labelling of any child as obese, particularly by people who have no medical training, seems counterproductive at best. While I'm sure the mother is leaving the daycare out of embarrassment and anger as much as any real concerns of her daughter's starving, I can understand how she feels. It's all too easy to judge someone else's baby, and when those doing the judging may well be bringing in their own baggage (especially when it comes to gender: why is it always a girl baby that gets this label?), then it's downright destructive. I know that if my child's daycare wanted to put my child on a diet without consulting me, I'd be out of there fast, calling everyone on the waitlist as I went.

More by this author:

They Say: Healthier Pregnancies, Babies After Gastric Bypass

Kate Tuttle — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:30:00 GMT

It used to be that pregnancy was a time of blessed reprieve for overweight women. Once the belly grew out past the "is she or isn't she" point, they could bask in the public affirmation of their size instead of worrying about being judged for it. Ladies, those days are gone. Overweight and pregnant, it seems, isn't cute when it means an increased risk of not only gestational diabetes and pre-eclampsia but also prematurity, low birth weight, and other neonate ills. So for women of childbearing age who are significantly overweight or obese, a new report suggests, undergoing weight-loss surgery before becoming pregnant might be the smartest thing you can do.

In one of those "study of studies," published this week in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the authors reviewed 75 research projects that compared outcomes between formerly obese women who had had gastric bypass or other bariatric surgery with their still-obese peers (and some, with their non-obese peers). Overall, they found that moms who had undergone surgery before becoming pregnant had a significantly lower risk of various weight-related complications, in some cases equalling the risks faced by women of average size.

Weight-loss surgery still carries inherent risks, and it's no easy path. But neither is becoming pregnant, carrying and delivering a baby while obese, it turns out.

They Say: Text Messaging Can Fight Childhood Obesity

JeanneSager — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 20:49:00 GMT

So they have a permanent squint from staring at that little screen and they speak in text-message-ese (or is that only in corny wireless commercials?). Texting can be good for your kids. According to a study in this month's issue of the Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, obese kids get the same benefits from texting that they would from traditional food diaries.

Researchers at the University of North Carolina broke families into three groups - one with kids reporting back to parents via text message, one with kids filling out paper diaries and a third not monitoring their intake at all. Parents of the texting and paper diary kids were given a series of questions to ask daily: what was the number on your pedometer today?; how many sugar-sweetened beverages did you drink today?; and how many minutes of screen time did you have today? Before letting them loose, researchers led the families in an educational program to help kids learn better eating behaviors. They were encouraged to reduce their sweets and increase their activity levels.

The kids who answered via their cell phone were more than twice as likely as the paper diary keepers to make the effort to answer the questions. Less than half fell back into their poor eating habits. Perhaps playing a role in the results were the positive feedback messages generated when kids sent in their text messages. A little bit of sugar goes a long way - especially for kids on a diet.

There's a certain amount of irony in the researchers' suggestion that kids limit their "screen time," before putting them in front of a tiny screen to monitor their weight. But a little screen they can take anywhere can take them off the couch and out into the fresh air. Turns out kids can walk, talk, chew bubblegum AND text. And maybe, lose weight?

Image: PocketPicks

They Say: Parents Don't Know Kids are Too Fat or Too Thin

They Say: Best Place to Raise Kids is Chicago Suburb

They Say: Short Kids Can Grow With Hormone Therapy

They Say: Our Kids Are Developing a (Legal) Drug Habit

Parent Coaches: Hardest Job They'll Ever Volunteer For?

They Say: Obese During Pregnancy? Hatch a Republican!

Kate Tuttle — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 19:30:00 GMT

In a recent post in her "The Wild Side" blog, New York Times writer Olivia Judson posits an interesting -- if infuritating -- theory aboout the relationship between pregnancy weight gain and a baby's future political instincts. Judson extrapolates from a recent study linking strong conservative viewpoints with certain temperamental tendencies (strong startle reflex, etc.), and factors in reseach suggesting about obesity during pregnancy to pose this question: does the obesity epidemic, in which up to one third of all pregnant women are now obese, portend a new generation of conservatives? As Judson writes, "the study found that people who support warrantless searches, wiretapping, military spending and so on were also likely to startle at sudden noises and threatening images. Those who support foreign aid, immigration, gun control and the like tended to have much milder responses to the stimuli."

