The NY Times reports semi-good news on the obesity front:
Hint of Hope as Child Obesity Rate Hits Plateau
Childhood obesity, rising for more than two decades, appears to have hit a plateau, a potentially significant milestone in the battle against excessive weight gain among children.
But the finding, based on survey data gathered from 1999 to 2006 by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and published in Wednesday’s issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association, was greeted with guarded optimism.
It is not clear if the lull in childhood weight gain is permanent or even if it is the result of public anti-obesity efforts to limit junk food and increase physical activity in schools. Doctors noted that even if the trend held up, 32 percent of American schoolchildren remained overweight or obese, representing an entire generation that will be saddled with weight-related health problems as it ages.
We get a hint of some income/ethnicity connection:
One trend that has not changed in the new data are differences in obesity risk based on age and race. Children 2 to 5 were significantly less likely to be overweight compared with adolescents ages 12 to 19. While about 14.5 percent of white adolescent girls were obese, the numbers jumped to 20 percent for Mexican-American teenage girls and 28 percent for black teenage girls.
Among boys, Mexican-Americans were also more likely to have a high body mass index compared with white boys. Despite the differences, obesity rates have also appeared to stabilize among minority children.
And this is the Times, so the story closes with a call for a Federal program:
“We still lack anything resembling a national strategy to take this problem seriously,” said Dr. Ludwig, co-author of an editorial accompanying the obesity report. “The rates of obesity in children are so hugely high that without any further increases, the impact of this epidemic will be felt with increasing severity for many years to come.”
Hmm - No Child Left With A Fat Behind?
Obama will make them thin.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 28, 2008 at 12:42 PM
And rich.
Posted by: MarkO | May 28, 2008 at 12:54 PM
And smart.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | May 28, 2008 at 12:56 PM
And fear-less
Posted by: Jane | May 28, 2008 at 12:59 PM
Rather than wait for the next Krugman post, I'll note that there are a lot of big guys playing football, and Steve Malanga says that there is more inequality in the NFL than the society at large. Even though the NFL has lots of socialism--salary caps and unions--supposedly designed to alleviate that:
So, if unions and redistributionist schemes didn't work in the NFL--and in baseball and the NBA--why would it be any different in the larger economy?
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | May 28, 2008 at 01:03 PM
On come on Karl Rove's favorite blog! Your little liar buddy needs you more than ever.
McClellan just outs him and you want to talk about fat kids?
Karl's first fumbling defense is that the President's press secretary was "out of the loop."!!! Good god that's funny, but still pathetic.
Better get cranking! Or have you lost that liar-loving feeling?
Posted by: Don | May 28, 2008 at 01:07 PM
Someone is starved for attention!
Posted by: Jane | May 28, 2008 at 01:15 PM
...32 percent of American schoolchildren remained overweight or obese, representing an entire generation that...
Is this that new math? Fuzzy math?
Does this mean the other 68% will have to share the costs of this obesity?
If that is so, doesn't the entire generation share the costs if 10% are overweight, or 5%?
Posted by: MikeS | May 28, 2008 at 01:17 PM
A shame this is too late for Algore,though his layer of blubber will see him through the Great Coldening.
Posted by: PeterUK | May 28, 2008 at 01:32 PM
"Someone is starved for attention!"
The word fat must have hit a nerve for Don.
Posted by: PeterUK | May 28, 2008 at 01:36 PM
I'm just amazed at how the internet's biggest group of Rove/Libby defenders has sort of fizzled out. The thrill is gone, I suppose.
Rove is now sputtering that the very guy who told the press Rove was not involved was "out of the loop."
I'll say!!!!
Posted by: Don | May 28, 2008 at 01:42 PM
Don
What do you mean "Rove's favorite blog"? This actually Rove's blog. He just writes under a soo-doe-nim.
I did the big words phone-et-i-cally for you. Com-pash-i-net con-serve-i-tism and all that.
Posted by: bad | May 28, 2008 at 01:57 PM
Wow Don,only a dozen comments into a new thread and you boldly predict it has fizzled out ?
Posted by: PeterUK | May 28, 2008 at 02:00 PM
too funny, bad! LMAO
Posted by: centralcal | May 28, 2008 at 02:34 PM
Perhaps if the govt shredded its stupid food pyramid which induces people to eat too many carbs, it would help.
Perhaps if the streets were made safer so more kids could go out and play when their parents were at work it would help.
Perhaps if we recognized that different ethnic groups might need different diets it would help.(IIRC, i.e.,Plains Indians induced to return to a high game, low carb diet seem to avoid diabetes and those that don't almost certainly get it.)
Posted by: clarice | May 28, 2008 at 02:44 PM
Rove is now very happily making tons of money as a political anyalyst.
Anyone conerned about pay inequality should take a long, lingering look at what the plaintiffs' class-action lawyer receives at the end of a lawsuit, as compared with what the individual class members get. It is far and away the largest pay disparity in America.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 28, 2008 at 02:44 PM
And perhaps the Samoans would want to recalculate as well.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 28, 2008 at 02:44 PM
In that group, about 16 percent of children and teenagers were obese, which is defined as having a body mass index at or above the 95th percentile on United States growth charts.
I'm confused. Doesn't the percent above the 95th percentile have to be 5 percent? Sure enough, a couple of sentences later:
By comparison, about 5 percent of children and teenagers in the United States were obese in the 1960s and 1970s.
So maybe she means that the definition is based on the growth charts of the 60s and 70s?
And again:
Estimates for the number of children who fall into the overweight or obese category also have remained stable at about 32 percent since 1999. Overweight is defined as at or above the 85th percentile.
Very sloppy editing for the paper of record.
Posted by: jimmyk | May 28, 2008 at 02:47 PM
Well, regardless of whether the Times has buggered up the facts beyond comprehension, I'm sure that all people of good will can agree that it's high time for governmental intervention.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 28, 2008 at 02:58 PM
You know, none of these distractions helps Michelle's kids lose weight.
Posted by: Les Nessman | May 28, 2008 at 03:46 PM
Michelle's kids don't need to lose weight. They're on the arugula diet.
Posted by: LindaK | May 28, 2008 at 04:09 PM
My son, who is 6 foot and 145 pounds, came home with a note that claims his BMI puts him in the 87 percentile, therefore likely to be obese.
I took another look at him and exclaimed Bullshit.
Posted by: Neo | May 28, 2008 at 04:24 PM
I sometimes think that obesity and poverty are readjusted to maintain the same percentage, no matter what BMI or earnings are necessary to achieve that.
Posted by: Neo | May 28, 2008 at 04:27 PM
Neo,
Don't you wish schools would return to their mission of teaching, instead of being health nannies and trying to turn kids into treehuggers.
Posted by: LindaK | May 28, 2008 at 04:31 PM
Obama will make them thin.
He's already laid down the law about eating "as much as we want." I'd say this problem's as good as solved.
Posted by: SukieTawdry | May 28, 2008 at 05:25 PM
Actually it was a peak, not a plateau... but it collapsed under the weight....
Posted by: richard mcenroe | May 28, 2008 at 10:05 PM