 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
...according to the report on his height/weight I've just got following him being measured at school. They didn't quite put it like that - however checking the charts, had he been 0.1cm taller he'd have been in the normal range.
Do I need to get him shoes with bigger heels, a Jedward haircut, or get him to hang by his arms with weights on his ankles every night?
The last one. Then he'll be able to pick stuff up without hurting his back.
Wait a couple of weeks and measure again.
Measure him in the morning.
How accurately are they measuring that 1mm makes any difference ?
chop his legs off
fit longer ones
I've a chimney that needs sweeping 😉
Surely you can stretch him a bit?
[img] 
[/img]
Mackem - Member
Measure him in the morning.
True enough. You're at your tallest first thing in the morning, and get shorter throughout the day...
Thicker socks
Who wants to be normal anyway!
Whats wrong with being short? ****g school idiots.
Is growing now an achievement that can be measured in some sort of test?
Another of Gove's genius policies..
Always bargains to be had on small frames.
edit: + think of the weight saving.
Brace yourself for a rejection letter from the Harlem globe trotters (and I volunteer to come frown at his teachers).
hobbit
I have a "fat friend" who insists she is not overweight - just under-tall...
I don't know if all schools do this but our little girl was measured last year and they sent her BMI out as something like 47. Now, forgetting that BMI is a bollox measure anyway, you'd think that if someone is going to use it, they'd at least get it right. They had a foot shorter than she actually is..!
mistakes happen, hardly a big deal...
We had similar with my son when he was a toddler,
Health Visitor: "he's on the negative standard deviation for his height, we're a bit concerned"
Us: "Er... I'm 5'9" and his mother is 4'11"
HV: "but it's still cause for concern, we need to investigate this"
Us: "non of our respective blood relatives going back 2 generations has been over 5'10!"
HV: "er....."
Us: "you do understand genetics?"
HV: "yes of course"
Us: "hmmmm .... You haven't got kids have you?"
HV: "no, but it's not relevant, I'm fully trained and I've been to university"
At follow up appt the next week with his supervisor in attendance resulted in this gem from her,
"Look at the height of the parents! The wee laddie isn't going to be the jolly green giant is he!"
For those who've misunderstood (clearly "They didn't quite put it like that" was far too subtle), I should point out that the letter suggested an issue with his weight, not his height. 😉 Though thanks for all the responses from those who did and didn't understand!
mistakes happen, hardly a big deal...
That's a terrible thing to say about the OP's sub-normal son.
I should point out that the letter suggested an issue with his weight, not his height.
Did they use BMI as a beating stick or not go down that line and hint at it?
Tweet it to the local newspaper as a form of oppression and bullying, trying to force young children on to a diet. That will soon shut them up and give you and your son a good chuckle in the mean time.
If the height difference to hit his target BMI would be so small I suspect they've had a lot of kids to process in one go and not really taken into account the general well being and diet of the children. Just a numbers exercise.
jock-muttley - Member
"Look at the height of the parents! The wee laddie isn't going to be the jolly green giant is he!"
😆
Don't buy him a 29er or any more pies
BMI is just a number exercise. Your kid may be borderine overweight. Now you know whats te problem?
What's to discuss here? They called stick a stick. They have a range of normal height, measured your son and wrote down his height. Would you rather they invented his height just to make him feel better?
I'm waiting for the letter for my 2nd who is in reception. Last time we checked, she was below the 0.3 percentile line, ie 99.7% of children her age are taller than her.
Yup. Similar experience here.
We received a letter saying my Son was "Obese". The measurement was taken by weight vs height. He is averagely tall, but really stocky - and as fit as a butchers dog (loads of muscle and runs [u]everywhere[/u]). They suggested we change his diet.
We eat only organic veg (veg box delivered is cheaper than the supermarket). Chicken and fish 4 times per week and vegetarian the rest. He has never had a McDonalds/Burger King and we make our own pizzas once a month.
One of his class-mates (who is considered normal) is really, really skinny. We are friends with his parents and know his mother will not allow anything remotely fatty in their diet. When he comes to dinner at ours, he eats like he's not seen food for a week!
