Fat Kids will be Fat/Unhealthy Adults
May 7, 2008 by McBloggenstein
Check out this article from TIME.
The article is basically an interview with epidemiologist David Freedman from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s division of Nutrition, Physical Activity and Obesity.
Let’s take a look at some good quotes:
…an overweight or obese adolescent is much more likely to become an obese adult than is an overweight one-year-old.”
What he says is that if a baby or toddler is overweight, the child has some likelihood of becoming obese as it becomes an adult. But, when a slightly older child (five or so) is measured as overweight and then tracked into adulthood, it is MUCH MORE likely to become obese. As much as a “tenfold increased risk” when compared to similar aged children of normal weight.
Basically, the longer a child stays fat into adolescence, it’s chances of being obese as an adult increase more and more.
I think there’s very suggestive evidence from the Bogalusa Heart Study to show that childhood obesity is related not just to weight, but also to poor health in adulthood.”
The main way they determined this is by being able to examine the hearts of participants in the study that happened to die early (due to various reasons: car crash, homicide, etc). They found that those that were considerably overweight as children, and continued to become obese as adults, had early stages of atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries due to plaque accumulation). This disease can cause heart attacks, cardiovascular disease, and strokes. Not only does it slow blood flow to the heart, but it can cause constricted flow and clots all over the body, including the brain.
The author of the study, David Freedman, did point out that this study he is working on does have it’s limitations. The oldest subject that was studied as a child is only now 45, so they haven’t had a chance to study the effects of lifelong obesity for many adult years. In other words, they haven’t aged enough to get some definitive results.
He also points out that there are other similar studies that have similar limitations.
Some studies — but not all of them — have found an increased risk of mortality.”
And now to the pièce de résistance of this post. The key point that I would like to emphasize here, is the reason Freedman says that these studies are limited in their results.
I think, though, that part of the reason for these discrepancies is that to obtain results from these long-term longitudinal studies, many have to use baseline measurements that were taken in the ’50s and ’60s. And kids who were examined back then were much, much thinner than kids are now. Even children who would have been considered relatively heavy then are not much heavier than average children now…”
Wow. That quote pretty much says it all for me. You can believe or not believe the validity of the study all you want. You can feel as though the studies were biased and the researchers had a certain hypothesis that they were trying to find. But all that doesn’t matter.
You can’t ignore the fact that kids were “much” less fat 40-50 years ago than they are today.
What is the reason for that? Not genetics……
.
.
.
DIET AND LIFESTYLE!!!
Am I wrong? How else do you explain that?
P.S. Remember Chunk from The Goonies up at the top there? Remember how he was the “fat” Goonie that always wanted to eat something? He doesn’t even look that fat to me, compared to today’s fat kids.
Great post! I absolutely agree with you. It is disturbing what kind of food child care centers (and the parents) provide for the children. Often they do not have any vegetables or fruits, but just cheap microwavable food. Further, many schools (elementary, middle, and high schools) have horrible food choices for their students. Often the only options are fries, hambugers, hotdogs, chips, chicken nuggest, or pizza. This is especially tragic for low-income children who qualify for the free meals at school. These students often do not have the option to bring healthier food from home…
Thanks for opening the discussion on this important topic! Keep up the good work.
Somewhere around 75% of weight gain is genetics. We know that from innumerable studies of thousands of kids who have been surrendered for adoption.
Generally speaking, children who are given up for adoption grow to the same level of obesity as their biological parents, regardless of the health and fitness level of their adoptive parents. Identical twins, who are surrendered for adoption and split up, weigh the same once they are adults. The first of these studies studied kids born in the 1930s and 1940s in Denmark. The next big one was kids in Sweden born in the fifties and sixties. The just finished a study in Britain that came up with the same basic numbers.
