Heavy kids taken away from their parents - outrageous

(GINA ) #21

No, but only because I don’t let it be. The lunch ladies have a bulletin board in the cafeteria that has the MyPlate on it, but that’s it.


It sure as hell was when I was in school (US). Even as kids who knew nothing about nutrition we used to say why’s all the good stuff at the top?


Hear! Hear!

The real shame is how often it’s intentionally incorrect. :frowning:

(Joey) #24


From the OP’s article: "At the time, both children were in the 99th percentile on their growth charts, meaning they were heavier than most of their peers."

… and there we have it. The problem is that the kids were heavier than most of their peers.

Suggestion: Let’s select a cut-off, say 99% or - just to be safe - 95%.

Then we remove those kids from their homes (i.e., between 1% to 5% of all children who are, by definition, heavier than their peers).

Not sure how this would make them thinner? :man_shrugging:

But it would provide for a consistent way to destroy more families… rather than relying on the whims of individual judges.


Right, because the Judge, not the PARENT’S was the one that destroyed that family right? Over 10yrs of dealing with child services for how crappy of a job they did, house full of garbage junk food, kids that were dirty, tangled hair, body odor, filthy clothes piled all over the place etc.

Then the evil courts paid for gym memberships and supplied them fitbits so they could track fitness activity which the parents agreed to supervise which they then did not… over a period of 10yrs to keep these kids healthy.

Did you even read the court documents?

(Joey) #26

@lfod14 Nope. Of course not.

I never got informed about the actual case at all. In fact, I’m pretty much clueless - both about the court’s efforts and the family’s repeated failures.

But please remember, this is the internet. It’s where I can remain misinformed about most everything under the sun… believe in conspiracies, ignore science, support dictators, and yet still offer my strongly-held opinions as I please. Undeterred by reality.

And I suspect that’s why most of us love the internet so much! :wink:

(Besides, this thread attracted me as being about something “outrageous” … please, Sir, I’m trying to enjoy my outrage.)


Well if you put it that way… I wouldn’t want to interrupt a good outrage session.

(Joey) #28

Thanks - your support is much appreciated! :vulcan_salute:


It’s the old nature vs nurture thing…

(Joey) #30

Yes, I’ve always found that to be an amusing argument… After all, if you stop eating completely, that’s not sustainable either. Which suggests that eating itself a temporary diet.

For sure :+1:

(Vic) #31

:smile: a heart attack at 35 or injecting insuline to survive just another day. That is the idea of sustainably. :upside_down_face:

It is true though keto woe takes effort. But I would argue its way more sustainable than SAD woe.


not sustainable was my trigger for a sugar addict not wanting to give it up :slight_smile: Without carbs I wondered how I could sustain long term eating plans til the day I said, DUH, it isn’t about anything other than the carb rush you want LOL So many don’t wanna live without bread or sweets.


All woe takes effort, actually… Not to the same extent and keto is super easy for some and impossible to others but still. Eating takes some effort anyway. And health deserves effort.
Of course, people who lead a bad lifestyle and even poison themselves with things (I never will understand why people pay a ton of money to smoke and make things worse, it’s so stupid…), don’t particularly care about their health, seemingly. Maybe a bit, maybe they are ready to eat pills. But doing something that takes more effort? Especially if the bad thing has a charm? Oh no.

Even I am not that bad. And I do my share of following my less than ideal whims.

SAD is sustainable for very long for many, btw. Not everyone gets sick on it. Just many.
And there isn’t only SAD or keto. I am an European, I had my own personal eating styles so I never did “SAD”. I did HCHF but it doesn’t say much either. My SO does HCHF in a very health conscious way. My old one was way worse but at least very nutritious…
Keto styles are very different too. But I agree very low-carb is the best for many people, sure. It’s clearly my way. Others need more carbs, apparently or if not need, handle them right. But it matters what kind of carbs and even what kind of fats they eat, how much etc…
Everyone should stay away from the diets they don’t function well on. Be it keto or high-carb or whatever.

I think you talk about a different definition of sustainable as the people who says keto isn’t that. They probably mean they can’t do it because they want their carbs so they fall off the wagon. You focus on health instead and yep, that’s the right thinking - though being able to do it matters a lot too. But there is a difference between “oh, it’s not super easy, I need to get out of my comfort zone for health? nope, I’m out” and cases where one just feels miserable without some tiny controlled breaks (or not controlled as I remember some of my crazy days in the past. but as long as they happened rarely, I was okay enough. and they stopped being so bad). So attitude, as so often, is quite important. When I stubbornly want something because I know it’s good for me, it’s zillion times easier to do it (and if it’s hard, I try to get creative. I am good at being creative when really motivated. I want health, energy and joy from food so I make it happen even if it’s challenging. challenges are fun anyway).

And after we changed enough, our keto may become way more effortless than our old, wrong woe. I experienced this and it’s great. People can change a lot, fortunately.

(Polly) #34

For those who are interested in reading the judgment in the case cited by the original poster:


If only the children can be housed with a family who follow a keto or carnivore way of life then their lives may improve . . .


obese kids taken from parents? Like that ain’t ALOT OF LIFE NOW and who pays for all this? taxpayers and in the end ONLY ONE thing changes this truly…correct and real life nutrition info out there but not one corp. for profit big shots who hold power will ever give in to the sugar industry, the grain industry, the chemical crap filler food producers…the giants got us by the cahoonies.

again, it is SO unbalanced yet SO incredibly just blatantly STUPID to see these issues out there among the world…and growing. A big UGH to it all from me!

(Joey) #36

Here in the US, the percent of children aged 6-11 years with obesity is 20%.*

Thus roughly 1 in 5 children should be taken from their homes … and perhaps put in “fat camps” where we can starve them into health using CICO principles?

And just think of what a boon it could be to the eating disorder industry.

*(Source: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/obesity-overweight.htm)


forget that kind of disorder, if the above happened to me as a child, I might take up a position in a sniper tower later in life. :wink:

(Vic) #38

The parent’s and children are not the root cause of the problem.
Dealing with the symptons and breaking up families in the process isnt very helpfull.

Towards the children its cruel. Love for their parents is unconditionally, thats genetics.

I had very crappy parent’s, loved them anyway.

Perheps the WHO should be on trial and all those promoting hclf junk food diets.

(UsedToBeT2D) #39

Courts telling us how to raise our children? It’s a slippery slope…the needs of the few outweigh the rights of the many?

(Joey) #40

Ah, that’s love.

On the flipside: As parents, if your kids love you during their teen years, you’re probably not doing it right.