Talk:Childhood obesity

Nulliparity and nulligravitity

from reading the parity (medical) and gravidity articles, i can only imagine that the chart in this article is saying that you won't get laid. teh fux? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.220.50.68 (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Classification of childhood obesity

There are multiple classifications for childhood obesity. The IOTF-s cut-offs are increasingly used in Europe, might mention them as well here. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10797032 . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnusf (talk • contribs) 23:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I

I think the correct medical term is "Pediatric obesity." Rklawton 06:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That is another term, but in the United States news media it is called Childhood Obesity.

I think that calling something by a more "PC" term just helps to make it seem less important than it really is. Kids that are obese shouldn't be given a medical term that makes them feel as though something is 'medically' wrong with them. This then suggests that only a doctor can fix the problem, when in fact anyone can help an overweight child regain their proportions without drugs or surgeries! I like the information here[1] as it relates real world strategies that can help combat the problems obese children face.--Wolfgangburns (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please find me some citations?

Can someone find me some citations please? it should be pretty easy. My sincere apologies for not taking time to do it, but I am leaving for a long vacation right now so I currently do not have time. If you cannot find any I will do it when I re

TV?

Was I the only kid who ran around like a maniac while the TV was on? I had to constantly act out fun violent battles and stuff. Really anything where deep focus wasn't required tended to make me go nuts physically.

two things

there was a tv show where a dietician comes to parents houses and does age transitions on the kids to show what theyll be like in 30 years then helps fix it and i was trying to remeber what it was called. also would pictures underweight or skinny children help this?♠♦Д narchistPig♥♣ (talk) 01:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Honey, We're Killing the Kids, and no. CoolKid1993 (talk) 04:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with Wikipedia?

In another article, it's stated that eating healthy foods can kill a person by means of starvation. I've tried to flag this as needing some sort of verification and context, to no avail. Here, we have a "dubious" tag on the statement that skipping meals can lead to obesity. If you ask 100 nutritionists, 99 will agree with that statement, and they'll list the same causal reasons. Skipping a meal is bad for the metabolism, triggers a response to starvation from the body. We're not taking in much food, so we'd better store what we do get!

I'm all for improving Wikipedia articles. I'm all for public knowledge. But I see a lot of red tape standing in the way of both these goals. When we start the glacial process of removing accurate information, and apply sloppier standards to falsehoods ... it's not a good situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.138.32.33 (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Behavioral factors

Can anybody tell me how sadness and anxiety are behavioral factors? In fact, there's nothing in the entire section that's a true behavioral factor, while it comes immediately before psychological factors - a section where this entire text belongs!

If the answer is no, I'll move or remove the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.138.32.33 (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed and fixed. Doc James (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Pictures with fuzzy faces.

I do not like pictures with fuzzy faces. It makes me wonder what they are hiding. I do not know what more then one picture of a fat child offers to the discussion of obesity.

Doc James (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well it's us attempting (poorly I would say) to hide their identity - I thought this was quite obvious. But I do agree the article was not improved by them and I support your removal. -- SiobhanHansa 00:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the pictures are of the people who put them up. Blurring the faces is either respect, or to avoid legal action, I could be wrong though, all I know is I would not want to be shown on A page talking about fat people-Omeganed0. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.240.237.93 (talk) 06:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

They do not add anything to the article. We all know what an overweight child looks like so more then one picture is not needed.--Doc James (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with removal. --Scray (talk) 08:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why this subject doesn't deserve an illustration. We all know what pinguins look like, doesn't mean we shouldn't have a picture. I never liked the illustration in the lead; "These children vary in their proportion of body fat" with a picture of an obese child in which none of the other children are clearly visible. The obese male in the obesity article is a lot more straightforward and honest. On the other hand, the fuzzy faces do make them look a bit like criminals. I suggest we look for better pictures. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes a better picture which gives weights and heights as well as BMI and percentiles would be better. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The closest to something better I found was Image:Summer fountain children body composition.jpg, but that's more of the same. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"I don't like it" is not grounds for removal. Google "Childhood Obesity" and you'll find that the image in question is one of the top images returned. Per the "penguin" argument, there is no reason not to include illustrations in this article. The image in question clearly illustrates one of the subjects discussed in the article - diet and childhood obesity. If you want to remove it, you'll need a better reason. Rklawton (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Semi Protected

This page has been getting lots of vandalism. Therefore have semi protected the page similar to the one on Obesity --Doc James (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

obesity and growth

What about children who are fat but become skinny with height growth? YVNP (talk) 07:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Often times children will loss body fat when they become more physically active.(kcwshumKcwshum (talk) 01:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC))

Hearty eating vs. Healthy eating.

