• by Thom Forbes , December 2, 2010

A front-page article in the New York Times yesterday talked about the growing competition in the baby sports market. That's right, the baby sports market. Infants as young as four months old are being enrolled in exercise classes. And Doreen Bolhuis, the entrepreneur behind Gymtrix training DVDs for kids 6 months to 11 years, tells Mark Hyman: "With the babies in our family, I start working them out in the hospital."

My first reaction was extremely negative. Perhaps it was the headline in the print edition: "For the Goal-Oriented Parent, a Jump-Start in Toddler Sports." It conjures the type of parents who would take in-utero pre-school prep courses, yell at their 5-year-old for not holding her position in soccer or teach their T-Baller how to throw a curveball. How many kids have been turned off by an overbearing dad or mom who has visions of college scholarships and a professional career -- instead of the joy of the game -- in their eyes? And there is, for sure, a fair share of youth sports coaches who are frustrated Vince Lombardi's.

But make no mistake, kids need a lot more exercise than they're getting. Kudos to the NFL Network for its "Keep Gym in School" program, as well as to the increasing voices out there who are calling for restoring mandatory physical education classes, albeit of a different sort than the semi-sadistic tradition of PE Past. It not only makes sense for our children's increasingly overweight and obese bodies, but as John Ratey, M.D. lays out in his book Spark, aerobic exercise also prepares their brains to learn.

As you may have already noted, the headline on the online version of the Times article is less charged, namely "Sports Training Has Begun for Babies and Toddlers." The story itself -- while it contained wary observations from a medical doctor and former professional athlete questioning both the value and the motivation behind starting kids out in sports programs so young -- includes no parental lunatics or ranting coaches. And a video version of the story, produced by Shayla Harris, not only shows a bunch of kids having a good time romping around but also a group of reasonable parents who are engaged in their children's physical "literacy."

In the end, I think that as long as the goals are to get kids moving their bodies in sustained exercise for the simple reason that millions of years of evolution demand it and not to create, as the Times article says, "the next Robinson Cano or Sidney Crosby," the trend is a good one. But you may think differently, and I'd love to hear about it either way.

Sidebar: The Times magazine last Sunday contains a fascinating story from the other end of the spectrum: Men and women in their 70s, 80s and 90s who are still exercising -- and competing -- at a very high level, including a 91-year-old "incredible flying nonagenarian," Olga Kotelko, who long jumps 5.3 feet, runs the 100-meter dash in 23.95 seconds and tosses a mean javelin.