Obesity rate declining among CA schoolchildren; improving in fitness (San Jose: coupon, crime rate)

[18Montclair]

This is a very welcomed development.

SCVNews.com | Torlakson: California Kids No Longer Getting Fatter | 03-01-2012

[jaijai]

Well that's good news.
I think the diet that many 21st century families and the public school system inflicts upon children is something close to child abuse.
That combined with a lack of exercise has created a lot of tubby children.
When i was a kid (in the late 60's & 70's) there was one (two at the most!) overweight child in a class of 30.
I'm amazed at how many overweight children there are these days.
It's so unfair to them.

[EclecticEars]

With Trader Joe's having mostly reasonably-priced groceries, a family can buy groceries there for not much more than they would at a bargain retailer like Grocery Outlet or the 99 Cent Stores. Unless, of course, you're a coupon mom, then TJs can be problematic. Otherwise, there's almost no excuse for anyone in California to have obesity problems.

California already emphasizes healthy living as a state, anyway. The obesity figures in California are probably skewed by smaller cities and towns in the Central Valley and Mojave Desert with poorer populations and not-as-conducive year-round weather for exercise.

[EscapeCalifornia]

Originally Posted by EclecticEars

California already emphasizes healthy living as a state, anyway. The obesity figures in California are probably skewed by smaller cities and towns in the Central Valley and Mojave Desert with poorer populations and not-as-conducive year-round weather for exercise.

Are you kidding? You've never been to LA? Plenty of poor fatties around.

[NewToCA]

Actually, the article states that the kids still are getting fatter, just at a slower rate:

The researchers found the obesity rate is slowing down when compared to annual increases in prior decades and in other national studies. In prior decades, childhood obesity increased 0.8 percent to 1.7 percent per year. In this study, obesity increased only 0.33 percent per year between 2003 and 2008.

[EclecticEars]

Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia

Are you kidding? You've never been to LA? Plenty of poor fatties around.

I have been to L.A. And yes, you're right, but the areas where more obese are likely to be found are a small percentage geographically of the uber-massive L.A. megalopolis. It's not all South Central, Watts, Compton, East L.A., parts of Santa Ana, etc.

You could make the same argument for west and south Oakland, San Leandro, Hunter's Point and East Palo Alto here in the Bay Area. However, is the Bay Area reputed for having so many overweight people and so many poor communities?

[EscapeCalifornia]

Originally Posted by EclecticEars

I have been to L.A. And yes, you're right, but the areas where more obese are likely to be found are a small percentage geographically of the uber-massive L.A. megalopolis. It's not all South Central, Watts, Compton, East L.A., parts of Santa Ana, etc.

You could make the same argument for west and south Oakland, San Leandro, Hunter's Point and East Palo Alto here in the Bay Area. However, is the Bay Area reputed for having so many overweight people and so many poor communities?

Those poor areas are among the most densely populated in the state. Lots of people. Lots of them poor and fat. This isn't just a rural problem.

[Nineties Flava]

Originally Posted by EclecticEars

I have been to L.A. And yes, you're right, but the areas where more obese are likely to be found are a small percentage geographically of the uber-massive L.A. megalopolis. It's not all South Central, Watts, Compton, East L.A., parts of Santa Ana, etc.

You could make the same argument for west and south Oakland, San Leandro, Hunter's Point and East Palo Alto here in the Bay Area. However, is the Bay Area reputed for having so many overweight people and so many poor communities?

Since when was San Leandro thrown into the same boat as Hunters Point? It's a middle class suburb that has a crime rate that's a little higher than average. This would be the much more accurate breakdown for the Bay Area in terms of poor areas:

East Bay

West/NW/Deep East Oakland
West/SW Berkeley
North/Central/South Richmond
El Pueblo (Pittsburg)
South Hayward (around Tennyson)
Cherryland
North Antioch
Ashland
Decoto (Union City)

San Francisco

BV-HP
Sunnydale
Ingleside Heights/Oceanview
Fillmore
Potrero Hill
Alemany
Holly Circle
Mission
Hayes Valley (Grove, Laguna, Fulton)

Peninsula

North Fair Oaks
East Redwood City
East Menlo Park
East Palo Alto
North Central (San Mateo)
Shoreview (San Mateo)
East San Bruno

North Bay & Marin

E. Tabor (Fairfield)
Crest/Hillcrest/Millerville/Beverly Hills Vallejo
Marin City
Canal Street (San Rafael)

South Bay

East/NE/SE San Jose
California & Rengstorff (Mountain View)

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by Nineties Flava

Since when was San Leandro thrown into the same boat as Hunters Point?

Its difficult for some people to grasp the concept that Blacks and Hispanics are capable of being a major presence in an area that middle class and not ghetto. The East Bay confuses a lot of people in that regard. They don't know what to make of it.

LOL

Originally Posted by NewtoCA

Actually, the article states that the kids still are getting fatter, just at a slower rate:

Well, I did say that the obesity rate is declining---I think I should have said "Obesity GROWTH rate is declining".

Either way, its still good news.