This is just sad.What happened to children eating apples on a hot summer's day?Now it's triple cheeseburgers on a regular basis.Mass-marketing sucks.why?It's the whole cause of this epidemic!Shame.β —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.199.70 (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Totally wrong redirection

I was researching a question related to facial fat AKA (vulgo) "baby fat". It is a popular, "un-scientific" expression, but one used very often, even by physicians themselves - often enough, I believe, to deserve its own entry, however brief.

But the main point of this writing is to point out that "baby fat" has nothing whatsoever to do with obesity. It alludes to layers of subcutaneous fat - and we all have that, it's an organic, perfectly natural (and desirable) part of the human anatomy.

So what is a person who is looking for "baby fat" supposed to do, after coming here, having been redirected to the entry about "childhood obesity"?

Search for "subcutaneous fat"? I'll do just that; but I wonder how many of those looking for the same subject would think of such a search term... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.60.108 (talk) 04:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Baby Fat is natural, but when combined with too much food-obtained fat caught later in life, it is usually more diffucult to get rid of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.199.70 (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Image

Is there a way to remove the image in this article without messing up the infobox? I don't think it's appropriate to use a candid photo of a grade schooler to illustrate an article on obesity. Zagalejo^^^ 19:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Never mind; I figured out what I was doing wrong. But if anyone opposes to the removal of the image, speak up. Zagalejo^^^ 19:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

We used to have a number of photos. I think one is fine but more than one is not.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Is that image really necessary, though? It seems somewhat mean-spirited. I know we can't see her face, but someone might still recognize her. Zagalejo^^^ 22:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Obesity is a common medical problem. We in the west anyway are now having trouble identifying what is overweight and what is obese. Many people consider that you have to be a lot heavier than is actually the case before you start getting negative health problems. Also not showing images is not going to decrease the stigma associated with obesity. I have removed that image from the main obesity page but think it still belongs here. If you look at the page from 1 year ago you will find that we had about 6 images of overweight / obese kids. I removed 5 of them.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

spelling

im confused i thought it was spelt brazil, but under the Epidemiology section its spelt with an s, should this be corrected or am i just wrong?

Please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English. Walter Siegmund (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It is spelt Brasil in Brazil, however it is important to continue to corrupt the English language so that letters no longer make definite sounds and no spellings ever make sense.

It can be spelled both ways. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

statistical problems

The article needs re-reading by someone who knows more about statistics, because frequently causes are suggested in the article when all you have is a correlation. For example, if children who are breast fed become obese less often this does *not* prove that breast feeding protects children from obesity. There are many other possible explanations. For example, perhaps mothers who breast feed have more time to spare to spend with their children; if you spend more time with your children they grow up feeling more sure of themselves and don't feel a need to eat too much comfort food. This is one example - there are a dozen in the article as it stands... Johncmullen1960 (talk) 06:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Coincidentally I have a degree in statistical analysis and I can tell you that even though your point is technically correct, if the sources are proper the math to take care of such has already been handled. Furthermore wikipedia has a no original research policy and any weaselwords or mantras such as "correlationisnotcausation" should be removed. Furthermore, what you are looking for, that is "strict logical proof" does not exist outside the world of mathematics. Lyml (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It is taken for granted that people assume this. This is the world of medicine. This is the evidence we have. Not always great but...Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge of Childhood inactivity and obesity

• Propose merging the above in here. The article has problems, and if there is anything rescuable in it this seems to me to be where it belongs. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support; I discern no reason to have separate articles. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support Yes merge please.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support One article is a subset of the other, and neither are overly long. Rklawton (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Lancet review on childhood obesity

Just out today [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

less than 3 meals a week? - what is the defintion of meal?