That being said, we feed kids horrible food and no kid should have a tv, a game console or a computer in their bedroom where parents can’t monitor their use. And the commenter above is accurate - we really need to change what we allow kids to eat at school. Why any school would allow vending machines with candy, chips and pop is beyond me. We can feed them healthy food for the same price we can feed ‘em crappy food.
Lori,
Thank you for your comment.
While your comment about genetics is somewhat true, it is also very, very vague and extremely broad. Also, I don’t know where you got the number 75%.
I have probably read all of the studies that you mentioned, and others like them. I am not going to say that they are incorrect. Studies have shown that siblings and twins that were adopted separately often develop very similar BMI’s to both their siblings and their biological parents. That does show some genetic influence.
However, these studies are mostly very simple in their design because they almost never look at behavior. The problem is, when people read these studies, they often conclude that “genetics CAUSES obesity”. This is a very narrow view of their findings.
When I say that a lot of these studies don’t look at behavior, some actually do look at it, and in fact show that some behavioral habits are inherited, including preferences for certain types of food, and the frequency in which a person eats them relative to their adopted family. There is also evidence that the prenatal diet of the mother can influence what types of food the child will like and dislike.
These are just a couple of examples that don’t disprove the findings of any study on the genetics/obesity issue. But they do bring to the forefront two words that people usually glaze over when discussing this issue: Influence, and Predisposition.
In the words of a fellow blogger, “Genetics is not destiny”.
75% is an average. Some of them have the level at 70% (the lowest I’ve ever seen) and some at 78% (the highest I’ve seen). And the point of the studies is that the children are surrendered for adoption. They aren’t raised in the same household as their parents. If it’s primarily behavior, then you would expect to see their weight roughly correlate to their adoptive parents weight. But it doesn’t.
I just went looking for the links on the first twin studies and found this new study with this conclusion:
RESULTS: In both women and men genetic contributions were significant for all phenotypes. Heritability for body mass index was 0.58 and 0.63; for body fat%, 0.59 and 0.63; for total skinfolds, 0.61 and 0.65; for extremity skinfolds 0.65 and 0.62; for truncal skinfolds, 0.50 and 0.69; for suprailiac skinfolds, 0.49 and 0.48; for waist circumference, 0.48 and 0.61; for hip, 0.52 and 0.58; for lean body mass/height2, 0.61 and 0.56; and for height, 0.81 and 0.69, respectively. There was no strong evidence of common environmental effects under the assumptions of no nonadditive effect. The pattern of age trends was inconsistent. However, when significant there was a decrease in heritability with advancing age.
DISCUSSION: These findings suggest that adult body size, shape, and composition are highly heritable in both women and men, although a decreasing tendency is seen with advancing age.
Here’s another one that addressly directly your concerns:
I could go and on - there are lots of twin studies out there that come to the same conclusion. Science is not on your side. I think you ought to take a look at what you’re doing and ask yourself why you’re taking such a strong stand against science? Why do you find it so disturbing that genetics is the single biggest factor in obesity?
No one is saying that diet and exercise can’t have some impact but one of the things we know is that most obese people don’t eat that differently than most non-obese people. There are bingers out there, but they are a tiny minority among the obese.
Just to show you how complex it all is, scientists in Canada put a group of women who needed to lose weight on 500 calorie per day diets with a supervised exercise program. They all lost weight. Then they upped the calorie intake to 800 calories per day, kept the exercise going and all of the women gained weight. That’s how determined their bodies were to put the weight back on. Despite exercise, their metabolisms dropped so low that they were able to gain weight on 800 calories a day.
Lori,
It’s as if you read the first paragraph of my response and nothing else.
I clearly said that I am NOT disputing the results of any of those studies. I am saying that people like yourself misinterpret those studies and conclude that obesity is CAUSED by genetics, and your second comment basically reaffirms that. There was no need to explain what the studies were about again. I completely understand them, and actually use them for my arguments.
The language used here is very key.
