I find this study to be fascinating.

Socioeconomic Status and Childhood Obesity

This appears to be a well-designed scientific study. The surprising result, to me, was that there seems to be a tendency for those genes which are associated with obesity to be expressed to a greater extent in children with a lower socioeconomic status. Obviously we see here the interplay of genetics and environment.

To be debated: Do you accept the results of this study? Why or why not? If so, how do you explain this correlation? What factors are responsible for the connection between lower socioeconomic status and greater expression of obesity-linked genes? What, if anything, should be done about this?

I cannot accept that genes are responsible for obesity in children.
I do agree that socio-economic conditions affect this issue. Children
growing up in lower income families have less opportunities to partake
in extra-curricular activities. Often times these are single-parent homes
where the child is left by himself much of the time. What do these kids
do for enjoyment and comfort? They eat and watch tv. That is why they
are obese.

Food becomes a companion for many children. Also, a lot of parents simply
do not monitor the quality and quantity of food their children are eating.
In case anybody didn't know this, McDonald's is NOT healthy eatin'.....

Children need to be active. They need to run around and play sports,
and be kids. Too many of our youngsters are sitting in front of the tv,
munching away on junk food. Video games have replaced physical
activities. When I was young all of the neighborhood kids would play
together outside (tag, ball, etc.). Nowadays, it's not safe to leave kids
unsupervised outdoors, and too many parents don't have the time
to accompany their children in doing physical activities.

By the way, it's not only children from lower income brackets that are
suffering from obesity, it's a very widespread problem. If a parent is
obese, the chances are much greater that his/her child will become obese.

Parents need to educate themselves about proper nutrition. And set
healthy eating habits for themselves and their kids, from the get-go.
Exercise plays a major role as well.

I'm not surprised to see an inverse relationship between socioeconomic status and body mass. I don't know if they should say it is genetic until they find a DNA link to obesity. It might however easily be linked to a lack of money, education, and opportunities.

Soccer moms driving their children in mini-vans to extracurricular activities where they can get exercise; would typically, I suspect, represent a higher level of income than wold be found with a single mother on welfare.

Getting to the doctor on a regular basis for pre-natal care, well baby checkups. and ongoing routine monitoring of good health are patterns that would reflect a higher socioeconomic status.

A neighborhood park where it is safe for the children to play, or a swing set in the backyard; are more likely than not, reflecting a higher standard of living.

There are strong correlations between education and income. Persons in a lower socioeconomic group are often there to begin with because they have not placed a high value on education, or because their innate abilities prevented them from learning in a classroom. How are they going to educate themselves?

A steak in the grocery store sells for circa $8 - 10 a pound, but provides the body with protein. Pastas and breads can fill stomachs for less than $1 a pound. As more than one co-worker used to tell me, "A working man needs a six pack every night, and a couple extras to get through the weekend." Frequently, they were also smokers. On a low fixed income, feeding the kids a well balanced diet is often secondary to simply feeding them. As my parents used to tell me, "If someone invites you to join them for a meal; don't call home to ask if it's alright, call home to say, "Set one less plate at the table."

Food is used as a reward in poor families. Sweets and other snack foods provide a relatively cheap pleasure. Add to this the images of happy, non-obese children enjoying the same things that poor children desire. How many advertisements show children enjoying raw vegetables, cooked vegetables and salads?

Immediate gratification wins out over careful planning when the future is uncertain.

I would hypothesize that lower income families are fatter because junk food is cheap.

To eat healthy, it costs more. It's relatively cheap to eat hot dogs, chips, and a Coke for lunch. But it costs more to eat anything else more nutritious. Nutritionless drinks are widely available and low cost - soft drinks in particular. But, to get nutritionful drinks, you'd have to spend more. Eating out, it's much cheaper to go to McD, Wendy's, etc than to an Outback, Longhorn. And fast foods are loaded with fats and sugars and little nutrition.

There are a few factors involved here (in no particular order)

1. Food (especially candy or other junk) is a cheap treat.

2. Sugar and fat are addictive and children whose parents are less available or inclined to moderate their behavior will be more likely to overindulge. Even an adult usually lacks the restraint necessary to forgo the extra twinkie, and they have maturity on their side.

3. I don't believe it takes expensive extracurricular activities to keep children in shape. I certainly didn't have that privilege. The difference is, in the past, children ran around unsupervised all day biking, skating, skateboarding and running. Today it is too dangerous to run around unsupervised so children are expected to stay indoors unless the parent is available and willing to escort them.

4. Junk food is easy to fix for the busy working single parent.

5. Children are more likely than ever to mindlessly snack in front of the television with 40+ varieties to choose from at any given moment.

6. Parents (especially the time deprived, indigent types) often set terrible examples. Children learn by observation, so if the television is nonstop background noise throughout the day, and the parent is sedetary with bad eating habits, the child will pick up on that. Often there are no positive associations with healthy eating and activity. Those are unpleasantries that must be endured as an act of desperation when one becomes unbearably out of shape and fat. Sometimes those same parents put their children on diets as well. Instead of replacing sedetary behavior with active, and healthy food for junk, the child is shamed into eating less for a short time. The pattern of seeing healthy habits as punishment is thereby reinforced.
My children have never been involved in special activities. I have taken them for regular walks as part of our lifestyle. They play outside a lot, and rain is a great opportunity to put on wellies, jump in puddles, and catch frogs....not sit in front of the tube.

How to fix the problem? A more active, less sedetary family lifestyle with healthy eating habits would be a good place to start. Virtually eliminating the television would also help. I see the same sort of reasoning on some parts of this thread that I've encountered in my daily life concerning weight loss. The poor can't afford steak, so they are fat. The poor can't afford to take their kids to special sports activities so they're fat. The poor can't afford to go to expensive restaurants for they're fat. It's the same logic as...I can't go to the gym so I'm fat. I can't afford the Jenny Craig fee so I'm fat. I can't afford a personal trainer so I'm fat. Utter hogwash.

About three years ago I decided I wanted to lose some weight. My husband was at work about 15 hours+ each day, and my child didn't sleep. There was no way I could go to a gym. I decided that if a Vietnamese POW could survive on rice for 7 years, I could do it for a month. For six weeks, I ate only rice and vegetables (about 2 dollars a day in food) and walked about a mile with my child (no stroller, and he was one and a half at the time). Guess what? I lost weight! The poor can do it, too, and save themselves money in the process.