Junk food diet linked to lower IQ

[Unbreakable]

Toddlers who have a diet high in processed foods may have a slightly lower IQ in later life, according to a British study described as the biggest research of its kind.

The conclusion, published on Monday, comes from a long-term investigation into 14,000 people born in western England in 1991 and 1992 whose health and well-being were monitored at the ages of three, four, seven and eight and a half.

Parents of the children were asked to fill out questionnaires that, among other things, detailed the kind of food and drink their children consumed.

Three dietary patterns emerged: one was high in processed fats and sugar; then there was a "traditional" diet high in meat and vegetables; and finally a "health-conscious" diet with lots of salad, fruit and vegetables, pasta and rice.

When the children were eight and a half, their IQ was measured using a standard tool called the Wechsler Intelligence Scale.

Of the 4,000 children for which there were complete data, there was a significant difference in IQ among those who had had the "processed" as opposed to the "health-conscious" diets in early childhood.

The 20 percent of children who ate the most processed food had an average IQ of 101 points, compared with 106 for the 20 percent of children who ate the most "health-conscious" food.

"It's a very small difference, it's not a vast difference," said one of the authors, Pauline Emmett of the School of Social and Community Medicine at the University of Bristol.

"But it does make them less able to cope with education, less able to cope with some of the things in life."

source:
http://www.france24.com/en/20110208-junk-food-diet-linked-lower-iq-study


Eeeeep not good

 

[Cane2theLeft]

Perhaps its not causative... assuming IQ is heritable to an extent, maybe the explanation for this is that idiot parents who pass on idiot genes feed their children junk food.

 

[3rd_I_blind]

Perhaps its not causative... assuming IQ is heritable to an extent, maybe the explanation for this is that idiot parents who pass on idiot genes feed their children junk food.

This train-of-thought is very logical, so it would be extremely unlikely the researchers did not correct for confounding between parent IQ and diet. The journal in which the article was published has an impact factor of 3+, meaning it's in the top 5 of epidemiological journals - unlikely such a journal accepts an article without proper correction for such an obvious confounder.

But that's just theory...it's better judged by looking at the article. Quote from the interview:

"We have controlled for maternal education, for maternal social class, age, whether they live in council housing, life events, anything going wrong, the home environment, with books and use of television and things like that," she said.

Maternal education, maternal social class and housing conditions are three of the best predictive indicators for maternal intelligence. Combined with the fact it is published in a decent journal, there is little worry such a simple confounder was overlooked.

 

[Cane2theLeft]

^Thanks for adding that. I should've looked into the study more before commenting. The article text posted above didn't make any claims to causation so it made me wonder.

 

[3rd_I_blind]

It's always good to be critical on scientific studies that reach the popular media. They (the media) are notorious for selectively quoting only the interesting parts of conclusions or making biased statements that are not supported by the original research at all.

Anyway, the fact that this study is corrected for confounding between parent and child IQ is actually worrisome... It probably translates to mean that children with a lower intelligence or from a less-stable family/environment are more likely to suffer from the IQ-lowering effects of junk food. And since they already have a relative low IQ to begin with, the effects of lowering their IQ's are more profound than in some kid with an IQ of 128 that loses 5 points...

 

[Cane2theLeft]

^excellent points.

I checked my school's databases but this study hasn't been added yet; I'd be interested to read the full text. One of the authors, Kate Northstone, has authored several other studies on the findings from the ALSPAC that seem interesting as well (relating to dietary patterns affecting behavioral problems in children, use of homeopathic products, dietary patterns and attainment in school, dietary patterns during pregnancy associated with socioeconomic and lifestyle factors as well as many others)

Here's another article on this study with a few more details -

NSFW:

Processed Food Diet in Early Childhood May Lower Subsequent IQ

ScienceDaily (Feb. 7, 2011) — A diet, high in fats, sugars, and processed foods in early childhood may lower IQ, while a diet packed full of vitamins and nutrients may do the opposite, suggests research published online in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

The authors base their findings on participants in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC), which is tracking the long term health and wellbeing of around 14,000 children born in 1991 and 1992.

Parents completed questionnaires, detailing the types and frequency of the food and drink their children consumed when they were 3, 4, 7 and 8.5 years old.

Three dietary patterns were identified: "processed" high in fats and sugar intake; "traditional" high in meat and vegetable intake; and "health conscious" high in salad, fruit and vegetables, rice and pasta. Scores were calculated for each pattern for each child.

IQ was measured using a validated test (the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children) when they were 8.5 years old. In all, complete data were available for just under 4,000 children.