Pregnant women who are obese during pregnancy -- the article leaves it somewhat unclear as to whether this includes only women who go into pregnancy obese, or also those who gain a lot of weight during pregnancy -- provide their fetuses a different hormonal environment than those who carry a typical amount of weight during pregnancy. And, Judson suggests, those hormonal differences can produce children who are jumpier, more intense, and therefore more likely to tend toward strong conservative political viewpoints into adulthood.

Of course, it's studies like this that tend to drive pregnant women of all political persuasions nuts. As if we needed another reason to worry about how much weight we've gained! As a mother who gained nearly 60 pounds with one pregnancy, and only about 35 with the other, I worry that I may have unwittingly spawned siblings whose votes will cancel each other out.

On the other hand what's fascinating to me about this idea is that it begins to acknowledge the role that environment -- not post-birth, but pre-birth -- might play in how a child grows. As a woman who has always taken pregnancy to be the best possible excuse to treat myself extremely well, I find that idea empowering. Knowing that my own mother was extremely slim throughout her child-bearing years (including modest 20-pound weight gains with each of her three pregnancies), I feel relieved that my brothers and I are all voting the same way this (and apparently every) election. Just looking at my family -- all of us politically liberal, but also all of us jumpy and intense -- makes me question pretty much every bit of Judson's conclusions.

Addicted to Food Because of Genes?

Kelly Mills — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 14:31:00 GMT

I've read about a quadrillion studies on obesity research, and it's rare that one actually makes me reconsider my behavior. This latest one, on a gene variant and the pleasure derived from food, actually did give me pause though. It also might make you think twice about how to feed your kids. Here's what I mean.

It might seem logical that people who are overweight or obese get more pleasure from food than skinny folks, and that's why they overeat. But the study says the opposite might be true. Researchers gave chocolate milkshakes (mmm) to 77 young women. Some were lean, some were obese, and some had a gene variant that makes them respond less to dopamine (a chemical important to the pleasure response.) Here's what they found: Obese women had less of a pleasure response to the milkshakes; this was even more so for women with the gene variant; and women with the gene variant had gained more weight a year later. In the words of one resarcher: "'If you look at the brain response when people are about to get the milkshake, obese individuals show greater activation of the reward circuitry, not less. So, ironically, they expect more reward but seem to experience less.'" Which kinda makes sense---if anticipate something will be better than it is, you might keep eating it in an effort to get satisfaction.

The researcher suggests that eating a small amount regularly of something high in fat and sugar might not be the way to go, because it could make it hard to stop eating. Perhaps cutting the food out entirely would actually do more for reducing cravings and overeating. And this applies to kids because, well, it may be easiest to build in good habits when you are young. Sigh. I'm a cupcake addict, and my kid likes her daily dessert, but this study might make me re-evaluate the frequency of our treats. Um, maybe. No promises.

Does anyone let their kids eat candy on halloween anymore?

Keep kids from getting fat - get a dog.

It's hard out there for a mom who says 'no'

Keep Kids From Getting Fat - Get a Dog

JeanneSager — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 15:32:00 GMT

Want to keep your kids from falling victim to the obesity crisis? Australian researchers say get a dog.

The study of more than 1,100 kids ages 5 to 12 showed kids with a friendly Fido in the house were in better shape - even if they weren't walking the pooch on a regular basis. If the dogs were anything like mine, it might have more to do with the amount the dog's stealing from their plate. Just saying - my dog gained 11 pounds in the year after my daughter started solids.

On a more serious note, pets have long been touted as good for kids, boosting self esteem, helping kids learn discipline and responsibility and even lowering kids risk of developing allergies down the line. Put each of those benefits together, and it would make sense that kids who have a four-legged friend have a healthier outlook on life - which usually translates to overall health. Then add in the exercise of chasing the dog to rescue all that stolen food, and that's one canine who's earning his keep.

Image: Pet Door Decor

What's Worse, Getting Fat or Getting Pregnant?

Stuff Parents Dream About: Life Without Play-Doh

News from Darkest Peru: Paddington Turns 50

Samples of Medicines Not Getting to Poor Kids

They Say: Drop the Hamsters, Kids, and Get Back in the Bubble

Your Stress Is Making Your Kid Fat

Amy Kuras — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 16:02:00 GMT

This, this is just kinda sad. Researchers have found that stressed-out moms may be raising fat kids because those kids respond to family stress by turning to food.

