I live in a community that just banned climbing trees and other landscape features in our local parks. I don't think there is any question that our culture discourages getting out and active, starting with even the infant set.
1
If you’re not a plant, then you were designed to move. Movement promotes a healthy digestive system and lymph system which flush our bodies. Movement forces our muscles and bones to become strong and resilient. Before you even get to the subject of weight it becomes readily apparent that moving is vitally important to overall health. You sit, you become unhealthy, you die. Simple.
1
This article assumes that parents are responsible for how much their children move. But, the parents' actions were not measured at all, so absolutely no evidence is given for this claim about the parents' behavior.
Human being vary in how energetic they feel. There may be biological differences that account for the babies' movement patterns and size, rather than the parents' behavior having anything to do with it. But we'll never know, because the researchers didn't ask. Instead, the used circular reasoning, assuming that the fatter babies were retrained more or spent more time in front of screens.
Many cultures traditionally restrained infants by using swaddling bands or cradle (papoose) boards. But, photographs and clothing from these periods show that infants from these time periods grew up to be substantially leaner than modern people.
This study is just one of many that assumes, with zero evidence, that fat people (or their parents) are doing something wrong. Yep, a researcher claims that fat babies are kept restrained or in front of screens more than other babies -- without measuring whether this is true at all. And, it gets printed in the New York Times!
3
@Judy Shapiro You don't get fat by accident. You get fat by a combination of eating too much and not expending enough calories (based on your activity). To that extent, yes, fat people ARE doing something wrong.
I had four babies. During their first year of life all of them spent significant time in their stroller, the front carrier and a backpack. I took them out walking (to lose Mommy's baby weight), to the baby swings at the playground, hiking in the White Mountains and on nature walks. The nature walks are some of some of my favorite memories. When they were fussy and young I used the front carrier so my body movements would lull them to sleep. Babies of all ages but especially the younger ones are happier when they are physically connected to their primary caretaker. I understand the point of the study. I also think that there are many complexities to this issue. What do you say to a woman with many children who uses a sling to mind an infant while keeping her hands free to supervise the older siblings. What about poor mothers who do not have cars and must do all of their errands on foot. Grocery shopping, the laundry mat, medical appointments and school drop off take a great deal of time and energy when they are completed on foot. The ethically challenged will take this study and use it to sell fitbits and exercise classes for babies to upper middle class parents. On the other end, this will be another way to judge the poor and parents from cultures where babywearing is a common practice. The study raises more questions than it answers. There are no solid conclusions or childcare recommendations to be gleaned from its very limited findings.
11
My first baby was tiny and never very chunky. My second baby was soooo chunky and thinned out once she started crawling and walking. Parents, don’t fear a chunky baby please. If you are concerned, talk to your family doctor.
5
Are we really fatshaming babies now?
Is it not enough that the majority of 8 year old girls already worry that they're too fat (statistic easily Google-able)? Is it not enough that the national rate of eating disorders is skyrocketing? Is it not enough to ask that we publish articles about studies that make actual, factual correlations between our health and our behaviors, rather than ones like this that are full of buzzword value but otherwise empty?
9
@Anna Clegg A baby does not have the cognitive capabilities to be ashamed for being overweight. I think the article intends to put some pressure on our behavior as parents so we can take early action and make sure they have a heather life.
1
@Anna Clegg I don't think the issue is fat babies. Fat is simply an easy to measure variable known to be correlated with possible health problems. There are many other health problems we know that are also associated with immobility in adulthood. It's important to consider that infants are likewise affected, at a time in life when all their biological systems are forming. Our hearts, lungs, bones, are all shaped and strengthened in a context of organic activity. Immobilizing infants for long periods in bucket seats with restraints cannot possibly benefit the development of their bodies and minds. The article simply says that babies benefit from being allowed to move freely as they are naturally inclined to do - this can be while being held, while placed on the ground, even when sleeping - unrestrained by a harness.
I was such a fat baby. And really, really chubby until about 3 or 4. Then I thinned out and now, at 46, I have a BMI of 17 that I've been fighting to get into the normal range for at least a decade. I have one kid who has so far followed the exact pattern. Fat, fat baby, skinny by 3 and now rail thin at 12. I don't think this says as much as the researchers would like us to believe.
