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...

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 ...

The Singling Out of Golden Rice

I saw earlier today that  Steven Novella, MD, over at Neurlogica blog  covered some controversy surrounding Golden Rice and it reminded me I had some thoughts to throw down about the GR issue. Dr Novella's post was in response to some of the claims made in a comment written on his post about a recent Nature Biotechnology paper on crop biofortification .  This is an area I've seen a lot of commentary on, no doubt because Golden Rice is a transgenic crop. Dr Novella makes some good commentary in his post and I suggest reading it ( here ) before the rest of this post - it will contain some additional thoughts to Dr Novella's. Dr Novella did a great job fielding the opposition to Golden Rice, which is something I've always found rather odd - I guess if you're vehemently opposed to a technology that represents a diverse array of methods (there's not one way to genetically engineer a plant) and innumerable potential outcomes (plants can be engineered for any number ...