Apps For Healthy Kids — Where PC Meets PCs

theodp writes "Put the Grand Theft Auto, Halo, and Madden away, kids! Over at Apps for Healthy Kids, First Lady Michelle Obama has a whole new slate of games for you to play with! Voting on entries in the White House-backed game development competition has begun, and you'll find exciting titles like Balanced Meal (6 votes), Blubber Blaster (9 votes), Calorie Quest (10 votes), and Count Peas (7 votes) — and that's just for starters."

Comments

Surely the healthiest option

[Finallyjoined!!!]

Would be to not let "Kids" near a PC.

Re:Surely the healthiest option

[Anonymous Coward]

While you're at it, be sure to slap books out of their hands.

Anyhow, I'm just curious. Has anyone run the numbers on increasing kid-lard versus decreasing safe roaming distance around the home?

(Disclaimers: I read books, and grew up in an city-sized 60s suburb that was entirely safe to let kids roam.)

Re:Surely the healthiest option

[BlkRb0t]

That's not possible in the current scenario, PC's are everywhere and kids are going to see them and be curious about them. It's better that you teach them how to use it properly than making it a restriction. If you don't let them near one then they are going to seek it out from outside which maybe worse than what you intended to do.

Re:Surely the healthiest option

[BasilBrush]

As far as road safety goes, where I am in the UK, it's far safer than it was in the 1960s. Quite the opposite of parents perception:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1208

It seems to me that one of the drivers of increased safety has been deliberate raising of the public's awareness. Increased awareness creates a perception of things getting worse, whilst actually causing things to get better.

I would imagine research into child abduction, abuse and murder would also produce results contrary to expectation.

I have no kids, but if I did, I'd give them as much freedom to roam as I had when I was a child. I certainly wouldn't be driving them everywhere.

Re:Surely the healthiest option

[dogsbreath]

Hmmm, I grew up in the 50s and we roamed the neighborhood in relative safety, but there were also lots of parents around. Two income families were not the norm. My wife or I would take our kids (now teens) to the playground and we would be the only parents in the area.

There have been a number of significant changes in the way people spend their time and how they interact in the last 50 years. Entertainment content has changed as well. It is simplistic (but fun!!) to blame one thing or another for obesity and violence.

So here's my 2c: Up to grade 5 or 6, turn off the TV and limit computer time. Go outside and play with your kids. Talk WITH them for a significant part of every day, even if you have something more important to do.

Especially limit exposure to shows/games that use a lot of sarcasm or display/infer violence. Your kid isn't going to be a serial killer because they play violent games but they do model what they see and if you want them to learn how to interact successfully with others then make sure they see / hear / live in way that is what you consider healthy.

Re:Surely the healthiest option

[nu1x]

> Especially limit exposure to shows/games that use a lot of sarcasm or display/infer violence. Your kid isn't going to be a serial killer because they play violent games but they do model what they see and if you want them to learn how to interact successfully with others then make sure they see / hear / live in way that is what you consider healthy.

Not really, regarding modeling. Many (most ?) kids are capable of differentiating between modeling the internal vs. the external world, as in, they can take all the sarcasm, blood and gore, and still understand the "abstraction" part behind it. I spent a lot of time around certain kids growing up, and while they were certainly above the norm intellectually, by the age of about 12, every abstract thing you throw at them they can take just dandy.

What is much more dangerous, is not having the valve for gore and brutality - you may think it strange, but it is necessary. I've seen kids ruined by over-protective parents. In other words, I've noticed that true demons among kids are those who have not noticed pain and suffering in the world, and esp. those who have not felt pain and personal loss - not saying that you should traumatize your kids, far from it - what I am getting at is that kids need to go outside, for example, take a camping trip - and not experience comfort for once - but the mud, the hunger and hardship - these are the things that make kids appreciate it in others and become more helpful.

Also, boys (maybe I am coming off as sexist here, whatever) tend to naturally seek out sources of pain in real life while playing. But it is healthy - broad spectrum of experience defines us as persons.

Not sheltering them or making them "model" some behaviour on rote level, but rather, leading them to understand root causes and relationships of this world, is a better approach.

World-proof your kids.

Re:Surely the healthiest option

[Chowderbags]

Talk WITH them for a significant part of every day, even if you have something more important to do.

They're your kids. Raising them is the most important thing you have to do.