If obesity were CAUSED by genetics, then the women in the study you mentioned in your last paragraph would not have been able to lose weight, no matter how few calories they consumed. Do you understand my point now? The fact that those women began to gain weight when they were stepped up to an 800 calorie diet only proves that their metabolism was extremely low compared to the average person, and they would have to eat much fewer calories than the average person to maintain a healthy weight. In no way, shape, or form does that show that their destiny is to be fat. It shows that it is harder for them to not be fat, but not impossible.
It also shows that decreasing their calorie intake to 500 CALORIES PRACTICALLY BROUGHT THEIR METABOLISM TO A SCREECHING HALT!!! I encourage you to ask any fitness enthusiast, or nutritionist what would happen if you were to exercise while consuming far fewer calories than your body needs to maintain it’s weight. The answer they will give you is that your body will go into a fasting mode, and it will turn almost every calorie you put into your mouth into fat.
It is very possible that their metabolisms were slow before the study even began, and i’m sure that genetics played a big role in that fact, if not the entire role. But that does not mean that their genes will make them fat. It means that the NUMBER of calories they need to consume to maintain a normal weight is lower than your average person. That is all.
I’m sorry to say this, but science is actually on my side. And I’m using the same science that you are looking at, I’m simply looking at more of it, and drawing common sense conclusions.
Remember how I said people glaze over the word “influence”? Look through the excerpt of the study you posted. You will see that word used 4 times. You will not see the the word “causes” one time.
Have you read my post here: http://whyareyousofat.wordpress.com/2008/05/02/1-series-obesity-is-not-genetic/
Do you have any way to explain those facts besides a change in diet and lifestyle?
Thanks for the discussion.
To start off with, the researchers have concluded that genetics is the primary factor in obesity. If you read the studies you would know that. No one even knows the degree to which someone who is genetically inclined towards obesity can avoid it. Most slender people eat just as badly and get no more exercise than people who become obese. It’s funny how you seem to think that fitness experts know more about how to deal with obesity than researchers who are researching it. If that’s the case, show us the results. Show us the results that say that someone who is 100 pounds overweight, can lose that weight and reliably keep it off for ten years by doing X, Y, Z. If that’s the case, where’s the study that proves that? Where’s the study that proves that people metabolisms won’t crank down and put weight back on? Yes, we all know building muscle mass helps, but to what degree? Where are your studies that prove over 60% of obese people taking a specific, designated course of action can lose weight and keep it off for five years?
Losing weight isn’t the problem. Keeping weight off is. When you eat food, stretch receptors at the top of your stomach signal your brain that you’re full. When you diet, those stretch receptors don’t get stretched, because you aren’t consuming enough to fill up your stomach. So your body starts thinking that you’re in a time of famine and it signals your system to store the calories rather than burn them. That’s when your metabolism starts cranking down. Your body also begins producing all sorts of chemicals that make you incredibly hungry - hungrier than you’re ever been. And when you’re that hungry, you can no more refrain from eating than you can from drinking water. None of that is a matter of discipline. No more than you can use discipline to not drink when you’re incredibly thirsty.
There isn’t any science on your side. Just supersitition. Fat people aren’t any more morally derelict than non-fat people.
Great discussion guys!
Here’s my two cents.
Setting aside the fact that current epigenetic research is suggesting that our dna is not the key player in human cellular expression, we have to remember that very seldom in the history of scientific research has science ever PROVED anything!
Science more often proves that a hypothesis is false.
When it comes to obesity research, the cracking of the human genome opened up a whole new world of possibilities for science.
A PubMed search for obesity-twins returned 12 hits in 2008 alone.
None of those studies has made any genetic link to obesity. They postulate that genetics plays a stronger role than environment. Most of those studies also indicate that the genetic link becomes weaker and the environmental link becomes stronger as the children grow into adulthood.
I find it highly unlikely that science will ever find a monogenic ( i.e cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, Marfan syndrome, Huntington’s disease) answer to obesity.
People unable to produce leptin would fall into that camp.
It is more likely to be Multifactorial .
