backtop


Print 94 comment(s) - last by lemonadesoda.. on Dec 3 at 3:54 AM

Medical experts say intervention is needed but disagree on implementation

A Cleveland, Ohio youth is making national headlines after he became the first case in state history (by officials' recollection) of state officials taking a child away from his parent(s)' on grounds of obesity.

I. Can U.S. Local Gov'ts Stop Obesity by Seizing Children?

Obesity in America has had a serious effect on numerous technology fields outside fundamental medicine, including raising new engineering challenges for transportation safety engineers, and making it harder to meet strict fuel economy standards.  Geneticists hope to one day find a "cure" to the obesity epidemic, but for now good old fashioned diet and exercise are still the standard prescription.

But perhaps its most tragic effects have been in terms of premature disease in morbidly obese children.

The youth in this story is an eight-years-old, according to reports, and currently an honor roll student in third grade.  He weighed in excess of 200 lb. (>90 kg) when he was taken from his mother.  For his age and gender, the median weight (in body mass index terms) is roughly 14.8 kg/m2, according to widely available charts [source].  That means that to be a normal weight, the boy would have roughly 8 feet (2.45 m) tall.

While the state health department estimates 12 percent of third graders in Ohio to be severely obese -- 1,380 in Cuyahoga County, the boy's home region, alone -- it says that no other children have been seized.

Fat child flexing muscles
Ohio's childhood obesity rate of 12 percent is actually below the national average.
[Image Source: Fat Children Tumblr]

The process began in 2010 when the child received treatment for sleep apnea, a potentially fatal obesity-related disorder.  The child was prescribed a machine to help him breathe at night.  Meanwhile the child's mother was strictly instructed to help him lose weight as part of a "protective supervision" program by county social workers.

The boy's mother bought him a bike and encouraged him to exercise, and it seemed to work.  The boy lost some weight.  But then he quickly gained it back.  The mother blames a sibling and friends for giving him their extra food.  She says when she became of aware of this, she tried to stop it, but by then it was too late.

While the county did not have an official policy on how to deal with extremely obese children, it decided to take away the boy after the sudden weight gain.  Mary Louise Madigan, a spokeswoman for the Cuyahoga County Department of Children and Family Services comments to a local newspaper, The Plains Observer, "This child's problem was so severe that we had to take custody."

Juvenile Public Defender Sam Amata, also interviewed by the local newspaper, wasn't so sure that seizure was the best option.  He states, "I think we would concede that some intervention is appropriate.  But what risk became imminent? When did it become an immediate problem?"

II. Idea has Support From Some Prominent Academics

On the other Dr. David Ludwig -- a top obesity expert -- and Lindsey Murtagh, a renowned lawyer and researcher at Harvard’s School of Public Health, recently wrote in a Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) that extreme obesity in children in many cases was symptomatic of destructive parenting and that children needed to be taken away in extreme cases to protect them.

The study, entitled "State Intervention in Life-Threatening Childhood Obesity", states, "In severe instances of childhood obesity, removal from the home may be justifiable, from a legal standpoint, because of imminent health risks and the parents' chronic failure to address medical problems."

The study provoked controversy in a nation where one in three adults and over one in six children are clinically obese [source].


Obesity rates in America have skyrocketed to epidemic proportions. [Image Source: CDC]

Arthur Caplan, a professor of bioethics and medical ethics at the University of Pennsylvania, suggests that the JAMA study was short-sighted because the government cannot hope to tackle America's chronic obesity epidemic via the protective services/foster care system.  

He comments, "A 218-pound 8-year-old is a time bomb.  But the government cannot raise these children. A third of kids are fat. We aren't going to move them all to foster care. We can't afford it, and I'm not sure there are enough foster parents to do it. "

Further complicated the bioethics issue is the fact that a great deal of research points to genetics playing a role in obesity in children and adults.

III. Should the government have a role in the obesity epidemic?

The local government's stand and other similar cases are also drawing criticism as hypocritical at a time when school lunches are considered "unhealthy" by many medical experts.  While President Obama and the first lady have made healthier school lunches a top priority with their much touted "Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act", a 2007 U.S. Department of Agriculture audit revealed only 20 percent of schools [PDF] to be following fat guidelines.


Four out of five schools violate federal school lunch fat guidelines.
[Image Source: Growing a Green Family]

As for the boy's mother, she is understandably upset.  In her interview with the local newspaper she shares that she feels villainized by county officials.  She comments, "They are trying to make it seem like I am unfit, like I don't love my child.  Of course I love him. Of course I want him to lose weight. It's a lifestyle change, and they are trying to make it seem like I am not embracing that. It is very hard, but I am trying."

The boy has reportedly lost a few pounds in the last month, reversing the trend of recent gains.  But the foster parent he's been temporarily assigned to has reportedly been having trouble keeping up with his medical appointments.  As a result the county hopes to move him to a new foster home and possible assign a dedicated personal trainer -- at local taxpayer expense -- to help the youth lose weight.

Next month the mother's lawyers and the state will plead their cases at a preliminary hearing.  The final trial is set for the child's 9th birthday, before a Juvenile Court magistrate.

Source: Cleveland Plains Dealer



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Once again, proof...
By Natch on 11/28/2011 8:21:08 AM , Rating: 5
...that the ability to procreate (make babies) in no way equals the ability to raise them properly.

1. Get this kid off his butt, and outside, playing. The current generation of couch potato kids has an obesity problem that is out of control.
2. Monitor his diet, closely. Too often, parents take the easy way out, and feed their kids what they want to eat, instead of what they should eat. Don't be afraid to tell them that if they don't eat what's put in front of them, then they'll go hungry. To date, no child has starved to death due to their refusal to eat what's on their plate.
3. Change the way you think about your child's diet and exercise....and then work on changing the way they think about it. When a child is raised to enjoy eating healthy food, and being more active in their play, they're a lot better off in the long run.
4. Start asking the same questions to your government officials that I do.....like, "Why is it that milk is nearly $4 a gallon, but soda is half that price? Why do we continue to push for food based ethanol production in this country, making it more expensive to eat the healthier food items, while junk food prices hold rock steady?"




RE: Once again, proof...
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/28/2011 8:24:32 AM , Rating: 5
I will second #4. The healthy items like fruit juice, fresh fruit, vegetables, etc... are all 2-3x more expensive than soda, fries and a hot pocket.

Simple economics will say Americans will be fat. It simply costs 2-3x to eat healthy than it does to eat unhealthy. Start fixing that imbalance and the problem may just sort itself out, especially in these tough economic times.