Re:Surely the healthiest option

[eugene ts wong]

I'd like add a bit to your last paragraph. I suggest people proactively expose children to people who are problem solving in a polite and respectful way. They need to be exposed to people actually trying to find win-win situations, as opposed to win-lose situation. They definitely need to avoid the lose-lose situations. I think that most people don't really know how to get the win-win situation or how to really co-operate in a collaborative way. It's not just a matter or attitude either.

Re:Surely the healthiest option

[dogsbreath]

Spot on, Eugene. Absolutely right.

You don't have to make up artificial situations: just make sure you carry the right attitude and philosophy in all your dealings. Kids watch what you do and learn from it. They don't have to be force fed healthy behaviour; they need to live in a healthy atmosphere.

Cheers

Re:Surely the healthiest option

[mcgrew]

Even though I wasn't around in the 50's, the world that my parents describe growing up in was a much safer place.

I was around in the '50s (born in 1952), and I assure you the world is far safer today. Take automobiles -- the cars back then had drum brakes, rather than antilock disk brakes. There were no seat belts, let alone air bags. The autos' dashes were steel, the cars had no crumple zones.

There were no bicycle helmets; a kid that lived around the block from me died froim a head injury after wrecking his bicycle.

The media is to blame, making it LOOK like it was safer. From the newspapers you'd think there's a child molester on every street corner waiting for some unwary parent to tke his/her eyes of the child, but the fact is most molestations are from family members, friends, or clergy. It's just that they were hushed up back then; a family around the block from me in the late 50s/early 60s had two children that were molested by their own fathers.

The same goes for child abductions. In this case there are more, but again, the reason is that there were few divorces compared to today. Most abductions are the child's own parent who loses custody kidnapping the kid; there is virtually no chance of your child being abducted by a stranger.

There were criminals, but society didn't just give them a slap on the wrist when they were found.

Absolute bullshit. Penalties have gotten more and more harsh as time has gone by. There were no "three strikes laws" or sex offender registries back then.

As you have pointed out, there was always somebody there who knew who should and should not be around.

Nope. Incorrect, wrong. We'd get on our bicycles and be gone all day. A dozen of us would play baseball in the vacant field all afternoon without being bothered or hassled by a single adult, and IMO it was good for us.

Another factor that I think is important and have seen take a sharp decline even in my lifetime is the general morality.

What appears to be a decline in morality is actually a decline in hypocracy. Now as then, most people were good, honest folks, but there have always been thieves, adulterors, and the like. The difference is that the antisocial thieves who ran corporations were a bit more discrete in their antisocial theivery. Now they revel in it and rub our noses in it, and it's seen as normal.

These days, I would be more concerned of the other children and the influences of society than the actual criminals.

That hasn't changed a bit. There were always bad parents with bad kids, although with most kids now being raised by babysitters and in child care centers, there are more bad kids, because they're not getting the love they need.

Another big factor is that spanking is now seen as abuse. Today's spoiled brats could use a few good swats.

Re:Somebody tell 4chan!

[neumayr]

I'm sure they've already got their own plans..
But honestly, there is no real danger. What kid would voluntarily play games with such titles, games designed not for fun, but for indoctrination?

Just feed them less

[nten]

The whole "get out and play" thing is backwards according to this study:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100707212127.htm

Its results would indicate that simply feeding children less will make them less fat regardless of activity level. The lower weight makes them more active. This is consistent with how I finally got the weight of and kept it off (calorie counting while sitting in front of a monitor all day), and its really quite intuitive.

May I be the first to say.... Thermodynamics *works* bitches!

Re:Just feed them less

[AigariusDebian]

There is a certain problem with 'get out and play' if your outside is a ghetto ridden with gangs, drug dealers and gun violence. Better to stay inside then.

Re:Just feed them less

[FourthAge]

Backwards? But it isn't just about the exercise. It's also about social skills. Keep them "safely" indoors all day and, well, you know what happens... you'll have met kids like this in forums and online games. They are not pleasant to be with; they are rude, selfish people, and it's because they are poorly socialised. Some of them are technically adults - they are the saddest examples. We can get used to ignoring the flames, the trolls and the gamer rage on the Internet, but imagine how such people cope in the real world. "Not very well" is the answer.

