Child Obesity Causes

A study was just published which showed that, in suburban US neighborhoods, children who live near a major supermarket had a lower risk of obesity.

What’s going on here?

Maybe the families who live closer to supermarkets can shop more often and thus have more fresh fruits and vegetables around the house?

If you’ve been reading this blog, you know I’m being sarcastic.

Sure, we can try to guess what factors are contributing to this association — which is what commonly happens. Some study is done with a surprising result and the researcher (or worse, the journalist reporting on the study) makes up some reason for the result. Then, what makes the headline? — the made-up reason.

“Kids without access to fresh fruits and vegetables are at higher risk of obesity”

This type of reporting is crazy — but it happens all the time.

The other reaction we could have is to chalk the results up to inapproriate use of statistics.

As Disraeli said, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

The February 22nd issue of The Economist had an article about this titled, “Why so much medical research is rot.”

The article reported on a presentation by Peter Austin of the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences in Toronto where he stated that “people born under the astrological sign of Leo are 15% more likely to be admitted to hospital with gastric bleeding than those born under the other 11 signs. Sagittarian are 38% more likely than others to land up there because of a broken arm.”

Dr. Austin’s point was to “shock medical researchers into using better statistics, because the ones they routinely employ today run the risk of identifying relationships when, in fact, there are none.”

The article concludes by saying, “So, the next time a newspaper headline declares that something is bad for you, read the small print. If the scientists used the wrong statistical method, you may do just as well believing your horoscope.”

Allen Oelschlaeger
Author of The Straight Scoop About Childhood Obesity

TV watching is often given as one of the primary reasons for the increased incidence of childhood obesity.

This is because many studies show a correlation between TV watching and weight. In other words, kids who watch more TV seem to be heavier.

In the January issue of the Journal of the American Dietetics Association this correlation was seen again. 8,459 children were tracked from kindergarten through third grade with the following results:
* “Children who watched more television and ate fewer family meals were more likely to be overweight for the first time at spring semester of third grade.
* Children who watched more television, ate fewer family meals, and lived in neighborhoods perceived by parents as less safe for outdoor play were more likely to be persistently overweight.”

However, the researchers also found that:
* “Child aerobic exercise and opportunities for activity were not assoicated with a greater likelihood of weight problems.”

So, what’s going on here? TV watching is associated with weight — but physical activity is NOT associated with weight. How can you make sense of these results?

Well, first of all, an “association” doesn’t mean that one factor CAUSES the other factor. So, just because TV watching is “associated” with weight doesn’t mean that TV watching CAUSES weight gain. For example, it could just as easily mean that weight gain leads to more TV watching.

However, most people assume that the reason TV watching is associated with weight is because TV watching leads to less physical activity, and less physical activity leads to weight gain.

This makes sense doesn’t it?

It might make sense but it turns out not to be true. Almost no research has found an association between TV watching and physical activity. In other words, kids that watch more TV don’t generally have lower physical activity levels than kids who watch less TV.

What this means is that the reason TV watching is associated with weight probably has nothing to do with physical activity levels. Instead, there’s something else about TV watching that creates this association.

No one know what this something else is but one theory is that, when kids watch TV, they mindlessly eat high-caloric snack food at the same time.

If the goal is to address the “childhood obesity epidemic” maybe we should be less concerned about TV watching and more concerned about kids eating at the kitchen table instead of in front of the TV set.

Allen Oelschlaeger
Author of The Straight Scoop About Childhood Obesity

Over the last several years there have been numerous reports blaiming schools for the childhood obesity problem. Unhealthy school lunches, vending machines, infrequent gym class, and birthday snacks have all been blamed.

Even Bill Clinton has gotten into the act by forming a partnership between the William J. Clinton Foundation and the American Heart Association to “increase physical activity and improve nutrition in schools across the nation; provide standards for schools to improve the food served in cafeterias and vending machines and improve opportunities for enhanced physical activity both in school and after school.”

