Cause and effect eg. processed food and children's development

[jugglingjo]

I've just heard on the morning news that a new study suggests that young children with a bad diet including lots of processed food have been found to later develop to have lower IQ's than their peers.

Interesting. However I'm wondering if this could be a classic example of something I've suspected in research about development for some time.

That is, how sure can they or we be that this is really a causal relationship. Have the factors accompanying this poor diet really been taken sufficiently into account.

Things like socioeconomic class, poverty, struggling parents, and the things that may go with this package such as less stimulating experiences, less engaged parents, less communication between parents and children etc. etc.

Scientific research needs to be rigorous, and yet you hardly ever hear mention of the degree of causality that is being suggested. Or how accompanying factors have been considered.

A causal relationship is always just presumed.

At least by the media.

I think there are many things which affect our development more than diet. Though a good diet is very important for our health and well-being.

What do others think ? Especially about the science aspect ?

I have not been able to access the entire article as yet ( If you mean the research paper)

And actually my OP made wider points about confounding (or accompanying) factors possibly not being sufficiently adjusted for in social research, and very rarely being mentioned in media reports of scientific research.

As my OP is very much my own opinion, and as you have said,

"I don't know why OP thinks scientists who carried out the research know less about the scientific aspect than herself" (to paraphrase)

In view of this I'd think it is reasonable to reiterate that everyone is entitled to their opinion !

Do you understand the phrase "such as"? It means they have controlled for other factors as well, not only mother's education and socioeconomic status.

It has nothing to do with "opinion". You didn't read the part of the article that clearly says that they did control for socioeconomic status, which is why you wrote "Have the factors accompanying this poor diet really been taken sufficiently into account. Things like socioeconomic class..." in your OP.

No, CoteDAzur,

I did write the OP in response to what I heard reported on the radio.

It was only after starting this thread that a thoughtful MN'er provided a link to various media articles, which I read and took into account in my subsequent posts.

So what is it you are not happy with now, after having read the article?

They say they have controlled for various other factors affecting IQ, presumably isolating nutrition. Are you saying they can't be trusted to have adequately done their research?

Just nipping in to add this link to the official website of the entire project.

I'm certainly saying that in an area as complex as identifying the factors which influence children's development, both the methods and the conclusions of any research should be carefully considered.

By the original researchers and their reviewers, by the media, and by us the public - who may be influenced by such research in the choices we make.

One of the main dangers here is that an over emphasis on the importance of diet, could lead to less emphasis on other (quite possibly) more important influences such as the importance to young children of a stimulating environment and quality communication experiences with significant others.

I read this too, and I'm not sure what the point is. The article seems to focus too sharply on IQ for my liking; I'm not too convinced of any direct link between IQ and success in later life anyway-someone enlighten me please on this? (I mean, incidentally, general success in life, not academic success in isolation).

Just another bit of guilt-enducing, mummy-bashing headline-grabbing hype?

I think that's more the fault of the headline writers.

This study is but one report form a long running observational study.

Cote, as I'm sure you know, it's not easy to adequately control for all possible confounding factors and I don't suppose the authors would claim they have managed to do this. This kind of research is also limited by relying on what people remember/say about what their child ate.

The NHS Behind the Headlines link Claire08 posted below is interesting - the study does have limitations in their opinion (as any study will always have):

"This study has strengths in that it included a large sample and took repeat measures of diet. It also adjusted the data for a large number of factors that may have affected the outcome. However, the researchers admitted that other factors that they had not adjusted for could have affected the outcome.

"There are some other points to consider when interpreting this study:

This data may not apply to the population as a whole.
* As with any study looking at diet, participants may not have accurately recalled what they ate. Also, one-off questionnaires may not capture accurately the typical pattern of diet over the last year.
* This study analysed the data by looking at clusters of food. Although this has the advantage of representing diet more realistically than examining each food separately, the way that particular food groups are decided on may be open to debate. For example, the snacking pattern included consumption of both fruit and cake.

"Overall, this study showed a modest association between diet and intelligence. Although the benefits of a balanced diet are well known for general health, further research is needed to assess the impact of diet on child brain development and intelligence."

