Many kids get fat in the middle, posing serious risks
If it seems like kids are getting rounder in the middle -- and some are rounder than others -- it’s because they are.
Researchers from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and the National Institute on Aging looked at 10 years of data on children and adolescents across socio-demographic groups. They found increases in the measure for body mass index, waist circumference and triceps skinfold thickness.
Some groups had more pronounced increases, including black girls. And some groups gained more abdominal fat, a potentially more dangerous form of fat than overall BMI increases.
The results were published in the August issue of the International Journal of Pediatric Obesity. The data analyzed came from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).
They examined the changes in boys and girls ages 2 to 19, as well as by ethnic groups.
“Our research suggests that U.S. young people may be at greater obesity-related risks than what was revealed by increases in BMI, as waist circumference is a better predictor of future health risks, such as for type 2 diabetes and heart disease in adults,” said May A. Beydoun, a staff scientist at the National Institute on Aging and a former postdoctoral fellow in the Bloomberg School's Department of International Health.
“More vigorous efforts should be made to understand the underlying causes,” she said in a statement. “Moving forward, this could help guide future population-based interventions including those focusing on the total population and those targeting vulnerable or genetically susceptible groups.”
So, think weight loss methods needs to be targeted to specific groups?
Photo of kids at fat camp on the ABC show Huge/Courtesy of ABC via McClatchy-Tribune









Comments
Hopkins took 10 years to research this? They could have went to any mall and taken a look. I recently saw a photo of the Phillips Restaurant crew from the 1950's in Ocean City. What a difference.
Posted by: MrEd | August 19, 2010 10:29 AM
If you read the article carefully, you would see that Hopkins didn't TAKE 10 years to study this, they "looked at 10 years of data" collected by someone else to reveal patterns. As with almost all studies of this kind, the devil is in the details and subgroups.
Posted by: Kathy | August 24, 2010 11:46 AM