7
All I can think of when I see this picture is the amount of waste babies produce - this time illustrated by more than a dozen pairs of disposable diapers. And no one much seems to be slowing down with their breeding patterns. We're finished.
3
@iz Actually, we are slowing down. Some countries are already reaching a no-return point for the replacement population pyramid. At the current rate, there will be more elderly non-productive people than productive young ones.
4
Even if you're right... too little too late.
30 years ago, our babies were on the tummies much, much more than they are now. My daughter was holding up her head by 8 weeks and doing push-ups at 10 weeks. My little granddaughters have been way behind that.
3
My first kid was the most sedentary baby I've ever seen. Even though she was exclusively breastfed she was MASSIVE by the age of 6 months. The pediatrician warned me about obesity, and I was terrified I was somehow setting her up for a lifetime of medical problems. Her numerous rolls probably kept her from crawling/walking as early as her peers did. My second kid was frenetic even in utero and didn't stop moving when she came out. She never had much interest in food and was skinny from the start. Now they're both elementary school-aged and and have similar, average BMIs.
Give your kids reasonably-healthy food choices and let them move around as much as they want to. I'm convinced the rest is temperament.
13
Retired pediatrician here. Babies might look alike to many of you, but they are all Their Own Selves. Moms report their babies are different in utero. They move at different times, in different ways. After birth, they diverge even more, though often persist in having active time when they did in utero (Anyone else up for clubbing at 2 am? Where’s the disco ball?)
Some babies have places to go and things to do ... they’re sometimes too busy to eat. Others live to eat. Every meal is part sacrament and part a meal at the Last Chance Cafe.
Some babies observe the dog chewing on his toy; other babies conquer what’s going on around them ... climbing on the dog and trying to “share” the toy.
Put babies on a reasonably clean floor in a safe enough space with a few things and maybe the dog ... they’ll take it from there. Add or delete a pot or spoon as needed. They need at least two or three play periods a day. How long? They’ll let you know, faithful attendant, when they’re finished. Your busiest baby will be climbing the walls (literally), while quiet ones will be transfixed by the dust motes.
Chill.
54
@Dr. Dixie So true.
1
@Dr. Dixie
Well put. It's too bad that common sense isn't very common anymore.
1
Overweight babies, really? This limited study should examine why some babies are moving around less instead of speculating why. Both of my children were super chunky babies tipping the weight scale at check-ups. One was content interacting with toys in a small area while the other was in constant motion dragging his lard everywhere. As teenagers both are skinny as rails despite their constant grazing.
6
Shouldn’t play pens be considered a restraining device? I’ve not seen one used outside of the US. Didn’t use it for our kids, since it seemed. like a cage for children.
3
My baby (now 21-years-old ;-) loved her bouncy chair. As soon as she could hold herself upright, she would spend hours pushing off the floor of the chair and playing with various toys on the tray surrounding the seat. She crawled at 6 mos, walked at 8 mos—due largely,I believe,to the core back and leg strength conditioned by the bouncy chair. Once she walked, she ran everywhere and, needless to say, has grown into a graceful athlete. The bouncy chairs were the stationary solution to the dangerous baby walkers.
3
@SomethingElse
I don't know. I had four kids, My second was an early walker, just as he turned 9 months. He also happened to be my sick kid. He had gastrointestinal problems that led him to cry all day and wake literally about every hour at night for the first year of his life. The child spent 80-90% of his time in my arms. He never had tummy time. He never tolerated a bouncy chair or even bouncing up and down on my lap much. Too busy crying. But he was the first to roll over, the first to crawl and the first to walk. Go figure.
4
@SomethingElse None of my four kids used bouncy chairs and they all walked at 8 mouths. I just think you had an earlier walker -- it had nothing to do with the chair. If anything, I would say she walked earlier despite time spent in the chair.
As a mother of five wild little ones, I would be interested in knowing more about these restraining devices, if the authors of the study could please make that information available, thank you.
19
Without any evidence to suggest that extra fat in babies is a problem, this research is problematic in that it will serve only to give mothers yet something else to worry about. I hope there will be no public health browbeating resulting from this study.
23
@Tony Merriman
One thing that remains constant is that the two worst places for reliable health news is newspapers and local TV news channels. And you can count on future public health browbeating from it.
3
"But they also can capture and potentially misinterpret movements initiated by parents or caregivers, such as picking up the child or swinging him about, although the child is not then moving on her own."
