The Pica Perspective

Before & After School

Here's the word on two new studies related to childhood overweight and obesity:

An article at Medical News Today reports that childhood obesity is fixed by the age of five. Here's an excerpt:

UK researchers studying childhood diabetes found that childhood obesity is fixed by the age of five and suggested that the government should address more initiatives at children's home environment and not just their school environment.

Professor Terry Wilkin, of the Peninsula Medical School, Plymouth, UK, led the EarlyBird Diabetes study that followed over 200 children from birth. The findings are to be published in the journal Pediatrics.

All children gain weight as they grow from babies, but EarlyBird studied their excess weight. While government and public concern about the development of childhood obesity appears to center around early school-age issues such as school meals, physical education, after-school clubs, time spent in front of the TV, and playing computer games, EarlyBird found that over 90 per cent of the excess weight in girls and over 70 per cent in boys was already there by the time they reached school age.

Compared to children in the 1980s, today's children are more likely to be overweight and most of this excess weight is put on before they start school. This suggests that initiatives to prevent this should be started before school, said Wilkin and colleagues, who studied 233 children from birth to puberty.

The children in the study were similar in weight when they were born compared to their counterparts in the 1980s, but by the time they reached puberty they were fatter and most of the excess weight happened in their first five years of life. Wilkin and colleagues also found that birthweight did not predict weight at five years of age, but a child's weight at five years of age did predict their weight at nine years.

Once the children do get to school, it appears that limiting fatty snacks actually increases consumption of fruits and veggies. Here's an excerpt from U.S. News & World Report:

Restricting the availability of unhealthy snacks in elementary schools led to a small increase in fruit and vegetable consumption among fifth-graders, a new study found.

The roughly 3 percent increase in fruit and vegetable intake among those children in schools that restricted the availability of snacks was still significant, said study co-author Edward A. Frongillo, chairman of the University of South Carolina's department of health promotion, education and behavior.

When school policies limit the availability of high-fat and high-sugar snack foods, even a small percentage increase in fruit and vegetable consumption among fifth-graders means the policy may affect a fairly large number of children throughout the school, Frongillo said.

The findings were published in the January 2009 issue of The Journal of Nutrition.

Motor Skills Matter!

In my presentations for early childhood professionals, I talk about the fact that motor skills must be taught to children just as other skills, like reading and writing, must be taught.

Now, I'm not naive when it comes to the topic of movement in early childhood education. Almost 30 years ago, when I first started in this business, when I mentioned the words children and movement in the same sentence, teachers and child care providers backed away from me as though I were a dentist holding a drill! These days I find they're more aware of the importance of movement -- from both a physical and a cognitive point of view. But they have so many other things to deal with, standards in particular, that they can't imagine why I'm insisting they also have to teach motor skills!

The reason, I tell them, is that a child who is comfortable and confident with his or her motor skills -- who is a competent mover -- is likely to move and to keep moving throughout life.

No need to go into a lecture here about the importance of physical activity in promoting and maintaining fitness; we're all aware of that reality. But now there's evidence that what I've been saying is true: motor skills are the key to children's fitness!

A study published in the December issue of Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise put 276 elementary schoolchildren in New South Wales, Australia, through movement-skill tests. Three were related to object control (kicking, catching, and overhand throwing), and four were focused on locomotor skills (hopping, sliding, vertical jumping, and sprinting). Six years later, 244 students had their cardio-respiratory fitness measured by running timed laps. Boys and girls who had good movement skills ran, on average, six extra laps than those with poor movement skills.

It's not necessary for parents and early childhood professionals to be motor development experts in order to ensure that the children in their care are comfortable and confident with their movement skills. The most important thing they can do is provide their children with the time, space, and opportunity to move. And if a child is performing a skill incorrectly, they should take note and take care to correct it. If they aren't sure how, they can find someone who is!

Tidbits

There's excitement in the air, as President-Elect Obama has pledged $10 billion for early childhood education -- the largest new federal initiative for young children since the Head Start program, a $7 billion federal program serving about 900,000 preschoolers, began in 1965.

For those of you who are mathematically challenged (I had to use a calculator), that's 44 years!

If pay is any indication, we have more regard in this country for parking lot attendants than for early childhood professionals. Perhaps Mr. Obama's focus on early education will create a much-needed paradigm shift.

For the full story on what this means, see the New York Times article, "Obama Pledge Stirs Hope in Early Education."

___________________________

According to a largest-of-its-kind study conducted for the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), A US ban on fast-food advertisements during children’s programming would reduce the number of overweight children (age 3-11) in America by 18%, and would lower the number of overweight adolescents (age 12-18) by 14%.