RE: Once again, proof...
By Motoman on 11/28/2011 9:26:05 AM , Rating: 1
Why are they more expensive? Because they're more expensive to produce. No mystery there.


RE: Once again, proof...
By Obujuwami on 11/28/2011 10:00:55 AM , Rating: 3
You sir, are a fool. Moto, I have been reading your posts for years and while your sarcasm has been enjoyed, your opinion here is just misguided and uninformed.

Corn and meat are both subsidized by the government at such outrageous levels that the corn farmers are actually paid to NOT farm at times. If the subsidy went away, (which it should IMHO) you will see the cost of fast food skyrocket because corn will be more expensive, which means corn feed will be more expensive, which means the price of meat will go up.

Grass grazing cattle will them become more popular again as it is better beef AND it will cost the same to produce. Chicken will go up cuz of the cost of the feed, same with pork, and all of them will be about the same price as fish (which is better for you to eat). We will see other items such as ketchup, gum, etc go up in price because of the raise in corn prices as many things are made from corn but are chemically altered to serve different purposes.

Will it be perfect? No, but I think people will get a real appreciation for the fact that they can afford fruits, vegetables, and other foods even if they can't afford beef, chicken, and pork.

Now take that money they stop spending on subsidies and put it back into the general fund so we can pay off our debt. This would only help a little, but every little bit helps when it comes to reducing our deficit and repaying our loans from China.


RE: Once again, proof...
By Motoman on 11/28/2011 11:23:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Corn and meat are both subsidized by the government at such outrageous levels that the corn farmers are actually paid to NOT farm at times. If the subsidy went away, (which it should IMHO) you will see the cost of fast food skyrocket because corn will be more expensive, which means corn feed will be more expensive, which means the price of meat will go up.


I agree. The subsidies should go away, and such subsidies are likely a primary reason why such foods are relatively less expensive.

However...my point stands that the foods in question are less expensive to produce. Subsidized or not. Ergo...not a fool, nor misinformed. Thanks for playing though.


RE: Once again, proof...
By Strunf on 11/28/2011 1:08:59 PM , Rating: 2
The thing is that a burger will ALWAYS be cheaper than beef, a burger is after all made with the leftovers that can't really be sold in other form. If you remove the subsides across the board your beef will also cost more and in the end people will still buy the cheapest food... the burger.

Another fact is that burger have more fat and it's the fat that makes it more appealing, even at the same price I'm not sure there would be more people eating beef than burgers.

BTW "bio chicken" doesn't taste that good and takes more time to cook.


RE: Once again, proof...
By TSS on 11/28/2011 4:09:56 PM , Rating: 5
You need to watch more documentaries. Even i know that's not true. burgers can be made from more parts yes but mostly it's the same meat as you'd buy in the supermarket. The difference is it's grinded up and mixed with the meat of thousands of other cows then pressed into a shape. This brings problems like E-coli spreading but that's another discussion.

The reason it's so cheap, other then subsidies of course, is simple economics of scale. Have you seen the giant, GIANT cow farms that exist to feed the demand for junk food? no other country has that. My country, holland, has recently banned the expansion and increase of so called "megafarms", and those would be a *lot* smaller then what the US already has. Even though we are a huge agricultural exporter!

It's not more expensive to produce good food. There are tests of consumer advocates here on a regular basis which prove the cheap items in the supermarket are *just as healthy* as the more expensive products, and your basically paying for taste and brand.

The main driver is culture. We aren't less wealthy in europe yet obesity isn't nearly the problem here as it is in the US. Dutch cooking is really bland compared to belgians or french, but even we think it's important to cook and eat good food. Not having time is never an excuse because we are taught for important things, you make time. Fast food is considered a occasional treat.

Thats what you need to change and it'll fix everything. Taking time to cook good food is more important then work or free time.


RE: Once again, proof...
By 91TTZ on 11/29/2011 5:17:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Corn and meat are both subsidized by the government at such outrageous levels that the corn farmers are actually paid to NOT farm at times. If the subsidy went away, (which it should IMHO) you will see the cost of fast food skyrocket because corn will be more expensive, which means corn feed will be more expensive, which means the price of meat will go up.


If you took away subsidies, you'd probably see a lot of farmers selling off their land to put up housing developments and create more urban sprawl.

Also, cutting subsidies will tend to hurt poor people the most since they're less likely to be able to afford healthier, more expensive food.


RE: Once again, proof...
By alcalde on 11/29/2011 8:34:47 PM , Rating: 2
The price of these other things will go up, but it's not going to drive the price of fruit and vegetables down.


RE: Once again, proof...
By chmilz on 11/28/2011 10:43:06 AM , Rating: 5
As a percentage of income, Americans already pay some of the lowest food prices on Earth. Maybe instead of blowing every penny on 60" TV's and stretch pants, they could set aside a couple extra bucks for better food.


RE: Once again, proof...
By Dr of crap on 11/28/2011 11:28:43 AM , Rating: 3
AND I am soooo tired of blaming it on school lunches.

One meal a day is not going to add that many pounds.
And what kind of school makes crappy food for thier kids?
And yes I know for some kids this is the biggest meal they'll get in the day. ALL THER MORE reason to make it healthy!
And then you hear, the kids won't eat the healty stuff we want to serve. Yea right. As posted above, kids won't starve because of not eating lunch if they refuse to eat what the caf is serving!

Stop pandering to the stupid. Serve good food. If they don't eat it - to bad!

It's all just realted to the first post - ANYONE CAN MAKE A BABY, it takes a LOT of EFFORT to raise it right. ANd that's the REAL problem. You want parents to PARENT?!?!?!?!


RE: Once again, proof...
By Omega215D on 11/28/2011 11:31:42 AM , Rating: 2
Lazy ass parents just letting their kid eat whatever they want, plopping them down in front of the tv set for hours while schools and playgrounds are limiting activities due to sue happy morons.


RE: Once again, proof...
By FITCamaro on 11/28/2011 12:24:09 PM , Rating: 1
One of the reasons it is more expensive to eat healthy is because of all the regulations and taxes on healthy eating. How many regulations are involved in creating a gallon of milk? Between just raising the cows, procuring the milk, transportation costs to keep it cool, etc, it all adds up to cost.

Soda they just take water, mix in flavoring and all the other shit in it, and sell it.


RE: Once again, proof...
By GuinnessKMF on 11/28/2011 1:27:28 PM , Rating: 2
Why does everyone keep saying Milk should be the healthy substitute for soda?

How about water?