1. the numbers can be classified as "most likely caused by", a. baby, b. parent/caregiver, c. random. By seeing at what times of the day and what the caregivers were doing, ie; diaper change at approx 230pm. feeding at 3am. etc...baby and parent sleeping at 1am. etc.
2. clearly that associate professor doesn't know, or ignores, that even a picked up baby is initiating its own movement at the same time. The body reacts to being picked up and held. The body will situate itself for the movement. It might fight the movement, move towards it, or just be uncomfortable and cause it to wiggle more hoping to escape.
Neither babies or adults are blobs, that are non-reactive to outside forces that cause movement. We dont stand/sit like a blob on a moving bus or subway. We're reacting and having thousands of muscle adjustments, our neurons are firing like crazy to counter the stop and go, swaying motions forced upon us. Not a workout by any means, but its activity, a variable.
I read a lot of these articles, here and elsewhere, and am always bumfuzzled by how the "Professionals" seem to make a lot of dumb comments...even about their own work.
If there are uncontrolled variables in a test...then control for them! There is always a means to control and better analyze for them.
5
Babies spend a considerable amount of time watching babies on their parent's phones. They seem enthralled by this and seem to not be interested at all in the real humans in their midst. Babies are so fun to teach, to play with, to make laugh. They need our undivided attention and their own unrestricted movement. Show them how their body can move, let them feel the wind on their face and touch the grass, help them to use their own muscles and see the colors in a painting or touch the fur of a pet, hear you sing, meet your gaze. These simple things are so important to the life of a child.
8
"The accelerometers did not show what inactive babies were doing instead of wiggling, scooting or walking. But the researchers suspect that they were “spending a lot of time in restrictive devices,” Dr. Benjamin-Neelon says, such as strollers, highchairs and car seats."
They don't know?? How can this be considered a controlled study?
2
That isn't what controlled means. They don't need to know, it wasn't what was being studied.
8
@Darth Vader
Instead of using acelorometers, they might have just counted the number of hours children are spending in “restraining devices” and compared those spending fewer to those spending more time restrained. Clearly, children who are restrained aren’t moving.
Children are being conditioned to immobility in infancy. This impacts all the systems of the body from the brain to The lungs, cardiovascular system, muscle strength, etc. Babies need to move!
6
In terms of setting the stage for obesity it may begin in utero and like most things probably includes genetic elements as well as environmental factors. When I was seeing a high risk pregnancy doctor in my second pregnancy due to advanced maternal age. (I was 41). He was monitored regularly via ultrasound (at the end especially) and the perinatologist would note changes in his size, i think his belly size, that she linked to my diet. Sometimes the baby appeared leaner apparently. I know it is not a science but she seemed able to see when i was eating a lot of carbs based on how he looked in utero. Likewise when i are less this seemed to show too. It was fascinating. He is 10 now and in the 50th percentile for weight but what and how I ate seemed to affect the baby significantly. I guess that should be no surprise.
2
Oh geez. I haven’t seen this study and will read the full text of the study. My initial thoughts are that this is probably a very misleading article. Yes parents should have their baby exposed to opportunities for free movement and exploration to develop their learning (including physical
Mobility skills). We should not as the lay public (and new parents) begin to obsess about baby’s fat or weight beyond ensuring they are gaining weight and growing. Babies need fat for the development and growth of their brain and nerves (have you seen the layers of fat on breast milk?) Please don’t put our obsessions with weight onto babies.
20
This is among the most absurd "findings" I have ever seen reported on, on so many levels.
The actual paper says that they did NOT account for dietary intake, and this article even says they can't differentiate between the baby moving on its own and an adult moving the baby around. The two things that determine how fat a person is: diet and exercise. So, right there, you know these findings are useless.
Also the effect was only in central adiposity and even then it was miniscule at a difference of 0.1mm. Since central adiposity is a ratio, I'm not even sure that those units are correct, it should be unitless (mm/mm), right?
Finally, assuming generously that these results are valid, what is one supposed to do with a lazy baby? Put it on a diet? Yell at it until it starts doing 100 pushups and runs a sub-18 5k?
Babies are SUPPOSED to be fat and eat too much. That's how they grow. They lay around like bums because they physically can't do anything but lay around like bums.