The study, which was funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and carried out by university economists, measured the number of weekly hours of fast-food advertising messages on American TV viewed by children and found a definitive link between these TV ads and the incidence of childhood obesity.

In addition to proving that fast-food commercials do indeed make children fatter, the research discovered that such ads have a more pronounced effect on males than on females. (I find this fascinating; I hope somebody will look into why that is.)

The study also found that the elimination of tax deductibility tied to advertising would similarly produce declines in childhood obesity, albeit at a smaller rate of five to seven percent. Advertising is considered a business expense and, as such, it can be used to reduce a company’s taxable income, the study said. The authors deduce that, since the corporate income tax rate is 35%, the elimination of the tax deductibility of food advertising costs would be equivalent to increasing the price of advertising by 54%.

Such an action would consequently result in the reduction of fast-food advertising messages by 40% for children, and 33% for adolescents, the authors said.

Though such a ban on fast-food ads would be effective, the authors question whether such a high degree of government involvement - and the costs of implementing such policies - is a practical option.

Sweden, Norway, and Finland have banned commercial sponsorship of children's programs. I have no concept what the "degree of government involvement" and "the costs of implementing such policies" would entail. If it is indeed impractical to expect help from Mr. Obama on this issue, might we perhaps hope that, in light of this research, the children's programs will act voluntarily? (Yeah, right.)

___________________________

In a refreshing change of pace from today's typical push to create superkids, Kristi Yamaguchi indicated in an article in Parade that she doesn't yet know if her daughters, ages three and five, are athletic! “Hard to say when they’re so young,” she said. “But they are well-coordinated. We want them to enjoy a range of things: sports, dance, the arts.” Right on, Kristi!

Getting with the Program

Recently, I was approached by a toy company known for its electronic products. They have a new game coming out that promotes physical activity for preschoolers, and they wanted to know if I'd be interested in consulting for them. So of course they also wanted to know how I felt about electronic toys and games.

My answer? That I am "of a certain age" and am still in the process of accepting the fact that we can't seem to just let the kids out the door to play anymore. It's a brand new world -- one in which kids and electronics go hand-in-hand (pun intended) -- and I'm working to get with the program.

This is indeed a challenging issue for me. My last post was about reconnecting children with nature (it's not the only post I've written on the theme), and in October I blogged about the silliness of a solar-powered, interactive playground system that took three years to create, versus the simplicity of children climbing trees.

I faced a similar issue when asked to consult for a new Canadian television program that would promote physical activity for preschoolers. While not generally in favor of screen time for children, if it meant children would be more physically active, could I really object to it? And if the program were going to be created anyway, didn't I want to make sure it was done in the best possible way? By the same token, if children are going to use electronic devices (and they are, evidently), isn't it best to ensure the devices promote movement and that they do so in developmentally appropriate ways?

Electronically-generated physical activity is the subject of an article this week in The Free Lance-Star, and of an interview I conducted with physical education specialist Steve Sanders, now playing on NAEYC Radio. "Exergaming" is the word used to describe video games that get kids moving.

Seems what it all comes down to is the same thing I promote in so much of my work: balance. I told the people from the toy company that my stance is that, if it's pouring out or under 20-below, if the children are going to turn to videos (or TV programs), they should be ones that promote physical activity. Otherwise, I wanted them outside running around and climbing trees! I was pleased to hear them agree.

Reconnecting Children with Nature

I'm going to save you the time you'd normally take to read this blog today because I want you to watch this short film instead.

Click here to take a look at "Wetlands and Wonder," which is about children's outdoor play with water. It was produced by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and features Joan Almon of the Alliance for Childhood (a BAM! advisory board member) and Richard Louv, author of Last Child in the Woods. Free copies are available from the EPA.

(Thanks to Wendy Z. for calling this to my attention!)

It's a Brave (or shall I say "crazy") New World

Every time I think I've heard or seen it all, along comes another news story that has me shaking my head and wondering what the world has come to. The latest? Genetic testing to determine a child's athletic strengths. To determine which sports best match a child's "talents."

Honestly, this is one of those stories that has caused more than head-shaking; I'm hoping against hope that it can't be true. Alas, as reported in the New York Times, a company in Boulder, Colorado, "is playing into the obsessions of parents by offering a $149 test that aims to predict a child’s natural athletic strengths. The process is simple. Swab inside the child’s cheek and along the gums to collect DNA and return it to a lab for analysis of ACTN3, one gene among more than 20,000 in the human genome."