Awww.

More to the point, this affects kids who are raised in poverty because of their mother's money worries, long work hours, health insurance concerns and other factors, said study leader Craig Gundersen of the University of Illinois.

"People will eat in response to feeling stress," he told Reuters news service, "and in this case children may be eating more in response to stress-related trouble at home."

Gundersen's fix is a better social safety net for poor families, such as food stamps and better health insurance coverage and better financial education to help people manage money.

Gundersen and colleagues at Iowa State University and Michigan State University looked at data on 841 children in families living below the poverty line who were part of a government nutrition survey conducted from 1999 to 2002.

Certainly many of us have been guilty of "stress eating" – grabbing carb- and fat-laden foods that taste good and have little to no nutritional value, and we probably unwittingly pass that behavior on to our kids.

But I think this also overlooks a really important fact: Many people who are living in poverty also live in what are termed "food deserts" — places where it's difficult to find fresh, healthful food. I live in a pretty poor city and while my neighborhood is blessed with two decent grocery stores, that’s not the case for much of the city. What is common are gas stations and party stores selling chips, cookies, candy bars and pop, with not a healthy choice to be found.

If you're a mom working two jobs just to make ends meet and it's two bus rides to the nearest grocery store, I refuse to blame you for your child's obesity because you're stressed out and sometimes are reduced to shopping at the gas station. I think finding a way to make more healthy, affordable foods available to low-income families is key to the health of the next generation of urban kids. Sure, parents need to be responsible in what they feed their children, but offering them smart choices is key.

Who Will Speak for the Sweet Potato?

Adrienne Martini — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 19:30:00 GMT

In 2006, food companies spent $1.6 billion in advertising aimed at children, according to a report released last week by the FTC. In other words, 533 million gallons of milk or 393 million gallons of gas is equivalent to the amount spent pitching cereal and soft drinks at your kids. For $1.6 billion, you could send 46,000 kids to a four-year state college.

While the government, doctors and pretty much every other human being with a talk show tells you that your kids are too fat, the industry that is aiding and abetting said fatness spends $1.6 billion shoving its products in kids' faces.

Yes, yes, parents can say no -- and many do, including our own Madeline Holler. But when there is so much (and so much sexier) counter-marketing out there, it's hard to keep these heavily promoted foods out of your kids' mouths.

Here's a thought -- let's spend $1.6 billion pushing sweet potatoes. Or water. Or apples. Or blueberries. Let's give them a character as cool as Chester Cheetah or Tony the Tiger. Then let's see what happens to the youth obesity rate.

Who's with me?

Photo credit

Kid Food Is Mostly Crap, and It's a Little Shocking

Kelly Mills — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:02:00 GMT

I doubt most parents would assume a box of waffles with a picture of SpongeBob on the front was necessarily health food. But what if the box also had a label saying, "high in essential nutrients for growing kids"? Even if you don't consciously think about it, you might soften in your approach to the waffles. Well, I got news for you: That food is most likely junk.

See, researchers in Canada analyzed more than 360 products marketed to children. They did NOT include junk food, so there's nowhere to run to, nowhere to hide on this study. Instead they covered what is sometimes packaged as "fun food", products with cartoon characters and so on pimping the contents, such as prepackaged dinners. And guess what? Nearly 90 percent did not meet established nutritional standards, measured by percent of calories from fat, and the amount of sugar and/or sodium. Worse still in my book, 62 percent of the foods researchers identified as being of poor nutritional quality had claims of health on the packaging, like "low fat" or containing "essential nutrients".

So yes, the food industry is not above using shady marketing (such as pictures of kids playing sports on a box of sugar-salt crack) to fool parents about the health value of foods. And of course, there's the issue of directly marketing to kids, by putting appealing and familiar characters on the packaging. Just be forewarned that the fun, convenient food you buy at your kid's request is highly likely to be straight-up junk.

Tyson Foods Big Fat Liars

Locally Grown Ain't All That

The Family Who Pops Pills Together, Stays Together

Adrienne Martini — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:00:00 GMT

Last week, the American Academy of Pediatrics released new recommendations that set off a storm of virtual outrage all over the blogosphere. Did the AAP hit on a hot topic like breastfeeding an 8-year old or co-sleeping with a newborn? No. The topic at hand involved a pharmaceutical that many take every day.