My Son's is a happy, healthy, fit young lad. We threw the letter in the bin.
This is not school directed, it is part of government statistic gathering
How old are these kids they're checking?
My son got one, he's in reception. He's apparently "overweight" as his BMI is on 90th percentile. He is very short for his age, but you wouldn't look at him and say he is fat or even chubby. I threw it in the bin. Funny thing is I was worried a year ago he was a bit chubby but it's all gone now!
I also saw a piccie of me about the same age, I would definitely have got one too, as I looked quite stocky. I am a normal weight now and have weighed almost the same since age 18.
You don't get a letter if they are just short!
The funny thing is I googled it, and there was daily mail article with a picture of a normal looking girl who had got one of these letters. Her mum was up in arms, apparently the girl was distraught and refusing to eat. The mum was adamant she was not fat. Well why not throw the letter in the bin, not tell your daughter (the children are not told at school or anything) and NOT CALL THE DAILY MAIL.
[quote=puppypower ]Well why not throw the letter in the bin, not tell your daughter (the children are not told at school or anything) and NOT CALL THE DAILY MAIL.
Or you could just start a silly thread on STW. TBH mrs aracer took it far too seriously in looking up the BMI chart to find out how overweight he is.
Haha, it's hardly the equivalent of having your daughter in a bikini aged 5 pictured in the daily fail though is it?
I looked it up to and my son also only needed to be a teeny bit taller or lighter to have been classified "normal".
My Son's is a happy, healthy, fit young lad. We threw the letter in the bin.
good work, many many people are not as sensible as you and need to be told.
My 2yo niece is tiny, always has been, but otherwise completely normal in appearance and behaviour. The parents aren't short but there are some very petite people on both sides including her older brother.
When she was a baby she had no end of hassle from paediatricians, even trying to get her mum to stop breast feeding her (3rd bf kid). After a couple of years they decided she was on after all 🙄
Our kids came with instruction manuals that have the height and weight centile charts in them....a high resolution one for the 1st 3 years I think, then a coarser one that takes them through teenage years. I thought everyone got them, maybe just in Scotland then...
Shoot him and start again. But try harder next time.
gwaelod: yeah we got the instruction manuals too (north England).
Though they are not exactly Haynes are they? Distinctly lacking in servicing instructions or basic fault finding.
We got those too Gwaelod. It was fun working out how far off the top of the chart our first was 🙂 I reckon at one point she was 99.999th percentile.
Never got any grief from the HVs about it though.
molgrips first born:
[img] 
[/img]
[i]Our kids came with instruction manuals that have the height and weight centile charts in them....a high resolution one for the 1st 3 years I think, then a coarser one that takes them through teenage years. I thought everyone got them, maybe just in Scotland then...[/i]
Are these for those kids that are on their own all the time and never mix with other children? Makes it hard to compare then I spose.
Are these for those kids that are on their own all the time and never mix with other children?
Isn't it a standard section in the (red?) book they give you that records baby health, immunisations, oil levels, mileage, etc
We certainly had a similar chart in Spain, a series of bands showing normal height vs. age. I assumed the idea was to ensure children that were outside the range were detected early enough to do something about it - if of course anything actually needs to be done.
Comparing to other kids will fail in a lot of cases: my wife works with mentally disabled kids, and the amount of parents that don't accept their kid has a problem is incredible. I assume the same would happen with weight and height.
We got those charts too; our two were always in the top 10% for height and on the middle line for weight.
Our ten-year-old is currently wearing adult size 6 clothes and we have to buy the eight-year-old age 11-to-12 clothes. They're in size 7 and 4 shoes, too 🙂
Thankfully, the eldest is an August birthday so she's only the tallest in year 6. If she was 4 weeks younger, she'd the the Giant Freak Girl in year 5.
There's definitely something off about those sizing charts - our daughter was also way off the top of the chart for ages, though now she's not noticeably taller than anyone else in her nursery group. Are they using ancient charts from when every kid had rickets or something?
Clothes sizing is the same - in UK kids sizes she's ages 5-6 often, in Scandinavian she's ages 3-4 which is spot on.
Are they using ancient charts from when every kid had rickets or something?
The current crop of kids are hugely tall.
