Overweight kids: Researchers claim they're not eating enough
Interesting study in this month's Journal of the American Dietetic Association. Researchers analyzed the diets and health stats of low-income kids. The kids' diets were very high in fat and sugar, and low in whole foods and important nutrients like calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, and potassium.
A third of the kids were obese. But, surprisingly, when researchers analyzed their diets, they concluded that 44% weren't eating enough calories. Researcher Roberto Trevino offers the following intepretation:
"The problem is not that they're eating too much. It's that they're lacking nutrients that are important for metabolism to burn off fat and sugar."
The mainstream press seems to buy this notion, as evidenced by this headline in the San Antionio Express News: "Heavy Kids Aren't Over-Eating." (Despite the misleading headline, this story actually gives a very good and balanced summary of the study.)
Frankly, I don't buy Trevino's explanation. Calcium, magnesium, and potassium are certainly essential nutrients and "important for metabolism" in the most general sense. But they don't specifically "burn off fat and sugar." That sounds a little too much like those miracle weight loss supplements sold on late-night infomercials.
Can't you just hear it now: These miracle nutrients turn your body into a fat-burning machine!
No, obviously, if these kids were overweight, they were eating more calories than they needed. I think the true explanation is two-fold:
1. The kids were sedentary and therefore needed fewer calories than researchers estimated that healthy kids would need to grow.
2. The kids ate more than they told the researchers they did. (This is typical of self-reported food intake.)
What this study clearly shows that low-income kids are eating poorly and suffering because of it. Not only are a third of them obese, but 7% are already at risk of diabetes. But to suggest--as these researchers seem to be suggesting--that they're eating too few calories and getting fat anyway because of a lack of minerals which "burn off fat and sugar" seems ridiculous and even dangerous to me.
What do you think?
 older posts |
home | newer posts  |
| Notice anything new? | | Nutrition Data Blog | | Want to have a say in the next round of Dietary Guidelines? |
Posted by: kathy | Dec 3, 2008 3:52:57 PM
Wow, that is interesting. Sometimes I really think that by simply adding a few fruits and veggies to a child's diet, you will see a big difference. Fiber and nutrients can halt those junk food cravings.Get kids interested in fruits and veggies through the Lunchbox Bunch characters!
Kathy
Posted by: Jim Kent | Nov 23, 2008 11:23:54 PM
It's not just the low income neighborhoods where parents are anxious about their kids leaving home. "Go out and play" is practically lost on this generation.
Posted by: Family Nutritionist | Nov 5, 2008 8:34:35 PM
My newspaper tells me that parents in some low-income neighborhoods tell their kids to stay indoors because it is not safe outside. Especially if the parents have to be at work when the kids get home from school.
There is not much for them to do at home without supervision.
Posted by: Monica Reinagel | Nov 5, 2008 3:59:36 PM
Holly,
Yes, a 24-hour recall is everything the kids can remember eating on the previous day. Not only do they sometimes forget to report things but they frequently underestimate portion sizes. Even with skilled nutritionists/dietitians conducting the interviews, the margins for error are going to be quite high.
Posted by: Holly | Nov 5, 2008 11:35:38 AM
I tried to access the journal article but I could only view the abstract, which had very little information -- less than most abstracts. There is no information about the actual reported calories, what calorie RDA they were basing this on, the breakdown between fat, carbs, & protein or "macronutrients", or any real information on the "deficiencies" they are reporting. Seems shaky to me. I am especially uncomfortable that they are relying on childrens' self-reports. Self-reporting is one of the least reliable ways to collect data. What are "24-hour dietary recalls"? Everything the kids could remember eating? Or did they use some kind of food journal?
If many of their calories were from soft drinks, 2 or 3 soft drinks provide a lot of calories. I want to see the numbers!
I'm not buying it.
Posted by: Nick | Nov 5, 2008 10:52:56 AM
I am always amazed by the childhood "obesity crisis". I don't want to sound overly simple, but it really comes down to the same things my mother, and I'm sure, most people's parents, tried to ingrain is us - it's all about moderation!
1. EXERCISE!!! Go run around outside/bike with your friends. Play a few sports with your school during the year, not only to see if any interest you, but to keep you moving too.
2. You can play video games a little bit, but only if you...(have all of your homework done/have gotten some sort of exercise today/etc)
3. If you're going to have dessert, eat all of your vegetables (and we're not talking 4 green beans, we're talking half of your meal as veggies).
4. Sure, we can go get a DQ Blizzard...on Saturday after your soccer game.
There's nothing wrong with the occasional fast food meal when it comes to kids. To be honest, I'd almost say that preventing a child from ever eating junk food will lead to more problems. I had my share of McNuggets and played video games here or there, but I also had to do something to earn those treats. My mom made sure I was active and eating wholesome food the majority of the time. 12 years later, those habits remain - and I'm forever indebted to my parents for that, even if at the time I hated it!
Honestly, what happened to moderation?
Posted by: Alex Baran | Nov 5, 2008 9:23:18 AM
The most recent scientific report about kids and their fast food meals has shown that actually taking your kids at a fast food restaurant implies risking their health. I read at http://www.projectweightloss.com/index.php what is the right amount of fat contained by every meal. The study shows that most of the meals are too high in animal (saturated) and trans fat and more than eighty five percent were high in sodium.
