DES MOINES, Iowa, Jan, 21, 2008
Theory Linking Poor Kids, Obesity Refuted
Study Discounts Lack Of Food As Reason Poor U.S. Children Are More Likely To Be Overweight
-
(AP / CBS)
-
Interactive Food Pyramid The government's latest guidelines for healthy eating get personal.
Iowa State University researchers say their analysis shows that a lack of food is not necessarily to blame, although they are not sure why so many children from low-income families are overweight.
Previous research has suggested that poor children were not getting nutritious food and instead ate junk food, such as hot dogs. Or that children may have eaten well when money was available, but would skip meals when cash was short, a cycle that could slow their metabolism and cause them to gain weight.
By challenging those theories, the researchers hope to encourage more research into the issue. Some studies show that nearly one third of American children ages 10-17 are overweight or obese, and that nearly 40 percent of those kids are from low-income households.
Brenda Lohman, a co-author of the study, said the high number of overweight low-income kids is a public health concern.
"Understanding why the rates are so high .... is needed," she said.
Their findings are reported in February's issue of the Journal of Nutrition.
Donna Matheson, of Stanford Medical School's Prevention Research Center, said the study explores some new elements, but disregards others. She noted that the research only looked at children with weight problems, not those who were underweight.
For the study, the researchers analyzed 1999 data about 1,031 children living in low-income households in Boston, Chicago and San Antonio. They assessed whether the children had enough food for a healthy, active lifestyle, which is called food security by researchers. They looked at the individual child, instead of their entire household as previous studies had done.
Quote
The researchers asked the children's mothers whether she had reduced the size of a meal due to lack of food or money, if her child skipped a meal because food was not available and if her child went hungry because she could not afford more food.Family life has a lot to do with children's lives, particularly when it comes to overeating and obesity.
Susan Stewart, an Iowa State sociology professorThey found that about half of the children in the study were overweight or obese, while only about 8 percent were not getting enough to eat.
Craig Gundersen, lead author of the study, said children who did not get enough food were not more likely to be overweight, even though the two factors often coexisted in the low-income population they studied.
He said the study shows that if the government tries to expand food assistance programs to help children, officials can move forward without worrying about an increase in overweight kids living in poverty.
However, Matheson said she thinks much more research is needed before changes in policy are implemented.
"I don't think we are there yet in terms of saying what really works," she said.
Susan Stewart, an Iowa State sociology professor who was involved in the research, said in a statement that most of the research on childhood obesity comes from the medical community, but there should be a closer look at the family and how factors such as stress affect a child's weight.
"Family life has a lot to do with children's lives, particularly when it comes to overeating and obesity," she said.
© MMVIII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
More From Health
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 31 CommentsYou make an excellent point with being economically confined to buying what you can. You mentioned top ramen noodles. Next time check and see just how much trans fat is in that product. Personally I think it should be banned from the shelves. Corporate America has sold our health down the road.
You have nothing of value to post. Goodbye!
Bullseye! Nailed your problem didn''t I? You''re just amazing. You have said some very nasty things about overweight people on this site, then you have the nerve to try to chastise me for calling you out. Then you try to post some silly comments about how and why you only meant to help your family and others. Your disdain towards overweight people is ugly and hurtful. Fat is only on the outside. Mean and nasty go all the way to the bone. Why don''t you go stick an oreo in your mouth and maybe it will calm the bitterness in your soul for five minutes.
We stupid poor people are financially confined to what we can afford which means we eat a lot of cheap bread, pork and beans, spaghetti, tuna helper, hamburger helper, raimen noodles and drink a lot of kool-aid (we can''t afford soda pop).
I''m sorry you''re all so offended.
