Exercise won't cut childhood obesity
GOVERNMENT guidelines for children's physical activity, to
stave off obesity and obesity-related diseases need rethinking,
according to a study.
Ten-year-old guidelines, which recommend children need an
hour's moderate physical activity a day, are dated and need to
be revised, according to researchers at Peninsula Medical
School in Plymouth.
The Earlybird study, examining a group of 307 children, from
the ages of five to 16, has already provided evidence exercise
plays little role in a child's weight (or body mass index).
Professor Terry Wilkin, director of the study, said there
were two important findings from the first three years of the
study.
He said: “First, the weight measure that people use, the
body mass index, doesn't pick up any difference for those
children who do and don't meet physical activity guidelines.
It's a very rough index and a very blunt tool.
“Second, if you look at the blood samples of the children,
you can see those who do more exercise benefit metabolically
than those who don't.”
The results of the study, published today in Archives of
Disease in Childhood, show less than half of boys and only one
in eight girls manage the recommended weekly amounts.
The researchers base their findings on the long term
monitoring of 113 boys and 99 girls from 54 different schools,
all of whom were five years old when the study started in
2001.
The children's weekly physical activity levels were measured
using a tiny device worn around the waist and designed for the
purpose.
Changes in weight and predictive health indicators, such as
insulin resistance, blood fat and cholesterol levels, and blood
pressure were measured annually between the ages of five and
eight.
Taken together, these health indicators reflect the risk of
developing cardiovascular disease and diabetes.
Both the UK and US guidelines recommend children are
moderately physically active for at least an hour every day, in
a bid to stave off obesity and its attendant health risks. And
they measure body mass index (weight) to monitor impact
The results showed there was a wide range of physical
activity among children, some spending as little as ten minutes
a day at the recommended intensity while others were spending
more than 90 minutes a day. Around 42 per cent of boys, but
only 11 per cent of girls, met the 60-minute guideline.
The authors suggest the measure used to gauge impact may
simply be too crude, and applying the same guideline to both
sexes may not be appropriate.
Prof Wilkin added: “Children who do more exercise benefit,
but we still have no idea how to encourage those who do not
meet the deadline to do more.”











5 Comments
by Young Mum of 2, Plymouth
Monday, June 30 2008, 8:55PM
“It isn't just the young mums feeding kids rubbish, it's the older mums, and the dads too! I cook from scratch every day and have 2 perfectly proportioned offspring- i can confirm a massive bowl of veg soup will make about 10 kids meals and costs about £2.50. If my kids got chunky I'd make a hamster wheel in my living room. Big kids = Big adults, and all because the parents cant be bothered to chop veg and get out in the fresh air.”
by Nobby, Mutley
Monday, June 30 2008, 11:15AM
“The government is quite happy to fortify bread with folic acid so as to reduce the risk of nural tube defects. Yet this risk only effects a small number of people compared to the numbers who are obese, which are nationally heading towards 30%. Why then does the govenment not fortify junk food with Orlistat? That way they will target obese people at source and in the long run save money through fewer hospital admissions?”
by Brenda, Plymouth
Monday, June 30 2008, 11:01AM
“PARENTS should be convicted of child cruelty. For OVER feeding their kids SH1T.
Add a health vistor into the mix and all you have is the blind leading the blind. "They" still recommend Formula for newborn babies FFS. Poisioned from birth.”
by Size 10, Plymouth
Monday, June 30 2008, 10:52AM
“Parents should be convicted of child cruelty/ neglect. Simpl as. Eat Sh1t and loads of it you will get FAT. Its child cruelty and should be seen as such.”
by Annie, plymouth
Monday, June 30 2008, 10:34AM
“Here's an idea - put up the price of sweets,crisps & cake stuff so they become an occasional treat when you can afford it & bring down the price of fruit & veg because at the moment it is cheaper to feed your kids rubbish than healthy,nutritious food.
Having 4 kids makes it quite difficult to spend less than £80/£90 per week on just the basic shopping & I try not to feed them rubbish. Although when a bag of frozen chips is cheaper than a bag of spuds it starts to make financial sense.
Mind you, my generation is probably the last one that does any 'proper' cooking & baking from scratch.
Not that you can blame these younger Mums - they are just not taught the basics in school anymore.
One of the core subjects in schools these days should be how to feed your family cheaply & healthily - especially as due to the current employment climate, most of the poor sods will be on benefits.
Start from babies - although health visitors these days do recommend jars rather than fesh food !”