When I was at 6th form, most my friends were about my height, 5'11". We had one tall friend, who is about 6'4" and was noticeably taller than pretty much anyone else.
I teach at the same place now, 20 years later, and have loads of students who are way, way taller than me. My record last year was 6'7", and I'm sure he's grown a bit over the summer.
My lad was below what was deemed normal for his age etc said doctor. 'Does he look unhealthy/neglected/ill?' says I. 'No' replies doctor, he looks fine. Cue letter from docs saying that because of this the health visitor would be coming. They came, talked rubbish for 30 mins and left happy. Fast forward a year or so and he's right at the top centile says the doctor. 'Does he look unhealthy/fat/ill?' says I. 'No' replies doctor, he looks fine. Cue letter from docs saying that because of this the health visitor would be coming. They came, talked rubbish for 30 mins and left happy. Heaven forbid anyone would not quite fit the mild. Still, keeps someone in a job.
He's recently turned 4 but easily fits size 5 clothes.
I wonder if those who are moaning about the state taking an interest in their (thankfully healthy and happy) children, are the same who would criticise the state about not 'spotting' Victoria Climbiae and Baby-P as being neglected children....?
The growth charts and red books are a very useful 'screening tool' to try to identify neglect and ill health. Just because your child is simply short or big and isn't a case for worry, it doesn't mean the energy and effort put into the programme is pointless.....!
DrP
What he said. The HVs are not coming to criticise you for having differently sized kids. They are coming to check you are looking after them. They talk rubbish to give themselves an excuse to observe the kids for a bit.
If Aracer gets a visit from this health visitor, then it's time to start worrying:
[img] 
[/img]
Does the school know what percentile your kid started out on, and has been following during early life? If it doesn't, how the hell does it know what his 'normal range' should be?
And considering he's probably grown a millimetre in the time it took them to write the letter, it all seems a bit strange.
DrP, I have to confess to being somewhat flippant with my comments. And I'd probably edit them if I could. It just struck me as odd that the dr said it was not an issue only for them to still send the health visitor round. I have no issue with the state taking an interest. My wife is a social worker. Until recently a frontline childcare social worker. So it would be a bit hypocritical of me.
Mogrim - the term you're looking for is "kids with learning difficulties". I know that probably comes across as a bit overly pc, but as the parent of a little lad with global developmental delay (amongst various other problems) I find the term "mentally disabled" a bit shit, to be honest. And as far as not accepting their child has problems, in my experience it's more about not wanting to accept the reality that your child will be unlikely to live a "normal" or independent life. And finally, comparing that to being concerned about a child's height and weight is, frankly, ****ing stupid.
No need to worry obviously.... Just remind the school that your son is just short for his height 🙂 I do like a good norfolkism 🙂
Does the school know what percentile your kid started out on, and has been following during early life? If it doesn't, how the hell does it know what his 'normal range' should be?
The schools don't take the measurements or send the letters, it's the health service.
[quote=DrP ]I wonder if those who are moaning about the state taking an interest in their (thankfully healthy and happy) children, are the same who would criticise the state about not 'spotting' Victoria Climbiae and Baby-P as being neglected children....?
I don't think that was aimed at me, but just in case I'll point out again that this was a flippant thread - was quite amused to get the letter, and even more so when I found how far outside the "normal" range he is.
We do have the red books, but I stopped paying attention to those ages ago.
The schools don't take the measurements or send the letters, it's the health service.
Can't imagine they've got access to any relevant data either, so just a standard letter for anyone who crosses the arbitrary 'normal' line.
Is growing now an achievement that can be measured in some sort of test?
Just in case you didn't know it, taller people are more successful. Proven. So think of it as a test in life 😉
Can't imagine they've got access to any relevant data either, so just a standard letter for anyone who crosses the arbitrary 'normal' line.
Obesity (and neglect) is a big* issue which is costing the NHS a lot of money. It seems like spotting people early, and giving their parents a heads-up might make sense.
The line may seem arbitrary but it's presumably based on medical research and not just a made up figure.
