Curious: Is the average "chart" kid very heavy?

EvenI

Mon, Sep 10 2012, 4:09 am

Does anyone know whether the weight charts for kids such as those you might find online from googling are based on a population that is heavier than it should be?

I recently weighed my two kids in a pharmacy that has scales, just for the fun of it. I also measured their heights to get an idea of what size clothes they need. When I looked online at height and weight charts out of curiosity, I found myself confused about weights. One of my kids is (according to charts) very tall but only average weight and the other is average height and very low weight compared to average. If I hadn't looked at the charts, I would have known already that one is very tall and the other is average height. That didn't surprise me at all. But although the tall one is a bit on the thinnish side, the average height one has quite a covering of fat and a solid build. It's just surprising to weigh kids who don't seem to be underweight and find that compared to average for their height, they are quite "underweight". Is this something to do with the so called obesity epidemic? Any insight?

Peanut2

Mon, Sep 10 2012, 11:23 am

Marion wrote:

I don't know how old your kids are, but the commonly used charts for kids up to 5 are based on bottlefed, and then solid fed, children. If you nursed your kids, they're likely a bit smaller, and the charts also don't take GENETICS into account.

That is not true. The charts for infants are based on WHO guidelines and on breastfed babies.

Have your kids seen a doc (or nurse, or tipat chalav, or whatever it is in your area)? If that person isn't worried, then you shouldn't be either. As kids grow up individual differences come into play more and more. My baby was at the very top in height since she was born (95%) and in the middle (around 67% or a bit less) weight. No worries. It was only a worry when her height percentile remained the same but her weight was lower (eg 40%). And, indeed, something was wrong at the time.

Each kid has their own growth curve, and the problem is either if they are on a real extreme, or if their growth curve changes. You have a tall and skinny kid. You can check with a doctor if you want, but it sounds like that is just this child's build. Good for him/her. Don't worry.

Marion

Mon, Sep 10 2012, 11:33 am

Peanut2 wrote:

Marion wrote:

Not always. There are 2 sets of charts; one is for BF babies and the other is most definitely NOT. Regardless, they forget to take genetics into account.

EvenI

Mon, Sep 10 2012, 11:57 am

My kids are nearly 5 and 2.5. They were breastfed, but at these ages, I would be surprised if it makes any difference. Anyway, I am not really worried about them. I'm not sure you all read the OP properly. They aren't small. They don't seem underweight. One of them is a bit on the slim side but that's OK. They went to tipat chalav as babies when they were exclusively breastfed and they were davka heavy for their age then so there was certainly no issue then. Maybe the poster who said the scales may have been wrong was onto something...

Peanut2

Mon, Sep 10 2012, 12:08 pm

Marion wrote:

Peanut2 wrote:

Marion wrote:

Not always. There are 2 sets of charts; one is for BF babies and the other is most definitely NOT. Regardless, they forget to take genetics into account.

Are you sure??? Maybe in Israel (but seems so unlikely, since Israel really is on top of these things.) Maybe nurses aren't switching over since they like overfed kids Smile

In America they only use the BF chart, which is a bit crazy considering the abysmal rates of BFing in the US. The current medical recommendation/trend is to only use the BF-based chart.

Peanut2

Mon, Sep 10 2012, 12:11 pm

tizunabi wrote:

OP- have you checked the "weight for height" chart?

I think what OP was saying is that one of her kids was at the top for height but middle for weight. So weight for height would emphasize that.

OP, that's totally normal and the differences are pretty small with little kids. A kid who is tall and a bit on the thinner side would be exactly as you described.

EvenI

Mon, Sep 10 2012, 12:29 pm

Peanut2 wrote:

tizunabi wrote:

OP- have you checked the "weight for height" chart?

OK, but what about the other one? 2 and half yrs old, average height but acc to the weight measurement and the chart, in the lowest 10 percentile for weight. You would think that would mean she's also thin, but she has a round stomach and several pads of fat on different parts of the body. Doesn't seem like a skinny sort of kid at all.

Peanut2

Mon, Sep 10 2012, 12:40 pm

EvenI wrote:

Peanut2 wrote:

tizunabi wrote:

OP- have you checked the "weight for height" chart?

Then maybe the scale was off.... Smile

Hmmm... Check the weight for height too, maybe.
Did you weigh yourself too? Were you the correct weight?

EvenI

Mon, Sep 10 2012, 1:15 pm

Peanut2 wrote:

EvenI wrote:

Peanut2 wrote:

tizunabi wrote:

OP- have you checked the "weight for height" chart?

Then maybe the scale was off.... Smile

Hmmm... Check the weight for height too, maybe.
Did you weigh yourself too? Were you the correct weight?

No, I didn't. We'll do it again some time.