Fat kids

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

Quoted message said:

I keep reading in the papers about childhood obesity and it's certainly evident all around. I've
never seen so many fat, unfit kids.

We've really had a nice spell of weather since Christmas and I've been on the bike a lot. I've
almost been hit a few times by young kids on little motorized scooters. Apparently, they replaced
bicycles under the tree

this

Quoted message said:

year. They're everywhere. "Can't have little junior having to expend any energy ... that wouldn't
do. But I wonder why he's getting so fat?"

Well, the bright side is that, maybe we'll get scooter lanes someday and they'll allow bicycles on
them, too.

Bob C.

Don't know where you live, but in many places it's illegal for kids to "drive" them. Here in
California they are illegal for anyone under 16 (but you don't need a driver's license.) The police
will notice soon, and the motorized scooters will go back into the garages.

psycholist said:

I keep reading in the papers about childhood obesity and it's certainly evident all around. I've
never seen so many fat, unfit kids.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Bob C.

Here in New Zealand this has become a big problem. 40% of our kids are now fat, compared to about 1%
when I was at school (over 40 years ago) In 1994 it became mandatory for all bicyclists to wear
helmets, and the police have been quite ferocious in enforcing this law. The result has been quite
disastrous -- overall bicycling has deccreased by about 34%; among children by about 70%, yet the
reduction in serious head injuries has been only 19%. In other words, the rate of head injuries per
cyclist has INCREASED by about 20% since the (supposedly protective) law came in. But are they going
to admit they were wrong and repeal it? Not likely --

--
This message is certified Virus Free as no Microsoft products were used in its preparation or
propagation

Not only are the motorized, but they now have seats to make them even more comfortable and
easy to use!

I think someone mentioned it here before - sports injuries are now related to watching basketball
on TV - "hurt my back getting more chips & beer". Not only are the kids fatter today but so are
the parents.

They'll need to make those scooter lanes "biggie sized"

Doug

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

Quoted message said:

I keep reading in the papers about childhood obesity and it's certainly evident all around. I've
never seen so many fat, unfit kids.

We've really had a nice spell of weather since Christmas and I've been on the bike a lot. I've
almost been hit a few times by young kids on little motorized scooters. Apparently, they replaced
bicycles under the tree

this

Quoted message said:

year. They're everywhere. "Can't have little junior having to expend any energy ... that wouldn't
do. But I wonder why he's getting so fat?"

Well, the bright side is that, maybe we'll get scooter lanes someday and they'll allow bicycles on
them, too.

Bob C.

Cathy Kearns said:

Don't know where you live, but in many places it's illegal for kids to "drive" them. Here in
California they are illegal for anyone under 16 (but you don't need a driver's license.) The
police will notice soon, and the motorized scooters will go back into the garages.

No, they'll go back into garages like every new toy to gather dust, and the kids will return to
watching TV.

I do wish that we'd go back to real neighborhoods, with neighborhood schools, so kids could walk to
school, instead of 50 acre campuses located 10 miles outside of town.... (That 50 acres is a US
federal gov't 'guideline, BTW.)

With urban planning like that, it's no wonder kids get fat...

-Kamus

--
o__ | If you're old, eat right and ride a decent bike. ,>/'_ | Q. (_)\(_) | Usenet posting`

Peter Keller said:

psycholist said:

I keep reading in the papers about childhood obesity and it's certainly evident all around. I've
never seen so many fat, unfit kids.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Bob C.

Here in New Zealand this has become a big problem. 40% of our kids are now fat, compared to about
1% when I was at school (over 40 years ago) In 1994 it became mandatory for all bicyclists to wear
helmets, and the police have been quite ferocious in enforcing this law. The result has been quite
disastrous -- overall bicycling has deccreased by about 34%; among children by about 70%, yet the
reduction in serious head injuries has been only 19%. In other words, the rate of head injuries
per cyclist has INCREASED by about 20% since the (supposedly protective) law came in. But are they
going to admit they were wrong and repeal it? Not likely --

And why would they? The helmet manufacturers who financed the "safety" groups campaigns are still
ahead. And the "safety" handwringers still think they've done a good thing.

Why? "Well, if only ONE life can be saved..." they figure any downsides are negligible. Even if the
downsides include 100 early heart attacks.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]

Kamus of Kadizhar said:

I do wish that we'd go back to real neighborhoods, with neighborhood schools, so kids could walk to
school, instead of 50 acre campuses located 10 miles outside of town.... (That 50 acres is a US
federal gov't 'guideline, BTW.)

It's be cool if the 50-acre plots were given over to running tracks and athletic fields instead of
parking lots.

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

Quoted message said:

psycholist said:

I keep reading in the papers about childhood obesity and it's certainly evident all around. I've
never seen so many fat, unfit kids.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Bob C.