8
I totally agree with everything you say here (and lol-ed more than once!) except your assertion that diet and exercise are the only two things that affect weight. Genetics is a huge contributor: look at a kid and then his or her parents, and you will likely have an excellent idea of what body shape that kid will have. Furthermore, there are plenty of fat people who eat an extremely “healthy” diet and exercise a lot (see the excellent “Brittany Runs a Marathon” or watch football for some good examples of this!), so the equation between food, fitness and weight is much more nuanced than most people are taught. Thanks!
1
For 27 years I have been warning people about the consequences of what I call "Babies in Bondage." They are strapped into car seats that become strollers that becomes an infant seat. I once babysat for a 9 month old who had never been put on the floor - when I asked why I was told "we have no carpets." In my house she was down on a sheet and in one week went from unable to move to cruising. Why yes, her mother was a child psychologist.
Free the babies! Turn off the screens. Wash the floor. Let them roam.
32
@Debby 165 hear, hear! we deliberately chose not to buy the 'capsule' carseat / stroller combo as we were made aware prolonged (30 minutes or more) time in the capsule at a young age was bad for babies spine.... we didn't have to think much more about it before it occurred to us that the child would never even be held by us, just shuttled around in a plastic seat for potentially hours on end. I know it's common at daycare for babies to be put in seats that keep them stationary and upright. Free the babies indeed!
11
I had my son around the same time as three other women friends. All of our sons were different sizes, different activity levels, and different weights relative to height. Almost four years later, they are all healthy, average weight kids. I would have hated to have read this wildly speculative article in the midst of learning how to be a mom; one more thing to obsess over and feel insecure about.
10
My daughter is 7 months old, and I noticed that she constantly makes nonstop micro movements with her arms and legs except when in front of a screen, where she mostly remains still. Due to this, I've made it a personal rule to use screens in front of her as little as possible. Not only does this keep her moving, but also keeps me in the moment with her so we can really enjoy each other.
31
In my experience, babies tend to bulk up before a growth spurt or even a physical breakthrough. My son’s flab at 5 months prompted unwelcome comments. At 6 months, he started crawling and the fat disappeared. My grandson has shown the same pattern. However, this was not mentioned in the article.
9
One issue not addressed in this article and in the comments is the visual development of infants spending so much time looking at screens. Looking at close objects, screens & books, for a majority of the time risks nearsighted development. Children need the daily opportunity to see movement in the distance for normal vision to develop.
12
My pet peeve is wide-awake infants being lugged around in car seats. I don’t know how this trend started but it is unwieldy, illogical, and not at all conducive to motor development. They grow up to be toddlers who aren’t allowed out of their strollers in public. These children are trained to be sedentary and incurious from birth.
33
I'm not crazy about them either, but I used them at times, years ago, and most parents would say they have practical uses. One is visiting a public restroom with a baby in tow. I didn't want to put my baby on that particular floor. Most people don't.
13
@amanda It is really practical when you have more than one child and can’t devote 100% of your attention to the baby, or when you can’t hold the baby constantly. My one-year-old child often stays in his stroller when we are in public, but at home he is never in a restraining device of any sort, nor does he ever use screens.
He sits in his stroller without complaining because, with four older siblings, he has already had to learn patience and self-soothing, two behaviors many only-children and children with only one sibling in today’s over-parented world may never learn.
He is exceptionally curious and, due to his status as fifth, probably has more freedom about the house than any child you’ve ever known. If you were to see us in public, what you would mistake as an absence of curiosity would in fact be patience and a naturally sweet disposition. Perhaps you would be wise to withhold the judgment for whatever hapless mother you encounter and instead offer to help her or give her an understanding smile.
6
I have 4 children myself and fully appreciate the luxury of free hands. Certainly some children are naturally more active than others, but whenever I see a bored child whining in a stroller then being offered a snack and an iPhone instead of the playtime they want, I pity the child. You are welcome to judge me for being judgmental.
10
Purely anecdotal, but in my experience, many a chubby baby has grown into a skinny kid, including my own. I would be far more concerned about development (rather than weight) issues, if a baby is spending hours each day strapped to a car seat looking at a screen.
36
If you’ve been around babies lately you’ll know that some, or many, parents move their child from table top seat, to bouncy chair, to car seat, to floor seat. It’s less about baby screen time and more about parent screen time (me time). The fast paced two worker home doesn’t easily provide much time for baby to be on the floor - it means someone must watch them. Much easier to sit them in a restricted seat. Of course, babies do build enough muscle to walk and get along in life, but there are more skills to learn.