I love milk and all, but 16 oz of skim milk is 172 calories, 16 oz of cola is 128 calories. (Source: http://fatsecret.com)


RE: Once again, proof...
By FITCamaro on 11/28/2011 2:09:52 PM , Rating: 3
Sorry but I refuse to believe the bullshit that milk is bad for you. Generations have grown up drinking milk and not had health issues. And most of those generations drank WHOLE milk. Not 0-2%.

The nutrients provided by milk far outweigh any calories you're taking in. I drink milk almost every day. And orange juice. Oh no! Lots of sugar right?

Christ I hate the media and these health nuts who fuel them. Just as bad as the "green" crowd.


RE: Once again, proof...
By Tequilasunriser on 11/28/2011 2:45:07 PM , Rating: 3
You don't have to believe anything. The proof is in the numbers.

Belief has been taken out of the equation.

Much like anything milk should be consumed in moderation.

A calorie is a calorie whether it is derived from fats, proteins, or carbohydrates.

Also, previous generations didn't have computers, video games and internet. Hell, even TV and radio are relatively recent on the human time line. Sedentary actives are holding modern youth captive.


RE: Once again, proof...
By kyleb2112 on 11/28/2011 8:14:21 PM , Rating: 3
If "A calorie is a calorie" then I would really like to see someone become obese eating only protein. I'm not saying it can't be done, but what it would take to do it would blast "a calorie is a calorie" theory to pieces.


RE: Once again, proof...
By Tequilasunriser on 11/29/2011 11:04:38 PM , Rating: 2
They would go into kidney failure due to a build up of keytone byproducts from the breakdown of protein.

Protein isn't a calorie. Not sure you know what you're talking about.

A calorie is a unit of measure (energy) not a nutrient, so, yes, a calorie is a calorie.

Not sure what you are getting at.


RE: Once again, proof...
By someguy123 on 11/30/2011 2:33:21 AM , Rating: 2
In a normal diet that's marginal. Unless someone, as you said, went out of their way to go a pure protein and fat diet, sufficient carb intake wouldn't create the Ketogenic effects.


RE: Once again, proof...
By ClownPuncher on 11/28/2011 7:41:23 PM , Rating: 3
Milk isn't terribly good for you. Neither are empty carbs. Natural fat, however, is needed for a healthy diet.


RE: Once again, proof...
By VERBW on 11/28/2011 8:30:20 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Sorry but I refuse to believe the bullshit that milk is bad for you. Generations have grown up drinking milk and not had health issues. And most of those generations drank WHOLE milk. Not 0-2%.


He (or she) didn't say milk was bad. "It's OK to just drink water" was the point, which I think we'll agree with.


RE: Once again, proof...
By 0ldman on 11/28/2011 8:48:51 PM , Rating: 3
Milk is for baby cows.

If someone brought you a glass of elephant milk, hamster milk, etc, you'd look at them like they were nuts. Why is cow's milk any different?

I drink milk, but seriously, it is sustenance for a baby cow. You actually absorb more calcium from raw broccoli than you do from milk. The calcium in milk is just too much, your body filters out most of it, causes kidney stones in lots of people.


RE: Once again, proof...
By wempa on 11/28/2011 3:00:24 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I love milk and all, but 16 oz of skim milk is 172 calories, 16 oz of cola is 128 calories.


Those numbers are a bit off. Sodas range from about 130-170 calories per 12oz can. That puts the average 16oz soda at 200 calories. Skim milk is 160 calories per 16oz. Then, consider the calcium, protein and vitamins you get from milk. Milk is definitely a great drink and there are even some studies that show that dairy products help the body excrete more fat.


RE: Once again, proof...
By Tequilasunriser on 11/28/2011 4:10:39 PM , Rating: 2
Milk certainly contains a lot of vitamins and nutrients.

That still doesn't change the fact that a calorie is a calorie regardless where it comes from.

I'm not hating on milk, I drink it often, but I'm not going to shed a blind eye to negative effects of glutinous consumption of the stuff either.

Even too much water can be dangerous (water intoxication).

Simply put, too much of anything can be bad.


RE: Once again, proof...
By bupkus on 11/29/2011 9:08:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
cal·o·rie/'kal(?)re/ Noun: Either of two units of heat energy. The energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water through 1 °C (now usually defined as 4.1868 joules).
There is a reason why Lay's Potato Chips had a slogan that you can't eat just one. The balance of oil, sugar and salt creates a mixture that taps into the drive that humans have to acquire and consume these once difficult to find ingredients. That's why they taste so damn good.


RE: Once again, proof...
By jimbojimbo on 11/29/2011 4:04:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
a calorie is a calorie

You need to read up more on nutrition. There are different ways that the body absorbs and utilizes the calories. Having all the calories coming in from a simple sugar compared to coming in gradually from the various other formats is a huge difference. Look up glycemic index and how various foods affect your blood sugar and what your body does if there's too much blood sugar in your system at once. Basically it stores it away as fat.


RE: Once again, proof...
By Tequilasunriser on 11/29/2011 11:07:31 PM , Rating: 2
The body absorbs calories?

YOU need to read up on nutrition.

Hypocrite.


RE: Once again, proof...
By someguy123 on 11/30/2011 4:55:51 AM , Rating: 1
No...the body increases nutrient absorption rates during blood glucose/insulin spikes, but this will not form into fat unless you have calories in excess of what you require to maintain your current body weight.

you don't create fat out of the calories necessary for survival and maintenance.


RE: Once again, proof...
By senecarr on 11/29/2011 1:17:03 PM , Rating: 2
I don't understand what kind of math involves "range from 130-170" and "the average ... at 200". Did you maybe mean ranges from 130-270?
Certainly trying to get most of your liquids from either one is going to cause problems.


RE: Once again, proof...
By bankerdude on 11/29/2011 1:57:08 PM , Rating: 2
No, you need to look closer at the post. 130-170 is the range for 12 ounces, so when you extrapolate out to 16 ounces, the number becomes bigger.


RE: Once again, proof...
By its tom hanks on 11/28/2011 3:29:52 PM , Rating: 2
Why would ANYONE say milk isn't a healthy substitute for soda? not only are your calorie stats way off base, but the calories in soda are primarily from sugar @ 4 calories per gram, while the calories in milk are primarily from proteins @ 4 calories per gram. you should research the differences in what your body does when it receives a handful of sugar or a handful of protein...
there's a reason why mammals don't lactate coca cola for their young, after all


RE: Once again, proof...
By Tequilasunriser on 11/28/2011 4:23:22 PM , Rating: 3
You're leaving out the fats at 9 calories per gram.

