|With public service announcements like|
these....how could you NOT eat sugar?
I sat there studying this graph and thinking that, as a kid, I ate more sugar than the average kid does now. I mean, come on....who could resist pixy sticks, fun dip, bottle caps, and my personal favorite pop rocks? So why were me and my friends so skinny growing up? I don't remember more than two kids who were "fat"...and back then "fat" was something totally different. We never saw obese kids...just pudgy kids. So what is the real issue here? What is missing from the lives of our poor Canadian children that would increase the rate of childhood obesity????? Less sugar intake than 1968? Nope....how about less physical activity?
|Of course, I'm not suggesting you eat mounds of sugar|
and go out for a walk...I'm just sayin'
The point is, why blame sugar or fight sugar when we could take up a more positive cause and promote physical activity? Promote exercising families, challenge the schools on their decisions to make it virtually impossible for secondary students to opt for PE when they have to accumulate enough credits to get into university....but that's another blog for another time. Why are we not challenging what we are doing and why we are doing it? I guess blaming sugar, sodas, TV, video games, and the like is less time consuming than getting our kids (and ourselves) of the couch and off the technology.
Of course, I understand that it takes a myriad of variables to create an "epidemic" (definitely not my word, but that of the media) of fat kids...a combination of factors must all be equally considered. But if there is one thing I have learned through my own community-based research with schools and other organizations it is that people will chose the scapegoat of least resistance. By banning sodas and sugary treats from the vending machine, they don't have provide students with meaningful daily physical activity (ouch! sorry, I'm putting it out there today).