The report is entitled Kacey's weight went off the scale
It says
Kacey's weight began escalating when she was barely six months old...A whole team of doctors carried out a range of tests which failed to find any underlying medical cause for her condition...The turning point came when Kacey was two. Her parents decided they had to control what she was eating much more closely. Nadine drew up a list of healthy foods and told Kacey she chose off her special list of "princess" foods. A typical lunch might now be a bowl of soup with a slice of bread, and a piece of fruit...By taking control of Kacey's food her parents have transformed their daughter's future.
There's two aspects of this I don't understand. What was she eating beforehand? The fact that she had a battery of medical tests suggests that doctors were reasonably satisfied that diet wasn't a significant cause. The fact that they couldn't find a medical explanation doesn't mean there isn't a medical cause - undefinable and freak? The other thing that confuses me is that as the child approached two years old, the parents decided to take control of what she was eating. This seems to imply that prior to that, the child - a baby - was in control. Of course I know how difficult it can be to get children to eat certain foods, in the right amount, and a parent has to decide how far to push it. But, if it turns out that a diet that has soup bread and fruit for lunch has really helped the child's obesity, what was she eating before that was so radically different? So, either the previous diet was so crap that any reasonable diet was a vast improvement - so why did she have medical tests? Or else there is a - undiagnosed - medical problem, so - what is the general relevance of this and what is the conclusion to be drawn from the change in diet?
I don't know the answers to any of these questions, but it seems to me that someone is being paid good money to write absolute rubbish. A hundred monkeys with a hundred typewriters...