A quick look at my milk container shows 6 grams of fat in 3/4 of a cup (4 grams of which are saturated fats)and 6 grams of protein in 3/4 of a cup.

54 calories from fat and 24 calories from the protein.

You say that milk primarily contains protein but my milk contains 8g of carbohydrate (from sugar) in 3/4 of a cup, so 32 calories. There are more sugar calories than protein calories.

Out of the 110 calories in 3/4 cup of milk only 24 are derive from protein while the rest are derived from fats and sugar.

Now that's only in 3/4 of a cup. Most people consume well beyond the recommended serving size.


RE: Once again, proof...
By its tom hanks on 11/28/2011 7:41:01 PM , Rating: 4
i left out the 9 calories per gram of fat because if you're going for healthy, you choose skim milk, with 0 grams of fat, ergo no calories from fat. you chose milk with a lot of fat in it. just because it says milk on the bottle doesn't mean it'll make you an athlete, still gotta make choices.. also, although some milk may have more calories from sugar than protein, milk contains lactose sugar. you and the guy who thinks coke is better for you than milk can compare that to the sugar in your coke all day long. lemme know how that turns out


RE: Once again, proof...
By GuinnessKMF on 11/29/2011 12:28:36 AM , Rating: 4
You people are all ridiculous, the point I'm responding to is that 'milk is more expensive than soda, and that is why Americans are obese'.

Water is free. Kids need to drink more water, every liquid they consume doesn't need to be a soda or juice.

The calorie values I pulled strait from a nutrition site (and I gave my source because I knew people would try to dispute them), honestly I don't even care if they're accurate, the point is that it's not a calorie free drink, sure milk provides more benefits than just the empty calories of soda, but it shouldn't be the only liquid kids are consuming like so many consume soda.


RE: Once again, proof...
By lemonadesoda on 12/3/2011 3:54:43 AM , Rating: 2
I'm going to add one thing about healthy milk. Dairy cows are pumped full or hormones to make them big and make them lactate. And pharmaceutical products to keep them healthy. They also eat huge quantities of special feed, and that special feed requires significant pesticides in its growth. You are then consuming (indirectly) unusually large quantities of hormones and pesticides when you drink milk. Irrespective of the quantities you eat, those hormones and pesticides will have consequences to your own health. Some people are more sensitive to this than others. Sometimes the effects take a while to build up... the body is OK with the hormones and pesticides until an intolerance builds up later in life.

I'm now in my 40's. I cannot drink regular milk without developing an allergic irritating cough. Oddly, I can drink Organic milk without symptoms. So it isnt milk per se, but industrial milk.

I'm sure the growth hormones in pork are one of the reasons that people in high-pork-eating-countries are getting fatter and fatter.

I'm not so sure it is ONLY the quantities of what we are eating today, but the cocktail of ingredients in the food chain.


RE: Once again, proof...
By Tequilasunriser on 11/29/2011 11:10:37 PM , Rating: 2
You're nuts. I would never say coke is better than milk.

Learn to read (and grammar while you're at it.)


RE: Once again, proof...
By Tequilasunriser on 11/29/2011 11:15:23 PM , Rating: 2
Also, you need fat in your diet.

Fats are what keep your appetite satiated.

They also aid in brain development.

Maybe you've been fat free too long to think rationally.

Science is your friend, turn off Fox news and learn a thing or two about a thing or two once in a while. ;)


RE: Once again, proof...
By jimbojimbo on 11/29/2011 3:59:02 PM , Rating: 2
Soda is 100% sugar, or rather corn starch. Milk's calories at least come from fat, plenty of protein, and sugars and it has various other nutrients. I would much rather have kids drinking milk than pop any day but like others have said I wouldn't let the kids drink a gallon at one sitting or something stupid like that.


RE: Once again, proof...
By th3pwn3r on 11/29/2011 8:29:52 AM , Rating: 3
FYI, fruit juice may have a bit more vitamins than soda but it's certainly not a healthy item.


RE: Once again, proof...
By GulWestfale on 11/28/2011 8:27:55 AM , Rating: 2
i would bet good money that his parents are fatter than he is.


RE: Once again, proof...
By Da W on 11/28/2011 8:52:06 AM , Rating: 3
I just went down south to old orchard beach (tells you where i am when Maine is "south"), i could tell who was american and who was french-canadian just by the size of their butts. Of course when the cheapest food is 1$ hotdog and coke (not diet), 2$ piece of pizza or calzone or the very popular "Fried Dough" (i couldn't believe it), its no wonder how that happened. We really had a hard time finding fruits.

On the plus side, most thin american women i found seemed to have fake boobs :-)


RE: Once again, proof...
By Boze on 11/28/2011 9:35:02 AM , Rating: 4
Ugh, since when are fake boobs a plus? Disgusting in my opinion.

Its a lot easier to eat healthy than people might think.

I prepare and eat a lot of soups, which are actually quite inexpensive. My favorite is vegetable beef. For about $18, I can make four gallons of the stuff.

The key is to be smart about preparation. I buy 73 / 27 ground beef and brown it in a saute pan. Then I drain the beef in a colander so that most all of the fat that has been liquefied during the cooking process can drain off the beef. From there, I toss in mixed vegetables (carrots, corn, green beans, peas). And I mean the inexpensive 2 lbs. bag for $2 from Walmart. I dice two pounds of potatoes into 1/4" cubes. Toss that in there. 2 cans of tomato paste, 1 can of tomato sauce, and as much water as is needed, and let it sit on the stove for 5 to 6 hours on medium-low heat, stirring once or twice an hour.

Cheap. Simple. Filling. Nutritious.

Steam some rice, bake some cornbread, or buy some saltines to add to it, and it'll last even longer. That $18 allows me to eat for an entire week. Some of my friends poke fun at me about it, but the truth is, I love veggie beef soup. I don't eat it because I can't afford anything else, I eat it because its good for me and it tastes awesome with some Srirachi mixed in. However, I digress...

The biggest problem facing our nation, in my opinion, isn't high food prices, its a lack of knowledge.

People aren't taught how to cook, or what to cook.

When my mother was growing up as a child she ate mostly vegetables. Her family might have had meat once or twice a week, usually on Sunday. I'm not saying inexpensive meat is the culprit here, it isn't, its just that it wouldn't hurt to eat some lima beans and green beans and corn every now and then either...


RE: Once again, proof...
By Dr of crap on 11/28/2011 11:31:09 AM , Rating: 2
Really you think anyone will put forth that effort when a McD's will have burgers for a buck?

I agree with your point, but a vast majority will take the easy, less work trip to the local fast food place!


