Posted on 09/21/2004 3:25:10 PM PDT by BattleFlag
After studying more than 14,000 American children, a team of six Harvard doctors found that snack food and soda do not contribute to childhood obesity. The study, which was published in the October issue of the International Journal of Obesity, concluded: "Our data did not offer support for the hypothesis that snacking promotes weight gain." Earlier this year, researchers at Penn State reported substantially the same thing. They found "no statistically significant relationship between the percentage of calories from ice cream, baked goods, candy or chips and BMI [Body Mass Index] score" for adolescent girls.
The Harvard research specifically contests what is perhaps public-health activists' most cited study -- a 2001 paper by fat-tax advocate David Ludwig, which claimed that soda consumption is a major factor in childhood obesity. After referring to Ludwig's conclusion, the Harvard study reports:
The inclusion of sugar-sweetened beverages in the snack food category did not meaningfully change the results. Regardless of the definition of snack foods, there was not a strong association between intake of snack foods and weight gain.There is good reason to believe the recent Harvard report over Ludwig's. With only 548 children to study (versus Harvard's 14,000), Ludwig admits that his study had "limited statistical power."
The new Harvard study helps reinforce the growing understanding that physical activity, not food, is the primary cause of childhood obesity. According to former FDA Commissioner Dr. Mark McClellan: "In a debate in which foods themselves are being held to be largely responsible for increasing levels of obesity, actual levels of caloric intake among the young haven't appreciably changed over the last twenty years."
A growing body of research corroborates McClellan's point. Earlier this year, research published in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine found that "insufficient vigorous physical activity was the only risk factor" for overweight children. And a 2003 study in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine summed it all up by recommending "a focus on increasing energy expenditure, rather than reducing caloric intake."
Copyright © 1997-2004 Center for Consumer Freedom. PO Box 27414, Washington, DC 20038, Tel: 202-463-7112, E-mail: info@consumerfreedom.com
I have kids these days, and mine are much more active than I was. They swim almost everyday in the summer. They ride their bikes more than I did. I didn't scooter, but they do. My kids also have a great, very cool swingset. It's much nicer than the one that I had. It has monkey bars and a fort house to climb up on. Mine just had swings.
My girls love to jump rope, and they'll spend a long time doing that.
We also live near a wonderful bike/walking trail that connects to hundreds of miles of trails around the SF Bay Area. We can either walk or bike on that. In a couple of years, my kids will be able to do part of it by themselves (if they're in a group).
My brothers ran around more than me, but I just played in my house or in my backyard. I did get a trampoline when I was in junior high, and I don't think my kids will get one of those because I don't think one will fit well at my house.
You are right! Thats what I was trying to say... only you said it so much better! You are right about the law suits too. Perhaps its the attornies who are really pushing this one.
Eating too much of these are linked to obesity, eating too much of anything without exercise will get you fat.
Many children are stuck in apartment complexes that won't even let them play on the grass. So, they need a bicycle to ride to a place where they can play. If they had a bicycle it would get stolen unless they rolled them back into their apartment. Then, the apartment manager would write a rule that "no bicycles will be stored in the apartment." How can these kids win?
Is that any different than what it was 20 or 30 years ago?
I don't think so.
Anyone living in Manhattan (or other big city) is going to have a tough time getting exercise, but that's because they are in a big city. It's not because it's a different time.
All kids have access to walking. It doesn't take much. I remember in college, I didn't have time to exercise. I quit using elevators. I would use the stairs. Our college library was 7 stories, and the study areas were on the upper floors. I also lived on the fourth floor of my dorm. I walked up and down stairs, and I stayed very fit in college.
I think if kids in apartment complexes would walk just a little more then they could get plenty of exercise.
I always thought obesity is more lifestyle related then eating. Like 30 years ago, people ate more and also they had more active lifestyle.
"Is this from Scrappleface, The Onion or DEBKA?"
cBS..
I agree with the benifits of walking. However, when the choice is between TV and walking, TV wins.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.