Re:Just feed them less

[fluffy99]

"Diets" don't work. In particular crash diets that just send your body into starvation/storage mode leaving with zero energy. Increase the quality of your food (no pre-prepared food and stop eating out) and pay attention to the calorie totals. Eating less more often and earlier in the day helps too. The magic ingredient is to start getting some exercise to increase your metabolism and burn more calories. If you're well over 200lbs, you can burn up to 200 calories fast walking a mile. Don't expect huge changes in weight. A slow steady and _lasting_ improvement takes time.

When I was a kid...

[gravos]

When I was a kid I was writing my own apps. Now get off my lawn!

Physical games

[Timmmm]

What they should reaally do, is physical games. I.e. like Wii Fit, but not really boring. E.g. something like whack-a-mole, but with boxing instead of a hammer!

Keep it up!

[pieisgood]

No seriously, good job. You're sure to reel in the fatties with titles like "blubber blaster". I'm sure the most popular game is going to be something like "Lardass Limbo" and "Stop eating so much fatty". With titles like that, I'm sure the kids will start playing them by the droves. /sarcasm

Do they think kids are that stupid?

Re:Keep it up!

[AnonymousClown]

They're not marketing them to the kids: they're marketing them to the parents. The parents will buy "Blubber Blaster" and "encourage" their kids to use it. Of course, it'll probably stay on the shelf but the parents will feel good that they "did" something - kind of like the folks who buy the exercise equipment, use it once or twice, and give up.

In the meantime, the parents still buy the kids Coke, potato chips, crap from fast food joints (if it has a takeout window, it's crap), and they watch their parents sit in front of the TV all night.

I saw this guy buy his little pudgeball one of those 20oz Cokes the other day. She was 8 years old and already a fatty.

Re:What the hell???!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, give peas a chance!

Oxymoron inside

[nu1x]

Why oh why would healthy kids require games such as blubber blaster ?

They should be called apps for big boned, sensitive kids.

And now what ? You're trying to blast their blubber away ? Seems like recipe for insecurity ... :/

Better to create a game called "Life Challenged" wherein the object is to increase the worth of society by stopping being an oxygen thief - and there's only one way to do that. Achievement points for creative solutions ! :P

Or instead...

[betterunixthanunix]

On the one hand, we can continue to encourage kids to play video games and be antisocial, and hope that games with anti-fast-food themes will out-compete games like Halo. On the other hand, we can encourage kids to not play video games, and spend their time outdoors socializing and engaging in physical activity with each other, and hope that such activity will out-compete video games. Gee, which plan is going to be more effective (not that either one will be enormously effective)?

Of course, if we devote as much effort to telling kids that hang out with each other and play outdoors as we do to telling them that there is something wrong with enjoying the effects of drugs, we will hurt the profits of the corporations that produce video games. Since "the business of the United States is business," any plan that involves hurting corporate profits is a plan that will never actually happen.

You're right. Mod is ignoramous.

[AnonymousClown]

Modded "Flamebait" eh?

Well, rest assured that you're right and at least I know it.

My wife is in medical and it's a HUGE problem among kids because they're not getting enough exercise and the biggest culprits are video games and lack of greenspace for kids to run around - suburban American life is making kids fat. She asks the kids what they do all day: sit in school, go home and do home work and then sit and play video games - all of them have that story.

And being fat at such a young age leads to horrible health consequences later on: diabetes and all the issues with that, heart disease, high blood pressure and all the issue with that, etc....

Our health costs are just going to continue to balloon because of this and we're, of course, going to blame the insurance companies, big pharma, and everyone else but ourselves.

Winning Concept

[crow_t_robot]

If you want to make a game to encourage kids to be healthy, make a really shitty game like the orginal E.T. for Atari. Kids will play it for about 2 minutes before turning it off and going outside to make a tree-house.
In my opinion, making a good game and encouraging physical fitness and healthy eating are mutually-exclusive activities. I can tell when I have bought a really good game by the amount of time I have been stuck in the house glued to the game and all the garbage food I eat while playing it because I'm too busy to get up and prepare a healthy meal.

How about have good food in school. Not low cost h

[Joe The Dragon]

How about having good food in school. Not low cost high fat stuff? also give the kids time to eat so they use the full 30 min lunch standing in line to just have 10 min or less to eat it. NO MORE recess time shared with launch. Make it it's own time.