In addition, States and schools are taking action to address the “childhood obesity epidemic” on their own by reporting student’s BMI to their parents and banning treats at birthday parties.

Personally, this never made much sense to me. From my experience with two children it seemed like they eat better and get more physical activity in school than I did back in the 50s and 60s when there was no “childhood obesity epidemic.”

The school lunches I had would certainly not be considered “healthy” by today’s standards and, although I had gym class, I don’t remember ever getting any real exercise. Instead, I remember standing around a lot waiting for other kids to do some skill drill.

Anyway, The American Journal of Public Health just published a study (April 2007) that suggests I’m right — and that schools are doing a pretty good job with nutrition and physical activity.

The study “stressed that schools provide structured eating patterns, limited access to excessively caloric foods and beverages, and a fundamental education of the benefits of a balanced diet, as well as encouraging sufficient exercise.

In fact, the researchers found that children are more prone to weight gain during holidays when they do not have this order in their daily regimen.

Bottom line, schools aren’t the cause of the increased incidence of overweight and obesity among our nation’s youth.

Allen Oelschlaeger
Author of The Straight Scoop About Childhood Obesity

The best strategy for kids to lose weight is easy — right? Just eat less and exercise more.

Logically this advice makes all kinds of sense but, in practice, it just doesn’t work.

For example, check out the results of a study with 1704 Native American children from 41 schools.

The participants in the study were split into two groups, with one group getting a better diet, more physical activity and classes about healthy eating and lifestyle. The surprising results? — after three years there was no difference in body fat between the two groups.

One of the authors of the study was quoted as saying, “We threw tens of millions of dollars at the best investigators in the world — and they found absolutely no effect.”

The reality is that a causal link between eating less/exercising more and obesity is hard to pin down. I’m sure you’ve heard at least some of the numerous theories for why the incidence of childhood obesity has increased (less PE in schools, more computer game playing, larger portions in restaurants, more TV watching, increased advertising of junk foods). The problem is that there’s no evidence that any of these reasons are valid.

We shouldn’t be telling kids to eat less and exercise more to lose weight — there just isn’t any evidence to show this works. And, in my opinion, such advice causes more harm than good.

Allen Oelschlaeger
Author of The Straight Scoop About Childhood Obesity

If you’ve reached this page and are not familiar with me, I encourage you to review the About Allen page to gain some understanding of where I’m coming from. If you do, you’ll learn that I’m on a personal mission to discredit the mainstream and fad beliefs about weight loss that have so-obviously failed us (and which are totally unsupported by the evidence) – and to convince the world there is a completely different approach to losing weight that actually works due to its precise alignment with the true nature of human physiology. To learn more about this mission, please visit Truths Publishing.

This blog is one component of my efforts that’s focused on childhood obesity. Here I review recent media reports related to this topic and try to clarify the confusing, contradictory and inaccurate information that’s so prevalent. My goal if for you to understand the fundamental and unchanging truths about child weight management so you can be confident you’re doing the right thing to support your child’s health.
———————————————————

It was reported recently that a school in California banned serving deserts at in-school birthday parties for kids. The specific culprit they were concerned about was cupcakes.

Do people really think that think that school birthday parties are one of the causes of childhood obesity?

We had birthday parties at school when I was a kid and the incidence of obesity was much less.

If we are going to address the problem of childhood obesity, we need to abandon most of the goofy ideas which are getting so much attention. Here are some of my favorites:

* Tax “happy meals” at fast food restaurants.
* Weigh every student and notify parents if their child is overweight.
* Focus gym classes on burning calories rather than having fun.

And, here’s my all time favorite — increase the weight of toys so kids burn more calories and increase their heart rates more when playing.

Come on folks, let’s get real. Childhood obesity is a serious issue but we need to address the real fundamental causes if we have any hope for success.

Allen Oelschlaeger
Author of The Straight Scoop About Childhood Obesity