There has been some debate exploring the possible reasons for the obesity epidemic sweeping the western world. Since on this tiny sunny patch of the planet we are forerunners in international obesity rankings, we should be concerned.
Whether it’s our pastizzi for lunch or ftiras on the beach, it’s difficult to pinpoint the issue behind the adipose tissue. Is it the lack of a sporting culture in schools? Do we need more PE lessons? Do we not have the space for children to run around safely and freely?
One significant clue we have in hand is our dubious performance on yet another set of international rankings. Apart from being among the fattest, we are also among the least active in the world. While this might not be the principle reason for our larger-than-life loved ones, it certainly isn’t helping. Increased physical acivity burns calories and sheds fat; we know this, so it certainly won’t hurt to put a spring in our children’s steps.
A UK study recently investigated the link between obesity and physical activity levels. It was a bit of a chicken and egg debate. Which came first? As a former weightlifter, I often used to hear people’s concerns about lifting weights at too tender an age, tainted by similar logic.
Some elite weightlifters are very short and have relatively shorter arms too, almost as if their growth had been stunted somehow. Some concerned parents would refer to images of such athletes as proof of the dangers of the sport.
The question I ask, however, when confronted by such an image is this: is his body shape the result of being an elite weightlifter or is his extraordinary ability in weightlifting a result of his body shape?
I would posit the idea that weightlifting didn’t stunt his growth, but instead he became such a good weightlifter precisely because, in the first instant, he was short and had short arms. Of course, we now know that safe and controlled lifting of weights in youths does not stunt growth. However, the UK researchers asked a similar question about obesity.
Do we not have the space for children to run around safely and freely?
They established that there was a consistent link between obesity and inactivity. In other words, the higher the body mass index of an individual happened to be, the less active they were. This isn’t surprising, since moving around at higher bodyweights is, quite simply, more difficult. It is more tiring and therefore those carrying extra weight would normally prefer to take the easier option when it comes to indulging in physically arduous tasks.
Overweight people will be more prone to sit and rest, less likely to walk instead of taking the car, even less likely to take the stairs instead of the lift and so on. Obesity is linked with lethargy, but which came first? Are our children overweight because they are lethargic, or are they lethargic because they are overweight?
Lethargic children may be so because of a lack of opportunities or space for them to be physically active. Perhaps it’s cultural. Perhaps there are elements to our culture that cause our children to adopt certain routines that simply don’t involve much exercise.
It is a common, recurring theme in discussions about sports that local parents place too much importance on academic pursuits. This, of course, is not a bad thing. However, it does not have to exist to the total exclusion of all other pursuits.
It takes time to take children to the park or other playing areas and it costs money to send them to organised sports. It costs even more money to move to a house with space and land for them to run around at will. Cooped up in our little flats and limited living spaces, living on top of each other on busy trafficated streets, it might be easier to keep them indoors and pacify them with TV or computer games.
Is there a genetic issue at play? Researchers are becoming interested in a possible link between genes and activity levels. However, whether it’s innate or environmental, we cannot ignore the fact that this is a vicious cycle. Children became lethargic in the first place. We know that remaining so could eventually lead to gaining more weight. Because of the link between lethargy and obesity, we also know that once children begin putting on weight, they become less and less active.
Researchers in another UK study went as far as quantifying the actual rate at which physical activity levels tend to drop off once a child is classified as overweight. Using an accelerometer which measures movement and intensity of activity, it was found that activity levels drop by eight per cent every 20 months.
This equates to a reduction of moderate physical activities by 28 minutes per week. People of a healthy weight by contrast generally tend to show negligible changes in activity levels over the same period of time.
So what action must we ultimately take? Such data helps us to devise action plans, and it is clear from the links that have been established already that any action plan devised to reduce childhood obesity will certainly benefit by concurrent efforts to promote physical activity and sport.
We must throw everything we have at this problem if we are to improve on our abysmal performances in international statistical rankings.
matthew.muscat.inglott@mcast.edu.mt