It is very easy for those of us who were within that age group 30 ago to see this to be true but it takes someone with the ability to see passed simply stated facts to see why they are. If you are one such person then you will know it goes beyond owning computers, consoles, DVD players, TV etc etc. It goes beyond overprotective parenting. It goes beyond parents being swamped with news about rapists and pedophiles 24/7. All those reasons pale into insignificance and into the realms of the inconsequential when compared to one basic right that successive teachers, councils and governments have taken away from successive generations born throughout the 1980's, 1990's and 2000's. And that is areas that allow children to play, get hurt, recover, play, get hurt, learn from it, recover and play.
I do not believe for one minute they are as the Health Authority and the Government claim they are all bordering on the edge of obesity and that some are 'clinically' obese. Notice how the Health Authority are always careful to say 'clinically' obese?
The use the tag 'clinically' because the methods used to calculate a persons weight (the BMI, Body Mass Index) is flawed and yet they insist on using it. I can give you an example from my own offspring showing why the method is flawed. I have two sons aged 22 and 21. The one aged 21 plays rugby league so as you can imagine he is full of muscle throughout his entire body structure. He is also extremely fit in mind and body. The 22 years old one does not play any sport at all. He likes to drink lots of alcohol, eat tons of crap that they claim is bad for your body and otherwise do as little as possible to get through the day. They are both over 6ft 5inches tall. According the the flawed weight calculator (the BMI) the 21 year old, who remember is very fit, is based on the calculations 'clinically' obese whereas the 22 year old who eats junk food and likes his beer is 'clinically' at a perfect weight for his height. No-one, absolutely no-one can ever convince me the BMI method of calculating weight is correct. It quite simply is bunkum.
It is plain to see that the BMI was put forward as the method to use due to pressure from those with an agenda and that agenda was and is to make money.
So, while there are definitely more 'heavy' children out there today I do not believe there are as many obese, clinically or otherwise, children than there was 30 years ago. As I said there are more lazy kids about nowadays but that is down to how we as a society have deliberately and purposely dismantled what previous generations took for granted and that is the freedom to learn while playing OUTSIDE where it hurts more when one falls, more than kids being actively lazy.
Sure, kids these days eat more frozen foods then those of 30 years ago. More pre-packed food stuffs. More food stuff with added this and added that, the worse type of added this and added that is added flavouring or extract of this or that. Less fruit etc etc and they go outside to play, as only kids can, less and less and if it happensto be raining, oh my dear God NO! You child are NOT playing out in that, you will get wet! Imagine that eh? Rain making you wet. That never used to happen did it? Far less. It is all these things combined with less sport and old fashioned P.E. in schools add in the fact they have games consoles, computers and mobile phones more powerful than main frames used to be back in the old days.
During the 1980's is was a government led thing that removed physical activity from our schools. Sure, the teachers unions can be held accountable too. The whole idea that competitive sport is bad for children is so ludicrous as to be unbelievable that anyone could even think such a thing. The teachers unions almost entirely banned it from our schools during the 1980's which led to a whole generation that had that competitive edge we all should learn missing. Which in turn led to them lacking the urge to get up and go. Their kids, the current crop picked up on their parents lack of energy and combined with a modern lifesyle has ended up with a whole generation being lazy.
But, back to this 'clinically' obese crap. How in the name of all that is good did the BMI pass even the most lax of peer reviews? As I said above. It got through because medical institutions where paid to make it happen. Simple as that.
Here, in very basic wordage, was how the agenda was laid out. It was to be a 30 year plan running from 1970 to 2000, but it has overrun slightly by few years. That overrun will not matter though. In fact it will be a good thing as the longer the cycle takes the more money there is to be made for all concerned.
First over 30 or so years we do everything we possibly can to make sure our children are seen as lazy go-nowhere fat children by paying for laws, central and local, to be passed that ensure our children have nowhere to play. Then we feed them up with as much fattening stuff as we can be seen to get away with then we will bring out the BMI chart to make it look like we care then we,and you medical universities with all the, <cough> donations we will make to you in the name of research, can run all the way to the bank with all the money we will surely make over 30years.
Far fetched? Just think back to 1970 and thereafter.