A Closer Look at "Nearly Four In Ten Newark Kids Are Fat"

The 39.2 percent figure that represents the number of overweight adolescents presented in the article "" came from a study made by the California center for Public Health advocacy (http://www.publichealthadvocacy.org/research.html) and UCLA Center for Health Policy Research (www.healthpolicy.ucla.edu/).

That study is based on data (height and weight measurements) from the spring of 2010. Every year, February to May, children in grades 5, 7 and 9 (some 1.34 million of them) take a fitness test, known as the Fitnessgram, which measures:

1. Aerobic capacity (ex one-mile run)
2. Body Composition (mostly by BMI charts)
3. Abdominal Strength (curl-up)
4. Trunk Extensor Strength (trunk lift)
5. Upper Body Strength (ex push-up)
6. Flexibility (ex shoulder stretch)

The results are published in November by the Callifornia Department of Education (http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/pf/healthfitzones.asp), and a lot of headlines and policies are based on the outcome.

The body composition test is the test most related to future health risks, and where the numbers for incidence of kids overweight and obese come from.

The "39.2 percent study" had a different standard of what was an acceptable BMI, and according to on of the authors, it can’t be compared to the Fitnessgram.

The study excluded around 16,000 out of some 1.2 million students because of "biologically implausible values."

That is just 1.3 percent, so I guess that should not matter, but it is an indication that there is some degree of human/instrument error when kids are measured. There is no money for a follow-up study, so the numbers which this study came up with can’t be compared to anything past or present.

If you use the Fitnessgram standards for Newark, the number of kids outside of HFZ (Healthy Fitness Zone) in 2010 is 33.9 percent and is 47.7 percent in 2011.

Kids are unhealthier in 2011 compared to 2010, partly because the Fitnessgram (by the Cooper Institute) and the California Department of Education raised the bar and changed the standards to be more in line with the Center for Disease Control's idea of what is healthy/unhealthy. They also divided up the ‘outside of HFZ’ into ‘needs improvement’ and ‘needs improvement, high risk’

As I pointed out above, we will not have the 2012 numbers until November.

Looking at Newark specifically, and the individual elementary schools (see picture), you may wonder a bit about accuracy.  has the most “unhealthy“ kids with 61.5 percent (and in 2008, 74 percent!) and the fewest, 37 percent.

Inside Bay Area had an in article 2011: "Schools struggle to Measure fitness of students as focus on health grows," which brought up several arguments for and against the 'Fitnessgram'. Some criticize the test for being inconsistent and statistically without merit.

In Oakley, the fifth graders were the most overweight in Contra Costa one year with 44 percent, but the previous year it was 32 percent, and the year after 24 percent.

It costs $3.5 million a year to administer the test in California. Some defend the test, certainly the test makers and the people doing the studies. Any way, the Fitnessgram, is the only thing there is if you want any numbers on California kids and fitness.

Conclusion: Look at numbers with a pinch of salt (pun intended if you read my ).

Bottom line is we could do better for kids health wise, better food and opportunities for more and better physical exercise. 

(Next, I hope to write a follow-up more centered on the actual kids. Check out sosnewark.org/pe-investigations.php for more on the subject of PE in school. Excuse the messiness of my website, it is my 'closet' where I throw everything I don't have time to organize).