I read the article about child obesity and a series of differences have been noted in relationship to number of 'meals', but meal is not defined. In my sense of the word a child that eats less than three meals a week, will starve to death before long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.166.2 (talk) 08:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have the article? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Really depends more on caloric consumption and not number of meals. It's generally considered normal to eat 2 to 3 meals a day. Theoretically one could be normal, underweight, or overweight eating just the one (nutritionists and dietitians usually advocate spreading the calories you consume in a day around more both to manage hunger and keep metabolism stable; but studies consistently show the number of calories you consume in a day affects the body pretty much the same regardless of when you actually consume them). 76.25.139.167 (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge

• I agree that we should merge Childhood inactivity and obesity in the United States into this article.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support! Lova Falk talk 06:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Images

Having an image of more than one obese child adds little to the page. Thus I have removed the second image. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This "standard" of yours would be unique to this article. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having more than one image in an article - especially one that illustrates a particular section. You've already expressed your opinion that you don't like images in this article - and the "I don't like it" approach isn't how we do things on Wikipedia. The image is topical, appropriate, has passed review, and even ranks highly in Google under "Childhood obesity". Your one-image-per-article standard simply doesn't fly. Rklawton (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No one is saying that we should not have more than one image but more than one image of an obese child adds little of encyclopedic value. This has been discussed before. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

As per the above discussion three of us felt 1 image was sufficient, one person felt more images would be good, one though no images would be good. The one image is a compromise. Please get consensus before adding more as per Wikipedia standards. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, now it's 3 to 2 which is "no consensus" - and if we consider that each editor who added a 2nd, 3rd, 4th (etc) picture obviously believed that the article benefited from more rather than fewer pictures, it's clear the majority of editors believe the article benefits from more than one. Rklawton (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent review article

A recent free review was published in JFP [3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

wrong

in the first sentence it mentions someones name and i don't think that's appropriate at all. it says that childhood obesity is something that [name removed Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)] suffers. can that be removed please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.111.182.194 (talk) 18:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Obvious vanadalism. You see such, feel free to remove it or just go to the history to revert it. Easy enough to do yourself if you see such. 76.25.139.167 (talk) 03:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Historical image

Here (First issue of the "Revue Photographique des Hopitaux de Paris"; the first medical journal including photos) , in page 29 (20 of the original journal) is probably the first depiction in a medical journal of child obesity with a photograph: 1869. It may merit inclusion if a history section is created.--Garrondo (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

School and education?

Does anyone have a relevant source on how the education system influences weight in children? I remember a TV report (in Germany) about obesity in children. They said, the numbers "jump up" at the age of 6 (when children start school) and they increase again significantly at the age of 10 or 11 (when they enter secondary education). This makes total sense to me, six year old children that want to play around all day are suddenly forced to sit down for many hours a day. // Christian K. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.52.133.197 (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

some side-effects of orlistat and sibutramine

Side-effects of orlistat are oily stool, faecal incontinence, abdominal pain, and new cholelithiasis. And side-effects of sibutramine are tachycardia, constipation, dizziness, dry mouth, insomnia, and hypertension. Therefore, although orlistat and sibutramine have effects on childhood obesity when uses with lifestyle intervention, treatment with these drugs is related to more adverse effects than is lifestyle intervention alone. ZPMengdi (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Epidemiology

Epidemiology in Australia

I have a few issues with the following text:

Since the onset of the 21st Century, Australia has found that childhood obesity has followed trend with the United States. Information garnered has concluded that the increase has occurred in the lower socioeconomic areas where poor nutritional education has been blamed.

Prior to 2000, Australia childhood obesity rates had followed a similar trend with the United States of America. Since 2000, the childhood rates have not had any statistically significant increase but have plateaued. Obesity may have once been more common among the wealthy with the poor being underfed. The current highest socioeconomic rate is lower than the rest but only by a small percentage . Can someone please verify the 2nd line with a good reference because it seems a bit of a guess ? --tygrus (talk) 03:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Two reviews

• Waters E, de Silva-Sanigorski A, Hall BJ, et al. (2011). "Interventions for preventing obesity in children". Cochrane Database Syst Rev (12): CD001871. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001871.pub3. 

• Oude Luttikhuis H, Baur L, Jansen H, et al. (2009). "Interventions for treating obesity in children". Cochrane Database Syst Rev (1): CD001872. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001872.pub2. PMID 19160202.  Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 December 2011

Please change:

Epidemiology

Prevalence of overweight among children 2 to 19 years in the USA.

Rates of childhood obesity have increased greatly between 1980 and 2010. Currently 10% of children worldwide are either overweight or obese.

Brazil

The rate of overweight and obesity in Brazilian children increased from 4% in the 1980s to 14% in the 1990s.

United States

The rate of obesity among children and adolescents in the United States has nearly tripled between the early 1980s and 2000. It has however not changed significantly between 2000 and 2006 with the most recent statistics showing a level just over 17 percent. In 2008, the rate of overweight and obese children in the United States was 32%, and had stopped climbing. In 2011, a national cohort study of infants and toddlers found that nearly one-third of US children were overweight or obese at 9 months and 2 years old.

