Yes, even though 44% of 9 year olds consume less than the minimum of 1400 calories a day, still 33% of them were obese.
.”)

QUOTE:

“This study shows these kids were not eating enough,” Trevino said. “And when they did eat, it was all the wrong things.”

News stories like this are where people get the screwy idea that humans possess some kind of super power of defying physics.

While no one can disagree that many obese poor children lack proper nutrition, the calories vs. calories out factor is still in play.

No one asks if the children are under fed (calorically) are the same children that are obese.

Additionally are these calorie surveys self reported? We all know how atrocious people are at self reporting calories, and how parents of obese children are in denial about their little snowflake's eating habits.

Parents in 'obesity denial'

What is your take?

It hardly makes any sense.
Children are supposed to have a higher BMR because they're growing, which means they could eat 2000 calories or perhaps even slightly more and be fun without much exercise.
It seems to me that these parents are grossly underestimating how much they're eating...
Thats usually the case with these self-reports.

I mean, if fat kids really DID have these screwy metabolisms, why do they always lose so much weight when they go to fat camps?

Children should be much smaller than an average adult. A child that is a healthy weight isn't going to burn as many calories as most adults.

Thats not true. Every source I've found says that children have a higher BMR because a lot of that energy goes towards growth. BMR tends to get lower as you age since you stop growing, or you get a lower muscle mass.
This is the same reason pregnant women have a higher BMR; their body has to use more energy for the baby to form.

I don't think you understood what I meant.

A boy who is 9 years old 4'1" and 65 pounds would have a BMR of under 1200 calories.

Kids need fewer calories than adults because they are so small.

Kids do burn more calories for every pound of weight they have, but they have so few pounds that they often need fewer calories then adults.

I think this is how the study was conducted:

QUOTE:

Design

The cross-sectional study conducted in fall 2001 used fasting capillary glucose, body mass index, body fat, step test, and three 24-hour dietary recalls to assess diabetes risk factor levels.

If malnutrition did lead to obesity, then there would be a massive obesity-epidemic in Africa. I think studies that rely on self-reporting what you eat/feed your kids are next to worthless. Not even the best educated segment of society seems to be capable of estimating their calorie-intake correctly, and added to that eating is a very sensitive issue so people aren't likely to be completely truthful either.

The other problem with self reporting isn't only that people under-estimate intake and over-estimate physical activity, but that simply some people won't tell the truth (or complete truth) because they my not want to look bad, or may be embarrassed because they know they aren't keeping their child healthy.

Like when people go to the doctor and twist or miss out things they do in their everyday lives if the doctor asks what could be contributing to a condition.

Heavy smoking becomes 'well i may have one in the evening.....sometimes'.

Things like that.

A101 wrote:

QUOTE:
The other problem with self reporting isn't only that people under-estimate intake and over-estimate physical activity, but that simply some people won't tell the truth (or complete truth) because they my not want to look bad, or may be embarrassed because they know they aren't keeping their child healthy.

Like when people go to the doctor and twist or miss out things they do in their everyday lives if the doctor asks what could be contributing to a condition.

Heavy smoking becomes 'well i may have one in the evening.....sometimes'.

Things like that.

Or "I only have one or two beers here and there" when they can put down a case a night.

QUOTE:

Or "I only have one or two beers here and there" when they can put down a case a night.

Yup, I've heard a doctor who treats alcoholics say that professionals in this field routinely multiply the self-reported intake by three or four. The same rule should probably be applied to foodies as well.

And btw, it's not just the food-portions that keep getting bigger. Unfortunately the guidelines for safe drinking were worked out in the 70s when wine-glasses held no more than ca 12cl, and wines were usually 10%. Nowadays glasses are the size of a vase and hold 30cl or more, and popular wines are 13-14%. People don't necessarily realise that the harmless "one glass of wine" doesn't mean a third of a bottle.

I might be on to something here. We could kill two birds with one stone when it comes to bratty fat teens.

Just send them off to a sweat shop for the summer in Haiti and tell everyone else they are off at a relatives house. I bet they will be thinner and less a pain in the ass when they get back. Good thing my kids are ok or they would be putting barbies together in a thatch hut for summer fun.