How a mother's genes can determine their child's weight for life
Researchers at University College London (UCL) investigated how a parent's weight and genes influence their children's weight and diet from birth to age 17.
To make the comparison, researchers used genetic and health data of 2,621 UK families in the Millennium Cohort Study, a UK birth cohort study of individuals born in 2001-2002.
The study, published in the journal PLOS Genetics, looked at the BMI of parents and the birthweight of their children. They also looked at the child's diet at ages three, five, seven, 11, 14, and 17.
Children's diets were assessed through self-reported records of how often and how much they consumed different food groups, including fruit, vegetables, fast food, and sugary drinks.
Researchers then separated the direct effects of inherited genes from the indirect effects of genes that were not inherited.
Study authors explained that non-inherited genes can still influence children's outcomes by influencing the development environment, such as conditions in the womb and parenting practices, as these are shaped by parents' genetics.
Analysis revealed that while both parents' genetics influence a child's BMI, a mother's BMI continued to affect the child's weight beyond direct genetic inheritance.
Researchers suggest this means genetic nurture, where a parent's genes shape the environment they create for their child, might be a big factor in a child's weight.
This could be the case if a mother's genes influence her own weight, eating habits, or behaviours during pregnancy, which in turn can affect the child's development and long-term health.
Dr Liam Wright, the study's lead author, said: 'Mothers' genetics appear to play an important role in influencing their child's weight over and above the child's genetics.
'In addition to the genes mums directly pass on, our findings suggest that maternal genetics are instrumental in shaping the environment in which the child develops, therefore indirectly influencing the child's BMI too.'
Almost a third of children aged two to 15 were considered to be obese or overweight in 2024, according to NHS data.
However, researchers acknowledge BMI is not the most accurate way of measuring body fat, particularly among children, and so supplemented their analysis with several other adiposity-related measures, including fat mass.
Dr Wright added: 'This isn't about blaming mothers, rather, supporting families to make a meaningful difference to children's long-term health. Targeted interventions to reduce maternal BMI, particularly during pregnancy, could reduce the intergenerational impacts of obesity."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Scientists Fed One Group of People Ultraprocessed Foods and Another Group Whole Foods, and the Difference in What Happened to Them Was Wild
As the industrial food system pushes ultraprocessed foods to every corner of the globe, new research shows that even seemingly healthy packaged meals may fall short of the benefits offered by whole, minimally processed foods. A fascinating new study published in Nature Medicine dove into the real-world effects ultraprocessed foods have on the human body. Following a six-month clinical trial involving 55 volunteers, researchers at the University College London found that eating minimally processed foods was not only potent fuel for weight loss, but quickly led to healthier biomedical readings across the board — a grim indictment of what's inexorably become the norm in global eating. To run the experiment, the team of over 20 researchers split the participants into two groups, each of which followed a strict diet for eight weeks. One group was assigned to eat only minimally processed whole foods, while the other was given the task of eating mainly hyper-processed slop. After the first diet was finished, the volunteers took a four-week break, then switched to the other chow. Given the direct comparison, the findings are noteworthy. Participants on the non-processed food regimen burned more fat, had lower systolic blood pressure, and lower levels of glycated hemoglobin — bloodsugar, essentially — compared to the processed one. And zooming in a bit, the researchers found that losses in fat mass, body fat percentage, visceral fat rating and total body water mass were "significantly lower" on the whole food diet, but not the ultraprocessed one. Participants on the processed diet also reported a greater number of "adverse events," like constipation, acid reflux, fatigue, and infections. Volunteers surveyed said that both diets were equally satisfying, likely because both tended toward "healthier"-seeming foods — both diets followed UK government dietary guidelines — though they reported having an easier time controlling their cravings on the non-processed diet, as noted by Gizmodo. Comparing the two menus is fascinating on its own. Participants on the non-processed diet enjoyed meals like breakfast cinnamon and apple overnight oats, sticky BBQ ribs with smoky rice and fruit, and salmon with herbed new potatoes and mixed vegetables. Their snacks were stuff like like blueberry, oat, nut and seed muffins, and pasta salad. Alarmingly, the ultraprocessed group were treated to foods that, on a surface level, looked comparable: commercial breakfast oat and fruit bars, premade ribs and rice with fruit snacks, and boxed salmon with potatoes and corn, and snacks made up of meal-replacement drinks, plant-based yogurt, and packaged wrapped oat bars. Though definitions vary, ultraprocessed food is typically identified as containing foodstuff rarely, if ever used in kitchens — like high-fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated oil — or which have been pumped full of synthetic additives like flavoring, dyes, sweeteners, or emulsifiers. Studies have shown that ultraprocessed food makes up over half of the dietary energy consumed in high-income countries like the US and the UK, the latter of which is where the clinical trial was run. Meanwhile, the ultraprocessed food market is projected to grow by an astonishing $856 billion over the next four years. It's not just about individual choices at the grocery store or restaurant, either: the class differences in diets are stark, with poor people forced to consume far more cheap ultraprocessed junk than their more affluent peers, meaning that to meaningfully improve health outcomes, the food supply needs to be restructured at a basic level. More on food: Scientists Find that Hosing Glizzies Is Basically a Death Sentence Solve the daily Crossword
