Empowering Healthy Kids Blog

Growing evidence shows that not only does a healthy body lead to a healthy mind, but a smart one too:

The California Department of Education (CDE) looked for a correlation between fitness scores and test scores. They found that kids who were deemed fit (by a standard test of aerobic capacity, BMI, abdominal strength, trunk strength, upper body strength and overall flexibility) scored twice as well on academic tests as those that were unfit.  In the second year of the study, socio-economic status was taken into account, to possibly eliminate that variable as an explanation. As expected, those in the upper-income brackets scored better overall on the academic tests, but within the lower-income set of students, the same results were observed — kids who were more fit performed better academically.

Also from the article, a quote fromJohn Ratey, a Harvard clinical associate professor of psychiatry:

In his latest book, “Spark: The Revolutionary New Science of Exercise and the Brain” (2008, Little, Brown), John Ratey, a Harvard clinical associate professor of psychiatry, argues for more physical fitness for students as a cure for not only their obesity but also their academic performance.

“I cannot underestimate how important regular exercise is in improving the function and performance of the brain.” Ratey writes. “Exercise stimulates our gray matter to produce Miracle-Gro for the brain.” That “Miracle-Gro” is a brain chemical called brain-derived neurotropic factor, or BDNF. When we exercise, our working muscles send chemicals into our bloodstream, including a protein known as IGF-1.

Once in the brain, IGF-1 orders the production of more BDNF. The additional BDNF helps new neurons and their connections grow. In addition, levels of other neurotransmitters are increased after a strenuous exercise session.

“Dopamine, serotonin, norepinephrine — all of these are elevated after exercise,” says Ratey. “So having a workout will help focus, calming down, and impulsivity — it’s like taking a little bit of Prozac and a little bit of Ritalin.”

Virgin HealthMiles part of Richard Branson’s Virgin group is donating $6.3 million in donations to raise awareness of childhood obesity by partnering with Texan Governer Rick Perry:

For two weeks beginning January 1, 2009, Governor Perry and Texas executive agency leaders will compete with other governors and their respective state leadership in the Capitol Steps Challenge. Teams will compete head-to-head by tracking their daily activity, with a goal of achieving the highest average steps per person.

At the end of the Challenge, Virgin HealthMiles will declare the state team with the highest average steps per person as the Most Active Governor’s Team in the nation and will make a $50,000 donation to that state’s childhood obesity program. If the winning state chooses to participate in the second phase of Virgin HealthMiles’ obesity initiative, they can earn double all donations, increasing the total potential donation to $250,000.

 

The second phase of Virgin HealthMiles’ obesity initiative will be individual State Leadership Challenges, where teams of 250 individuals from state government offices across the U.S. embark on a year-long program to increase their physical activity — again leading by example to their constituents about the relationship between increased activity levels and improved wellness. Based on activity levels, states can earn donations of up to $125,000 toward their childhood obesity programs. More details on the State Leadership Challenge will be announced in early 2009.

More here.

I hope this helps:

The N.C. Division of Public Health announced yesterday that 14 community grants focusing on obesity have been awarded to county health departments across the state, including two in Northwest North Carolina.

Grants of $380,000 from the Childhood Obesity Prevention Project went to the Appalachian District Health Department for work focusing on Watauga County, as well as to the Cabarrus, Dare, Henderson and Moore county health departments.

Each group will run a comprehensive public-awareness campaign in conjunction with county bicycle and pedestrian plans, as well as programs in preschools and child-care centers, pediatrics practices, YMCAs, hospitals, schools and the faith community.

The division awarded an additional $150,000 in grants to nine other health departments and health districts in support of the Eat Smart, Move More North Carolina movement. They are Davidson, Buncombe, Carteret, Chatham, Durham, Granville/Vance, Lee, Wake and Warren counties.

The financed projects will build upon existing effective programs or will try new approaches to increasing healthy behaviors. The proposals ranged from workplace wellness programs to building parks and walking trails.

While public awareness campaigns are a positive thing, as with all marketing (which is effectively what awareness campaigns are), the results need to be measured to ensure citizens is getting a good return on tax payer dollars.

YMCA launch a new programme, “Healthy U” aimed at increasing the health and wellbeing of children in New Jersey:

A new initiative by the Horizon Foundation for New Jersey will use fun exercises and promotion of healthy eating habits to reduce obesity in 18,000 school-age children through YMCAs statewide, foundation officials announced today.
The Healthy U program, as the initiative is being called, is being funded by a $1 million foundation grant. The goal is to reduce obesity rates in children enrolled in YMCA after school programs by up to 10 percent by the year 2011. Using a curriculum developed by researchers at the University of Texas, Healthy U will be rolled out at 359 YMCA sites across New Jersey starting early next month. It will be open to children between the ages of 5 and 12 and will also have a strong parental component.