Here in New Zealand this has become a big problem. 40% of our kids are now fat, compared to about
1% when I was at school (over 40 years ago) In 1994 it became mandatory for all bicyclists to wear
helmets, and the police have been quite ferocious in enforcing this law. The result has been quite
disastrous -- overall bicycling has deccreased by about 34%; among children by about 70%, yet the
reduction in serious head injuries has been only 19%. In other words, the rate of head injuries
per cyclist has INCREASED by about 20% since the (supposedly protective) law came in. But are they
going to admit they were wrong and repeal it? Not likely --

This is a particular problem amongst preteen and teen girls. It's hard to find hair styles that
won't be affected by helmet ridges. Especially if girls are riding to school with just styled,
and still slightly damp, hair. For some reason, by high school bikes are no longer considered
cool at all, for girls or boys. I don't know why, and have to wonder if helmets have something to
do with it.

"Kamus of Kadizhar" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Cathy Kearns said:

Don't know where you live, but in many places it's illegal for kids to "drive" them. Here in
California they are illegal for anyone under 16 (but you don't need a driver's license.) The
police will notice soon, and the motorized scooters will go back into the garages.

No, they'll go back into garages like every new toy to gather dust, and the kids will return to
watching TV.

I do wish that we'd go back to real neighborhoods, with neighborhood schools, so kids could walk
to school, instead of 50 acre campuses located 10 miles outside of town.... (That 50 acres is a US
federal gov't 'guideline, BTW.)

With urban planning like that, it's no wonder kids get fat...

I live in an older town where schools are still in the midst of neighborhoods and many kids ride
their bikes or walk to school. (You haven't felt heaven until you can sit in your jammies with your
coffee while both kids wander off to school on their own.) However, there still is a startling
number of parents that will drive their kid to school no matter how close they live or how safe the
road is for biking/walking. It seems fear of stranger abduction, larger and fragiler projects (book
reports made into cubes, mobiles explaining science reports, 3x4 foot maps, diaramas), and large
musical instruments conspire to have many folks driving their loved ones less than 1/4 mile on flat
roads everyday. I think the biggest problem with getting folks to let their kids ride or walk to
school is the cars of the kids whose parents won't let them ride or walk to school. Quite the
vicious circle, that I'm glad my kids are not a part of.

Cathy Kearns said:

Quoted message said:

In 1994 it became mandatory for all bicyclists to wear helmets, and the

and still slightly damp, hair. For some reason, by high school bikes are no longer considered
cool at all, for girls or boys. I don't know why, and have to wonder if helmets have something to
do with it.

We've never had a mandatory helmet law around here, and when I was a kid, nobody wore helmets at
all. The same uncoolness of bikes showed up in high school anyway; I believe it's because many kids
got to drive cars to school, so they were the cool ones.
--
Rick Onanian

Zippy the Pinhead said:

Kamus of Kadizhar said:

I do wish that we'd go back to real neighborhoods, with neighborhood schools, so kids could walk
to school, instead of 50 acre campuses located 10 miles outside of town.... (That 50 acres is a
US federal gov't 'guideline, BTW.)

It's be cool if the 50-acre plots were given over to running tracks and athletic fields instead of
parking lots.

But then Ken and Barbie wouldn't be able to drive ther BMW that they got for their 16th birthday!

Think about the ramifications here, man! :^)

Joe
--
#----------------------------------------------------------# Penguinix Consulting # ----------------------------------------------------------
## Software development, QA and testing. # Linux support and training. # "Don't fear the penguin!" #
#----------------------------------------------------------# Registered Linux user: #309247
#counter.li.orgcounter.li.orgOpen ↗ # ----------------------------------------------------------#

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

Quoted message said:

I keep reading in the papers about childhood obesity and it's certainly evident all around. I've
never seen so many fat, unfit kids.

What fat % is necessary to be categorized as fat?

Now that the holidays have just passed, I'm staring at 17% and looking in the mirror and going
WHOOOAAA! But I'm 48 years old and that's probably the high end of the good range. It increases
with age. There are quite a few websites that provide the body mass index chart which is a common
guide (though many critics say it's too harsh). Do a search and you shouldn't have any trouble
finding them.

Bob C. "Jiyang Chen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

I keep reading in the papers about childhood obesity and it's certainly evident all around. I've
never seen so many fat, unfit kids.

What fat % is necessary to be categorized as fat?

Jiyang Chen said:

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

Quoted message said:

I keep reading in the papers about childhood obesity and it's certainly evident all around. I've
never seen so many fat, unfit kids.

What fat % is necessary to be categorized as fat?

The guidelines I've seen are always presented in terms of Body Mass Index. From
<http://nhlbisupport.com/bmi/bmicalc.htm>:

BMI Categories: Underweight = <18.5 Normal weight = 18.5-24.9 Overweight = 25-29.9 Obesity = BMI of
30 or greater

There probably isn't near as much data on actual percentage of fat, nor do many people have the
means to measure it easily, so the BMI is used instead.

--
Ray Heindl (remove the Xs to reply)

In article <[email hidden]>, "Doug"

Quoted message said:

Not only are the motorized, but they now have seats to make them even more comfortable and
easy to use!

I think someone mentioned it here before - sports injuries are now related to watching basketball
on TV - "hurt my back getting more chips & beer". Not only are the kids fatter today but so are
the parents.