I was slightly surprised when my eldest didn't get a letter, and I was all ready to get righteously indignant about it. She fits the classic incorrectly-labelled "the England rugby squad would be obese based on BMI" mould by being tall for her age, 'developing' early, strong and athletic, does Judo - we've always joked she must have dense bones because she's heavy, but in no way fat. But she didn't get the letter, so I guess the arbitrary line must have some people on the correct side.
*no pun intended
Mogrim - the term you're looking for is "kids with learning difficulties". I know that probably comes across as a bit overly pc, but as the parent of a little lad with global developmental delay (amongst various other problems) I find the term "mentally disabled" a bit shit, to be honest.
I'm sorry to hear about your lad, but I have to disagree with you, at least in the cases I was referring to. These aren't kids who need a bit of extra help: they're severely affected. The smartest kids in my wife's school are the ones with Downs; the most affected don't even respond to external stimuli.
And finally, comparing that to being concerned about a child's height and weight is, frankly, **** stupid.
Not really - and again I appreciate that this cuts a bit close to the bone for you - my point still stands. Some parents refuse to see that their kid has a problem, and need to be told. Nothing like as serious, obviously, but still a potential problem which might need help.
The line may seem arbitrary but it's presumably based on medical research and not just a made up figure.
You'd be surprised how little decent research there is into this area. It's expensive and difficult to follow large cohorts of children to see how their BMI at seven translates to obesity in their mid 30s.
BMI in itself is a flawed health indicator in many adults, let alone children. There may be some value in terms of predicting adult obesity risk for kids in the top 15% at 8 or 9, but even that is not certain. I would have thought that the relationship between low BMI and neglect is even more tenuous and lacking evidence except at the very extreme percentiles, and only if you see evidence of someone dropping off the curve rather than simply being in the bottom 10% at one point.
Okay then - as far as a child's weight is concerned (and I presume we're talking about childhood obesity here) then of course, there are steps which can be taken to address it. Height, well, not so much. As far as learning difficulties are concerned, every child is different, and you often have to work in some pretty confined parameters. Coming to terms with what your child may or may not be able to achieve is, to be honest, ****ing heartbreaking, and is what I was referring to in my previous post. It's not about not accepting there is a problem, it's more about not wanting to accept there is a problem. A subtle difference perhaps, but for me and Joshuas' mum, it took a long time, and a lot of tears, to come to terms with things. I know there are one or two members of this forum who have kids with varying abilities, and I'm pretty sure they'd understand what I'm trying to say, but unless you've been there yourself, you honestly have no idea.
I wonder if those who are moaning about the state taking an interest in their (thankfully healthy and happy) children, are the same who would criticise the state about not 'spotting' Victoria Climbiae and Baby-P as being neglected children....?
The growth charts and red books are a very useful 'screening tool' to try to identify neglect and ill health. Just because your child is simply short or big and isn't a case for worry, it doesn't mean the energy and effort put into the programme is pointless.....!
DrP, I don't think anyone has a problem 'in principle' with this type of monitoring, but I must admit that your choice of cases doesn't actually support it, as both these cases cite massive failing in this type of monitoring. Further to this, in both of these cases the children were absent from school so would not have been measured or monitored in this way.
I agree that monitoring is useful but to use BMI is not; BMI is a measure used for population studies, trends and patterns of growth; it shouldn't be used for individual measure or diagnosis. Individually, children grow at massively different speeds, meaning that when BMI is used to state "Your child is overweight" (which is what our letter stated, verbatim), this is wrong. Our girl is the oldest and tallest in her year; she is a stick insect, and putting aside the fact that the health visitors got her measurements totally wrong, she is still obese according to BMI. Our little boy has CAH, meaning he has grown far too quickly, and is literally off the charts for his age. At age 4 1/2 he had the bone development of a 10 year old, with almost the height associated with the development. His BMI came back as obese.
Now, consider this alongside monitoring; it will be recorded somewhere that both our children are obese. Taken in isolation - because that's how a lot of this is taken given the BIG problem of information sharing between the varying government agencies and departments - someone may well will be saying we are neglectful parents and flagging us for further investigation. The thing is though, we wouldn't know because despite me writing to the health visitors in reply to the letter about our 'obese' girl (simply pointing out a measurement error and providing the correct height for their records), the only reply I got was a rather indignantly worded generic looking letter extolling the virtues of BMI, without a word said about the error.