Of course, it is not easy, and all research has disclaimers like the ones you quoted. It is part of the scientific process.

I am not saying this study is gospel. What I am objecting to is not liking its findings and trying to find faults with it without properly reading the article, assuming scientists have not controlled for obvious factors. Now that she has realized that those have been controlled for, I'm wondering what her problem is. Except "I don't like the result, nutrition cant have any effect on IQ", I mean.

If we have to criticize this study, personally I would point out that a five point difference in IQ is not significant at all, but I'm not in a picky mood this morning for a change

Actually Cote my incentive for posting was nothing to do with not liking the "results" of this research.

It was genuinely prompted by a long standing view of mine that "confounding" (or accompanying) factors often do not (IMHO) seem to be sufficiently allowed for in interesting and complex social research.

For another example the poster earlier in this thread who was sceptical about the reasons for the link which was found between children learning a musical instrument and their subsequent general educational development.

In this example there are just so many "confounding" or accompanying factors.
Both learning an instrument and having a healthy diet could be more significant as "markers" of a good environment for children's development - Rather than being a cause of it

CoteDAzur, the problem is in the assumption that all the factors you mentioned (and the ones jugglingjo very correctly added) can be 'adjusted for' in the first place.

I believe they cannot be adjusted for as they're far too complex. Also, these studies are (necessarily) based on self-reports & questionnaires which can be questioned as ways to get a good idea of what's going on. As scientific as this and similar studies may look, in fact I think they look at human behaviour too simplistically, trying to isolate factors about this or that, while things in practice work in a more complex way.

IMO the funds for this kind of research would be much much better placed in direct support for families & children who need it. I think the questions a researcher chooses to ask have ideological implications, and also very practical implications too. After all, it doesn't take a complex, 'scientific' study to tell us that good, healthy food is good for us (duh). We know that good, healthy food goes hand in hand with socio-economic factors, so no need for more research, all the need for more support. (I'm simplifying but I hope my main point comes across).

Thanks Maria.

An excellent point, I think.

It would seem that the situation is so complex that can it be possible to adjust for all "confounding factors" ( that is things which accompany the factor we are trying to look at, and might invalidate the research if not allowed for)

I also agree with your comment "as scientific as this and similar studies may look, in fact I think they look at human behaviour too simplistically"

Out of interest has anyone other examples of research where a suspicious causal link has been claimed (which you find doubtful) ?

Of course all these factors can be adjusted for.

I thought the interesting finding of this study was not that "healthy food is good for us (duh)" but that good nutrition affects IQ until the age of 3 and then ceases to have any effect whatsoever.

I feel this is very relevant, especially considering the problems many of us have with toddlers in getting them to eat a wide variety of foods. When I was struggling to get vegetables into DD, hiding purees in pasta sauce and sticking them in pastries, people were telling me to relax, that she would start eating them in a few years. It was an uphill battle (that I lost, for the most part) but I am now glad that I made the effort.

Now DS (21 months) hoovers all types of food, but a friend's DS at the same age eats only eats a few fruits, bread and pasta with pesto sauce (olive oil & basilic). That is it. I will mention this study to his parents when I next see them. They are very health-conscious, but are relaxed about his eating habits, thinking he will start to eat in a year or two.

Cote d'azur, what do you mean 'of course these factors can be adjusted for' (as if that's self evident). You do know there are huge debates about the use of these kinds of methodology to test complex psychosocial concepts such as IQ? Regardless of what position you may take in this debate, the answer is not self evident at all. Far from it.

For an alternative to baptism full of incomprehenible tosh, why not welcome your child into the human community with a naming ceremony conducted by an accredited humanist celebrant?

Maria2007: if you want to see if the questionnaires are politically slanted, they are available online (there's a link to the site in the earlier post): but I warn you, there are over 100 of them - and I think the physical examinations and psychological tests are additional to those.

Costs: the only mention of Government funding was in 2096, with. £9m grant. With apologies if I've missed anyone, The main finder seems to be The Wellcome Foundation - as they're a medical research charity, there is no possibility that the funds could have instead gone to any direct support for families.

