LAExaminer.com ran a story about a study that showed certain parts of LA having the highest concentration of fat kids in the state. I posted a couple comments without reading the article first. Now, after having read the article...

What's as enlightening as the study is the reaction:

Assemblywoman Cindy Montanez, D-San Fernando... noted many of today's children live in poor, urban areas with limited access to recreation, and might also have unhealthy eating habits.

I.e., more $ for rec centers.

"It has to be a very holistic approach, a community approach (to improving health and fitness)," said Montanez. "It's the only way we're going to be able to take care of our children: coming together as a community and providing a very healthy lifestyle and environment for them to grow up in."

It takes a village, or, in this case, the State.

"It's not just about individual choices. It's about the context, the environment in which those choices are made," [the study's author from the California Center for Public Health Advocacy said.]

...The center's other recommendations include holding legislative hearings to examine the effects of advertising on children and convening district forums of community leaders to identify strategies.

Yes, by all means, let's get Jack la Lanne's input. And, we'll commission several more studies to be done, perhaps through the California Center for Public Health Advocacy.

Los Angeles Unified School District board member Marlene Canter said the study validated the district's pending ban on carbonated soda -- a campaign she led.

I'm sure she is justifiably proud.

"Soda was just a giant baby step that got the conversation going, and I'm really pleased with the momentum we have built," Canter said, adding that the district also is moving toward revamping its food offerings and physical-fitness programs.

"Giant baby step?" So, the kids won't have sugar rushes during school hours. They'll just wait until after school, when they can go out into the big bad world and buy whatever is (currently) legal for them to have. Like a Jolt Cola Slurpee.

"Parents have been overwhelmingly supportive. They're the first to not want kids to drink soda, and the first to cave in to the peer pressure."

WTF? Shouldn't she have said that last part in her quiet voice?

a 16-year-old girl who was unable to run a mile in 8 to 10 minutes would be classified as unfit

OK. I'm over twice her age, the other sex, and I probably weigh around two times what she does. I'm able to gain ~3000' (vertical) per week, either hiking with a 10-50lb. pack or on my 30lb. bike. I'm sure I could run a mile in 8 minutes if I really had to. Like if I was running from killer bees or something. But, I'm sure that a better indicator of ones aerobic fitness could be found. At least with me, running seems to be mainly a lower-leg exercise; something like hiking up a hill, or biking, or best of all a cross-country ski machine would seem to provide a much better indicator of ones overall fitness level. To a certain extent, it's kind of like trying to figure out how strong someone is by how many pull-ups they can do.

Some people who try to run fast on the flat might feel a bad burn in their shins after much less than a quarter mile, if the pain in their feet from such a high-impact activity didn't get to them first.

The California Department of Education has found physically fit children perform better in school. Its study matched scores from the spring 2001 Stanford Achievement Test with results of the Fitnessgram

Mr. Cause, meet Mr. Effect. Mr. Effect, Mr. Cause.