RE: Once again, proof...
By Iaiken on 11/28/2011 12:09:11 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
A vast majority will take the easy, less work trip to the local fast food place!


This is in no way an understatement. Out of all of the friends and family that my wife and I interact with regularly, we know of only 5 people (out of like 70) that prepare their own food. Everyone else either cooks prepared meals from boxes or grabs take-out on the way home practically every single night.

As for cost, I've actually saved a lot by shopping at local specialty markets (fruit market, fish market, butcher, bakery, etc) and only bother with the supermarket for items that they don't carry. The kicker is that not only is it cheaper, but once you zero in on the good places to go the quality is vastly superior to even yuppiemarkets like Whole Foods for a fraction of the price. $3.99/lb. for a dry-aged boneless blade steak with excellent marbling? Yes, please!

Personally, I think going out and interacting with people who pride in the food they sell is half of the fun of cooking said food. Then again, most people I talk to view shopping and cooking as hassles that eat into their valuable TV time.

I guess it just comes down to priorities, preferences and how they align...


RE: Once again, proof...
By FITCamaro on 11/28/11, Rating: 0
RE: Once again, proof...
By VERBW on 11/28/2011 8:53:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Unfortunately unless we start regulating away people's ability to parent, this problem will never change. And I don't agree with the government telling people what to eat.


Well, they're not. I thought the whole point of the article was that this was an exceptional circumstance, in which exceptional measures were taken. Children can't look after themselves, and some people can't parent.

Whether you like it or not, those children are vulnerable. Not saying the state should feel free to intervene whenever they feel like it, but it's better than letting that trainwreck of a child continue as was.

quote:
This is why I'm against "free" healthcare. It doesn't encourage people to take care of themselves so they get cheaper insurance.


This argument only holds water in cases where the illness is caused solely by lifestyle factors. Using this case to justify that belief is sketchy at best.

<3


RE: Once again, proof...
By Taft12 on 11/29/2011 3:14:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
or the very popular "Fried Dough" (i couldn't believe it)


Believe it! I'm surprised you didn't know fried dough is a Canadian food (we call it Beaver Tails)


RE: Once again, proof...
By tlbj6142 on 11/28/2011 9:01:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
4. Start asking the same questions to your government officials that I do.....like, "Why is it that milk is nearly $4 a gallon, but soda is half that price?


In Ohio, I can buy a gallon of milk for ~$2.25 anywhere, any day. But, then, with a bit of shopping around I can get a case of name brand pop (Coke/Pepsi products) for less than $6 ($0.25/can). Plus we don't have annoying "deposit" fees like many states. And, of course, fountain pop is much cheaper ($0.69 for 44 oz).


RE: Once again, proof...
By Shadowmage on 11/28/2011 2:02:53 PM , Rating: 2
....

Don't you guys have 2L bottles for $1?


RE: Once again, proof...
By FITCamaro on 11/28/2011 2:11:59 PM , Rating: 2
Milk is about $3.50 a gallon here. A 12 pack of soda is about $4-5 unless on sale.


RE: Once again, proof...
By Oakley516 on 11/28/2011 2:46:37 PM , Rating: 2
Here in NY, a gallon of milk costs about $4, while I can pick up two 2-liter bottles of Coke (about a gallon) for about $2.

The sugared water will always be cheaper, but that doesn't mean it is better for people.


RE: Once again, proof...
By geddarkstorm on 11/28/2011 3:07:59 PM , Rating: 2
There is something wrong about our foods, and the processed junk foods market specifically, that is starting to kill us. Look at that insane skyrocket in rates. Something is seriously amiss that we have overlooked. Heck, we know how these foods screw over mice and lower vertebrates when we feed them a diet on it, and yet here we are munching down as a nation without any thought.

The question is what exactly IN those foods are so unimaginably bad for our body's energy and storage balance? Is it the type of fats? Some combination with the synthetic compounds and preservatives? Regrettably the jury is still out on that one, or maybe we could fix this issue easily.

The truth is, children should never -have- to exercise to stay slim. Their metabolism is such that it should be nigh impossible, even with sedimentary life styles (which few children ever truly have, they are too energetic, or SHOULD BE too energetic), for them to gain so much weight. It should be burned in growth by their high metabolism!

Just something we are consuming is so completely screwing over our metabolic regulation for a significant portion of the population, it's frankly frightening.


RE: Once again, proof...
By Natch on 11/29/2011 8:50:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The truth is, children should never -have- to exercise to stay slim. Their metabolism is such that it should be nigh impossible, even with sedimentary life styles (which few children ever truly have, they are too energetic, or SHOULD BE too energetic), for them to gain so much weight. It should be burned in growth by their high metabolism!


Think the word you were looking for is sedentary . Sedimentary is more related to the formation of rock, i.e.- geology.

Didn't want you to seem igneous there, ya know? ;)


RE: Once again, proof...
By geddarkstorm on 11/29/2011 2:16:06 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, seems when that word processed from my brain to fingers it became a bit metamorphic ;)


RE: Once again, proof...
By derricker on 11/28/2011 6:12:04 PM , Rating: 2
You seem to be quick to place the blame on the parents, I take it you are a successful one yourself.

As the others say, I second the fourth, parents are not lobbying for millions and millions, therefore it's more comfortable to indict parents without even asking if they can afford healthy food in the first place.

Of course there are nasty parents out there, but society is so f****d up nowadays that with every passing day that there are way more factors at play when you see a kid like this.


RE: Once again, proof...
By stadisticado on 11/29/2011 3:16:52 AM , Rating: 2
On #4, this really is just a question of shipping volume. All soda is shipped as highly condensed syrup and bottled locally. This makes shipping costs relatively low, whereas milk is shipped and sold at its normal volume. Liquids are simply expensive to ship. Now, if we could get cows to produce concentrated milk...

Also, this is to say nothing of soda (at a very high level) being a plant product, where milk suffers from the same production costs all animal protein does.


RE: Once again, proof...
By elderwilson on 11/30/2011 9:46:58 AM , Rating: 2
A deeper issue that should be address is how an obviously obese woman managed to procreate. Every trip to Wal-Mart leaves me perplexed as to how the morbidly obese woman using the electric cart found a partner willing to commit the disgusting acts that created the string of sweat pant clade children in tow. Also I am left wondering how said woman can be considered the same species as my wife.


Once again proof....
By phantom505 on 11/28/2011 11:36:25 AM , Rating: 2
that non-medical people should stay away from making medical diagnoses. No mention of what kind of work up he got, if any.

