Canadian Kids Get a D in Active Living

[polak]

Originally Posted by AcGold

because television, videogames, computers, phones and schools have no effect on their behavioral patterns whatsoever. Yup, it's the parents dictating 100% of their input and advertisements designed to manipulate children are benign.

Who controls the kids exposure and use of these things?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by polak

Who controls the kids exposure and use of these things?

True, but let's not confuse that with the level of effort both put put forward by parents now and before. As much as people complain, patents are far more involved with their children than before, but there are infinitely more pitfalls too. My parents did not need to limit my ipad time, TV time, etc because all we had was outdoors

[foshizzle11]

We live in Lynnwood/Ogden and I have no problem with our boys being out all day. We try to set boundaries and they tend to stay in the general area of the house.

My two step sons are 10 and 12 and I finally convinced my boyfriend that the 10 year old should be able to ride about 1km to the scouts club house alone, ride there and back at 6:30 pm and the ride home at 8:00pm. His mom (the boys' nana) on the other hand is terrified of him doing this.

I remember grade 2 to grade 6 doing what we wanted all day long all summer. As long as I had a bike, we could have been found in a 5km radius of our house and my parents didn't care, we always came home for dinner. I don't remember a day we didn't go outside, now it is so much harder to get the kids to just go play street hockey or make a jump for their bmx bikes. So funny how times have changed.

[V]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

True, but let's not confuse that with the level of effort both put put forward by parents now and before. As much as people complain, patents are far more involved with their children than before, but there are infinitely more pitfalls too. My parents did not need to limit my ipad time, TV time, etc because all we had was outdoors

You didn't have a TV?

We had a TV, an NES, a Commodore 64, that handheld football game, and probably others I'm not thinking of. Buddy had an Atari with like 500 games. We had plenty to keep us inside if our parents let us.

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by Russic

but to say they have more control than a parent is a little off imo.

see neuro-linguistic programming. I'm not saying they have more control than a parent, but they are designed to control by presenting images and sounds so fast the conscious mind can not comprehend them. Without writing the 5 page long essay it would take to describe the foundations of neuro-linguistic programming in detail the idea is ads attempt to subvert the conscious decision making and implant the desire so people want their products on a nervous/subconscious level. Much like a doctor hitting a patient in the knee with a reflex hammer, you don't have control over the reflex. That's the idea at least, subvert the decision making process and create a reflex based on operant conditioning.

It's not that parents don't have any say in the matter it's just such a complex subject matter I try to explain it with minimal effort. With some studies showing children see more than 3000 ads a day and others saying they see more than 200,000 before 5 years old the effect on brain development is definitely a concern.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by AcGold

see neuro-linguistic programming. I'm not saying they have more control than a parent, but they are designed to control by presenting images and sounds so fast the conscious mind can not comprehend them. Without writing the 5 page long essay it would take to describe the foundations of neuro-linguistic programming in detail the idea is ads attempt to subvert the conscious decision making and implant the desire so people want their products on a nervous/subconscious level. Much like a doctor hitting a patient in the knee with a reflex hammer, you don't have control over the reflex. That's the idea at least, subvert the decision making process and create a reflex based on operant conditioning.

It's not that parents don't have any say in the matter it's just such a complex subject matter I try to explain it with minimal effort. With some studies showing children see more than 3000 ads a day and others saying they see more than 200,000 before 5 years old the effect on brain development is definitely a concern.

I don't think anyone would dispute what you're saying, and actually it would be a parallel problem. Why are those kids exposed to those ads? Because they sit on the computer/ipad/TV etc. that their parents let them use extensively.

So while you are correct, what does it have to do with parents not making their kids go outside?

[AcGold]

should be obvious, also I'm wrong about stuff all the time so please don't fly off the handle future thread readers.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by V

You didn't have a TV?

We had a TV, an NES, a Commodore 64, that handheld football game, and probably others I'm not thinking of. Buddy had an Atari with like 500 games. We had plenty to keep us inside if our parents let us.

We had a TV, but only CTV and CBC. As for video games, we got a Sega Master System when I was 10 or 11, but only a tiny TV, so there wasn't a great amount of time spent indoors

[Devils'Advocate]

I just watched the movie "Fed Up" (playing in theatres now). It is about obesity rates, particularly focusing on childhood obesity. Activity was only a tiny fraction of the problem. Unless you are running for hours straight you really won't burn off significant calories. You send out little Joey to play catch with Sam, even if he plays for an hour it won't burn off much more than a banana. And Joey is unlikely to be eating bananas for his after school snack.