The results showed that after taking account of potentially influential factors, a predominantly processed food diet at the age of 3 was associated with a lower IQ at the age of 8.5, irrespective of whether the diet improved after that age. Every 1 point increase in dietary pattern score was associated with a 1.67 fall in IQ.

On the other hand, a healthy diet was associated with a higher IQ at the age of 8.5, with every 1 point increase in dietary pattern linked to a 1.2 increase in IQ. Dietary patterns between the ages of 4 and 7 had no impact on IQ.

The authors say that these findings, although modest, are in line with previous ALSPAC research showing an association between early childhood diet and later behaviour and school performance.

"This suggests that any cognitive/behavioural effects relating to eating habits in early childhood may well persist into later childhood, despite any subsequent changes (including improvements) to dietary intake," they say.

The brain grows at its fastest rate during the first three years of life, say the authors, by way of a possible explanation for the findings, adding that other research has indicated that head growth at this time is linked to intellectual ability.

"It is possible that good nutrition during this period may encourage optimal brain growth," they suggest, advocating further research to determine the extent of the effect early diet has on intelligence.

 

[3rd_I_blind]

I already have access to the full works. Feel free to contact me if interested.

When reading this kind of studies, I always wonder how intelligent or dumb I would have been had my parents made some other choices. Now that's in my case...can't hardly imagine how it must be with a child suffering from FAS.

 

[Cane2theLeft]

^I really appreciate that! I don't know what the turnaround is, but if the study isn't available through my school's library in the next day or so, I'll definitely hit you up.

I hear you re: FAS. I'm studying to be an addictions counselor and I think I'll have an easier time working with murderers and abusers than women who use(d) during pregnancy.

 

[tiggerific]

Amongst some of these studies, although stating they are looking at the different areas in which they reside, their parental backgrounds etc. I can not help but still feel there is more to this when it comes to areas and the general way in which children are treated and how they are brought up.
Children in estates tend to be (please note this is not always but from what I have seen) go out to play with their peers and have no supervision, children in rural areas tend to have supervised and organised play due mostly to location.

The chances of people with poorer backgrounds being able to afford a healthier diet is something which has always been in question as is the studies about life expectancy and general health of those on a higher processed and fatty diet than those who have money and can afford to buy healthier food.

Also you tend to find those who have money tend to be able to afford help such as nannies, play workers etc who will stick to a regime rather than some parents who say here sit in front of the t.v. and have a bowl of whatever or microwave this just to keep them quiet. Which has been shown to be quite a popular choice.

I think it is pretty obvious that there are links between not only health in general but with the IQ of children from poorer backgrounds.
I also think they should have a higher tax on junk food and make it less affordable and start redoing cookery lessons in school for children, with an additional nutritional element added in.

 

[3rd_I_blind]

Yeah, women drinking during pregnancy. Mothers and fathers smoking while pregnant or with little kids around. Really pisses me off; how on earth can any decent parent think that a fucking cigarette is more important than the health of their own children!? What an absolute retards there are among evolution's finest produce so far...

 

[tiggerific]

I had to go look up what FAS is first site I found was for Ireland's National Training and Employment Authority, so retyped and found out about mothers drinking whilst pregnant.
I have never heard of this before so was a little shocked to see that.
The picture of the child they should seemed to similar to those with other genetic deformities, as in it seems quite noticeable facially.
I am sure if these children are born with something like that, then the additional affects of junk food could only make things worse.

 

[Cane2theLeft]

^Yeah I imagine women willing to drink during pregnancy probably aren't the most concerned about providing a balanced diet (assuming family services hasn't removed them).

Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is now considered the leading cause of mental retardation in the United States (not that EVERY person afflicted with this experiences mental retardation, there's a spectrum).

 

[tiggerific]

^^ I take it it is like autism then there are varying degrees of it so although they have it it can vary from one to the next quite considerably.
I had never heard of it before, you are saying it is the leading cause in the US, wonder what the stats for it in the UK are??
It is maybe not as common here, or certainly not as widely known about then, something I think should be advertised a bit more often as it is something that is preventable.

 

[Cane2theLeft]

^here is an article about women drinking in the UK.

Its the leading cause in all of the western world actually.

In the US the rate of FAS is about 1-1.5 per 1000 whereas its about 1 per 300 in the UK. Until recently, it wasn't as acknowledged or addressed there but its certainly been occurring.



Sorry to derail the thread, OP. I blame 3rd I

 

[3rd_I_blind]

My gut feeling is that it will actually be more common in the UK, as I take it that Brits have stronger drinking habits than Americans... Although I'm not insinuating this opinion is backed scientifically, and I don't feel like pulling out the appropriate journals to check it.