This kid could easily have hormone dysfunctions, and probably does, since getting to that weight is hard by simply over eating. I'd say that there is almost some certain that he has a metabolic disease.

So yay, take the kid away and put him in state care... and maybe he'll get the medical attention he needs rather than the opinion of DailyTech and social workers which aren't helping much at all.




RE: Once again proof....
By Bubbacub on 11/28/2011 1:20:01 PM , Rating: 2
BS

99.9% of morbidly obese people simply eat too much. once someone starts eating that much its simply very very hard to stop.

medical conditions that cause massive obesity (i.e. not a little bit of podginess from hypothyroidism) are vanishingly rare.


RE: Once again proof....
By geddarkstorm on 11/28/2011 3:18:57 PM , Rating: 3
There's more to it than that.

Can you really eat too many fruits and vegetables? In theory, but not in practice. The body will regulate itself nicely on normal foods and will quite politely force most people to stop eating. It's a very rare exception to be able to overeat on the standard food types we humans had until the past twenty years.

And there's the kicker, what has changed?

Something is screwing up our metabolism and chemical signals. The body is made to prevent itself from overeating and getting obese. It's designed to not do that. Adipose tissue is a massive factory of inflammatory cytokines, designed to make the body DESTROY fat tissue purposefully and keep it in check.

So why isn't it? Why is it getting to the point where people on mass are amassing to much fat as to flood their bodies with inflammation, killing them through diabetes, heart disease, and autoimmune disorders out the wazoo?

Nothing is stopping this epidemic, and it's only getting worst - a lot worst. If we don't do something about our food supply, and figure out the root causes molecularly that are overriding out bodies' abilities to regulate themselves, we will be in a very bad situation as a nation.

My hunch is it's something about the specific fats in processed foods, mixed with some other chemicals that are somehow getting our "storage" switches stuck on, and/or preventing clearance of adipose tissue.

What's happened to this kid should be frankly impossible without massive hormonal imbalance. But what if the "hormones" causing the imbalance are some chemicals in our foods?

Think of resveratrol, that natural substance in red wine -- doesn't look like much but it can mimic estrogen in many ways (one estrogen signal it mimics through the estrogen receptors is in bone cells, leading to increased bone density), and can activate the insulin pathways without any insulin actually being around (which is why it's good against diabetes: it can replace insulin to a degree). If something as innocuous as resveratrol can trick the body into thinking it's being signaled by our natural hormones, and make it give an appropriate response as if it were when it wasn't, then how much more so could other things we are over looking be doing so in very, very bad ways?


RE: Once again proof....
By th3pwn3r on 11/29/2011 8:36:59 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, as a matter of fact you can EASILY eat more fruits and vegetables than required to maintain your body. Just because you eat "clean" foods doesn't mean you won't get fat. There isn't anything screwing up our metabolism and "chemical signals". The problem is that people are lazy. They're too lazy to exercise to burn off the surplus of calories they consume and/or they're too lazy to cook or plan a diet that allows them to be in a state of maintenance. When I eat a surplus of calories I balance things out by increasing activity the next day and consuming less calories, it's really quite simple. If you eat like an average American you'll look like an average American.


RE: Once again proof....
By geddarkstorm on 11/29/2011 2:35:08 PM , Rating: 3
Show me where a kid became 200 lb when eating fruits and vegetables. Show me anyone who became clinically obese on that diet. Sure, it might be possible to get a little "portly" by overfeeding on greens, but obese? It doesn't happen (unless you're genetically screwed up, in theory), and for many reasons. There are phytochemicals in plant based foods that signal to the body chemically, more than just the typical "you feel full". Look at the diet of other countries, where they can eat as many or more calories than us, but do not become obese (such as the Mediterranean area).

People ate just fine in 1980's, why is it obesity took off only after then?

Your body does NOT operate on "this many calories go in, so you must burn x", because your body does not -store all calories-, nor are all types of calories processed remotely the same way (sugar is not equal to fat which is not equal to protein, despite the energy density determined by burning in a calorimeter--which is where the values come from you see on labels on a box. For instance, some sugars TAKE NET ENERGY to process instead of give it).

You can be a person like me, whose body stores almost nothing. I can eat the average American diet and I do not gain weight. So, sorry, but your generic catch phrase is patently false.

All this has to do with chemistry. You are not simply what you eat, your body is REGULATED by what you eat, and the range of that regulation (and responses to signals) as determined by your genetics. EGCGs, catechins, quercetin, resveratrol, carotenoids, tannins, curcumin: these are examples of phytochemicals produced by plants that have a profound impact on genetic regulation, metabolic regulation, ROS parameters, and even cancer in the human body when consumed at their naturally low levels as found in foods. Many of these function by activating signalling pathway cascades, directly modifying protein function and activity, affecting heterochromatin control (e.g. resveratrol), mitochondria health and proliferation, and more.

Your cells are bathed by the chemicals you pick up in your blood from your food, are you really going to hide your head in the sand and pretend that does nothing? Are you going to ignore the profound effects even low levels of phytochemicals have been shown to have on life span and health span, and yes, fat storage (for instance, resveratrol and quercetin signal the body to eliminate fat and not store calories; but it is a weak effect on its own)?

Dude, wisen up. There's more going on here than meets the eye, and the more we understand about bioenergetics, the more we've been discovering that. So, if we have examples of many phytochemicals with good metabolic effects, what chemicals in our foods, such as all those synthetic preservatives, might be capable of having the opposite effect?

We are poisoning ourselves in a metabolic way; question is what is the source? Lazy doesn't help, but it doesn't explain it all, not even remotely; we know this well from all the studies in animals we have done and are doing. As a molecular biologist, I can fully tell you we are screwing ourselves up on the inside--either by something we're taking, some ratio of calorie types, or by something we are lacking in the standard American diet compared to most the rest of the world. So what is it, what's the culprit? We'll never know if we hold an attitude like yours.


RE: Once again proof....
By geddarkstorm on 11/29/2011 2:37:13 PM , Rating: 2
You should also realize that your activity levels, the amount of energy and restlessness you have, is also greatly impacted by your food. Certain foods will induce sedentary behavior, other foods will increase physical activity spontaneously. There are many studies in mice and rats showing that quite nicely.

So how does that happen? I'll let you answer that question if you feel so smart, and if you believe that chemicals in our foods have no impacts on our bodies' chemistry :).


RE: Once again proof....
By geddarkstorm on 11/29/2011 2:44:30 PM , Rating: 3
Also, heard of something called... vitamins? Apparently very low level abundance chemicals we pick up from foods that have extremely critical effects on the body? Oh that's right, vitamins don't exist because the chemicals in our food have no effect on our body chemistries from what you'd have us believe.