What they are missing are the repetitive motions that are required to build skills such as balance, proprioception (knowing where your body is in space), motor planning (knowing how to move your body to achieve whatever goal), quick response time, dexterity, and problem solving. These skills all take EXPERIENCE. You can’t develop them by watching someone else or reading about it.
Parents who do not give their children the time to allow them to develop these skills are limiting their abilities.
It doesn’t take material items or money, it doesn’t even have to be parenting time, but it does mean the baby needs to have some freedom of movement and time to explore in a safe area.
38
@Peters I would add to this the trend of swaddling babies when they sleep as well as the 'attachment parenting' trend of baby wearing.
1
@Patricia B swaddling is fine for infants to comfort them and help them sleep and women have been carrying babies since time began. This is not a new trend.
But babies and toddlers should be allowed to move freely as much as possible and should not be restrained in their sleep! Development occurs during sleep, the brain and neuromusculature are growing and learning. A stationary child isn’t generating the sensory data that will help her develop.
1
@Patricia B
Babywearing actually gives babies more chance to exercise their trunk muscles. And you gotta port the baby from place to place somehow! Either you carry them, or you push them in a stroller. One is a lot more convenient.
4
Fat?! While I understand the future health implications of this there is a far graver consequence that we should be concerned with. Babies who don’t move their limbs enough don’t learn their physical boundaries and therefore don’t learn the physical boundaries of others. Knowing where your personal, physical space ends and the world begins is crucial for healthy social development. Not learning these first boundaries can lead to all kinds of issues in our communities and society at large. It all begins with the freedom to move.
6
The edict to parents that babies must be on their backs all night and most of the day discourages activity
5
@Noa There is no such edict. Babies are simply supposed to SLEEP on their backs. When they're awake, that's not necessary.
1
This article is irresponsibly speculative. There is no evidence presented to link adiposity in babies to obesity or adverse health outcomes, no evidence to demonstrate causality between adiposity and amount of movement (maybe chunky babies move less because it's harder for them to move!), and no evidence that the lack of movement was due to screens or "restrictive devices". The article does note that movement monitors collect all sorts of movement caused by parents, further muddying any possible conclusions. Instead of accurately presenting the limited valid implications of this research, the author speculates wildly in order to draw more interesting/provocative conclusions. This is shoddy science journalism that ultimately contributes to the degradation of public trust in science.
49
@Meghan
Well said.
@Meghan
Actually, the problem is that this is incorrectly construed as science journalism when it's simply a casual article in a general newspaper. It's up to people to learn critical thinking skills, so that they know the difference between actual science journalism and the weekly 'health news' blurb in a daily paper. Look for science reporting in science journals and view them critically also.
Infant exercise? How about infant diets? Ridiculous.
5
@Liz Exercise means movement. It's not recommending high intensity interval training for infants, just saying they need a chance to move around. For that matter, infants also have specialized diets.
6
You think babies are going to be given opportunities to move much when their parents or caregivers sit, sit, sit with electronics in their hands? Duh....
20
The idea of "move it or lose it" begins in the crib. Statistics show that some 40% of Americans are obese. Seems they never learned that.
4
Just commenting to say those tiny infant accelerometers are very cute!
18
My oldest son who is now 23 walked at seven months and is now tall and thin. My youngest despised crawling even with knee pads and didn’t walk independently until he was 14 months. He is now a healthy and extremely active 14 year old with zero body fat.
Babies develop differently and should not be compared.
However, I do believe toddlers should be encouraged to move and not sit in strollers and outdoor play incorporated in their daily routine.
21
My first child was a early talker late walker, and she was much chunkier than my second baby, who crawls everywhere and seems much more motivated to hit all his physical milestones. However as soon as my daughter reached toddlerhood, she shed all her baby fat and has stayed slim ever since. It seems like common sense that babies with more activity would have less body fat, but it probably doesn't mean much to predict long term health consequences.
