If you believe the headlines, we are in the midst of an obesity epidemic. While I find it likely that more and more Americans qualify as gravitationally-challenged--at a startlingly young age, even--I'm less confident that it qualifies as an epidemic.
I'm even less certain that we should legislate one or a number of a solutions to the problem. Why? To fix something you must understand the nature of the problem. Is it diet, lack of exercise, too much soda, not enough salad?
Maybe it's parenting. And not of the hippo-see, hippo-do variety (sorry!). One recent study shared this finding:
[T]oddlers who did not have a secure emotional relationship with their parents were at increased risk for obesity by age 4 ½. [source]
Thankfully, the report included "how much" increased. While 13% of children in the lowest relationship-stress category were at an increased risk for obesity, the number was 26% for those in the highest relationship-stress category. Hmm. What data and collection method was this finding based upon?
The researchers looked at data from 900+ participants in the "Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development, a project of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Oh, they also "analyzed it." Meaning they looked for links between variables. And found one. And from there we get the jump to this statement:
This body of work suggests the areas of the brain that control emotions and stress responses, as well as appetite and energy balance, could be working together to influence the likelihood that a child will be obese.
Well, at least they qualify the assertion with "suggests."
Is stress part of reason why more children are tipping the scales as too heavy? In fact, during a podcast debate of the issue of whether or not the government should get involved in the "obesity epidemic," I heard one health official make this claim. And I doubted it then. Stress is a good catch-all scapegoat. And no one likes the thought of children in stress, so it may be a good way to elicit financial commitment to act . . . Yet it is really a causal variable?
I kinda doubt it. For stress can just as easily result in low weight. Or same weight. In my household of three we have one individual who absolutely can't eat a thing when stressed, one who eats a little less, and the third whose eating habits are unaffected. Of course, mine is a pitifully small sample size. Yet I haven't seen data that suggests a general tendency for stressed adults or children to eat more.
Sure, it could. But does it? Personally, I'd like to see cross-cultural studies on mother-child bonds and BMI measures. That might help.
Until we know more, I would hesitate to throw money at the problem. Sure, that may make us feel better, like we're doing something. But if the intervention misses the mark, we aren't helping anyone. On the contrary.
At this time I suspect that the increasing levels of obesity in our country may be the result of a sort of "perfect storm." Meaning that a number of variables acting in concert could be causing the increase in weight. But who knows. Maybe it's all viral. Meaning truly viral. Or something else.
Holy smokes, Batman! And by smokes I mean "Lucky Strikes." Check out this heading and subhead to a research finding:
Lifestyles of the old and healthy defy expectations -
Einstein researchers find centenarians just as likely as the rest of population to smoke, drink and pack on pounds. [source]
Damn. That doesn't fit in with our mantra of "you are what you eat" and "you are what you smoke and drink, or don't."
By the way, the Einstein researchers aren't necessarily brilliant. Rather they are affiliated with the Albert Einstein College of Medicine at Yeshiva University.
Okay, this was one study. And the data isn't fantastic. But in some regards, it's not bad either. The researchers interviewed nearly 500 Ashkenazi Jews, living independently and more than 95 years old, about their health and lifestyle. Ashkenazi Jews were chosen as the subject pool both due to their alleged longevity and their relative genetic uniformity. They then compared this to previous information gathered from roughly three thousand cohorts. In brief, this what they found:
Overall, people with exceptional longevity did not have healthier habits than the comparison group in terms of BMI, smoking, physical activity, or diet.
What? Really? Okay, so maybe those really long-lived individuals benefit from good genes. Yet lifestyle might matter more for those with so-so genes. Might.
My personal opinion is that soda is bad. It's like the cocaine of beverages. High on calories, devoid of nutritional value (beyond calories if calories are needed). I additionally suspect it may 'grow' a child's propensity to develop a 'sweet tooth.' But maybe it doesn't.
[Cue cranky old man voice] "And in my day, it was water or milk, and it was good enough for me!"
I have also suspected that the consumption of soda may play a role in the rising proportion of obese children and adults in our society. But I could be wrong. In fact, a recent study...
