You are in: Home / Opinion / 10 Staggering Facts About Childhood Obesity

10 Staggering Facts About Childhood Obesity

By Mike Howard

In a recent poll, almost 40% of adults rated childhood obesity as the number 1 health concern amongst youth.

If we haven't hit the panic button yet, it's time to do so.

Here are some sobering statistics about childhood obesity that really underscore the need to act.

Obesity rates: Obesity rates among children over the past 30 years more than doubled among children ages 2 to 5, quadrupled among children ages 6 to 11, and more than tripled among adolescents ages 12 to 19.
Costs: It costs an estimated $549,907.3 in health treatments for an obese 18-year-old to remain obese throughout adulthood. That's a nice house (apartment where I live), or a REALLY freaking nice car.
Fast foods and pop: It's no coincidence that the burgeoning of children's waistlines has gone up with fast food and soda consumption - increasing by nearly 300 percent between 1977 and 1996.
TV watching: One quarter of all US children watch 4 or more hours of television each day, as do 43 percent of non-Hispanic blacks. TV watching is strongly correlated to weight.
Fresh produce: A mere 21 % of young people eat the recommended five or more servings of fruits and vegetables each day. Consider that nearly half of children's vegetable consumption comes in the form of fried potatoes!
Type 2 diabetes: Whereas in 1990 only 4% of newly diagnosed childhood diabetes was type 2, by 2001 the proportion was 45% in adolescents in areas with a large population of African-American, Mexican-American, or Native-American children. Also noteworthy, type 2 diabetes in youth is more common in girls than in boys, with one study showing that up to 80 percent of children who develop type 2 diabetes are female.
Sleep problems: The incidence of snoring among obese children was 12.5%, more than two times higher than that of overweight children (5.8 percent), and three times higher than that of normal weight children (4.6 percent). Sleep issues can impact learning.
Cardiovascular disease: In a population-based sample of 5 to 17-year-olds, 70% of obese youth had at least one risk factor for cardiovascular disease.
Menstrual problems: A recent study showed that girls as young as 7 were hitting puberty. Obesity may also contribute to the development of uterine fibroids, or other menstrual irregularities later in life.
Premature death: Obesity, glucose intolerance, and hypertension in childhood were strongly associated with increased rates of premature death from these diseases in this study.

What do you think about these statistics? Surprising, or not surprising? What alarms you the most about the prevalence of childhood obesity?

Image credit: anjsand

Print This Page

Required Reading: The Best Nutrition Books (Diet Blog)
Nutritional Fanaticism II: The Vegan Extreme (Diet Blog)
Meet Greg, 155 Pounds Down! (DailySpark)
Brad Pitt Gives His Kids Coke for Breakfast! (Diets in Review)

43 Comments

Jonna Reyes

My daughter is two years old and her weight is normal. Last year, I wanted to make her big because I like seeing chubby little children. But reading this, I don't think I would want her to be obese. I hope all parents like me will let their children eat healthy foods (and drinks too).

Duane

I'm not surprised. I know there are people, probably some on this blog, who will deny there is a problem, but you only have to walk outside and take a look around to see the truth.

I agree that 2 of the biggest factors are television and fast food/soda consumption. Television has never been more accessible in terms of available channels and childrens content on a 24 hour basis and fast food is out of control with industry growth, not to mention there is a limitless supply of junk food products out there as producers find new ways of delivering sugar and salt.

But another problem as I see it has to do with parents. Today's parents are busier than ever with both usually working full time. This does make it hard to find the time to cook decent meals and be active with their children leading to television, the internet and video games becoming babysitters. This leads to a sedentary lifestyle, something earlier generations of kids never knew.

And let's not forget one other thing, adult obesity is growing and who are they passing their bad habits on to? The kids. I've seen way too many overweight parents and their overweight children. Parents are the biggest influence on a kid's life, if you make bad choices, chances are your kids will too.

AndyG@AnytimeFitness

Duane, you're spot on. One statistic that's missing above is that if both parents are obese, their children have an 80% chance of being obese as well (according to the American Society of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry).

Parents need to be held accountable and set a healthy example.