Australia

Since the onset of the 21st Century, Australia has found that childhood obesity has followed trend with the United States. Information garnered has concluded that the increase has occurred in the lower socioeconomic areas where poor nutritional education has been blamed.

It should be deleted and add.

Epidemiology

Development of Standardized Tools for Monitoring Growth in Children Defining parameters for childhood obesity has risen a lot of public awareness over the past decades. Stuart/Meredith Growth Charts were among the earliest growth charts widely used in the United States but were limited by not being representative of the entire US pediatric population. Consequently, the need to develop growth charts that would encompass the ethnic, genetic, socioeconomic, environmental, and geographic diversity in the United States began in the 1970s. In 1977, new growth charts were developed by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) based on data collected by the National Health Examination Surveys. Further development of these growth charts occurred as more comprehensive national data on body measurements in U.S. children became available. The 2000 CDC growth charts, a revised version of the 1977 NCHS growth charts, are the current standard tool for health care providers and offer 16 charts (8 for boys and 8 for girls), of which, BMI-for-age is a commonly used for aiding in the diagnoses of childhood obesity. In 2004, the World Health Organization began planning new growth chart references that could be used in all countries based on the WHO Multicentre Growth Reference Study (MGRS) (1997-2003). The MGRS was a multi-faceted study which gathered data from 8,500 children from widely differing ethnic backgrounds and cultural settings. The MGRS focused on describing growth pattern of children whom followed recommended health practices and behaviors associated with healthy outcomes. Upon recollection of data from MGRS, in 2007, the World Health Organization (WHO) launched gender specific height-for-age and BMI-for-age charts for 5 to 19 year olds (upper limit of adolescence as defined by WHO). BMI-for-age, along with height-for-age, are the WHO recommended charts for assessing thinness, overweight, and obesity in school-aged children and adolescents.

Defining Childhood Obesity According to both the WHO and CDC, BMI growth charts for children and teens are sensitive to both age-and sex-specific groups, justified by the differences in body fat between sexes and among different age groups. The CDC BMI-for-age growth charts use age-and-gender specific percentiles to define where the child or teenagers stands as compared to the population standard to define overweight and obese categories. For the CDC, a BMI greater than the 85th percentile but less than the 95th percentile is considered overweight, and a BMI of greater than or equal to the 95th percentile is considered obese. WHO parameters for BMI-for-age parameters are defined by standard deviations and describe overweight to be greater than +1standard deviation from the mean (equivalent to BMI=25kg/m2 at 19 years) and obese as +2 standard deviations from the mean for 5-19 year olds (equivalent to BMI=30kg/m2 at 19 years).

