This post contains affiliate links. OzBargain might earn commissions when you click through and make purchases. Please see this page for more information.
Saw it at Big W Browns Plains. In-store price is $30. Online shows $40
Normal price is $98
Action 3 Unit Swing Set $30 @ Big W
160
Related Stores
closed Comments
Uhhhh, can you really trust your kids on something like this if it only cost $30?
But this is ozbargain. Doesn't matter if the product isn't any good, it just has to be cheap.
Go pay $150 for it then as a rebadged label.
You check it over before they get on. This one looks like it would only be for the younger kids who you should be supervising the whole time anyway.
Can anyone who got one tell me the weight limit?
- This swing set has a maximum weight limit of 135kgs.
- This swing set is designed for use by children 3-9 years of age weighing no more than 45kgs - on individual parts of the swing set.
What 9 year old weighs 45kg? Yowsers.
You're kidding right?
Well even if you have children that are thin and short, have you been to an Australian primary school lately?
DO NOT get me started on BMI, and if you're going to go there at least point to an Australian set of charts that uses the metric system.
According to BMI calculators for kids that take into consideration age, any really tall child is also morbidly obese. The child can be slightly overweight with a bit of a belly but not a lot of other fat to speak of.
And if you go height to weight, because it's a percentage 5kg on an eight year old is the difference between healthy and obese.
Go to your local preschool. Look around. Even if you don't consider it healthy you'll be forced to concede there are plenty of larger kids. If anything you want to encourage them to exercise and play outside, not tell them they're too fat for your swing set!
@syousef: http://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/data/set1clinical/cj41l021.p…
1) I am unsure of your objection to using a US chart given: 1. They are statistically more obese than Australia, 2. American Samoans are the most obese in the world, 3. African descendants are generally taller than the predominantly Caucasian/Asian/Indigenous Australian population, 4. It was simply a reference;
2) The chart is cleary both in metric and imperial. And the other chart was there for concurrence. If you don't know how to convert, then I can give you a link to a good imperial to metric conversion table;
3) You do know that the BMI is not linear right? BMI = Weight / (Height^2). This means that a 167cm tall person weighing 70kg has the same BMI as a 2m tall person weighing 100kg. So a child of 150cm (freakishly tall) can weigh 24% more than an "average" child of 133cm.The chart does show that 45kg is in the 95th percentile for children just turning 10 years of age (40kg for a child just turning 9). Out of a class of 20 students, that equates to one child (actually less, as not all the children will be closer to 10 than 9). So I concede that there are either some morbidly obese children, or freakishly tall children.
I apologise for any offence caused to you, to morbidly obese or freakishly tall children, or their parents.
That said, I am still incredulous that 45kg was considered a "normal" weight range for a 9 year old child.
You missed or ignored my most important points.
You keep quoting BMI and stats but all that does is label overweight children that don't fit in as freaks. Why the hell would you tell the least fit child in a class of 20 (by your own stats) that "sorry kid, but you're too fat for the swing"??? You should be encouraging these kids to go out and play on swings!
You also ignored my point that BMI as a measure is flawed.
But mostly you just answered your own question:
Q: "What 9 year old weighs 45kg? Yowsers."
A: "The chart does show that 45kg is in the 95th percentile for children just turning 10 years of age…Out of a class of 20 students, that equates to one child"
Those are your own words.@syousef: Also my own words were "So I concede that there are either some morbidly obese children, or freakishly tall children."
Hence I concede your point. Which means i agree with you. (concede /kənˈsiːd/ 1. admit or agree that something is true after first denying or resisting it.)
And where have I once said "sorry kid, but you're too fat for the swing"?
Hence YOU are the one ignoring MY most important points.
I think that before you start rage posting you need to actually read what I am saying.
Yeah well done. You've relegated 1 in 20 kids as "morbidly obese" or "freakishly tall". And you wonder why someone might get a little upset. That's someone's kid you're calling morbidly obese or freakishly tall. The former may be the correct medical term but if you ask me there needs to be a better one. The later is certainly not. "Yowsers!" is completely inappropriate and offensive.
@syousef: 1) You are correct, that is the medical definition; 2) Freakishly means "in an unusual or unexpected way". If you are disputing that something in the 5th or less percentile is not deviating from the "norm" I stand corrected, as does the definition of outliers in statistical reference frames; in addition nowhere have I said that being freakishly tall is a bad thing, just an unusual one; 3) The term "Yowsers" was probably most famously coined by Shaggy (Scooby Doo) as an expression of amazement/shock.
And I stand by my previous comment that I would be shocked that a parent would allow their child to be morbidly obese. Obviously I am aware that a parent has no control over the height their child grows. So once again, I apologise if this offends you, but a parent that lets their child get to that point offends me, it is tantamount to child abuse.
VILE!
No, a child is not a "FREAK" if he or she isn't in the 95th percentile. By definition there is always going to be a 95th percentile.
Your lack of complete understanding of obesity and lack of sympathy for those who don't find it as easy as yourself or don't fit your definition of of normal isn't something I can fix on ozbargain, so stop wasting my time.
Do not for one second pretend you give a damn about children you call freaks and as for your comment about child abuse it is utterly filthy and disgusting. Go tell a loving mother or father who's child is overweight such a thing to her face and see how long the bone structure of yours lasts. Such a disgraceful attitude for someone named after a beloved children's character. I bet you are one of those people who is disgusted that Santa is fat. After all you want to live in a world where swings aren't made for "FREAKISH" kids in the 95th percentile and where calling a parent of a child with a medical issue a child abuser is proper behaviour.
BEGONE!
@syousef: Interesting perspective, again with you skirting the point that my comment was to do with weight vs age; not to do with not making swings for kids. Yes there will always be a 95th Percentile, but how nicer would it be if that fell within a range much closer to a "normal" weight?
You did note that you were the only one that used the word FREAK, didn't you? But it is good to have your own agenda. Keeps the mind sharp and away from snacks. Perhaps you could contact the oxford dictionary and get them to change the definition of the word freakishly?
As for wasting your time, you are the one wasting your own time. I am simply replying to your tirade. If you don't believe my right to an opinion different to your own, then that's great. I'm glad you have your own opinion, good for you. As for my comment on child abuse (noting that I was refering to morbidly obese children), and especially now obesity has been labelled as a disease, there is legal precedent to support my opinion.
Victorian Child Welfare and I quote "We are going to see more children in that [extreme] weight category and in some ways, yes, it's a failure of parents, but it also reflects a failure of society - that we could create a circumstance that would allow and encourage kids to overeat and under-exercise to such an extent that they get to that weight."And as for myth of genetic obesity "The genetic excuse for obesity is considered a myth. A research team from the Medical Research Council’s Epidemiology Unit in Cambridge sought to understand if there was any truth behind genetic susceptibility. After experts reviewed the DNA of more than 20,000 men and women and focused in on certain genes known to raise the risk of obesity, they found that simple physical activity, such as walking the dog and gardening “dramatically” reduced the impact of their genes."
But that's ok. I'm sure they are wrong too, as is anyone else who doesn't agree with your opinion. Have a good day, or have a day of your choosing. Whichever you prefer.
Again with dodging and misdirecting.
You think you're a medical expert because you've cherry picked a couple of studies or newspaper articles? The second of which just says that if your genes pre-dispose you to weight gain physical activity can mitigate to some degree.
Tell me what do you know of being ravenously hungry 20 minutes after a very large meal? You think that because something works for you or that you experience something it will work for everyone? What kind of self-deluded narrow-minded smugness is required for such a provincial and narrow experience of the world.
And "some morbidly obese children, or freakishly tall children." is not using the word FREAKISH? You're just LYING. It's written right above.
You're nothing more than a troll. BEGONE.
@syousef: "dodging and misdirecting" - By correlating references to each of my statements? Interesting.
Also, I'm sorry, but where exactly did I say that I was a medical expert? My exact words were that I am not the only one of that opinion. Do you still have a complete lack of the difference between what an opinion is an an apparent claim of medical expertise?As for life experience, you don't know mine, so I'm really not sure how you can judge. eg What do you know about being ravenously hungry because you haven't eaten a meal in three days?
To reiterate, YOU used the word FREAK. I used the descriptive word Freakishly. And if you read the above, I clearly made the distinction in use of the two words, as well as the application of the term. If you are now disputing application of the english language, I guess that makes another field of expertise for you. Also if you think it is appropriate to accuse people of lying just because you are upset and frustrated, that is also great, and good luck with that.
As for troll, you are the one insulting people and deducing character traits out of your own imagination. I have not once directly insulted you. In fact i have applauded your strength of conviction and wished you good luck.
May i remind you that it is you who chose to extend this, not me. I conceded your point 4 posts ago, as well as acknowledging your right to have your own opinion on multiple occasions. After which, I have merely attempted to respond to the barrage of insults and verbal abuse you have been posting.
This is my last comment on the matter, as clearly you are refusing to have any view other than your own and feel the need to resort to name-calling to invalidate someone elses opinion. As before I wish you a good day, and hope that you can pour your energy into something more rewarding.
Dodging and misdirecting by lying by
- Quibbling about the sematics of the noun freak and the adjective freakish. Neither is ever appropriate to describe a child. Nor is WOWSERS.
- Showing a complete lack of understanding of weight gain and a lack of empathy with any child or parent having trouble with a child's weight and going so far as to compare it to child abuse.Seriously what kind of sociopath even tries to defend comparison of parents to child abusers due to the weight of their child while in the same breath complaining that I shouldn't judge you because I don't know don't know your own life experience. Meanwhile you just condemned all overweight children and parents wholesale having never walked in their shoes. Do you even see the hypocrisy???
If your opinion is that 1 in 20 children is a freak or is freakish well keep it to your self.
Cheers OP - grabbed one for $30 at Kwinana WA…still two left.
Anything in vic?
Just picked one up at Mt Gravatt, Brisbane $30, thanks. Still had 3 more.
So cheap; bought one; don't even have kids.
How big is the box would this fit in a yaris? Or does it need to be a ute?? Went to armadale WA no stock
Fits fine in the back seat. Box is quite small.
Thanks no stock in bigw belmont..
Thanks, I won't bother trying Belmont then.
Sorry, I am new to this. Can anyone tell me how long these deals usually last for?
Also, any stock in WA (NOR preferably).
Thanks in advance.
no stock in ACT