That's why we launched the Coalition of Angry Kids (COAK) to help parents be better role models for the next generation.

blob

I have one question:

1. What is the cost of someone who is not obese throughout his lifetime?

I've read studies that it is more costly for healthy nonsmokers during their lifetime. While obesity is a problem, and I don't discount the other points, I wonder about and pretty much disagree with the cost of obesity.

This reminds me of the current discussion in our government that measures how many jobs were saved by the stimulus package. It can be measured in so many different ways.

Besides, when have medical costs gone down? I didn't see a big drop in costs when most everyone quit smoking. In fact, they always find an excuse or a way to increase costs. Now the excuse is the impending new health care rules. "Let's raise the rates because we don't really know how this will affect us!"

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Meanwhile we all suffer in the US because our rates are going through the roof, regardless of how fat we are.

Nuff Said. GO MEAT.

Spectra

I'm not obese and I think I save a lot of money. I don't have to be on any prescription meds, I don't have to buy a CPAP machine, I don't need a special bed to accomodate a massive body, I don't spend money on pointless weight loss products that don't work, I get a discount on my health insurance premium because my Health Risk Assessment is great every year...I could go on. The only money I really spend on health care is the money I pay for premiums for insurance. That insurance covers my dental exams, eye exams, contact lenses, physical exam costs, etc.

blob

while this is all true, you will may live longer, thus costing society more in the end. I'm just sayin'.

it's nice to be healthy, and it does improve the quality of life, I just don't buy the cost factors.

Besides, what is driving the cost up is all the testing and diagnostics and such and such. I know it's a belabored point, and one the US fought over for in congress the last year, but it is worth considering.

Same for smokers, they die sooner, are out of the way. If you quit, you live longer, and society pays for it in the end in geriatric health care.

I'd love to see a study on this: obesity vs. geriatric health care. I'll bet we'd all be surprised.

Dan

I have a certificate in Gerontology, and the way I understand is that elderly people are far more expensive on society when they have disabilities. When people take care of themselves, thus preventing disabilities, they are much less of a drain on their children, and they also consume fewer health care dollars. Good diet and exercise habits definitely help people age in a far less costly way. One particular example is strength training- elderly often respond to this very well and it also cuts down on disability rates, by slowing down the loss of muscle mass as people age. The goal for old age should be the "compression of morbidity," that is, a person is very active and contributing to society until they die and very few years are spent being disabled. Good health behaviors can certainly lower the cost of old age. The good news is that people are becoming disabled on the whole at older and older ages.

blob

Exercise is an important factor in good health, no doubt, however it is my understanding that half of all health care costs in a lifetime occur in senior years, especially in the last two years of a person's life.

While the good news is that the elderly are living longer and healthier lives, is it not true that the elderly still suffer age related health issues at end of life which drives up health care costs?

It is easy to put the blame on cost for health care on smokers and the obese, but politically no one wants to put the blame of health care costs on the elderly. God forbid if we have to ration care for our seniors, or charge more.

Bottom line, I believe the longer we live, the more we pay.

Dan

I found this definition of the compression of morbidity on the WEB. "The compression of morbidity hypothesis (1980) posits that people can have both a longer life and a healthier old age. To do so, it is necessary to postpone the onset of morbidity (e.g., disability), through healthy preventive practices, more rapidly than death is postponed." In other words, health practices can shorten the time that persons are disabled. Even as people live longer, the years without disability should also increase, but even faster than actual life expectancy. A person can smoke, or be obese and thus become disabled at an earlier age than someone who did not do these things. They might be disabled lets say from age 55 to age 65 when they finally die. A person who takes care of themselves might become disabled at 92 and die the next year. The person who died younger actually drove up healthcare costs more because they were sick a longer time. To shorten the actual time that someone is disabled could be the way to lower health care costs. Social Security is far easier to fund than Medicare, which shows that it is disability, not old age per se that is expensive. When people are older, they may elect not to have expensive procedures done to keep them alive as a younger person might as well. Therefore, a smoker or obese person might have more heroic, and costly measures done because they are generally younger when they get sick. Bypass operations, for instance, are very expensive. Follow up costs to these operations are very expensive as well. Prostate cancer is one example of something many suggest not be treated that much if a person gets it at an older age, mainly because something else might kill them first.

blob

No doubt exercise plays an important factor in quality of life, but most people don't exercise enough, and that could be why the expense of geriatric care increases as we live longer.