They'll need to make those scooter lanes "biggie sized"

Doug

It really is discouraging. Canada is not as bad as the US in terms of obese kids but we're getting
there. And teens- I see slack, pasty teenagers with their fat love handles pouring out of their
jeans. Okay, not everyone has to be a size 5 but what about HEALTH? Imagine how they'll be at 50 if
they are already so out of shape!

Whenever I see kids out on bikes, BMXing or freeriding or whatever, I'm always cheered. Once, last
summer, out on a ride we saw three adolescent boys stopped at the side of the road and one of them
asked us if we had any tools. He was having some kind of problem with his freeride bike- a pretty
nice one and obviously used a lot. The other kid had a Kona mountain bike and there was another kid
also with some kind of mountain bike. They were telling us about freeriding and I said, "It sounds
like a lot more fun than video games!" and they said, "Oh yeah!" It's always encouraging to see kids
who at least arent' sitting at home on a nice day playing Xbox and eating Cheesies! Yeah, freeriding
can get you injured but it's no worse for your health than being a rug rat!

"Cathy Kearns" <[email hidden]> wrote

<snip>

Quoted message said:

For some reason, by high school bikes are no longer considered cool at all, for girls or boys. I
don't know why, and have to wonder if helmets have something to do with it.

We had no helmet laws back when I was a teenager in the 80's, but I can tell you the day I stopped
riding a bike was the day I got my drivers license.

Driving in the US is a right of passage, a taste of freedom you didn't have before. That's
one reason.

My high school was about 25 miles away (a regional technical school) so biking to school was never a
consideration however, I probably still would

Seriously. Nothing like picking up your girlfriend, skipping school on a nice day, cruising to the
beach while sparking up and listening to some good music. I was driving a restored 1970 Oldsmobile
Delta 88 too ... nothing like those old cares either.

Those were my "good ol' days" (c:

Now things are a little different ... I spend a lot of my weekends camping and bicycling around Cape
Cod with my girlfriend(s), and I don't even smoke cigarettes anymore. A walk along the beach is
still just as nice though.

C.Q.C.

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 20:17:09 -0000, Ray Heindl <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

The guidelines I've seen are always presented in terms of Body Mass Index. From
<http://nhlbisupport.com/bmi/bmicalc.htm>:

The categories you presented are OK, but with the increasing prevalence of obesity, such that at BMI
of 35 is more commonplace, a simpler and more realistic classification system is needed.

Here's one with 5 classes which should serve quite well in coming generations:

1. A person of normal weight
2. Anybody who's just a little bit fatter than the person doing the evaluating.
3. When this individual goes camping, the bears hide THEIR food.
4. Has own ZIP code.
5. Has own gravitational field.

"Kamus of Kadizhar" <[email hidden]> wrote

<snip>

Quoted message said:

o__ | If you're old, eat right and ride a decent bike. ,>/'_ | Q. (_)\(_) | Usenet posting`

Dang, I being quoted now! Coolness ...

C.Q.C.

In article <[email hidden]>, "Cathy Kearns"

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

psycholist said:

I keep reading in the papers about childhood obesity and it's certainly evident all around.
I've never seen so many fat, unfit kids.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Bob C.

Here in New Zealand this has become a big problem. 40% of our kids are now fat, compared to
about 1% when I was at school (over 40 years ago) In 1994 it became mandatory for all bicyclists
to wear helmets, and the police have been quite ferocious in enforcing this law. The result has
been quite disastrous -- overall bicycling has deccreased by about 34%; among children by about
70%, yet the reduction in serious head injuries has been only 19%. In other words, the rate of
head injuries per cyclist has INCREASED by about 20% since the (supposedly protective) law came
in. But are they going to admit they were wrong and repeal it? Not likely --

This is a particular problem amongst preteen and teen girls. It's hard to find hair styles that
won't be affected by helmet ridges. Especially if girls are riding to school with just styled,
and still slightly damp, hair. For some reason, by high school bikes are no longer considered
cool at all, for girls or boys. I don't know why, and have to wonder if helmets have something to
do with it.

That's interesting. A friend of mine who works in a bike shop says he sees lots of young boys
(teens) and young adults coming in and buying bikes, but almost no girls! The guys are often into
BMX and downhill. But he says girls don't even buy road bikes! I suppose the helmet factor is there,
but the downhillers and BMXers all buy helmets.

"Zippy the Pinhead" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ray Heindl said:

The guidelines I've seen are always presented in terms of Body Mass Index. From
<http://nhlbisupport.com/bmi/bmicalc.htm>:

The categories you presented are OK, but with the increasing prevalence of obesity, such that at
BMI of 35 is more commonplace, a simpler and more realistic classification system is needed.

Here's one with 5 classes which should serve quite well in coming generations:

1. A person of normal weight
2. Anybody who's just a little bit fatter than the person doing the evaluating.
3. When this individual goes camping, the bears hide THEIR food.
4. Has own ZIP code.
5. Has own gravitational field.

How about;

Has a chin on the back of their neck Can pinch an inch on their forehead Stretch marks on the ankles

Nah, that would be just mean ...

Hey, I'm getting there myself ... but I have my Mothers thighs, I just have to live with it LOL

Do these spandex tights make my butt look big?
C.Q.C.