Tech Smart Kids Pay In Pounds

from the raising-fat-nerds dept

It seems that our children are getting fatter, and now people are blaming our fat (but computer literate) children on the technology. It seems that schools are putting less money and effort towards pysical education classes, while they focus on getting students to do better on standardized exams – and shoving them in front of computers. Or, at least that’s what the article is claiming. It seems to make some assumptions that may not necessarily be true. Clearly, there’s an issue if our children are getting fatter – and it may be because they’re spending too much time in front of television or computers. However, to simply equate the amount of money that goes towards tech education with physical education doesn’t seem like a fair barometer – considering the costs associated with each. In the end, I do think pysical education is very important for kids (along with arts, music, technology, and all the other basic subjects) – but I’m not sure simply blaming the technology alone is the best way to solve the problem. The article pretty much brushes over the fact that many schools now are “catered” by places like Pizza Hut and Taco Bell – which could go a lot further in explaining some childhood obesity problems. It seems that child obesity (and obesity in general in the US) is a more complex problem than something that can simply be stated as “well, everyone sits in front of computers all the time”.

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Tech Smart Kids Pay In Pounds”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

part of the problem

Computers are part of the problem. Sitting down doesn’t burn as much calories as running after a soccer ball. Fast foods are another part of the problem. The biggest problem is the definition of over-weight. Have you seen the guidelines? Check out to see how obese you and your friends are. You couldn’t meet these vanity based numbers without a long term eating disorder or a disease. What happened to kids being kids? Leave ’em alone and let them play.

2Lazy2Register says:

Re: part of the problem

What happened was it became too dangerous to let your kids play unsupervised. Since you can’t just let them roam the neighborhood anymore without fear of molesters and kidnappers, you have to keep them entertained in the house with videos and games. Food pacifies them pretty well too, so there’s the full recipe for a few generations of fatties.

Anonymous Coward says:

No Subject Given

The CDC’s standards are pretty much right on, it’s just the standards of the public-at-large are too generous: It’s not too much to ask a 5’10” man to weight 175 pounds, which is healthy per the CDC standards. Although I wouldn’t blame personal computers for obesity, I would content that there is a correlation between sitting around (regardless of what you’re doing) and getting fat. After I took a desk job, I immediately gained weight, and it’s a struggle for me to stay under 185, but I’m doing it, but it’s because I choose to. Most Americans aren’t ready to deny themselves all the junk food they crave.

Yep, lazy parenting has a lot to do with it, too, so the lazy ass parents blame the school boards for what? Giving their kids what the parents ask for — quick, fatty lunches and more funding for technical skills education.

I agree in general with the story, but I also agree some things should have been more aggreesivly addressed.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: No Subject Given

The CDC standards are right on? On what? Crack? What does weight have to do with fat? I’m glad you chose to use a 5’10” man for conversation sake. I am a 5’10” man. I also lift weights. I’m definitely overweight now but back in my peak I was 9% bodyfat and 200lbs. This qualified me for overweight to bordering on obesity. This make sense to you? If you actually looked at the chart you’d see that 5’10” 175lb man would be overweight. In order to be healthy a 5’10” 175lb man would have to weigh between 139 – 167lbs. Yeah… Lots of science there.

Duffman says:

BMI & self control

I agree partly with the standards comment – BMI isn’t the most accurate measure in the first place. My roommate should be having a heart attack every month according to his BMI (and the first doctor who ordered tests on him because he didn’t believe he was as healthy as he is), but that’s because he’s tall and well built. However, in a pinch, in a general case, it can suffice.

Self control is what is really needed. Hungry? Reach for an apple instead of a bag of chips. Thirsty? A glass of water instead of a Coke. It does take will power, but I’ve managed to get rid of almost all junk food, sweets, and soft drinks (beer’s my downfall now 😉 in the last year or so, and it’s made a difference in my weight. This is what society really needs – a little restraint. You can’t have your cake and eat it too, pardon the pun.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...