Fat kids? Mums - it's all your fault!

[Deleted member 66701]

Have you had some part in the research? I'm just going off what the sources have said and they're all directly attributing mothers working as the cause. I can't get hold of the paper itself as I'm not sure its in the public domain yet.

The journal states there is a correlation between mothers working and having obese children.

It's typical of the media interchanging causation and correlation.

Btw, if you can't find the journal - <cough> sci.hub </cough>

EDIT:-

In fact, having read the Independant article again, they don't seem to suggest that working mothers are the cause of their children being obese:-

The research, conducted by University College London, looked at 20,000 families and claims to be the first to link mothers who work to the weight of their children.

It found that children with employed mothers were more likely to be heavier than those with stay-at-home mums and that children of single working mothers were at the most risk with 25 per cent more likely to be overweight.

Words like link and likely represent correlation, not causation.

 

[Dis86]

The journal states there is a correlation between mothers working and having obese children.

It's typical of the media conflating causation and correlation.

Btw, if you can't find the journal - <cough> sci.hub </cough>

Lol ta.
I'm going off comments by the researchers such as "we find children whose mothers work are more likely to have increased sedentary behaviour and poorer dietary habits". I'd say that they're causes that stem from mum being too tired or being absent.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Lol ta.
I'm going off comments by the researchers such as "we find children whose mothers work are more likely to have increased sedentary behaviour and poorer dietary habits". I'd say that they're causes that stem from mum being too tired or being absent.

Which implies that changes can be made without needing mothers to 'give up work' to ensure that their children aren't obese, ergo, mothers working are not the cause of their children being obese.


P.s. check my edit above re the article stating correlation, not causation.

 

[Dis86]

Which implies that changes can be made without needing mothers to 'give up work' to ensure that their children aren't obese, ergo, mothers working are not the cause of their children being obese.


P.s. check my edit above re the article stating correlation, not causation.

Then tell me, what's the cause? Why are the working circumstances of mothers more likely to result in childhood obesity than those of fathers if mothers are not a contributory cause?

 

[Irish_Tom]

Then tell me, what's the cause? Why are the working circumstances of mothers more likely to result in childhood obesity than those of fathers if mothers are not a contributory cause?

Were you able to find the bit that said single fathers were better than single mothers?

 

[Dis86]

Were you able to find the bit that said single fathers were better than single mothers?

It's in the article. No matter the father's employment status it has no significant bearing on the weight of the offspring.

 

[2013]

This is based on my people know and what I see from parents with overweight children

In my option it's lazy, silly parenting, and/or parents who are a little uneducated when it comes to food.

I think a lot of parents don't really know how to really cook and /or dont want to put the effort in.
A lot of people I know wont even put in the effort to cut chips and just buy the bags because its easy.

I see a lot of people giving 1+ year old chocolates, soft drinks or crisps to keep then quite or as a treat, kids who have not even started solid food.

The other issue is over feeding kids, kids dont know how much is too much its the parents job to tell them, it wont help if you think they are not eating and you are forcing them to eat more.


if you give your kids unhealthy foods, like processed drinks and foods ( choc, sweets, cakes, soft drinks ect) and something unhealthy fried, ready meal or from a takeaway (chip, KFC ect) because its easier then doing the work, it will have a affect, the kids will only want that because the body craves it and if your not going to put in the effort to change that nothing will change,


A mother I know very well, has been giving her son mayo to eat with every meal, which is mostly fried food because he had it when he was 3 visiting his cousin, he's now 5 and he is quite over weight and unhealthy, he can switch cloths with his 8 year old brother.

another has a 1-2 year old, she been complaining hes is not eating and has been taking him to the GP at least once a week even after the GP has told her hes a normal healthy boy I know because I've been asked to take her) till she was refer to the hospital at the same time I've seen her feed him 2 yogurts and some rice in front of me are you forgetting hes a 1+ year old.


it's just silly things like this that cause the problems.

I also think the problem is less to do with working mothers but more to do with lazy mothers.

 

[Irish_Tom]

It's in the article. No matter the father's employment status it has no significant bearing on the weight of the offspring.

I found another article that goes into a bit more detail because I wasn't satisfied with the Independent's analysis of the research:

Paternal employment produced different results, with the authors stating that “we find no relationship between paternal employment and children’s sedentary and healthy eating behaviours.”

The study explains that the average hours a single father works are lower than the amount a single mother works, suggesting that fathers are able to spend more time with their child, and therefore are able to engage in increased physical activity and spend more time preparing meals.

However, due to the “vast majority” of fathers included in the cohort being in employment, the “variation in paternal labour supply is more limited, making identification of effects more challenging.”

Also, to back up what @amigafan2003 was saying:

The study examines the correlation between maternal employment and childhood weight, using data from the UK Millennium Cohort Study (MCS), an on-going longitudinal study of 19,244 families born between the year 2000 and 2002.

The study concludes that children with working mothers are more likely to have “increased sedentary behaviour and poorer dietary habits,” proving a “positive relationship between maternal employment and children’s BMI.”

The study also shows that single mothers had lower levels of education and household income, and display higher levels of depressive symptoms, especially in unemployed mothers.

Children whose mothers are unemployed or work part-time were approximately five percentage points more likely to watch TV for over three hours a day, with children of women working full-time seeing figures increase to around 14 percentage points. Children of women in part- and full-time employment were 11 and 21 percentage points less likely to eat a regular breakfast respectively when compared to unemployed mothers.

The results showing that BMI increased with a mother’s working hours were more obvious in single mothers working full-time, with patterns less obvious but still present in women who worked but also lived with a partner.