Prevalence of Childhood Obesity in the United States The National Survey of Children's Health (NSCH) has facilitated estimation of childhood obesity rates at state levels and comparison of geographic differences in social and behavioral factors. In the United States, 17% of children and teenagers in the United States are considered obese (BMI ≥95th percentile of the sex specific 2000 CDC growth charts). Prevalence has remained high over the past three decades across most age, sex, racial/ethnic, and socioeconomic groups, and represents a three-fold increase from one generation ago and is expected to continue rising. Prevalence of pediatric obesity also varies with state. The highest rates of childhood obesity are found in the southeastern states of which Mississippi was found to have the highest rate of overweight/obese children, 44.5%/21.9% respectively. The western states were found to have the lowest prevalence, such as Utah (23.1%) and Oregon(9.6%). From 2003-2007, there was a two fold increase in states reporting prevalence of pediatric obesity greater than or equal to 18%.7 Oregon was the only state showing decline from 2003 to 2007 (decline by 32%), and using children in Oregon as a reference group, obesity in children in Illinois, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Georgia, and Kansas has doubled. The likelihood of obesity in children was found to increase significantly with decreasing levels of household income, lower neighborhood access to parks or sidewalks, increased television viewing time, and increased recreational computer time. Black and Hispanic children are more likely to be obese compared to white (Blacks OR=1.71 and Hispanics=1.76). A 2010 NCHS Data Brief published by the CDC found interesting trends in prevalence of childhood obesity. The prevalence of obesity among boys from households with an income at or above 350% the poverty level was found to be 11.9%, while boys with a household income level at or above 130% of the poverty level was 21.1%. A 2010 NCHS Data Brief published by the CDC found interesting trends in prevalence of childhood obesity. The same trend followed in girls. Girls with a household income at or above 350% of the poverty level has an obesity prevalence of 12.0%, while girls with a household income 130% below the poverty level had a 19.3% prevalence. A 2010 NCHS Data Brief published by the CDC found interesting trends in prevalence of childhood obesity. These trends were not consistent when stratified according to race. “The relationship between income and obesity prevalence is significant among non-Hispanic white boys; 10.2% of those living in households with income at or above 350% of the poverty level are obese compared with 20.7% of those in households below 130% of the poverty level.” A 2010 NCHS Data Brief published by the CDC found interesting trends in prevalence of childhood obesity. The same trend follows in non-Hispanic white girls (10.6% of those living at or above 350% of the poverty level are obese, and 18.3% of those living below 130% of the poverty level are obese) A 2010 NCHS Data Brief published by the CDC found interesting trends in prevalence of childhood obesity.. There is no significant trend in prevalence by income level for either boys or girls among non-Hispanic black and Mexican-American children and adolescents. A 2010 NCHS Data Brief published by the CDC found interesting trends in prevalence of childhood obesity. “In fact, the relationship does not appear to be consistent; among Mexican-American girls, although the difference is not significant, 21.0% of those living at or above 350% of the poverty level are obese compared with 16.2% of those living below 130% of the poverty level.” A 2010 NCHS Data Brief published by the CDC found interesting trends in prevalence of childhood obesity. Additional findings also include that the majority of children and adolescents are not low income children. A 2010 NCHS Data Brief published by the CDC found interesting trends in prevalence of childhood obesity. The majority of non-Hispanic white children and adolescents also live in households with income levels at or above 130% of the poverty level.</ref> A 2010 NCHS Data Brief published by the CDC found interesting trends in prevalence of childhood obesity. Approximately 7.5 million children live in households with income levels above 130% of the poverty level compared to 4.5 million children in households with income at or above 130% of the poverty level.

Prevalence of Childhood Obesity in the World Prevalence of childhood obesity has increased dramatically worldwide. A Lancet article published in 2010 that the prevalence of childhood obesity during the past two to three decades, much like the United States, has increased in most other industrialized nations, excluding Russia and Poland. Between the early 1970s and late 1990s, prevalence of childhood obesity doubled or tripled in Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Japan, the UK, and the USA. A 2010 article from the American Journal of Clinical nutrition analyzed global prevalence from 144 countries in preschool children (less than 5 years old). Cross-sectional surveys from 144 countries were used and overweight and obesity were defined as preschool children with values >3SDs from the mean. They found an estimated 42 million obese children under the age of five in the world of which close to 35 million lived in developing countries.11 Additional findings included worldwide prevalence of childhood overweight and obesity increasing from 4.2% (95% CI: 3.2%, 5.2%) in 1990 to 6.7% (95% CI: 5.6%, 7.7%) in 2010 and expecting to rise to 9.1% (95% CI: 7.3%, 10.9%), an estimated 60 million overweight and obese children in 2020.

Anc sierra (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The text suggested is not currently formatted properly. Many of the refs are not suitable per WP:MEDRS. Thus would need improvements first. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. - You didn't even say what you wanted to be changed. Orashmatash (talk) 13:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Orashmatash: I think you misunderstood Anc sierra's request. For clarity, I have created the boxes above and moved your comment here. Gabbe (talk) 09:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

There are a few more issues with the suggested text

1)the content is not formatted correctly and there are no Wiki links (not that important but still)

2) the text is too technical for example take this sentence "worldwide prevalence of childhood overweight and obesity increased from 4.2% (95% CI: 3.2%, 5.2%) in 1990 to 6.7% (95% CI: 5.6%, 7.7%) in 2010." We do not need the CIs. And this " Cross-sectional surveys from 144 countries were used and overweight and obesity were defined as preschool children with values >3SDs from the mean." greater than three standard deviations from the mean. Come on this is a general encyclopedia.

3) third issues and the most significant one this line "worldwide prevalence of childhood overweight and obesity increased from 4.2% (95% CI: 3.2%, 5.2%) in 1990 to 6.7% (95% CI: 5.6%, 7.7%) in 2010." is exactly the same as this line "worldwide prevalence of childhood overweight and obesity increased from 4.2% (95% CI: 3.2%, 5.2%) in 1990 to 6.7% (95% CI: 5.6%, 7.7%) in 2010." which is found in this paper http://www.ajcn.org/content/92/5/1257.full There is much that is too closely paraphased / copy and pasted.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)