People in general just aren't that motivated, and age does sap desire to excel, and I'm not so convinced that society is adapting well in this tech age.

Good information on compression of morbidity.

Dan

I just thought that what you said about more people getting older can offset the savings from reducing obesity and smoking rates does have validity in terms of Alzheimer's disease (AD). The most important risk factor for this is advancing age, esp. being in the oldest old group of over 85. I found this quote on the WEB.

"Age is the most important known risk factor for AD. The risk of developing the disease doubles every 5 years after age 65. Several studies estimate that up to half of all people older than 85 have AD.'

This goes on to say that the fastest growing age group is the over 85 cohort.

It can be true that preventing illnesses to allow persons to live longer can make other costly and devastating illnesses like Alzheimer's more likely.

However, there are hopes to at least delay the onset of Alzheimer's by 5 years (sort of a compression of morbidity). There is also evidence that physical exercise can help delay it.

I think the way to look at it is that health has many factors. Advancing age is not a positive factor in one's health, but there are also other factors which can counter balance this, such as a strong social support network, exercise and a healthy diet.

There is validity in saying that prevention is not necessarily a magic bullet to save a lot of money.

Katie

The largest component of that cost in the last years of life comes from trying to extend existence--not life--rather than letting a person die a good death. If we actually accepted that we do in fact die, we'd probably give up all that sort of stuff and be able to enjoy the last years of our lives rather than running around from appointment to appointment.

Miranda

You do know that there are people on prescription medication because of chronic illnesses not associated with obesity, right? Being a healthy weight DOES NOT make you immune from various chronic illnesses, nor does it lessen the risk of a majority of them.

You're not "saving money" as much as being lucky you were not born with a chronic illness.

Berzerker

"while this is all true, you will may live longer, thus costing society more in the end. I'm just sayin'."

Where the hell do you get off, little Hitler?

blob

little Hitler? that's a bit strong, isn't it?

Berzerker

Aren't you suggesting old people are a burden because they live longer? That they are "Costing people money"? What is social security then? they've paid their dues. To me, going around practically deciding who deserves to live because they are not "costing people money", is tantamount to being pro-eugenics. All I could think of was Hitler. I'm sorry, I find you creepy.

Duane

He's not wrong really. The longer we live, the more resources we use up. The older you are, the more likely you are to be sicker and in need of care. It's called aging. What we pay into social security isn't nearly what is paid out. Someone has to subsidize it and with an increasing population reaching old age and in need of care, those resources are going to be taxed even more. Nothing is unlimited. He never said we should euthanize old people to save money, he's trying to make a point about health costs.

Berzerker

Are you his spokesperson?

Berzerker

Okay, I've spammed this up enough.

blob

My point in this discussion is that there are contributing costs to health care in all stages of life, and therefore I am only questioning the medical price of obesity, as compared to other groups.

As people may or may not know, I am not in favor of charging obese people more money for health care, when it's possible that they cost less over a lifetime - and there are studies to back that up.

Insurance companies, the government, lobbying groups, and such have a way of distorting the truth to push their agenda.

As I now fit into the category of card carrying AARP qualifier, I am not in favor of doing away with seniors or rationing care, nor do I in fact have any desire to do that to myself or any other group. Have you looked up the definition of eugenics?

I am only reminded of that famous Saturday Night Live skit, something having to do with point, counterpoint.

GO MEAT.

Berzerker

"Have you looked up the definition of eugenics?"
I said Tantamount, love. "Have you looked up the definition of" tantamount?
Although, I do agree with what you are saying in regards to charging people more who are obese. Obesity is a choice; being a lazy fat slob is a choice and I feel is a bigger burden to society since it is preventable. Getting old isn't.
But what do I care, I'm 26: So by your logic you're a burden on me ;)

:):):)

Duane

Wow.....just wow. Some people are incapable of having an intelligent discussion. Hitler? Really?