The AAP recommended giving cholesterol-lowering drugs to kids over the age of 8 who fall into certain risk profiles.

The big question on many folks' minds involves the close relationship between doctors and drug companies. While that it is a pungent rind on which to chew, the greater issue seems to be the lack of proof that these drugs function in the same way in kids that they do in adults and whether or not their ingestion will have the desired effect. Does a kid with lower cholesterol have a decreased risk of developing heart disease? We simply don't know.

For a round-up of all of arguments, look here. And for one pediatrician's take, look here.

Illo: Kim Scafuro

5 Ways to Keep the Kids from Growing Fat this Summer

Cole Gamble — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:00:00 GMT

It used to be you could just kick the kids out of the house on a summer day, lock the door and refuse to let them back in until well after dark. But someone had to go have a hissy fit and make that illegal, so now a lot more kids spend their time indoors. Luring your kids away from their PS3’s and IPods and daytime soap “stories” is harder than ever, even when you try to convince them that the outside world is cool ‘cause it’s so totally old school. Here are some gentle ways to nudge them out of the nest and make sure they don’t spend their whole summer eating Hot Pockets.

Water Slides

Going to the water slides may not sound like great exercise--it involves sitting down—but then you’re forgetting the arduous hike to the top of the water slide mountain. Just make sure to slather on the sunscreen like tar.

Check out The Dangerous Book for Boys/Daring Book for Girls

Outside of arcane knowledge about historical events you and your kids don’t care about, these books are full of activities like building soap box racers and how to classify indigenous insects. Sounds corny, but millions of copies sold can’t be wrong.

Photo Scavenger Hunt

Give your kids a list of things within the neighborhood, like “the doghouse with the red roof”, and set them loose with a digital camera (preferable a cheap one) to photo gather everything on the list. Promise them a prize if they finish the list.

Buy Some Squirt Guns

Nothing gets your kids out of the house faster than the promise of shooting each other.

Kid Olympics

Set up a course with hula hoops, jump ropes or whatever you have on hand and have the kids race through various events. If you don’t want to get them prizes, you can make ribbons (all say “participant” because we don’t want any losers, right?”)

More by this author: The 26 Most Disturbing Kids Movies Ever

They Say: Coffee Makes Poor Fertility Worse

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 20:23:00 GMT

The bad news is, Dutch researchers have found that caffeine consumption lowers the chances that a woman with poor fertility will be able to conceive. The good news is, we’re talking a lot of coffee.

The study of 9,000 women who had received in vitro fertilization found that drinking four or more cups of coffee a day lowered the chances of conception by 26 percent. Drinking alcohol three or more times a week was equally damaging to subfertile women’s chances of conception, and cigarette smoking and obesity were the worst fertility offenders. In other words, healthier women stand a better chance of conception. (Though I must say that if coffee makes you unhealthy, I don’t want to be well.)

It’s important to keep in mind that these findings do not apply to all women. Fertility expert Bill Ledger colorfully put the study into perspective: “A lot of women can have 20 cups of coffee a day and get pregnant while falling off a log, but if you’re already subfertile, it could push you over the edge.”

Photo: Cafe At Home

Weekly Check-Up: Five Ways to Exercise With Kids

Kelly Mills — Thu, 29 May 2008 22:29:00 GMT

With all the news reports about childhood obesity and the sedentary lifestyles of kids, there's usually some plug for getting your kids off the couch and into some form of physical activity. This has not been a problem (so far) at my house, because I have a highly active child. My theory as to why? Exercise is a huge part of our family life. I report this without righteousness because for most of my life, I avoided physical activity, and thought I was a total shlump. It wasn't until after my child was born that I fell in love with fitness. Now here's five ways we work physical activity into our lives.

1. Take the baby out. I started my fitness endeavors in a simple way: My infant cried unless the person holding her was moving. So I was forced from the get-go to put her in a front pack and walk outside. I started opting for hills on my walks, and eventually graduated to running with her in a jogging stroller. Basically her colicky nature helped get me fit.

2. Be your own mode of transportation. When my child went to daycare, I put her in the stroller and ran the two miles to the sitter's house. Then I ran home. For preschool I put her in a bike trailer and rode ten miles to school, then a few more to get to work. Yep, this meant I had to get up extra early, I had to change in the bathroom at my job, and I was kinda sweaty at my desk. You know what? Still worth it, because it made me active.