Fitzsimon’s paper states that the “main channels associated with higher weight” are mothers spending less time on housework, meal preparation, and child supervision, which adversely affects a child’s food intake and levels of physical activity.

Predictably, increased family income, which is more likely to arise from a two-parent household, has been found to lead to healthier overall lifestyles and consequent healthier weights in a study based on the analysis of the Australian National Nutrition Survey, 1995.

And just to add a bit more balance to the findings:

However, there are a number of studies that have produced results contradicting this new study. Four studies that have found “no significant effects” and “little evidence of associations” between maternal employment and childhood obesity are cited in the study.

The University College London study does admit that “household unobserved characteristics” that include genetic and environmental influences could also be affecting childhood weight, and it is not maternal employment alone that is contributing to childhood obesity.

“Mothers in employment are likely to be different from those not in employment. Such differences, rather than employment, could be influencing child outcomes,” the study explains in full.

This is a particularly important point to highlight as the study has come under intense criticism for “shaming mothers”.

Despite the backlash, it is important to note that the study does encourage that its results are “interpreted and transmitted cautiously.” It notes that the results showing maternal employment having more of an adverse effect on children’s BMI over paternal employment suggests “differing workload and childcare responsibilities between parents.”

It suggests that as more women are likely to join the workforce over time, the trend in increased maternal working hours and increased BMI will not change, so input from fathers to promote children’s overall health and wellbeing is fundamental in tackling the issue.

 

[jpaul]

A lot of people I know wont even put in the effort to cut chips

[I don't, but, because I have never cooked/prepared a chip at home.]

Pet hate would be the proliferation of better eating programmes on the tv , where bad diet adults are feeding children is not recriminated (greg wallace etc ).
I realise they have shown the 'nudge' technique is a better way to change peoples behaviour, but these programmes are way too friendly.


another interesting study in the news today

Lesbian and bisexual women are at increased risk of being overweight or obese compared to heterosexual women, according to new research from the University of East Anglia and UCL.
Gay men however are less likely to be overweight than their straight counterparts, and more at risk of being underweight.
The study, published today in the Journal of Public Health, is the first to investigate the relationship between sexual orientation and body mass index (BMI) using population data in the UK.
The findings support the argument that sexual identity should be considered as a social determinant of health.

https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/69275/4/fdy224_1.pdf

 

[Irish_Tom]

[I don't, but, because I have never cooked/prepared a chip at home.]

Pet hate would be the proliferation of better eating programmes on the tv , where bad diet adults are feeding children is not recriminated (greg wallace etc ).
I realise they have shown the 'nudge' technique is a better way to change peoples behaviour, but these programmes are way too friendly.


another interesting study in the news today


https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/69275/4/fdy224_1.pdf

Interesting findings.

Part of the problem with this (and with the study in the OP) is the reliance on BMI, which is a bit of a **** metric.

 

[jpaul]

you mean, as a first order approximation BMI does not correlate with adverse health outcomes ?
[edit - elaborating i guess you're referring to hidden visceral fat .. but its 2nd order]

 

[Dis86]

@Irish_Tom read your link again as it answers some of the points you raise, particularly regarding the other studies and how a working mother results in fatter children. Causes. Not correlation.

 

[Irish_Tom]

you mean, as a first order approximation BMI does not correlate with adverse health outcomes ?
[edit - elaborating i guess you're referring to hidden visceral fat .. but its 2nd order]

Visceral fat, muscle mass skewing the figures etc.

I agree, as a first order approximation it’s fine, but as soon as you get beyond that it starts to fall apart in lots of individual cases.

 

[FoxEye]

There's a massive generational divide isn't there.

Our parents as kids were running around fields, walking miles and miles to get to the nearest shop (country bumpkin here).

We were sometimes on bikes sometimes watching TV.

Today kids are sat on the sofa with a tablet. Or watching Netflix. Or playing XBOX. Or back on the tablet. They might want to go out but it isn't safe anyhow; they'll either get stabbed or pedo'd.

 

[dowie]

Visceral fat, muscle mass skewing the figures etc.

I agree, as a first order approximation it’s fine, but as soon as you get beyond that it starts to fall apart in lots of individual cases.

It doesn't really though... aside from on these forums where every other poster is apparently a bodybuilder or semi-professional rugby player.

For the vast majority of people it is absolutely fine.

 

[itchy]

Problem is people cannot cook anymore, how many know about lard, bacon dripping, fried bred , liver and onions, tripe, pigs trotters, ox tongue the is loads.

 

[Efour]

We live in abundant times with such easy access to food.
Im not a parent but up until age 16 I'd see myself as utterly responsible for my kids actions and health. It would be me that set up their moral compass and attitudes.
It makes sense that overweight patents would be more inclined to raise overweight children.
Seeing as half the population is considered overweight, that's a new generation already with an inherited burden.

 

[jpaul]

aside from on these forums where every other poster is apparently a bodybuilder or semi-professional rugby player.

thanks, that made me laugh.

that reminded me -
I take below back - C5's secrets of your supermarket - had an article where they informed a mother+son that she was wasting money on his protein supplements.

Pet hate would be the proliferation of better eating programmes on the tv , where bad diet adults are feeding children is not recriminated (greg wallace etc ).

 

[Irish_Tom]

It doesn't really though... aside from on these forums where every other poster is apparently a bodybuilder or semi-professional rugby player.

For the vast majority of people it is absolutely fine.

I’m not denying that BMI is a general approximation for body fat and future health risks, but the issues with BMI are well documented.

I don’t think this thread needs to turn into a debate about the pros and cons for BMI so I’m going to leave it there.

 

[UberTiger]

Our parents as kids were running around fields,

Ahh yes, it was the the good old days of naughty frolicking in those fields of wheat that really kept the pounds down!