Berzerker

"Wow.....just wow. Some people are incapable of having an intelligent discussion."
And yet, all you did was type an insult. Wow, what a star you must've been on the debate team.

Duane

It was an observation. You showed your true stripes with the Hitler comment. Godwin's Law. Discussion over.

Berzerker

Next time I'll say Goddard, then?
Sorry, didn't know Hitler was off limits.
And it was just an observation that you were no better than me by replying with an insult. But you're right, discussion over: I don't want to continue in something so stupid and irrelevant. I do that too much in my day-to-day live already ;)

Duane

Agreed...I do the same thing!

Cheers!

Rik

Blob,
I really don't want to be crass but you and ostriches have a lot in common. Bury your head in the sand and you won't have to see the problem or results. Last month I went to the funeral of an 11 year old who died of complications of obesity and diabetes and I work with children all across this nation everyday who suffer from the consequences of
BMI's off the charts (By the way BMI is "Body Mass Index which is "Height to Weight Ratio", and Hip to Waist Ratios that would definitely make you look twice. I work with Pediatricians who have dedicated their adult lives to helping children but can only make suggestions or hand our kids some kind of drug to help. That and spend less than 10 minutes with each child and parent and feel totally helpless.
I can see you don't trust or respect any division of the government but the next time you go to the mall, if you ever go since you sound a little unsociable, take a look at the kids walking around with the 44 oz. "Big Gulp" in one hand and burger and fries in the other and then tell me we aren't in trouble.
The group I work with is dedicated to stopping this problem as we screen kids all across the country then we work with them for eight straight weeks on their nutrition, exercise and habits that have amazing results.
I've been working with the medical industry since 1974 so I am also a member of the AARP group but on my 62nd birthday I made a decision to try and make a difference in our nation's youth and I can't tell you how it has affected my outlook on life. You might do a little reflection in your own life and think of how you will be remembered when your 6 feet under. Blob the skeptic or Blob the guy, I assume your a guy because most women are more nurturing, that used the rest of his life trying to make a difference.

Spectra

I remember that when we were kids, you had maybe two or three "fat kids" in your class. Now, it's like there are at least 8 or 9. I'm pretty sure that it's the junky food kids eat and the total lack of exercise they get that is mainly responsible. As kids, we watched lots of TV, but we had no internet. After an hour or so of cartoons after school, we went outside to play and we'd do homework and read until my parents got home. Plus, we weren't allowed to eat a lot of junk food...if parents would just put their foot down and NOT BUY the stuff, the kids wouldn't eat it. The problem is that a lot of parents are the ones eating the junk--you can't blame a kid for breaking into the ice cream and chips if you buy it for yourself and keep it in the house. It's best to just not buy that stuff, period. No one in the house NEEDS to eat it.

sara

Yeah, and you also walked 5 miles to school in the snow and there was no crime.

Whatever

Duane

That's not called for. Spectra's only stating some common sense facts. I agree totally.

Dan

Spectra's point is valid. However, I certainly found what Sara said extremely funny- it is kind of poking fun at the idea that there were some grand "good old days." When I was ten years old 40 years ago, I don't think that food was any less processed than what it is today- in fact, today, we have a much better selection of natural, whole grain food, such as bread, than we did back then. I was really into Adelle Davis at that time, and she raised a big fuss over processed foods back then. Spectra is right in saying that obesity rates are higher today than 40 years. Sara does have a great sense of humor.

Spectra

If you think my childhood sounds idyllic, my husband's was even more so. He grew up on a 90 acre dairy farm and spent all his free time running around on the farmland, helping make hay, helping with the garden, and eating tons of farm-fresh fruits, veggies, and milk straight from the bulk tank. He was skinny as a rail until he turned 25 and his metabolism finally started catching up to him.

patrickakitchen

Really nice post. Thanks for sharing.

FlattenMyBelly

Great post. Everyone of us should be putting forth effort and making sure our kids are growing with the understanding of how important their health is.