It's interesting to see the range of subjects this study has contributed to, concerning children and families (it includes maternal health and has provides data sets to current breast cancer and osteoporosis research).

Maria raises a fair point about IQ which is itself a very problematic, limited and clearly culturally determined concept. A weak association with possibly three or five points at age 8 is not really a lot to get excited about.

What is very clear is that IQ is strongly linked to poverty. Bright children growing up in poverty do far less well than thick children growing up in affluent households. Now that IS a scandal. (Fair enough that affluent parents do their best to bring on less academic children but deeply sad that our society damages bright but less well off children.)

The last thing I want to do is say that less funding goes to research (particularly at a time when universities & research centres are hit by the cuts really hard). I'm only trying to point out the question marks around the notion of IQ. I was also expressing my outrage at the expression 'garbage in, garbage out' which I heard on the radio from a guy commenting on the research findings. To be fair, it's very probable he wasn't one of the researchers, as the media have a tendency to exaggerate such findings in order to make attention grabbing headlines.

Good point too from several posters that how is IQ measured in young children so that a higher score can be assessed at age 8. ( And how accurate would an IQ score be for say a 2 or 3 year old ? )

I agree that it is very difficult to totally eliminate other factors but on a different tangent I am not surprised that diet and brain function are related.

There is plenty of scientific research out there linking the state of our gut to changes in our mental health. Because it isn?t in the mainstream yet doesn?t mean the evidence is not there.

This is a really interesting video by Dr Natasha Campbell-McBride MD, MMedSci(neurology), MMedSci(nutrition) about how modern day life style and diet (a big factor being our increased consumption of processed foods) causes bad gut flora, bad bacteria over running our good bacteria, damaging our gut lining and how that then leads on to a host of other illnesses.

www.vimeo.com/10507542

I have just finished her book Gut and Psychology Syndrome and it?s really been an eye opener. I would say it?s a must read for anyone effected or caring for someone effected with Autism, Dyspraxia, A.D.D., A.D.H.D., Dyslexia, Depression, Schizophrenia. Also anyone with allergies, including asthma and eczema.

The video is quite long but even if you just aim to watch the first 10 mins I think it?ll hook you in and that you?ll want to watch it all. It rang so many bells for me.

Thanks for the link, rumple.

That looks v. interesting.

I'm sure our modern diet can cause many health problems. often related to the bad bacteria in our gut overriding the good.
(I used to get repeated episodes of thrush until a friend recommended increasing my consumption of vegetables (towards 5 a day)

Since working on this the problem is gone

I am interested in ADD and dyslexia as I feel myself and DD affected by these (quite possibly) Daughter's challenges have been recognised by school, and taking part in a research project by Cambridge Uni.
My challenges evidently not considered severe enough in my generation to be picked up.
Tried to talk to my GP. He just said "You seem quite normal to me ! "

• Without really asking me much about why I felt this condition might be relevant to me

Here again though I'm slightly dubious about a link with diet - as tend to feel it is something we're born with. Just our brains working in a slightly non NT way !

PS I love the use of NT (neurologically typical) or non-NT to describe children's challenges especially on the MN special needs forum.

rumple, I have read the book and implemented most of the advice and can happily confirm that it has changed my ds in the ways that I hadn't dared to dream about , amazing lady and amazing book, I only wish this advice was available at the drs office

I think the concept of an IQ is flawed anyway. How can you measure intelligence? So weird.

As for the junk food theory, to me it is just a common sense issue. The brain is a physical part of the body and needs nutrition in order to develop properly. Processed food is nowhere near as nutritious as home made meals from scratch, provided all of the ingredients are natural (by this I don't mean "organic" like the overpriced mushrooms down waitrose , I mean from soil, not pre-packaged sauces and stuff. It is indeed a nature and nurture deal, but nature intended more natural ways of sustinance for the human body as a minimum requirement. Even if you are the best parent in the world in terms of engaging with your children, if you do not have the basic foundations to build on, the job or nurturing will be a lot harder and the child will be at an initial disadvantage.