This type of disorder is caused by a combination of environmental factors and mutations in multiple genes.
For example, different genes that influence breast cancer susceptibility have been found on chromosomes 6, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, and 22.
Its more complicated nature makes it much more difficult to analyze than single-gene or chromosomal disorders.
Some of the most common chronic disorders are multifactorial disorders.
Examples include heart disease, high blood pressure, Alzheimer’s disease, arthritis, diabetes, cancer, and obesity.
Multifactorial inheritance also is associated with heritable traits such as fingerprint patterns, height, eye color, and skin color.
Another point to keep in mind is that a multifactorial cause of obesity is not what the drug companies are looking for.
And overwhelmingly, it will be the drug companies paying for the research into a ‘cure’ for obesity.
And in today’s society of instant gratification and deflection of responsibility, a monogenic answer to obesity is what everyone WANTS.
You know how when you’re trying to talk to someone from a different country that doesn’t know your language very well, and for some reason you have the urge to talk louder? I have that feeling right now.
Lori, you seem to have made up your mind. By saying “researchers have concluded”……. you have clearly made a definitive decision on the subject based on things you have read that reaffirmed a belief that you already had. It’s called being biased. Research almost never difinitively “concludes” anything. This is another detail in which the correct language is key in understanding what you read. The more likely phrasing that studies usually use is “our conclusions suggest that evidence exists that our hypothesis is correct/incorrect”. Go back and read the study that you posted in your comment. The first sentence under “Discussion” says: “These findings suggest that…….”
If they have “CONCLUDED”, then why are there studies still being done? Can you explain to me what you mean by saying “genetics is the primary factor in obesity”? Again, that is extremely vague. Primary factor, doesn’t tell me anything. If you read those words, and use your bias to automatically translate them to mean “genetics causes obesity”, then there is no room for you in this discussion.
You asked me before “..why are you taking such a strong stand against science?”. Why would you think that I am? Is it because I’m not posting a bunch of numbers from a study I read? As I’ve said at least once before, I am not going to dispute the findings that these studies show that our genetics seem to heavily influence what we become. That is, after all, the definition of DNA. I have to tell you this, though, Lori. If you have ever taken a statistics class, you would know that the numbers in the study you posted are not very significant. For all we know, the margin for error in these findings could be as much as the resulting difference is from chance. By ‘chance’ I mean 50/50, or 50%, or 0.50.
What I’m trying to do with this blog is to question some things. I’m trying to point out that certain things don’t make sense in that more and more people are trying to discover the cause for the dramatic rise in obesity rates, and a large chunk of those people are willing to CONCLUDE that the cause is almost not behavioral at all.
I am here to ask the big question: How can that be? Can you explain how in the last few decades (a minuscule period in the overall timeline of human existence) the rates of obesity have increased almost 400%?? Do you know of any studies that have CONCLUDED that our DNA has changed so much in recent years to warrant such a change in our body shape?
As scientists do research, they often question their own findings and strive to get more difinitive answers. When the scientists do this, do you ask them why they are taking a stand against science?
The mark of good research is to question everything. The mark of a good, obedient consumer, is to take everything you read at face value, not to look further into anything, and buy that magic pill that makes you thin.
I forgot to mention something.
You said: “It’s funny how you seem to think that fitness experts know more about how to deal with obesity than researchers who are researching it.”
First, I never said anything close to that.
Second, I will say this: A good fitness expert and a knowledgeable nutritionist should be well versed in studies concerning their field. Their field being the human body. They would then take what they have gained from keeping up with the research, and apply it to their jobs (usually of which are to help their fellow humans become healthier). I will say that they probably know more about applying this particular type of research to the real world than the scientists do. All scientists do is look at statistics and probabilities. Trainers and nutritionists work with real people.
Researchers usually do not try and find out how to DEAL WITH the results that they come up with.