Sometimes I wonder how people get through college. It isn''t about the lack of food, because there is plenty of krap out there to eat. It is about what has been put into that krap that has made it so lethal for children. Trans fat (oil that has carbon added to it): Yeah, that krap. Makes bread, crackers, cookies, donuts, etc (Hello McDonald''s) last longer on the shelf and taste just as good even if it''s one hundred years old. Problem is the body doesn''t know what to do with that krap and just stores it. Next: high fructose corn syrup. Another one of those ingredients that replaced just good old natural sugar. No, everyone discovered how wonderful this krap was for selling their product. Problem is the body doesn''t know what to do with it, so converts it into fat and stores it as well. Yet, this study couldn''t get down to the reality.
You just can''t help yourself. Now you accuse me of not working, sitting around all day and drinking? You poor sap. Your anger and frustration levels suggest to me that you might be larger than I had previously thought. I''m guessing in the 500-600 pound range?
I forgive you no matter how badly you treat other people.
Have a nice day tomorrow.
Drivel
I meant asserted by andersonk49, not you. Sorry.
Drivel
Have a nice day tomorrow.
I do tend to get riled up over obesity and you are correct from my past posts that I deal with it in my family. I fully understand the severe problems and emotional distress young children experience. I''m certain that at the early ages, many of them cry themselves to sleep. The problem is tragic and yet it is the parents'' fault. The parents are usually overweight themselves and the cycle perpetuates itself.
I personally witness the complete lack of self control, lack of pride in self, lack of discipline and constant excuse making for constant gorging and eating unhealthy foods. The family members I am in contact with have been advised by their physicians that they will die if they don''t lose weight and get some exercise. They scoff at this and continue to pile on the weight. I am thoroughly fed up with the bunch. Before I became so disgusted with them, I provided a great deal of assistance and support with the best intentions. It finally became evident that none of them cared enough to take the necessary actions to lose weight.
My opinions aren''t meant to be mean or unhelpful as justsane asserts, they are my true feelings after years of living around these people, watching their habits and uncontrolled consumption. I feel sorry for the children, but they are the products of their parents.
Perhaps I am too hard on these people, but I know many people who are in a fit condition and it is very easy to do if you care about yourself and your family.
same thing with humans--fill them full of STARCHES. Given the high cost of meat, the poor often go for getting a full tummy, not with what is nutritious, after all, if there is not a lot of money, people tend to load up on what is most filling and satisfying. That is refined/processed starch and carbs and fat. We should note that there are plenty of fat, rich people now. Cheney is not skinny, nor is Michael Moore or Elizabeth Taylor or Kirstie Allen or Al Sharpton...it is a lifetime of eating to fill and learning to live to eat instead of eating to live.
Posted by b-easy63 at 11:55 PM : Jan 21, 2008
Posted by runningralph at 08:21 PM : Jan 21, 2008
Actually, obese people would fare the best in times of starvation or great cold. There is a book out called "The heart of the sea" in it, the most fit who were adrift at sea, succumbed to starvation first because they did not have enough body fat to survive the rigors of less food and cold. Obese people are actually genetically superior to survive in times of starvation--the cruel irony is that what for thousands of years was their strong point, is, in a time of plenty, to their detriment.
If we have another dust bowl or famine though--they will survive and those who lambast or castigate them and are skinny, will be some of the first to die. This is a physiological fact.
Posted by justsane at 07:43 PM : Jan 21, 2008
I agree--in poor countries, the cheapest food and the most filling are grains, breads and starches like corn and rice and potatoes. If you want to fatten a cow or pig--you fill them full of carbs and starches--same thing with humans--fill them full of charges. Given the high cost of meat, the poor often go for getting a full tummy, not with what is nutritious, after all, if there is not a lot of money, people tend to load up on what is most filling and satisfying. That is refined/processed starch and carbs and fat. We should note that there are plenty of fat, rich people now. Cheney is not skinny, nor is Michael Moore or Elizabeth Taylor or Kirstie Allen or Al Sharpton...it is a lifetime of eating to fill and learning to live to eat instead of eating to live.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 31 Comments