Parents, of course, are taking advantage of it. One parent quoted in the article -- the mother of a two-and-a-half-year-old -- thinks it's a great idea...to alleviate parental frustration.

I'm sorry, but what about a child's frustration at being pigeonholed at an early age? (This testing is being done on children birth to age 8.) What about the child's right to be a child, which involves discovering for oneself where strengths and weaknesses, likes and dislikes, passions and indifferences lie? What about the fact that there's a lot more than genes involved in sports success and failure? After all, nearly every Sunday during football season I hear commentators discuss some player who was thought to be "too small" or too something to succeed. And there he is, making a name for himself in the NFL.

A policy statement issued by the AAP in July 200 begins: "Children involved in sports should be encouraged to participate in a variety of different activities and develop a wide range of skills. Young athletes who specialize in just one sport may be denied the benefits of varied activity while facing additional physical, physiologic, and psychological demands from intense training and competition."

One of the best and most important parts of being a kid is having the chance to dabble -- to explore and experiment. To discover skills in many areas, so one is both well rounded and blessed with a wide variety of choices in life. After all, how much sense does it make to focus on a single skill to the exclusion of all others? Not only does that make for a rather boring life (remember the expression "Variety is the spice of life?"), but it can also be disastrous should an injury or burnout occur. Besides, even if an individual were to go all the way to the pros, there are very few competitive sports one can play for an entire lifetime. A person needs to know how to do something else!

Early childhood expert David Elkind asserts that when a child specializes too early, other parts of her personality can remain underdeveloped, resulting in something either as simple as an inability to talk about any other subject or as disturbing as some really strange behavior. Other experts point out that the people who have the most trouble adjusting to disappointment in life are those who characterize themselves by only one quality.

Do I feel strongly about the subject of specialization in early childhood? You bet I do...and we haven't even delved into the potential for physical injury and mental burnout.

Childhood is a special time. It's a time to be loved unconditionally -- for everything you are and not just one skill you may possess. It's not a parent's job to raise a baseball player or a black belt in karate. It's a parent's job to raise a well-rounded individual who can make great choices in life!

It Takes a Village to Promote Good Health

Back in May, I blogged about responsibility and childhood obesity. I posed questions about who and what were responsible for the crisis surrounding our children's health and mentioned that there are people who believe obesity and overweight are a personal issue. I cited several possible causes for childhood obesity, many of them adult-related, including parents who fail to set limits on screen time and policy makers who seem intent on eradicating physical activity from the school day.

What I didn't blog about was the positive impact a community can have on the well-being of its members. When I wrote Your Active Child, I told the story of Franklin County in Maine, where they had higher rates of heart disease, diabetes, and high blood pressure than most of the rest of the state. Because the county's residents relied on their cars to get around and the most affordable restaurants served the fattiest food, obesity -- and its resulting health problems -- had become a real concern. But a group of dedicated medical professionals got together and decided things had to change.

They called themselves the Rural Health Associates, and their volunteers took a variety of actions. They tested shoppers' blood pressure and cholesterol at local grocery stores, offering personal nutrition advice while there. They persuaded schools to invite adults to exercise by walking their halls (an especially important victory, as harsh New England winters can keep even the heartiest of souls from exercising outdoors). And they convinced the local university to allow residents to use its gym.

The result was one of the lowest death rates of any Maine county, along with the second lowest percentage of overweight and obese adults. But they didn't stop there. At the time my book was published, the original group had changed its name to the Healthy Community Coalition and together with hospital administrators, businesspeople, politicians, and about 400 locals, they were planning and implementing ideas for healthy living. One of their plans was for Stride into Summer, a community walking program.

This morning I read another, similar success story about community involvement, this one in Somerville, Massachusetts. According to the article, Somerville is "in the vanguard of communities putting environmental and policy changes - rather than exhortations to modify individual behavior - at the center of their fight against obesity." The schools are doing their part, of course; but the city itself has also made major changes, including the creation of bike and pedestrian paths. (This is so refreshing in a country that leans toward being automobile friendly!)

Obviously, in the fight for children's fitness (and our own), there are some things we can't do alone. Creating a plan to walk the neighborhood kids to school is one of them. There are also plenty of other worthy projects for which you'd want to enlist the help of neighbors and community. But all it takes is one person who believes she or he can make a difference, and, before you know it, the power of that belief has others involved. Then watch what happens!

For Somerville, the change began five years ago, when the city "embarked on an ambitious collaboration with Tufts University called Shape Up Somerville to see whether systemic changes that encourage healthy eating and physical activity would help children stave off obesity." I don't know exactly how it started, but you can bet it was with the idea of one committed person!