I have to agree that a lot of valuable research comes from twin/adoption studies. However, I believe one should not take them as a proof that certain traits are genetic. There are some inherent flaws in using twin studies:
Prenatal period: While twins reared apart may not share the same environment while growing up, they do share the same womb. There are many studies that have shown that the prenatal period is extremely important in formation of many traits. This is not merely genetic, but depends on the mothers lifestyle (diet, excersice, exposure to stress, fumes, chemicals, trauma, etc.). Therefore, twins which are reared apart may have similar traits due to this prenatal period, and not genetics.
Equal environments: Many twin researchers assume that fraternal and identical twins raised in the same homes experience equally similar environments. But some research suggests that parents, teachers, peers and others may treat identical twins more similarly than fraternal twins. Further, fraternal twins may not be treated anymore alike than regular siblings. Thus, the reason why identical twins are more similar than fraternal twins may not solely due to genetics, but because they may be treated more similarly and have more similar environments.
I also want to point out some important points about the statistics and research methods involved in the above mentioned studies. It is important to rememeber that correlation does not equal causation!! It just means that there is a linear relationship between two variables. As McBloggenstein pointed out, some of the numbers above may actually be lower than the pure chance correlation.
Further, without statistical tests, these results do not tell us whether these findings indeed are statistically significant. They do not tell us whether the difference in correlations between fraternal and identical twins are statistically different from one another.
Further, how were these samples collected? Are they all from the same geographical region? Who are the birth parents? What were the reasons for giving the children up for adoption? At what age were the twins seperated? At what age were they adopted? Were they seperated at birth, or did they live together in a foster home or institution for a few months? These are all questions that could potentially influence the environment and other non-genetic factors that may affect the children’s outcomes.
So, as I have said before, I believe that twin studies are extremely insightful, but they just need to be taken with a grain of salt!
DR, I absolutely agree with you. I do not believe that these issues are as clear as “nature vs. nature”. I believe that both genetics and environment play off of one another. There are actually some studies out there that show that environment can change the expression of our genes. This is a quote from an article that was published in 2005.
“By studying 80 pairs of identical twins, ranging in age between 3 and 74, Esteller’s team found that epigenetic differences were hardly detectable in the youngest twins, but increased markedly with age. These changes had a striking effect on gene activity: the number of genes that differ in activity between 50-year-old twins was more than three times that in pairs aged 3. “So we are more than our genes,” says Esteller. “Not only is the DNA sequence important but also how gene activity is regulated in response to environment. This might explain why many identical twins have different susceptibility to disease.”
I’m amazed that such an in-depth conversation can be had about other people’s obesity, what they eat, and what they feed their children.
Why do you people care???
If you say that fat people are costing you (the taxpayer) money, then why aren’t you bitching about the millions of illegitimate children and the sex that caused them?
Because it’s not acceptable to tell people to stop having promiscuous sex, right? Well, what’s the difference between that and people overeating, smoking, or cliff diving?
Why do people care so much about what other people do????
Isn’t the point of a blog to write and discuss things that interest and concern you?
I notice you have a blog. It looks like your interests and concerns include people’s freedoms and what they do or don’t do to help or inhibit them.
Life can be the greatest teacher right?
A lot of people that end up contacting me and commenting on here are fitness trainers. Those are people that care about how people treat their body’s and are concerned that soon half of the western worlds population will be obese.
This just happens to be the topic that interests me.
Thanks for your comment.
What does ‘illegitimate’ sex and children have to do with either obesity or the wasting of taxpayer dollars?
I don’t see your point.
Are you saying that illegitimate children grow up to be fat and on welfare?
That ‘legitimate’ children are inherently superior?
FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOUR ALL BITCHES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCCK
congratulations on your achievement
How shocking!!!
The decline of our education system is quite sad.
Dear Evildude,
The correct grammatical structure of your comment is either “You are all bitches!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” or more colloquially, “You’re all bitches!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
I hope you will be able to correct your grammar in future posts.
DR
You think he knows what “colloquial” means?