The real problem is that parents don't know how to eat properly and the kids know even less. The movie said it right out.. Eating healthy is like swimming upstream. The food industry is all about selling cheap food, not nutritious food.

But exercise is important for other reasons, like cardiovascular health, mental health, etc.. and sedentary kids typically become sedentary adults. But the two things together are brewing up a perfect storm for a health epidemic.

[Russic]

Originally Posted by AcGold

see neuro-linguistic programming. I'm not saying they have more control than a parent, but they are designed to control by presenting images and sounds so fast the conscious mind can not comprehend them. Without writing the 5 page long essay it would take to describe the foundations of neuro-linguistic programming in detail the idea is ads attempt to subvert the conscious decision making and implant the desire so people want their products on a nervous/subconscious level. Much like a doctor hitting a patient in the knee with a reflex hammer, you don't have control over the reflex. That's the idea at least, subvert the decision making process and create a reflex based on operant conditioning.

It's not that parents don't have any say in the matter it's just such a complex subject matter I try to explain it with minimal effort. With some studies showing children see more than 3000 ads a day and others saying they see more than 200,000 before 5 years old the effect on brain development is definitely a concern.

I can't argue it doesn't exist... you're clearly more knowledgable on the subject and I'll take your word on it. All I can really offer is my extremely unscientific observations based off myself and my social circle. My personal feelings on the matter is that parenting is probably the hardest thing the majority of us have done, but dealing with distractions that get in the way of our kids leading a healthy lifestyle isn't something I'd classify as a difficult task. As with all parenting though, there is a whole wide world of things I don't know as they age, so maybe they'll become zombie consumers once they become teenagers and get jobs. At the very least they'll be zombie consumers that can play soccer, dammit.

[Tinordi]

I would put alot of the blame on that beautiful suburb you've dreamed of for your family to live in pastoral serenity away from the dark tranches of urban decay and poverty. Within this gilded cage you've raised a child utterly dependent on vehicle travel for social interaction, bounded in a "community" of high speed roads with distant playgrounds as the lone citadels of a wasteland of low-density.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

I would put alot of the blame on that beautiful suburb you've dreamed of for your family to live in pastoral serenity away from the dark tranches of urban decay and poverty. Within this gilded cage you've raised a child utterly dependent on vehicle travel for social interaction, bounded in a "community" of high speed roads with distant playgrounds as the lone citadels of a wasteland of low-density.

Run the machines. Go go go. Change out the humans. Repeat.

[V]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

I would put alot of the blame on that beautiful suburb you've dreamed of for your family to live in pastoral serenity away from the dark tranches of urban decay and poverty. Within this gilded cage you've raised a child utterly dependent on vehicle travel for social interaction, bounded in a "community" of high speed roads with distant playgrounds as the lone citadels of a wasteland of low-density.

Haha, that's poetry right there. Totally wrong, but beautiful to read.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

I would put alot of the blame on that beautiful suburb you've dreamed of for your family to live in pastoral serenity away from the dark tranches of urban decay and poverty. Within this gilded cage you've raised a child utterly dependent on vehicle travel for social interaction, bounded in a "community" of high speed roads with distant playgrounds as the lone citadels of a wasteland of low-density.

So then why is childhood obesity higher in inner cities??

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

I would put alot of the blame on that beautiful suburb you've dreamed of for your family to live in pastoral serenity away from the dark tranches of urban decay and poverty. Within this gilded cage you've raised a child utterly dependent on vehicle travel for social interaction, bounded in a "community" of high speed roads with distant playgrounds as the lone citadels of a wasteland of low-density.

You haven't been to a new suburb, Why would you need a vehicle for social interaction with all of the kids in your neighbourhood, streets have limited traffic suitable for playing on, schools are close by in walking distance and parks are plentiful. I have 3 playgournds and 5 greenspaces within 1k of my house.

Compared to the core I am swimming in greenspaces.

[Russic]

As much as I agree that the suburbs have their definite drawbacks, it's not as difficult to live in them as many make it out to be. I live far enough south that people cringe sometimes, but in reality my wife and I could both lose our cars tomorrow and we'd be totally fine. We have both services and a ctrain station located along a bike path. When it comes time to go to the park, my kids have the luxury of fighting over which one of the 5 we'll visit.

My in-laws live in a beautiful small town in BC and they often preach the ease of small town living, getting around, and activity abundance. When you actually run the numbers though, anytime they need a larger shop or a big item, they need to drive 20-30 minutes on a highway to the neighbouring town. There's probably 5 parks in the entire town (I can only think of 2).