3. Tag-team. When the kid was old enough to go to the park on weekends, my partner and I would bring her to a park with a track. He'd hang with her for a while so I could do laps, then it would be his turn. When I played with my daughter I'd do sprints--also known as "tag"--and give her piggyback rides and wrestle in the grass. Beats a thighmaster session any day. You can also work this deal out with another parent if your partner isn't on board.

4. Shared sports. My partner enrolled my child in the same martial art he enjoys, and now coaches the kids' class. He reports that coaching can be a good way to participate and improve in an activity yourself. I've also taken classes that met at the same time as some class my kid was enrolled in. It's a good way to share the love of a pursuit. I even bring her to the gym I work at from time to time and we mess around with the "toys" there. We have a pull up bar in our doorway we all use, and she practices on the monkey bars at school too. Her pull ups are way better than mine.

5. Dance party. My personal favorite workout is when the kid and I put on music and do some very graceless and athletic dancing around the living room. After thirty minutes, I'm sweaty. Good times.

When Bad Things Happen to Good Candy

Rachael Brownell (Redsy) — Wed, 14 May 2008 15:29:00 GMT

Childhood obesity and the increasing number of adults carrying an extra ton is no laughing matter. Candy, on the other hand, can be quite amusing. At its winsome best, candy can transport us back to a summer camp, a corner store, a more carefree, less mommy needs a thigh master time in our lives.

Candy is good.

Candy worship is serious business. There are websites dedicated to helping us understand our love of candy, the history and memory of candy.

It's really a shame that everything now has to be loaded with sugar. Bread, cereal, soda... It's kind of stealing candy's thunder. As a once in awhile treat, candy is transformative. Don't believe me? Ask your kids.

News from the Duh Department

Adrienne Martini — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:30:00 GMT

Don't get me wrong. I love a bag of Cheetos as much as the next blogger. I come not to bury junk food but to set limits on it. Now I have more actual science to back me up.

A recent study conducted in Philadelphia schools found that eliminating soda, rethinking snacks and educating kids almost halves the number of kids who are obese by the sixth grade.

Color me stunned. Turns out that when you give kids information and stop easy access to corn syrup and salt, you can actually make a difference. Butter my butt and call me a biscuit. It's a miracle.

The study's authors are quick to point out that more research needs to be done. Also, they mention that it might be better to start all of this before sixth grade.

Still, it's a good step toward offering proof for something that is intuitively clear.

Photo credit: Stephen Alvarez at art.com

Fat Kids Might Not Be Responsible For Everything Bad In The World

Adrienne Martini — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 19:00:00 GMT

From the "Huh." Department --

Researchers at the Eastman Dental Center in Rochester, NY, have discovered something that runs counter to almost everything we've been told about over weight kids, namely that they are doomed and, possibly, responsible for everything from factory farms to global warming.

As it turns out, there is one good thing about being a kid who is overweight. You probably won't have as many cavities as your lighter peers. No one seems to be certain why that may be but this data point does offer further proof that it is difficult to separate one body part from all of the other parts and get a good picture of how it works.

Or maybe there's just a dental-based advantage to being an overweight kid in Upstate New York. Time may tell.

Turns Out TV Boosts IQ

Amy Kuras — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 17:03:00 GMT

Now here's a study that just makes my day: children who watch at least four hours of television a day see at least a 10-point jump in IQ, and later, in SAT scores.

It doesn’t matter whether the TV is educational or not, either – researchers from the Society for Lenient Childrearing found that it was time in front of the screen, not the content of the programming, that made the difference.

"To our surprise, we found that exposure to everything from Little Einsteins to mommy's stories had a salutary effect," said lead researcher Dora Marquez. "The take-home message from this is that parents should watch whatever TV they wish, for as long as they wish, and not worry about what their children are doing."

Watching TV with the children and discussing it actually lessened the positive effect.

Researchers did express concern that many of the children who watched the most TV showed lower weights than those who watched little to none. High-calorie snacks, especially those with large amounts of high fructose corn syrup, reversed this effect.

As with much about parenting, the earlier the TV-watching commenced, the better. Marquez suggested beginning in the hospital, if at all possible, and certainly immediately on arriving home. "It's a good use for those two a.m. feedings," Marquez said.

An American Academy of Pediatrics spokesperson said the group is scrambling to revise its recommendations posthaste. "Wow, we called that one wrong," she said.