25
Indeed. My son was a chubby chubby baby. He’s now 3 and slim as a bean pole. My daughter is almost a year, and is even chubbier. I have no reason to believe she won’t thin out as well, as they are both active kids. However: that doesn’t stop total strangers deriding me in the supermarket/mall/street, for how “huge/well-fed/fat” my baby girl is. When I say she’s exclusively breastfed, they look at me like I’m an alien. Let’s see this flawed study for what it is: another attempt to generalize in order to fear monger and grab headlines. Babies develop differently. What properly conducted study proves beyond a doubt that chubby babies will invariably become overweight kids/adults?? There isn’t one. We’re all different.
8
At a local park I see children who can walk, from one to even 5 years riding along the path in strollers. Why are these children not on their feet?
30
@Laura Lape
Yes, I used to live across from a park and saw kids that looked school aged pushed around in these things and never taken out....took them to the park but never let them play, or swing on the swings or walk. Sad. Even sadder young parents close by who never took their kids to the park at all.....
10
@Laura Lape Because my toddler takes off and refuses to walk, like many other toddlers. Or because they're tired from a long session on the climber. Or because we go for long walks that are further than a child that age can't walk because I'd like to be able to get some outdoor time myself. Or because my child was having a meltdown and kicking and screaming and I had no other way to get from point a to point b. Or because it is almost nap time and I'm trying to get home. You don't know what other parents are going through. Stop judging them.
32
@Laura Lape How do you know they can walk unless you see them walk. My younger brother has cerebral palsy and didn't take his first steps until he was 54. My mother used to have to push him in a stroller and would get comments all the time about it. Don't be so quick to judge :)
4
It's the screens. No babies should be engaging with screens. The AMA says no screens before the age of 2. But certainly, under age 1, screens are completely unnecessary.
51
@Meighan Corbett Well, 2 hours of screen time a day is crazy, but it's kind of impossible to have no screens these days. You're gonna be taking pictures of the kids, looking at the pictures, showing them the pictures. It's good to be cognizant of just how exposed they are, but totally eliminating exposure will probably drive you and the baby crazier than just accepting that there some amount of screen time is unavoidable.
8
@Justin No, the babies don't need to see the photos. They won't even understand what you are doing. Toddlers might be interested, but not infants.
11
So frustrating and unbelievable to see toddlers running around in scooters holding an iPhone in front of their faces.
My friends and I went to RIE classes where the babies, three months and up, were on the floor playing, moving, and interacting. We all continued this freedom in our group at home as well.
Us moms, and some dads would just sit around the perimeter of the room observing.
What those babies did independently and with each other was so much more interesting than anything we could find on a screen, or think up ourselves. They are fascinating beyond belief left to creatively play on their own.
If you’ve never heard of RIE or Magda Gerber check it out on line. Baby classes are offered nationally and internationally. 
It’s also a complete myth that babies need to be on carpet. Wood floors are the best for movement, sound reactions, and cleanliness. They are fascinating beyond belief left to creatively play on their own
5
And wiggly, crawling babies in pursuit of whatever catches their eye also require those looking after them to move constantly as well, because those babies must frequently be redirected, have objects removed from in front of them, and/or picked up and set on a safer course out of danger. A win-win as exercise for the adults watching them as well. (as long as they would not prefer to be glued to their screens)
16
@Susan Those lazy parents today aren't doing anything important that can't be interrupted every thirty seconds to get up and redirect their babies, like working multiple jobs, tackling the overwhelming amounts of cleaning and laundry work generated by a baby, or talking to a friend on the phone to ease some of the isolation of being a new parent. It's all about the screens.
19
@Susan - Try twins. I watch two different moms with sets of twins trying to wrangle them. Both have a third child as well. Its fun to watch from a safe distance sipping my latte:) Watching them get in the car and go anywhere is like a military operation.
1
Parents can create a safe space where there are no dangers lurking. Doesn’t need to be big, just safe. There are countless ways to do this. Just takes a little sacrifice and creativity. 
2
We put our 6 week old baby, 43 years ago in a walker. He walked backwards and figured out forward mobility. He was like a little 11 pond bug. At 4 months old, he could walk all around his crib and today he is 43 going on 44 and he is often believed to be 30 years old. He walks everywhere. Moral to the story: Baby who can get around is a very happy baby who is very independent.
18
@Rita Harris Walkers actually hinder the child's ability to learn to walk, and also are a huge safety risk. Children who use walkers walk LATER, statistically speaking, and are much more likely to pull haevy objects onto their heads or fall down flights of stairs.
3
The story’s cover photo is great - smiling to think that years ago my friends and I were all crawling around in separate places. Wiggling up to maturity.