It will probably please some that it all went in the bin.
it shouldn't be used for individual measure or diagnosis
Well it's not, is it? No action has been taken, just a possible further visit? I don't see a problem with using it as a first level screen.
it will be recorded somewhere that both our children are obese. ..... someone may well will be saying we are neglectful parents and flagging us for further investigation.
Isn't that just conjecture without evidence? You're complaning and criticising the system for doing something it hasn't actually done?
Well it's not, is it? No action has been taken, just a possible further visit? I don't see a problem with using it as a first level screen.
Well it is isn't it? If it is used as a first level screen that causes any further action then I would argue it is. If my child is deemed obese, it is my wife and I who receive a letter suggesting our child is obese - the general population doesn't; I suggest this is quite individual. That their measurements were inaccurate also gives rise to questions over its use; are we a one off or were other children incorrectly measured?
The other issue is the efficacy of this measure; it was designed as a sociology tool for measurement of a population Not a medical measure for individuals. It has only recently been utilised in this manner. When utilised in this way it takes no account of body make-up (lean body mass v fat percentage). Whilst is is fairly useful and correlates well with body fat percentage within the narrow confines of a certain population or demographic, it is pretty much inaccurate at predicting this over a general population. It's long time since I've worked in this area, and can't recall the exact reasons but it is particularly inaccurate when measuring tall or short people too (skeletal/frame size springs to mind).
Isn't that just conjecture without evidence? You're complaning and criticising the system for doing something it hasn't actually done?
Am I? To turn that around, how do you know it hasn't?
"Look at the height of the parents! The wee laddie isn't going to be the jolly green giant is he!"
I'm 5'9" and Wifey's 5'8". Our 12 year old son is now 5'11 with size 12 feet. Brain of a Spaniel, body of a Great Dane.
It is easy to whinge and I can see the arguments on both sides but what is the solution to initially screen for childhood obesity? Skin fold measurements and hydrostatic weighing for every child? BMI isn't the gold standard by an means in determining obesity but it is a fair attempt at first screening for further investigations.
Am I?
Do you have any evidence?
To turn that around, how do you know it hasn't?
I don't. But without evidence you don't know that it has. But you still seem to be complaining about it..? It's as if you are building up this thing in your mind that doens't exist.
Is there an official register of obese kids? Are people placed on it soley because of their BMI? Is it damaging to be on it? Is it publically available or something? I may be missing something.
It is easy to whinge and I can see the arguments on both sides but what is the solution to initially screen for childhood obesity? Skin fold measurements and hydrostatic weighing for every child? BMI isn't the gold standard by an means in determining obesity but it is a fair attempt at first screening for further investigations.
BMI is actually a pretty good indicator of healthy weight for individuals. Generally, people who point out that the pro rugby players would be obese based on BMI [i]don't[/i] look like pro rugby players.
Is there an official register of obese kids? Are people placed on it soley because of their BMI? Is it damaging to be on it? Is it publically available or something? I may be missing something.
I can see how getting a "your kid's a fatty" letter could have a damaging impact on the child. I suppose the issue is whether the overall benefit outweighs the negative impact, and the way in which it's dealt, plus what supporting information is sent to parents alongside the letter.
I can see how getting a "your kid's a fatty" letter could have a damaging impact on the child.
If the letter actually suggested your kid was a fatty, that could have significant implications. Does it though?
I've not seen a letter, but I suspect that's not the exact wording used. It's how many will read it though, and it's ultimately what's meant by "your child's BMI is too high*".
*unless your child looks like Jonny Wilkinson
I can see how getting a "your kid's a fatty" letter could have a damaging impact on the child
I suppose that depends whether you show it to the child (and whether at the age of 4/5 they're able to read it)! I doubt it will have much damaging impact on ours when he's not even aware of it's existence.
FWIW I think it said he is overweight, not sure of the exact wording, don't think we still have the letter.
...and just in case anybody was interested in my serious opinion, I do reckon this programme is a good idea in general and reckon people who get the letters for kids who don't have a problem should chill a little.