RE: Once again proof....
By geddarkstorm on 11/28/2011 3:35:13 PM , Rating: 2
Here's even more to think about.

Leptin is the hormone made by fat cells that is one of the mechanisms that shuts down appetite, especially over prolonged periods of time. The more fat you gain, the more leptin you should make, dropping your appetite lower and lower and forcing you to balance out. Leptin also increases the burning of energy by your body, to force you to burn off excess fat (on top of immune cells working to literally destroy fat tissue if it accumulates too much mass).

Why is balancing process this no longer happening for a growing majority of Americans? How can this basic, fundamental signalling pathway be failing?

Is there something in our foods that is acting as an antagonist to Leptin, blocking its signaling? Is there something in our diets that is activating the opposite signals and simply drowning out the growing Leptin amounts as fat storage increases? Is there something we consume that is frying the downstream processes activated by Leptin, such as the direct mechanisms that lead to suppression of appetite and burning of stored energy?

Is Leptin suffering a fate similar to what happens to insulin in type 2 diabetes? There the body is producing more and more insulin, way above what it ever should produce, yet insulin is having less and less of an effect. The receptors are getting down regulated, and the opposite pathways are getting over stimulated. How that happens is a very interesting question -- and again linked to our diets!

If it can happen to the hormone insulin, it could to Leptin, and any number of other hormones. But is that the cause?

I have no idea, I don't know if anyone does. There's a lot of research out there about this, but so much is still obfuscated.


RE: Once again proof....
By retrospooty on 11/28/2011 4:01:46 PM , Rating: 2
"This kid could easily have hormone dysfunctions, and probably does, since getting to that weight is hard by simply over eating"

It may be factor, but the math just doesnt add up. No human body uses all it consumes. It takes food and converts to energy, much of which is used by the brand and other bodily functions, and the rest is to muscles and movement.

There is no way in hell this kid does anything but eat BS food all day and NOT exercise.

Furthermore, if there were some horrible medical reason behind this don't you think maybe the parents would have provided the medical records before allowing the authorites to haul off their kid? Oh, look honey, they are taking lil Roger away beacsue he's too fat. Can you get the medical records that show its not our fault? Meh... MAybe later, I'm in hte middle of a triple burger with bacon, cheddar, guacamole and batter dipped cheese fries.


By Arsynic on 11/28/2011 11:01:51 AM , Rating: 1
It's child abuse and I approve of the state's action. However, I do not approve of the government telling people what or what not to feed their children.




By captainBOB on 11/28/2011 11:38:58 AM , Rating: 2
Talk about a contradictory argument.

You say you don't approve of the government telling parents what to feed their children, yet you approve them taking away their children if the parent doesn't feed them what the government tells them to.

Anyways, since when did the government have to become concerned with the micromanagement of its populace?


By Arsynic on 11/28/2011 11:58:19 AM , Rating: 1
Not contradictory at all. Should the government tell parents how hard to spank their children or whether or not to spank them at all? That's not the government's responsibility. However, if the parent beats the child to the point of injuring him, then it's a criminal issue.

Having a 200lb child is no different than injuring him. It's child abuse. That's where the authorities should come in. The government can't prevent a fat child as much as they can prevent robberies and rapes.


By retrospooty on 11/28/2011 3:55:52 PM , Rating: 2
"Having a 200lb child is no different than injuring him"

OK, agree... But how does that get regulated without anyone telling the parents what to feed the child?

No more than 5 twinkies a day? 3 twinkies? 1 Twinkie? The fact id different people have different metabolism. Beleive me, when I was young, I could eat 20 twinkies a day and nothing but burgers and fries and I was skinny. A chubbier kid might eat half what I did and wind up fat. It has to be up to the parents, but as mentioned above, some people arent fit to be parents.

We need to take a test to drive a car, yet any idiot can have 10 idiot kids and give them a crappy life and teach them to give thier 100 kids a crappy life.... Idiocracy in the making.


By Breathless on 11/28/2011 12:08:06 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, your statement is a serious noodle scratcher. You can't have it both ways dude.


By priusone on 11/29/2011 12:35:04 AM , Rating: 2
Little Timmy, are you still sneaking into the kitchen at night? Little Timmy, did you steal money out of my purse to buy hoho's?

State steps in: If you want to be with your family again, you need to lose weight.

I'm going to follow this just to get a twisted smile when the state messes with Timmy's emotional life AND fail to get him healthy. Good job Voters! You fail again.


Phys Ed
By ReclusiveOrc on 11/28/2011 1:03:21 PM , Rating: 2
I can remember when I was in elementry school that we had PE for about an hour every day. Now thanks to no child left behind, kids are lucky to get 30 minutes a week.




RE: Phys Ed
By Schrag4 on 11/28/2011 2:05:04 PM , Rating: 2
While you may be right, it's not the school's responsibility to make sure kids are active. Whether the school keeps kids active or not, parents should take responsibility for their own children. You wouldn't pass on teaching your child something just because you think they'll learn it in school, would you? Why should how much exercise they get be any different? Oh, and for kids, exercise isn't work, it's play. Give them a ball and tell them they're not allowed back in the house for an hour. They'll complain for like 10 seconds...


RE: Phys Ed
By Dr of crap on 11/29/2011 9:20:08 AM , Rating: 2
While I like your post - that playing stuff happened 30 years ago. Now you have to be inside a fence and monitor you kid so they aren't taken or shot at.

Have you been outside lately? There aren't many kids over the age of 5 doing any running around. Unless it's some organized sport, not to much and even then a lot of the kids are to fat. While this kid should have been in the running group, it's up to the parents to get him in an envionment where he can run.


RE: Phys Ed
By Schrag4 on 11/29/2011 1:02:59 PM , Rating: 2
I understand where you're coming from. As a parent, I don't think I would let my kids run around the neighborhood like I used to when I was young. It bugs me when they play in the cul-de-sac with the neighbor's kids unattended (I can't help but drop what I'm doing to keep an eye on them). We have a decent backyard that's fenced in and has a play set, trampoline, and basketball goal, and they play out there all the time. They get pretty crazy playing in the house sometimes too - drives me crazy. I suppose I should just be thankful that they enjoy being active.


lol
By GulWestfale on 11/28/2011 8:06:08 AM , Rating: 2
he's not fat, he's big-boned.




RE: lol
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/28/2011 8:25:08 AM , Rating: 2
I rather like the Weird Al - Fat picture used, well played sir.