6
What next? More for parents to worry about. While interesting, I feel that this is a bit much.
21
@Leslie it’s never too early to crank up the fat phobia, and start judging “bellies” and “middles.” Next it’ll be weight watchers, infant edition followed by toddlers with eating disorders.
17
@Bambam We do have a deeply sick society which has lost touch with natural routines and healthy physical development. The obesity epidemic ushered in during the 70's with the wholesale deployment of engineered foods and particularly the ubiquitous addition of cornsweateners is attacking all of us. Now sedentary lifestyles are pushed as societal norm and it even pervades childhood.
It is irresponsible to not speak up about our societal ills.
Why is a scientific study needed for a common sense observation? The wiggly / wriggly babies are often a bit slimmer than their quieter, stiller counterparts.
17
Exactly. Also I think it’s genetic how much babies move. Some babies are naturally never-chill while others are more content to hang out and observe.🤷🏻♀️
26
My son rarely moved in the womb and never kicked. We lived in Beijing and babies rarely ever crawled anywhere but the bed, considered dirty on the floor and disease catching! He is 6’3” and if he loses 7 pounds will be underweight! Quite active as a teenager and now young adult.
10
@JJ This study might serve as a warning to parents not to confine their babies to carriers and to reduce their screen time to, say... how about zero?
39
It seems doubtful that this has any significance. Infants (especially those too young to crawl) never move very much, and throughout human history have spent a lot of time in "restrictive devices" (highchairs and car seats now, but previously slings, swaddles, etc.) Chubby infants usually become much thinner once they become mobile. The only concerning statement in this article is that 2-3 year olds are sedentary for 90% of their waking hours ... by that age they should be much more active.
54
So very often I see parents running behind those specialty running strollers. The child being pushed? Walking age and not walking...I suppose some children could be disabled-but they usually have specialty chairs and other parents are jogging to the local playground, but most of the time it looks like the kid is just being parked. It is hard to do everything you want to do.
21
I’ve seen parents driving around in cars with children (walking and non walking age) in car seats! I wonder where they are going. I guess they could be headed to a park or playground. Joking aside. I’ve pushed my children in jogging strollers and they love it. Those things are hard to push while running for long periods of time. I max out at 30 minutes. It was a great way to take them to the playground (which would be too far for them to walk to). Also, it’s great for kids to see their parents exercising. It’s interesting that you see this as a selfish activity.
39
@SW You're right, I'm so selfish for getting out and exercising. I don't even deserve 45 minutes to do something that benefits me. My baby's exercise level, that's CRITICAL, but I should just sit there all day because I'm a mother.
9
@SW "I suppose some children could be disabled-but they usually have specialty chairs". Not true my younger brother didn't and not everyone can afford them.
1
Never in the history of the species have babies required "exercise" as described here.
A much simpler hypothesis is that whatever is making the babies fat is also reducing their movement.
15
@The Pooch Never in the history of the species have babies been plunked on the floor occasionally and allowed to wiggle around? Because that's the kind of exercise described in this article. The concern is that babies these days don't move enough because they're strapped into strollers and handed a screen - which is a fairly recent development in the history of the species.
6
It may be hard to get some parents to understand the concept of movement being good for us if they themselves don't move much.
18
Infant aerobics! Yeah, that's the ticket.
News Flash: It's the food, it's the food, it's the food. It turns out that even babies can't outrun the effects of a bad diet.
Seven Minutes Abs For Babies!! Did I say seven minutes? I meant six minutes.
37
I lived for a couple of years with a hunter gatherer society, and my impression was the babies didn’t move much, as they were mostly attached to their mothers, though as older children and adults they weren’t overweight and were active.
69
@Peter Silverman - Yes, I was just thinking the same thing.
8
@Peter Silverman True, and I'm not overall convinced as to the significance of this study's conclusions. But, it also seems like that's a pretty specific circumstance, given that it would be unexpected to see obesity in a group that lives an active, non-sedentary lifestyle based on movement. Obesity wouldn't really be an issue to focus on for those societies, although it is for ours. And surely the babies are not always restricted - they must develop muscle somehow.
4
@Peter Silverman I have read that babies in hunter gatherer societies have to engage their core muscles more often than western babies. That along with their extremely different lifestyles and dietary habits makes a comparison basically meaningless.
3