Healthy U is based on the Coordinated Approach to Child Health (CATCH) curriculum, a national, award winning program with over 15 years of proven research documenting its success in reducing childhood obesity.

The program, which also provides specialized training to YMCA staff, has three major components — physical education, proper nutrition and parental involvement.

I’m a bit late to the party on this but here’s some commentary about the child obesity rates levelling off:

From US News:

There’s some not-bad news about childhood obesity today: A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association finds that the prevalence of kids with a high body mass index, or BMI, showed no significant increase between 1999 and 2006.

If that trend is borne out in data for subsequent years, it’s at least a sign that the upward creep of child BMI may have leveled off. But it’s by no means great news, since it still means more than 16 percent of kids between 2 and 19 had BMIs at or above the 95th percentile, while about 32 percent were at or above the 85th percentile. I know—that looked weird to me, too: How can 16 percent of kids be above the 95th percentile? (It’s like Lake Wobegon, where all the children are above average!) But those percentile charts are based on decades-old data on kids’ weight; kids have gotten heavier in proportion to height, so now 16 percent of them are at or above the level that used to be the cutoff for the top 5 percent.

From Extension Daily on the reasons for the levelling off:

Still, [Dr Robert] Keith says that while some behavioral changes surely have occurred, the possible peak in childhood obesity may actually have nothing to do with lifestyle changes. Future studies even may prove that the peaking effect had little to do with educational outreach and everything to do with a combination of several environmental and human genetic factors.

In fact, Keith says it is possible two pervasive environmental factors — a chronic lack of exercise coupled with a wide access to calories — have contributed to spiking obesity rates among children most genetically susceptible to these factors.

In effect, what is widely viewed as a peak is actually a genetic saturation point.

“It is possible that we’ve reached our saturation point in terms of the levels of physical inactivity and the amount of calories current available to us versus the number of children who are becoming obese,” Keith says.

Simply put, he says, all of the people most susceptible to obesity based on current levels of physical activity and levels of available calories have become obese.
And this theory, if it turns out to be true, presents a sobering reality to Keith and other health and nutrition specialist.

From Time, interviewing Cynthia Ogden (lead researcher of the study):

Ogden wouldn’t speculate as to why national childhood overweight trends appear to have stalled. It could be that kids have hit the fat ceiling — they’ve gotten as heavy as they’re ever going to get. Or, perhaps the most obvious answer is the nationwide effort to combat obesity by getting kids — and parents — to eat better and exercise more. From Arkansas, where state officials have begun sending annual childhood health reports to parents, to Massachusetts, where the town of Somerville launched a community-wide intervention to improve the diet and fitness of children, state and local governments have recognized and begun addressing childhood obesity.

One thing that needs to be noted is that Body Mass Index is used , which does have some flaws (which I have written about earlier).

I have just come back from my honeymoon in Italy (where unfortunately Italian children are the most overweight in Europe). So I am back to (irregular) posting.

I generally don’t like bans; much prefer education to encourage long-term behaviour change:

The rising incidence of childhood obesity is cause for serious concern, but banning advertising to children is not the quick-fix solution to a multifactorial and complex problem. That was the key message delivered by the Association of Canadian Advertisers at a conference in Ottawa earlier this week examining childhood obesity rates.

In fact, the amount of food and beverage advertising directed to children has been decreasing in recent years even as obesity rates have climbed, Bob Reaume, the ACA’s Vice President of Policy and Research told the conference, held in response to a report on childhood obesity released last year by the federal government’s Standing Committee on Health.

Reaume’s comments stood in sharp contrast to those of a panel, comprised of academic and community representatives, who claimed a causal link between advertising and obesity. The panel is calling on governments to impose a marketing ban on “unhealthy” food and beverages to children.

Reaume noted that industry is taking a proactive approach to the obesity problem by pledging only to advertise healthier choice products and healthy active living messages. Marketers are eager to collaborate with policy makers and health groups to find effective solutions.

As we discussed earlier, evidence is growing that genetics is an important factor in childhood obesity. New longitudinal research from Canada shows now shows a link between income and obesity:

The study suggested that the impact of a neighbourhood’s poverty level rather than affluence may matter most in a child’s weight. It is possible that neighbourhoods may become more important as children age and have more freedom to access the neighbourhood. It is also possible that disparities emerge over time, as children are exposed to such environments over a longer period.

This got me thinking. Why would families on low-income be more likely to overweight and obese? Perhaps it’s simple economics: A family will try to maximise the amount of energy intake for the least cost possible - in other words more calories per dollar. If you spend a greater proportion of money on food, then you are sensitive to this equation. Apparently, I’m not alone with this opinion:

Healthy eating really does cost more.