Dan

It seems the statement,

"Obesity is a choice; being a lazy fat slob is a choice and I feel is a bigger burden to society since it is preventable. Getting old isn't."

is a very strong statement to make. Obesity is not completely a choice; genetic factors are constantly being discovered for it, such as the FTO gene. Often these genes can be counterbalanced, such as by lots of exercise, but having these genes in the first place is not a choice either. I believe I have the gene for obesity, since many on both sides of my family of origin are obese, but I keep it at bay by daily bicycling.

Persons in no sense of the word should be stigmatized for getting older. However, just like obesity, advancing age, esp being older than 85 is not a positive factor in health outcomes. Remember that there are other factors that can counterbalance it, but not completely, such as exercise. There is also evidence that the health risks of obesity can also be mitigated by exercise. My constant, daily exercise has enabled me to be at a completely normal and even low weight.

Let us not stigmatize any group, but rather promote good health behaviors, such as regular exercise and a good diet.

Berzerker

Agreed. And before I'm burned at the stake (Or banned from another site) Let me point out my quote stated that I was referring to the people who are "Lazy slob"s; the type that will eat a whole pizza or smoke like a chimney, making no effort whatsoever to exercise or be healthy. No where did I mention genetically obese people, or people with a thyroid/hormonal reason, ect.

(Sorry if this comes up twice, but it said something about the first post being held for moderation and we all know that means it didn't go through.)

Dan

That people should at least make an effort makes a lot of sense. I and others actually debated a person on another blog who accepted obesity so much that this person (the name could be male or female) believed that people shouldn't try to lose weight because it is genetic and therefore they could not win. My view is that even though it has genetic factors, that it can be controlled, though not cured, with effort, such as a lot of exercise. Because of the often grave health consequences associated with obesity, everyone should make an effort to control their weight and be healthy. Do this, even though you might be a burden when you're old. However, healthy behaviors makes disability in old age less likely, or at least often pushes it closer to the time of death. There is no reason at least not to make an effort to lose weight. I struggled for over 20 years and now I seem like I succeeded. I just refused to give up.

Berzerker

"However, healthy behaviors makes disability in old age less likely...There is no reason at least not to make an effort to lose weight. "
Thank you! That is exactly the point I've been trying to get across.

Jim

Genetics have little to do with almost 97% of the population. Life style choices are the most common reasons for poor health outside of people obviously stricken with a disease ie. cancers etc...Most people choose to say they have tried everything....really? How long? My kid will only eat hotdogs and macaroni and cheese? Who gave it to them? Making time to be healthy and prepare ourselves and children to be healthy is an effort. Isn't your child worth it. You should want to feel better for yourself! If you feel better, look better, it carries over into other areas of your life. That you will project to your children. I teach elementary physical education and when I eat with kids at lunch I am usually appauled at wht their parents pack. Then I will ask kids where they like to eat and it is a buffet of some sort? The flag goes up.
Kids need modeling from the people closest to them. We do as we are told and what we see. My dad was morbidly obese and I made a decision not to be that person. It is a choice that has evrything to do with the sort of future we will have and set for our children.

Dan

If you google the FTO gene for obesity, it is said that if people exercise for about an hour a day, it tends to turn this gene off. We do have some control over whether we are overweight or not, but persons with this FTO gene have to do a little more than just change their diet, they have to exercise a lot. I finally got my weight under control by really seriously ramping up the amount of exercise I do. I haven't skipped a day of hard exercise since February. Before I did this, even severely limiting the amount that I ate was not that effective in taking the pounds off. When I was a youngster, being on the swim team would always take the weight off of me, no matter how much I ate. Genetics doesn't make it impossible to lose weight, but just more of a challenge. Getting older makes it a bit more of a challenge, because people tend to lose muscle mass as they get older- this really increases the need for both resistance and strengthening exercises.

SandraThomas

As a parent trying to raise children and also chase the American dream, life can get quite hectic and stressful. So much so that sometimes it's easier to just stop at a fast food restaurant on the way home rather than fix a well balanced home cooked meal using fresh ingredients. The absence of exercise and no active participation has been the major problem.

Lydia Washington

Does ANYONE care for anorexics in this website? I mean, we all talk about how our children should be like Greek statues: flawless. But nobody seems to comprehend that you are just making your children afraid about eating. Blob, I hope you don't have any children.