The Ontario Panel on Healthy Kids

 A brief note today to let people know about a new report from the Ontario Panel on Healthy Kids, titled No Time To Wait: The Healthy Kids Strategy (Full disclosure: the CEO of the hospital where I am performing my PhD was a co-chair of the panel).  The panel was created by the government of Ontario (Canada’s largest province) to address the issue of childhood obesity.

We’ve had a few similar panels in Canada over the years, without much (any?) action, so I think it’s fair to say that there was some skepticism about the panel when it was first announced last year.  However, now that the report is out  (available here), the initial reviews are quite positive.  The report has already been discussed by Drs Yoni Freedhoff and Arya Sharma on their respective blogs, and Yoni is promising more to come in the future.  But in brief, here is what they’ve had to say so far.

Yoni:

Overall the report’s solid. It makes 23 recommendations and as I was warned in an off the record chat with one of the panel members this past weekend, they might not be my top 23 items, but as I told the panel member, that’s not what matters. What matters is that they’re not all fluff, and more importantly what matters is that many of them have their sights set very squarely on the environment.

This is not your average Eat Less, Move More report. Instead this is a report that recognizes that the world in which we’re raising our kids pushes them into the open arms of food marketers, of piles of sugar, and of boatloads of calories. Kids aren’t trying to gain weight, their parents aren’t encouraging them to eat poorly – that’s just our new default – our new normal.

Arya:

While the report makes all the expected recommendations (some based on good evidence, some more on opinion), the interesting nuances are in the report itself (not so much in the executive summary, which is why they may be easily lost in the discussion).

As an example, although the report is directly aimed at reducing childhood obesity, the report actually states that,

“Health is about more than weight. In fact, a child who is a little overweight and who is fit and active is healthier than a child who is the “right” weight for his or her age and height but is more sedentary. Focusing too much on weight is stigmatizing and will not address many of the factors that contribute to unhealthy weights.”

Hopefully this means that we will not see stigmatizing “anti-obesity” campaigns similar to the now notorious Atlanta shame and blame tactics.

Indeed, as one interviewed parent comments,

“…He [my overweight son] has lately been under a lot of pressure because of the focus of the media on overweight kids and this has been very hurtful to him, so people need to exercise caution when they are saying things to kids about their weight because it hurts.”

That “unhealthy” lifestyles are not simply limited to overweight and obese kids and the real reasons (the “Whys) that contribute to these lifestyles are not simply a matter of “choice” is also addressed in the details of the report.

Anyone who knows Yoni knows that he doesn’t hold back when he  thinks a report is misguided, so the fact that he is generally positive about the report says a lot.  I would tend to agree with Yoni and Arya – the report may not be perfect (they stay out of the sugar tax debate, for example, and don’t talk much about screen time), but at first blush it seems like a pretty reasonable framework for promoting healthy children, regardless of body weight.

The real question now is whether this will result in any action from the Ontario government, especially in the face of likely opposition from Big Food (one of the key recommendations is that the government “Ban the marketing of high-calorie, low-nutrient foods, beverages and snacks to children under age 12″), and at a time when the government is already trying desperately to reign in spending (the report asks the government to commit $80 million/year to implement the recommendations).  The Panel seems to have done their job, now we’ll see whether it will result in any action.

Travis

Category: Obesity Research | Leave a comment

Reduced All-Cause Mortality in Overweight Adults: Should we be Surprised?

Scale-A-Week Project

Today’s post comes courtesy of my friend and frequent collaborator Dr Jean-Philippe Chaput.  It is a Letter to the Editor that was written by Dr Chaput along with Angelo Tremblay and Eric Doucet in response to a recent paper in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

In the new paper, Katherine Flegal and colleagues perform a systematic review and meta analysis of the available evidence linking body mass index (BMI) with mortality.  They included 97 studies, with a combined sample of 2.88 million people.  Here is what they found (my emphasis):

Relative to normal weight, both obesity (all grades) and grades 2 and 3 obesity were associated with significantly higher all-cause mortality. Grade 1 obesity [BMI of 30-34.9] overall was not associated with higher mortality, and overweight was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality. The use of predefined standard BMI groupings can facilitate between-study comparisons.

Not surprisingly, the paper has generated a lot of discussion, most notably from Harvard epidemiologist Walter Willett who claimed that “Stated politely, the paper is a pile of rubbish“. Drs Chaput and colleagues wrote a letter in response to this paper, which unfortunately was not accepted for publication by JAMA.  But he has graciously allowed me to post it below, and given the amount of discussion on Peter’s previous post explaining why BMI is a poor measure of your health, I think it will be of interest to our readers.   I have bolded some sections to emphasize the key arguments. Enjoy!

The results recently reported by Flegal and colleagues1 about reduced all-cause mortality in overweight individuals compared with normal weight individuals seem counterintuitive but are concordant with what would be predicted by normal human physiology. The research on adipose tissue over the last decades has indeed emphasized that the role of fat cells in biological regulation goes much beyond the storage of excess energy/lipid. A gain of 5 to 10 kg of body fat has numerous biological effects which seem to a priori promote what would appear to be a series of relatively positive outcomes rather than detrimental physiological and metabolic effects.

These effects become more apparent when overweight and class 1 obese individuals are subjected to weight-reducing programs to lead to a reduction of what could be initially perceived as excessive fat storage. As recently reviewed,2,3 fat loss promotes the following adverse effects: 1) an increase in the drive to eat, 2) a greater than predicted decrease in energy expenditure being at least partly related to a release from adipose tissue of persistent organic pollutants and to a decrease in plasma leptin levels, 3) an increase in the Beck Depression Inventory score associated to hypoglycemia and reduced plasma triiodothyronin levels, and 4) an increase in a posteriori weight gain (regain) related with reduced adipose tissue lipolysis.

In our opinion, we can draw from these observations that early body fat gains that characterize an overweight status likely exert a protective homeostatic role. In fact, increased energy storage in the form of body fat may help to manage an environment that is seemingly becoming more toxic, at least as far as energy balance is concerned. An increasing number of obesogenic factors related to our modern way of life, such as demanding mental work4 and an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels5, to name a few, are being identified and characterized.

Thus, the increase in body fat characterizing overweight people is more likely to represent a normal allostatic response than a pathological process. In this context, it is not surprising to note a reduced mortality in overweight individuals. However, as for many regulatory physiological processes, fat gain cannot entirely compensate for a chronic detrimental stimulation, which is again consistent with the Flegal et al. data indicating that mortality rates are increased in grades 2 and 3 obesity. A preventive approach that attempts to reduce the obesogenic nature of our society is probably the only long-term viable solution to improve our health, even if it does not easily fit within the priorities of an economically globalized world.

Angelo Tremblay, PhD

Éric Doucet, PhD

Jean-Philippe Chaput, PhD

REFERENCES 

  1. Flegal KM, Kit BK, Orpana H, Graubard BI. Association of all-cause mortality with overweight and obesity using standard body mass index categories: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2013;309(1):71-82.
  2. Chaput JP, Doucet E, Tremblay A. Obesity: a disease or a biological adaptation? An update. Obes Rev. 2012;13(8):681-691.
  3. Tremblay A, Chaput JP. Obesity: the allostatic load of weight-loss dieting. Physiol Behav. 2012;106(1):16-21.
  4. Chaput JP, Drapeau V, Poirier P, Teasdale N, Tremblay A. Glycemic instability and spontaneous energy intake: association with knowledge-based work. Psychosom Med. 2008;70(7):797-804.
  5. Hersoug LG, Sjödin A, Astrup A. A proposed potential role for increasing atmospheric CO2 as a promoter of weight gain and obesity. Nutr Diab. 2012;2:e31.

ResearchBlogging.orgFlegal, K. (2013). Association of All-Cause Mortality With Overweight and Obesity Using Standard Body Mass Index CategoriesA Systematic Review and Meta-analysisAll-Cause Mortality Using BMI Categories JAMA, 309 (1) DOI: 10.1001/jama.2012.113905

Category: Guest Post, Obesity Research, Peer Reviewed Research | Tagged | 14 Comments

Sedentary behaviour associated with 6-year increase in waist circumference (but not much else) in the Quebec Family Study

As regular readers of Obesity Panacea will know, my current research focuses on the health impact of sedentary behaviour (e.g. sitting).  In the past 5-10 years there has been a growing body of evidence that suggests that the more you sit, the greater your risk of developing a chronic disease like diabetes or heart disease, and of dying prematurely (you can find a brief review of the research here).

One factor that may link sedentary behaviour with increased morbidity and mortality is the accumulation of visceral fat (see figure below), which has been linked with various chronic diseases and even death.  For example, see this study by our former labmate Jen Kuk, which found that visceral fat was an independent predictor of premature death in men.  While other types of body fat (e.g. butt fat) don’t tend to have a huge health impact, excess visceral fat is definitely a bad thing (more details on how body fat distribution influences health here).

Visceral fat surrounds your internal organs, and increases your health risk

Previous research has linked sedentary behaviour with increased waist circumference (which includes both visceral and subcutaneous fat), but no one has looked directly at whether sitting is associated with increased accumulation of visceral fat.  Thus, in a study published earlier this month in PLOS ONE, my colleagues and I examined the relationship between sedentary behaviour and metabolic risk factors over a 6-year period in participants of the Quebec Family Study.


Continue reading »

Category: Obesity Research, Peer Reviewed Research, Sedentary Behaviour | 5 Comments

Phoebe Rose Rocks

Phoebe Rose (source)

A brief but important diversion from obesity and physical activity today.

This above picture is of a little girl named Phoebe.  She was diagnosed with cancer ( high risk Infant Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia) at just 9 weeks of age, and has been receiving treatment for well over 2 years at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario and Sick Kids Hospital in Toronto. I first learned about Phoebe through my wife, who teaches Phoebe’s sister.   Phoebe’s mother Jenny keeps a wonderful blog on her treatment, titled Phoebe Rose Rocks.  If you have a second (and even if you don’t), please take a minute to head over and read about Phoebe and her family.

The next step in Phoebe’s treatment involves traveling to Philadelphia.  As you can imagine, Phoebe’s parents have taken time off work to help take care of her.   They are fundraising money to help cover the costs associated with her treatment, and life in general (keep in mind that they have another daughter as well).  They have setup a Paypal page where you can donate here.  If you have a few spare dollars lying around, this is an excellent opportunity to put it to good use.  I’m sure that Phoebe and her parents would greatly appreciate it.  There are many worthwhile causes, and this is certainly one of them.

And if you happen to have a blog or other foothold in social media, please consider linking to the Phoebe Rose Rocks blog.

Travis

Category: Miscellaneous | Tagged | Leave a comment

Measuring change in child weight status in relation to local environmental factors

Photo by Stas Kulesh

Travis’ Note: Today’s post comes from friend and colleague Megan Carter. Megan has recently submitted her PhD thesis, so please join with me in congratulating her and wishing her the best of luck in her upcoming defense!  More on Megan can be found at the bottom of this post.  You can find out how to submit your own guest post to Obesity Panacea here.

Today’s post is great thesis defense prep for me. I’ve deposited the “behemoth,” it’s now in the hands of my examiners, for all to critique.  It’s scary, but I’m sort of looking forward to it. I’ll be able to close a chapter of my life and open another. One of my research areas of interest is in how local environments may influence childhood obesity.  A portion of my thesis allowed me to explore this area, and exercise my epidemiological and statistical skills, especially since I got to work with a large, population-based cohort study. I’d like to briefly share this chunk of my thesis now that the associated papers are published.

I worked with the Québec Longitudinal Study of Children, a large cohort study (n=2120) that has followed children from 5 months of age (in 1997/98) to present (conducted and funded primarily by the Québec Government).  Measured height and weight data were collected at 4, 6, 7, 8, and 10 years of age, along with a range of behavioural, environmental, social, and academic measures.  Using this cohort to conduct my study was exciting to me because collection of multiple measured heights and weights over a significant amount time does not usually happen on such a large scale in Canada (see problems associated with parent-reported heights and weights here on page 30).

Also available were measures of the local environment, and potential confounders such as socioeconomic status (SES) – many of which were measured over time as well – another thing that does not usually happen.  The local environmental factors were intriguing to me (see table below and references at the end).  I was interested in seeing how these could influence the change in child weight status over time while also controlling for things like SES, and early life factors such as birthweight and early infant growth.
Continue reading »

Category: Guest Post, Obesity Research, Peer Reviewed Research | Tagged | 1 Comment

How do you see the future of SBRN?

In the fall of 2011 a group of researchers interested in the health impact of sedentary behaviour came together to form the Sedentary Behaviour Research Network.  Since then the group has grown to more than 400 members, and has published an updated (and frequently cited) definition of sedentary behaviour.

We had an in-person meeting at the recent International Congress on Physical Activity and Public Health, where we discussed the current state of the group and plans for the future.  Click here to download notes from that meeting.

Dr Bill Kohl (president of the International Society for Physical Activity and Health) also attended the meeting, and discussed the possible benefits that might be associated with SBRN becoming formally associated with ISPAH.  The other options would be to remain as a more loosely affiliated network, or to remain independent but with increased structure.

Since not all SBRN members could attend the meeting in Australia, we have created a survey asking for feedback on how to proceed.  We will move forward with whatever receives the most interest from SBRN members (a reminder that anyone interested in sedentary behaviour can join for free by clicking here).  For some reason I am unable to embed the survey on our blog, but it can be accessed here.

If you are interested in the health impact of sedentary behaviour (especially if you are a researcher or clinician, regardless of your academic discipline) please take 1-2 minutes to complete it (please take an additional 30 seconds to join SBRN as well).  Your input will be extremely useful in determining how SBRN can be most effective moving forward. Please feel free to encourage your colleagues to join SBRN and/or complete the survey as well.

Once again, the survey can be found here.

Thanks for your input!

Travis

Category: News | Tagged | Leave a comment