With over one-third of American children overweight, the search is on to figure out why. Happy Meals get blamed, as do sodas, trans fats and just about everything else.
A new study even blames television - not necessarily how much time is spent watching it, but having it in the bedroom. The paper in JAMA associated a bedroom television with weight gain in children and adolescents, and say it is unrelated to the time they spend watching.
Their evidence: a telephone survey in 2003 of 6,522 boys and girls (ages 10 to 14 years) that asked about bedroom televisions. Body mass index (BMI) at two and four years after baseline was based on self-report and parent-reported weight and height for their children. They found that an estimated 71 percent of children and adolescents (ages 8 to 18 years) have bedroom televisions.
Diane Gilbert-Diamond, Sc.D., of the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, N.H., and colleagues report that, at baseline, 59.1 percent of the children surveyed reported having a bedroom television.
It's pretty good to be poor in America because more poor and minority kids have bedroom televisions. Boys also have them more than girls. Having a bedroom television was associated with an excess BMI of 0.57 at two years and 0.75 at four years of follow-up, and a BMI gain of 0.24 between years two and four.
The authors speculate the association could possibly be due to disrupted sleep patterns or greater exposure to child-targeted food advertising, although their analysis did not investigate causal reasons.
“This study suggests that removing bedroom televisions may be an important step in our nation’s fight against child obesity. … This work underscores the need for interventional studies to explore whether removing televisions from child bedrooms results in lower adiposity (fat) gain," they wrote.
Citation: JAMA Pediatrics March 3, 2014, doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.3921
- PHYSICAL SCIENCES
- EARTH SCIENCES
- LIFE SCIENCES
- SOCIAL SCIENCES
Subscribe to the newsletter
Stay in touch with the scientific world!
Know Science And Want To Write?
- Greenpeace Says Its GMOs Are Better Than Science's GMOs, Still Hates Golden Rice
- Reduce Prostate Cancer Risk By Sleeping With Lots Of Women - But Not Men
- Homo Floresiensis: Hobbit Species Continues To Provoke Questions About Human Evolution
- Supersonic Laser-Propelled Aircraft Get A Step Closer
- Okay With Disgusting Images? You Vote This Way 95 Percent Of The Time
- Everyone Hates Daylight Savings Time - But It Might Improve Public Health
- This Mid-Term Election Can Have Evolutionary Consequences
- "You, and Greenpeace, are doing just that. GMO is a legal definition, not a science one, and that..."
- "We lack new medicines because the patents expire too quickly and the regulatory burden is too high..."
- "The problem is, American agricultural science cannot be adopted world-wide for the simple reason..."
- "You're quote mining. When it comes to environmental risk, energy emissions from CO2 are back at..."
- "Of course they aren't. These are scientific terms Hank Campbell and you can't just interpret them..."
- Battle of Britain: NGOs and scientists clash over proposal to loosen EU GMO restrictions
- Genetically modified clean energy from bacteria
- Designer babies: You can screen for cystic fibrosis but intelligence is a ways off
- Science as profane: What superstition of 1752 and 2014 share in common
- What’s so “natural” about “natural crop breeding”?
- Worried you have cancer? Take a Google pill!
- CHEST lung cancer experts present policy statement to CMS Committee on Coverage
- Clinical practice guidelines address multimodality treatment for esophageal cancer
- Molecular tumor markers could reveal new therapeutic targets for lung cancer treatment
- Breakdown in gut barriers to bacteria may promote inflammation and craving in alcoholics
- Sadness lasts longer than other emotions