... suggests that—at least for middle school students—weight gain has nothing to do with the candy, soda, chips, and other junk food they can purchase at school. [source]
Huh? How can that be?
BTW, I like the inclusion of "suggests" -- for it is only one study. Kudos for the qualifier "at least for middle school students" as well.
As for the data the study conclusion was based upon: Nearly 20,000 students tracked over 8 years. Not bad, not bad at all.
The authors of the study admit they were surprised by the finding. Which, in brief, was this:
[W]hile there was a significant increase in the percentage of students who attended schools that sold junk food between fifth and eighth grades, there was no rise in the percentage of students who were overweight or obese.
Lead author Jennifer Van Hook recommends looking at younger children to prevent obesity. And that . . .
. . . to reduce childhood obesity and prevent unhealthy weight gain need to concentrate more on the home and family environments as well as the broader environments outside of school.
To both of those I would say yes, but. But remember to do the research. For the causes and solutions to a problem may not be what they seems they should be.
Drink wine and be healthy? Maybe not.
A study based on the long-term follow up of a group of older Americans concluded that the associated lifestyle habits and environmental factors of wine consumers largely explained their better health outcomes. [emphasis added; source]
This research shows the limitations of epidemiological/statistical studies (vs. experiments): confounding variables that are difficult if not impossible to control for. In the case of wine consumption and good health, there does seem to be a link between these two. But does one cause the other simply because they are correlated. No, a correlation can't determine that. In the case of wine drinking and health, there may be be other factors involved. Such as wine drinkers differing from non-wine drinkers not only in their consumption of a type of alcohol, but also in the personal characteristics and behavior. Affluence, health care, diet, exercise habits, etc.
In the very least, perhaps we could conclude that to drink wine for health is to consume one heck of a delightful placebo.
Public dis-service announcement: There may be alpha-terpineol, 4-methylpentanoic acid and ethyl propionate in the foods you eat! Details at 11:00.
Okay, that was a joke. Actually, many of us actually welcome the presence of those "chemicals" in our food. Here's the actual news release -
North Americans and Western Europeans love a good mix of alpha-terpineol, 4-methylpentanoic acid and ethyl propionate for dinner, flavor compounds shared in popular ingredients like tomatoes, parmesan cheese and white wine. Authentic East Asian recipes, on the other hand, tend to avoid mixing ingredients with many shared flavor compounds, according to new complex networks research from Indiana, Harvard, Cambridge and Northeastern universities.
[source: Shared flavor compounds show up on US menus, rare in Asian cuisines]
Oh. Chemicals can be scary sounding, but can also be good for you? What's more, just because something is a chemical (and what is devoid of chemicals?) or has a laboratory-sounding name, that doesn't mean it is toxic.
But the prejudice remains. And it rests upon the "naturalistic fallacy." Natural things are better because they are natural. Circular logic anyone?
As an example of just how deeply entrenched this prejudice is, consider this finding from out of the University of Maryland:
Food Coloring and ADHD - No Known Link, But Wider Safety Issues Remain: Researcher
Considering that the science part of the finding was "No Known Link" between food coloring and ADHD, I was surprised to the read this:
"The testimony I heard presents significant questions for me - issues that have not been adequately studied by scientists," says Chronis-Tuscano, a mother of young children, an associate professor of psychology and director of the University of Maryland ADHD Program.
"Beginning in the womb, developing brains are particularly sensitive to toxins," Chrois-Tuscano explains. "It's important to get better information about how much of these substances American children consume, and whether these levels are dangerous. [emphasis added]
Oh please. Toxins? Why not include a statement about evil spirits while you at it. Both include voodoo-like connotations.
Hmm. On second thought, shouldn't the news release title have included the word "Artificial" before "Food Coloring"? I don't think anyone would be afraid of the anthocyanin that gives blueberries their blue color. Or would they?
Anthocyanin? Why, that's a chemical!
Egads. As has been said before, arsenic is a natural compound. Just as is dihydrogen monoxide. If you haven't heard of this potentially dangerous chemical before, I suggest doing some research. The stuff can kill you (if you ingest too much or fall in it and drown).
Recent Comments