I believe it is fairly common knowledge you should refrain from dinking whilst pregnant? At least, here in the Netherlands it is... There's even a high 'gut feeling' associated with it...getting fucked up on alcohol with a baby in your uterus that shares your bloodflow...you don't exactly have to get a college degree to understand it's not exactly recommended.

I understand the analogy with autism spectrum disorders, but personally I think a comparison with spina bifida or cleft lip/palate is preferable. Since those two are also congenital malformations with a close link to the CNS development; there are much more uncertainties regarding the cause of autism spectrum disorders.

 

[3rd_I_blind]

Sorry to derail the thread, OP. I blame 3rd I

Perhaps we can stretch the definition of 'junk food' to include alcoholic beverages?
That way, the thread is still on topic.
Extra bonus: A lot less confounders in epidemiological research, higher power with fewer subjects...saves a lot of money that can be spend on...lettuce!

 

[tiggerific]

I was not meaning it was the same I meant more the range.
As for drinking whilst pregnant I always thought it was a no-no, did not know anyone who done it either except the odd glass of wine, I am thinking when I was pregnant, I had never heard it mentioned or discussed only thing ever was that you got told no drinking whilst pregnant. I took it to be the obvious.

I do think there is likely a more likelihood of childrens who's parents drink whilst pregnant are less likely to give a shit about what they eat so think there could be a connection with that train of thought.

Dont get me wrong there are plenty of drinkers here, I just dont know any that drunk whilst pregnant, if they did then it was behind closed doors

I know they can test for 5% of autism through genetics (fragile x syndrome also martin-bell syndrome) , but the rest there are various ideas on this
but so far none of this has been down to anything linked with diet, although I am sure this is not going to help having a poor diet along with other problems.

 

[tiggerific]

Perhaps we can stretch the definition of 'junk food' to include alcoholic beverages?
That way, the thread is still on topic.
Extra bonus: A lot less confounders in epidemiological research, higher power with fewer subjects...saves a lot of money that can be spend on...lettuce!

hahahaha, considering they used lettuce brine to cultivate yeast to make alcohol, talking about going round in circles

 

[MynameisnotDeja]

The chances of people with poorer backgrounds being able to afford a healthier diet is something which has always been in question as is the studies about life expectancy and general health of those on a higher processed and fatty diet than those who have money and can afford to buy healthier food.

With how many people are on food stamps in the United States, I don't think there is any legitimacy to say poor people can't afford healthy food. As someone who cooks for myself every day I go to the grocery store a lot and I often see someone checking out before me, paying with their EBT card, and I look over their cart to see nothing but junk. This happens so often it blows my mind. People eat shit food because they want to, not because good food is so much more expensive. Maybe eating 100% organic is too expensive for some, but one should be able to afford a diet of fruits and vegetables for whatever they are spending on candy, soda, etc.

I also think they should have a higher tax on junk food and make it less affordable and start redoing cookery lessons in school for children, with an additional nutritional element added in.

Yes, or something my mother has been arguing for for YEARS now: MAKE IT SO YOU CAN'T FUCKING BUY JUNK WITH EBT CARDS! Why the hell should people in such a dire need of nutrition be allowed to spend that money on skittles and coke? I mean really? It should be whole foods only, like the way the WIC program is.

 

[tiggerific]

With how many people are on food stamps in the United States, I don't think there is any legitimacy to say poor people can't afford healthy food. As someone who cooks for myself every day I go to the grocery store a lot and I often see someone checking out before me, paying with their EBT card, and I look over their cart to see nothing but junk. This happens so often it blows my mind. People eat shit food because they want to, not because good food is so much more expensive. Maybe eating 100% organic is too expensive for some, but one should be able to afford a diet of fruits and vegetables for whatever they are spending on candy, soda, etc. Quote]

Here in the UK they get cash and more often than not you see them spending it on fags, booze and designer clothing rather than healthy eating. people on the dole here get about £60 per week after paying their rates, electricity, gas, phone, t.v. etc I think it leaves them about 25 per week to feed themselves on, I tried looking at that amount of money and getting what I would normally buy and it was nowhere near what I need, nor close to what I normally pay.

I was cheaper buying high sugar cereal, white bread and processed meats, for buying a couple of healthier options it is so much more. I could not do it with the money the guys get over here.

The other thing being is education. If you are brought with that then it is what you know, they should have more classes to teach people about food and take it back to cooking meals from scratch and not buying prepacked junk.