RE: lol
By johnsonx on 11/28/2011 7:20:13 PM , Rating: 2
he's not fat, he's festively plump!


Let me see if I understand this.
By Tequilasunriser on 11/28/2011 8:37:00 AM , Rating: 3
The gov't recently classifies pizza and french fries as vegetables to keep junk food in schools.

Same gov't then takes a child away from parents for obesity abuse.

Hmmm




RE: Let me see if I understand this.
By theslug on 11/28/2011 10:22:07 AM , Rating: 2
Wait, what?
By borismkv on 11/28/2011 11:38:13 AM , Rating: 3
Unless the kid is also a Cyborg, why is this on Dailytech?




RE: Wait, what?
By bankerdude on 11/29/2011 10:49:27 AM , Rating: 2
Gentlemen, we can rebuild him. Better than he was before. Better.....stronger.....fatter


Blame the Medical Community As Well...
By Arsynic on 11/28/2011 11:46:07 AM , Rating: 1
As a parent I understand how easy it is to raise fat kids. When they are infants, pediatricians stress packing them with calories. The heavier the baby, the healthier. When a doctor sees a fat newborn or infant it's usually good news and means that the mother is doing a good job feeding the baby. My wife had breastfeeding issues early on and it was troubling seeing a baby losing weight rapidly, having dried chapped lips and sunken in eyes. We were very afraid and started packing him with formula until the breast-feeding got on track. So we, like most parents, have been conditioned to believe fat baby = healthy baby and skinny baby = dying baby.

The problem is that some parents don't know when to turn this mentality off. To them a fat baby is always a healthy baby. There is even a term for that, "baby fat". They think its cute. I think the medical community helped create this mentality and so their main focus should be on balanced nutrition once it's established that the baby is healthy. This is an area where private industry should take responsibility. Even with adults, the medical community is more focused on treatment than prevention (which most of the time is based on nutrition).

I think the medical community is so tied up with the pharmaceutical community that they are in prescription mode instead of prevention. I guess they should really have no interest in healthy people since it affects their bottom line. All MD's should be nutritionists as well or have some knowledge of proper nutrition. It seems that when the baby is born, nutrition is the #1 focus and then when the baby is fat and healthy, they throw it out the window in favor of peddling shit like Ritalin and vaccinations.




RE: Blame the Medical Community As Well...
By Dr of crap on 11/28/2011 1:21:11 PM , Rating: 2
WHAT????

I can see your kids will be messed up.

This is not even close to being a problem as you state.

Kids by design will only eat to the point that they feel full and won't eat anymore like an adult will, just because it tastes good. That I got from our Pediatrican! Either the kid has a medical condition that needs to be fixed, or the parents gave and gave him too much BAD food to the point that he over came his natrual instints and gorged to the point he is now.

Yes, baby fat is good, but after the kid crawls and then walks the "baby fat" goes away because the kid is getting exercise! If you can't see a fat kid as a problem then you have a problem. My kids are not over weight and never have been. Again it's parenting. Maybe we need to charge people a fee every year to educate them in common sense and kid rearing!


By Arsynic on 11/28/2011 4:17:23 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, we're on the same side. I'm just stressing that the medical community needs to do a better job of educating parents of older children instead of peddling meds and treating illnesses. The medical community as a whole needs to focus more on nutrition as a preventative measure.

Ultimately it's the parent's responsibility but parents have been conditioned early on to believe that fat baby=healthy baby and they never snap out of that mentality. Alot of people look at a fat 2 year old and think "baby fat". This needs to be changed. Notice that I'm putting the responsibility of education on the private sector and not the government. The private sector can only make suggestions. The government tends to put a gun to your head to force you in line.


This coming from a government
By Performance Fanboi on 11/28/2011 11:59:40 PM , Rating: 2
that declared pizza a vegetable. Sure is a mystery how an 8 year old gets over the 200 pound mark in America.




RE: This coming from a government
By theslug on 11/29/2011 7:57:07 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure if you're trolling or what. Of course it is a mystery. A 200-pound 8 year old? This is extremely rare.

And for the record, the government did not delcare pizza a vegetable. They said the tomato paste constitutes a serving of vegetables which is totally different. See the link I posted above.


Relevance?
By amanojaku on 11/28/2011 8:59:23 AM , Rating: 2
There is more than enough evidence to prove obesity is bad for a person's health, including an increased risk of infection, hypertension and early death.

This is a sociopolitical issue, not a science or technology issue: the question at hand is whether or not the government has a RIGHT to do this, considering the parent is negligent.




RE: Relevance?
By Ringold on 11/28/11, Rating: 0
Don't extrapolate
By euler007 on 11/28/2011 12:20:45 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure that an 8 feet tall 200 lb boy would be severely anorexic.




It's funny
By jimbojimbo on 11/29/2011 4:07:24 PM , Rating: 2
What's funny is I'm reading all these posts about general health and I bet most of the posters are tubbies themselves. Stop reading DT and go for a run!




I want cheesy poofs!!!
By jharper12 on 11/29/2011 7:11:44 PM , Rating: 2
But moooooooooooom... I'm just big boned!

In all seriousness, I was a chubby (fat) little kid for a few years. Went to the doctor, who saw stretch marks and told my parents to stop feeding me potato chips. They did, I lost weight, and to this day I don't eat potato chips. Now I don't even like the taste of them. Parenting works people. I'm sure I wasn't happy about it at the time, but I'm healthy and happy now.




Parents should sue the government
By Zaranthos on 11/28/2011 12:46:16 PM , Rating: 1
I think the parents should sue the government. I'd be willing to bet the government run and funded public school system he went to didn't do enough to feed him lettuce and water while making him run his fat butt off in gym class or the playground.

As long as we say it's OK to kill babies via abortion we should shut the hell up about feeding them to death with government funded junk foods. How many subsidies do corn farmers get to make that lovely diabetes promoting corn syrup laced junk food and soda pop? Then if they were a poor family they could have been getting food stamps to buy even more junk food which also has no restrictions on buying as much chips and pop as you can stuff down your throat. Grain and dairy farmers have no lack of subsidies either to make the favorite fat kid food macaroni and cheese as cheap as possible either. It's all FDA approved genetically engineered for maximum cattle fattening potential which works just as well at fattening us humans.

Yes sir, sue the government who says it's OK to kill them by grinding their little bodies apart in the womb but if you feed them FDA approved, federal subsidized garbage, they'll take your kids away.

There's more than enough hypocrisy to spread around here and not enough sarcasm to cover all the angles of insanity with this story.




"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki