Skip to main content

Whose Responsibility? Obesity Risk Esablished at Age 5

If you read this blog regularly, i'm highly against obesity shaming. The whole idea that people simply choose to be obese and lack the will power to change ignores a multitude of educational/psych-social/politcal/cultural factors, as well as physiological and genetic susceptbility. It's extremely reductionist to play the calories-in-calories-out blame game. This isn't too say there isn't some level of personal responsibility, but obesity is a multi-factorial issue - as i've blogged about before.

A new study (1) recently came out in the New England Journal of Medicine that looked at the incidence of obesity in the United States using the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. Taking data from school children from 1998-2007 (about 21000 children were enrolled in the study), early childhood obesity (the age entering kindergarten) was highly predictive of obese status at age 14. About half of the children who were obese at age 14 had been overweight when they were in kindergarten. Children whose birthweight was >8.8lbs were also more at risk of being obese at every age analyzed. Of note, individuals born into families of the highest SES were least likely to become obese. The researchers conclude that a substantial component of childhood obesity is established at age 5. And obese children become obese adults.

It's no 5 year olds choice to be obese, nor is it due to their personal responsibility. Education regarding healthy eating is key, and health literacy is not innate (only 12% test proficient in America) (2). Teaching parents is critical - but i'd reckon to say parents 75 years ago, before the obesity epidemic, weren't very health literate either. What's changed? Look at the food system, Look at the farm bill, Look at the food environment we've created. Obesity is a systemic issue.

1. http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa1309753
2. http://www.health.gov/communication/literacy/issuebrief/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Beware the Meta-Analysis: Fat, Guidelines, and Biases

Headlines were abuzz this week, reporting that a new review of randomized controlled trials at the time of the low-fat guidelines didn't support their institution. Time , Business Insider , and The Verge all covered the topic with sensationalist headlines (e.g. 'We should never have told people to stop eating fat' #weneverdid). I won't spend every part of this blog picking apart the entire meta-analysis; you can read it over at the open access journal, BMJ Open Heart (1) -- (note, for myself, i'm adding an extra level of skepticism for anything that gets published in this journal). I'm also not going to defend low-fat diets either, but rather, use this meta-analysis to point out some critical shortcomings in nutritional sciences research, and note that we should be wary of meta-analyses when it comes to diet trials. First off, let's discuss randomized controlled trials (RCTs). They are considered the gold standard in biomedical research; in the hierarc...

Want To Buy: A Placebo

A well-designed/performed, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial provides a high level of certainty about the effectiveness of an intervention. In scientific training, the need to utilize a placebo relative to your variable of interest is one of the first things you learn when designing an experiment. As many in the basic sciences and evidence-based medicine fields have become more interested in nutrition and its impact on health/biology (their interest is well-justified), there has been insufficient appreciation for the difficulty in performing nutrition research. This day 1 principle of "placebo-controlled" poses a particular challenge for many nutrition experiments: there is no placebo.  Consider an example that actually plagued causal inference in nutrition history: It was known that feeding diets high in saturated fatty acids was associated with higher LDL. Does that mean that saturated fat raises LDL? How would you design a study to show...

On PURE

The PURE macronutrients studies were published in the Lancet journals today and the headlines / commentaries are reminding us that everything we thought we think we were told we knew about nutrition is wrong/misguided, etc. Below is my non-epidemiologist's run down of what happened in PURE. A couple papers came out related to PURE, but the one causing the most buzz is the relationship of the macronutrients to mortality. With a median follow up of 7.4 years, 5796 people died and 4784 had a major cardiovascular event (stroke, MCI). The paper modeled the impacts of self reported dietary carbohydrate, total fat, protein, monounsaturated (MUFA), saturated (SFA), and polyunsaturated (PUFA) fatty acid intakes on cardiovascular (CVD), non-CVD and total mortality; all macros were represented as a percentage of total self reported energy intakes and reported/analyzed in quintiles (energy intakes between 500-5000kcals/day were considered plausible..). All dietary data was determined by a ...