Are Cesarean Sections Contributing to Childhood Obesity?

[MindMover]

The obesity epidemic is claiming children at ever younger ages, and the latest research adds to the evidence that weight issues may begin as soon as birth.

In a study published in the journal Archives of Disease in Childhood, researchers found that babies born by cesarean section were more than twice as likely to be obese by age 3 as those born vaginally.

The study involved 1,255 children born in the Boston area between 1999 and 2002, whose mothers agreed to provide their prenatal and gestational weight information, as well as height and weight measurements for their babies at birth and then until they reached 3 years old.

About 23% of the babies were born by c-section. Of these children, 15.7% were obese by age 3, compared with 7.5% of children born vaginally.

http://healthland.time.com/2012/05/24/are-cesarean-sections-contributing-to-childhood-obesity/

"Research Identifies CD36 as the 'Fat Gene'"...

http://www.everydayhealth.com/weight/0206/new-research-identifies-cd36-as-the-fat-gene.aspx

[hedgehog]

1. Children's weight influenced by the bacteria in their guts?

That can't be right. It's all calories in, calories out!

[lumpy]

2. Another one of those studies that proves nothing? I have more faith in the genetic factor,

DNA and eating habits inpute from parents.

[MindMover]

3. I have more faith in my own factor....eat less, exercise more....

[unc70]

4. Barely noticed CYA sentence re: c sect is troubling, likely hiding something big

"After all factors were taken into account there was a stronger link with emergency caesarean than with pre-planned ones, although the numbers were small for this calculation."

What numbers were small? For what calculation? Pre-planned link not statistically significant? Or the number of degrees of freedom remaining is fewer than required by the calculation to be valid?

Since they start warning off everyone that c sects MAY have a higher risk of obesity ....

and the way they phrase their findings and what is missing entirely, I would need to spend a lot of time looking in detail at their stats to feel comfortable, maybe need to run more analyses.

Where is the comparison between the pre-planned C sect vs non-Csect, is there a statistically significant risk, large or small, is it 40% or 4%?

For a sanity check, same for emergency C-sect vs non-csect.

The vague sentence could even be true if the stronger link were small and not significant.

I am nearly to the point not to trust any study like this, unless I personally know and trust at least one of the authors.

[MindMover]

5. If you are overweight and not breastfeeding your baby, chances are going to....

definitely be higher that your baby can be obese...I do not think this study links c-sect to obesity....


"Mums who delivered by c-section tended to weigh more than those delivering vaginally, and the birthweight for gestational age of their babies also tended to be higher. These mums also breastfed their babies for a shorter period."

Taken from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120523200749.htm