Catherine, all I can tell you is this: Every adult woman I've ever met who weighed 300 pounds or more was put on a weight-loss diet and "forced" to exercise when she was in that 9-12 year old range. Sometimes much younger.

Know what that did for them? It made them more likely to binge eat things they weren't "supposed" to have (because forbidding these foods made them take on magical qualities they would not have otherwise) and to hate, hate, hate exercise, particularly in the presence of sneering peers. (Every woman who is even moderately fat can tell you gym-class horror stories all night long of being teased and harassed for their "distracting" butt-and-boob jiggle.) And it made them yo-yo up and down in weight, often for decades, at great cost to all their internal organs, not to mention their sanity.

If we really care about the health of girls (or boys, for that matter), the only approach that makes any sense is one that is based on the principles of Health at Every Size (HAES). For fighting insulin resistance, improving cardiovascular health, and yes, mental health too (which has untold impact on physical health also -- how many of the fat kids' health problems can be attributed to just plain old stress?) -- a HAES approach beats a weight-loss approach, hands down.

This means, yes, we feed kids healthy food and encourage joyful movement -- and throw away the damn scales unless a recorded weight is needed for meaningful information such as what dosage of medication to give. We do this for all kids, not just those who are "overweight," and we quit making a frigging Wagnerian opera out of weigh-ins. Sitting around eating chips all the time, and internalizing gobs of stress, isn't healthy for kids of any size.

That aside, though, I'll throw in my two cents, as a woman and the mother of a healthy, lovely 17 year old. She did indeed put on weight at the age of nine and dropped some once she hit puberty, then more just before she turned sixteen--this without any dieting I'm aware of. She is in fact a comfort food kind of person, and not inclined to diet. For her, the weight-loss came from joining the drama club and being involved in set construction and stage crew-type lifting and pushing around set pieces, combined, I suspect, with puberty. When I think back to my sisters' and my own pre-adolescence, I believe there is a bit of weight surge there that tends to even out for many kids at puberty. I'd say this was also true of my son, who is 21 now and quite trim, but he packed on some weight just before his massive growth spurt of ten inches in one year.

So, while I recognize obesity is a problem in the US and for children there are some dire consequences, I also wonder if the societal drift toward heaviness isn't getting mixed up with a biological need for calories in the pre-pubescent. The message being sent to kids, especially girls, about "controlling" their weight can hardly be healthy given all the other hyper-controlled situations they go through via school, extracurriculars, etc. There has to be a happy medium. In fact, there used to be, didn't there?

But teach them healthy portion sizes, don't let them eat out all the time, and allow fattening high-calorie foods IN MODERATION. I don't think any food should be forbidden. Then it becomes longed-for and overindulgence is much more likely.

Take them for walks. Encourage bike-riding. I think a lot of the problem is that parents don't actually let their kids go OUTSIDE anymore. I HATED organized sports as a kid, but was relatively thin because I spent alot of time outside, falling out of trees, playing hide-and-seek, climbing fences, bike riding and walking my dog. (Got fatter in college due to beer and pizza.)

In fact, dog walking is a good idea. Chances are the family dog is too fat also...

I agree with your recommendations to help the childhood obesity issue. Even though your article focuses on girls, the same can be applied to boys.

As for the BMI, as a rough unit of measure, I think it is a good index. However, we need to look at the subject and not the charts as you pointed out. For instance, a man measuring 5'5" and weighing 185 lbs. has a BMI 30.8. Which, puts him in the obese category. At the gym I go to, I know a guy with those stats, but believe me he is anything but obese.

OF COURSE little girls pudge up between 9 and 12. That's what their bodies do right before launching on the first growth spurt of puberty. It's normal, for fuck's sake. If a preadolescent isn't putting on weight, something's probably wrong. Like they're starving themselves or being starved by clueless parents.

While the article is ostensibly about the health risks these kids face, the fact that the study only looked at girls says to me once again that what our society is most afraid of is that our women won't be conventionally attractive.

Yes, obesity is bad. But weight fluctuates right around & during puberty for kids. It did for me, I remember, although I later lost what I gained and more. Having my BMI sent home would have only made me crazier & more unhappy. And obsessing about girls' waistlines while pretending to be concerned about their cholesterol levels is just disingenuous.

It used to be that only middle-aged women had an excuse to be overweight. "I'm not 25 anymore, I've had kids." etc.

Then I noticed a big proportion of my 20-something peers chunked up during their college years. "I'm getting older, the metabolism slows down." etc.

Now... according to some of the knee-jerkers around here, now it's okay for 10 year olds to be overweight? If a person can't stay thin at that age... I see little hope for their future.

This isn't about judging overweight people... it's about not letting people redefine what normal is just to protect people's precious self-esteem.

Some "baby fat" is normal for some minority of people, but it is not for others. Personally, I've never noticed it in anyone I grew up with.