That’s what University of Washington researchers found when they compared the prices of 370 foods sold at supermarkets in the Seattle area. Calorie for calorie, junk foods not only cost less than fruits and vegetables, but junk food prices also are less likely to rise as a result of inflation. The findings, reported in the current issue of the Journal of the American Dietetic Association, may help explain why the highest rates of obesity are seen among people in lower-income groups.

The scientists took an unusual approach, essentially comparing the price of a calorie in a junk food to one consumed in a healthier meal. Although fruits and vegetables are rich in nutrients, they also contain relatively few calories. Foods with high energy density, meaning they pack the most calories per gram, included candy, pastries, baked goods and snacks.

The survey found that higher-calorie, energy-dense foods are the better bargain for cash-strapped shoppers. Energy-dense munchies cost on average $1.76 per 1,000 calories, compared with $18.16 per 1,000 calories for low-energy but nutritious foods.

The survey also showed that low-calorie foods were more likely to increase in price, surging 19.5 percent over the two-year study period. High-calorie foods remained a relative bargain, dropping in price by 1.8 percent.

Although people don’t knowingly shop for calories per se, the data show that it’s easier for low-income people to sustain themselves on junk food rather than fruits and vegetables, says the study’s lead author Adam Drewnowski, director of the center for public health nutrition at the University of Washington. Based on his findings, a 2,000-calorie diet would cost just $3.52 a day if it consisted of junk food, compared with $36.32 a day for a diet of low-energy dense foods. However, most people eat a mix of foods. The average American spends about $7 a day on food, although low-income people spend about $4, says Dr. Drewnowski.

Researchers in the UK have found a strong link between childhood obesity and genetics:

more than three quarters of the difference between children’s waistlines, with lifestyle factors such as diet and exercise playing a much smaller role.

Lead author of the study, Dr. Jane Wardle:

Weight gain in a child is unlikely to be the fault of the parents and is more likely to be due to the child’s genetic susceptibility.

The study was conducted using a twin study and drew the following conclusions:

The researchers found that, overall, the twins’ heights and weights were greater than the 1990 averages, though BMI was similar. Waist circumferences were substantially higher than in populations in 1990, particularly in girls. They also found that identical twins were more likely than non-identical twins to have similar BMI and waist circumference measurements, suggesting a genetic component to these characteristics.

Using the modelling method, the researchers conclude that variation in BMI scores is 77 per cent heritable, while variation in waist circumference is 76 per cent heritable. They also found that the “shared-environment” had little effect on BMI and waist circumference (10 per cent each).

One problem that I find with these studies is that it shows correlation but not causation, but the researchers discuss such criticisms:

• Firstly, the common finding that the shared environment has little effect. In studies of obesity, this is surprising considering the fact that many models suggest that the environment is “the root cause of obesity”. They say that this finding suggests caution when assuming that if all parents followed “current child-feeding recommendations, the obesity problem would be solved”.
• Secondly, twin studies assume that identical and non-identical twins share the same environment (in the uterus and in the family). There is discussion in the scientific literature about whether this is an accurate assumption, however the researchers here say that the effect is small and “it would not materially change the conclusion”.
• Thirdly, such studies do not identify genes responsible for traits or behaviours. No major genes that cause obesity have been identified and obesity is likely to be due to the influences of many different genes, affecting appetite as well as how fat is stored. 

Until such time as the boffins find a “fat” gene can we understand the cause of obesity an, hopefully, from that finding the best ways to combat it. What this study also means is that parents who are overweight and obese must not abandon their and their children’s efforts to lead an active and healthy lifestyle. It just means they have to work a little harder at it.

Michael Duffy comments on the fat test for 4 year olds:

‘One in four Australian children and one in two adults are already overweight or obese,” the Minister for Health, Nicola Roxon, told a conference of obesity experts this week.

Where are they, minister? In the past fortnight, I’ve been in the centres of Sydney and Melbourne, in Newcastle and Katoomba, and in Sydney suburbs including Maroubra, Gladesville and Parramatta. I’ve seen plenty of fat adults but nothing like one in two. I’ve seen thousands of children, but were a quarter of them fat? No way.

So we have to ask again, where are they? Either Australia’s fat people are hiding, too scared to come out and incur the wrath of the Health Minister, or else something fishy is going on. As fishy as Roxon’s other claim, that obesity is costing the economy $21 billion a year.

The claims were made this week to justify the Government’s absurd plan to have every four-year-old weighed before they go to school, starting next year. This will add a quarter of a million extra tasks to the workload of our general practitioners and health clinics.

I commented earlier that the idea had some if it was used for non-identifiable, general statistics. I hadn’t considered the extra burden it would place on the health system. So I did some quick back of the envelope calculations. From the ABS National Schools Statistics Collection, 2003, there are 214,000 of pre-year 1’s (the targets of this test). Assume that each child takes 5 minutes to measure, record and collate the data. That’s an extra 17, 833 hours of labour required to conduct these tests.