CNBC
a day ago
- CNBC
Wellness apps are popular and can be helpful, expert says, but they ‘don't have to prove they keep your data private': How to keep your info safe
There are many direct-to-consumer wellness apps out there: Meditation apps that guide you through mindfulness exercises and breath work or access to therapy right from your phone. Millions of people use apps like these every single day. And their growing popularity could point to a generally positive user experience. But experts warn of a few problematic aspects of these platforms. For one, many aren't regulated. "They don't have to prove that they work, they don't have to prove that they're safe," Vaile Wright, a psychologist and senior director at the American Psychological Association said on an episode of podcast "Speaking of Psychology." Another problem with these apps, she said, is that they "don't have to prove that they keep your data private." For example, "you might not want your boss to know that you're using an app to help you reduce your alcohol use," she said. If these tools aren't FDA cleared, they're not compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which protects sensitive health information. "There is no regulatory body or law that keeps your personal health information safe," Wright said. That means they can't guarantee that a data breach won't happen. This, of course, is not specific to wellness apps. These apps are also operating under a very specific business model that prioritizes their bottom line, she said. "But it's a challenging space to [prioritize profit] and so sometimes what happens with that tension is they make bad choices. In 2023, the federal trade commission issued a proposed order banning online therapy platform BetterHelp from sharing consumers' data for advertising. The company was charged with sharing sensitive customer data with Facebook and Snapchat. BetterHelp was required to pay consumers $7.8 million, which it began sending out in 2024. "It's not that these apps can't be helpful," Wright said. "I think they really can be. It's just consumers need to be aware of what are the benefits and what are the potential risks by using them." Before deciding to use one of these apps, read the terms of service and privacy policy. It's hard, Wright said, because you have to "get through it with all of the legalize." But it will at least keep you somewhat informed of their practices. You can also do your homework about the company at large. "You have to go to the website and really look at who's developing it," Wright said. "Do they have experts on there? Advisory boards? What are they saying that the app is built on? Is it built on some known psychological principle like cognitive behavioral therapy?" That kind of info can give you a sense of the company's internal policies. Ultimately, "you have to make your own informed decision about what you're comfortable with," she said. "It's about entering into it as informed as you can be."
Los Angeles Times
2 days ago
- Los Angeles Times
Energy secretary says Trump administration may alter past National Climate Assessments
U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright said this week the Trump administration plans to review and potentially alter the nation's climate science reports. In a Tuesday appearance on CNN's The Source, Wright told CNN host Kaitlan Collins the National Climate Assessments have been removed from government websites 'because we're reviewing them.' 'We will come out with updated reports on those and with comments on those,' Wright said. The National Climate Assessments are mandated by Congress and have been released five times since 2000. The federal reports, prepared by hundreds of volunteer scientists, are subject to extensive peer review and provide detail on how climate change is affecting each region of the United States so far, plus the latest scientific forecasts. Wright accused the previous reports of being politically biased, stating that they 'are not fair assessments of the data.' 'When you get into departments and look at stuff that's there and you find stuff that's objectionable, you want to fix it,' he said. His statements came after the Trump administration in April dismissed more than 400 experts who had already started work on the sixth National Climate Assessment, due for publication in late 2027 or early 2028. The administration in July also removed the website of the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which housed the reports. The move marks the latest escalation in the Trump administration's efforts to downplay climate science. The president and Department of Energy in recent months have championed fossil fuel production and slashed funding and incentives for renewable energy projects. This week, the DOE posted an image of coal on the social media site X alongside the words, 'She's an icon, she's a legend, and she is the moment.' Meanwhile, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has proposed looser regulations for polluting sectors such as power plants and vehicles. EPA administrator Lee Zeldin in March proclaimed the administration was 'driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion.' In his CNN appearance, Wright said the previous climate change assessments — including the 2018 report prepared during Trump's first term — were not 'a reasonable representation of broad climate science.' 'They have been more politically driven to hype up a real issue, but an issue that's just nowhere near the world's greatest challenge,' he said of climate change. 'Nobody's who's a credible economist or scientist believes that it is, except a few activists and alarmists.' Environmental experts were concerned by Wright's comments. 'Secretary Wright just confirmed our worst fears — that this administration plans to not just bury the scientific evidence but replace it with outright lies to downplay the worsening climate crisis and evade responsibility for addressing it,' said Rachel Cleetus, policy director for the Climate and Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, who was among the authors dismissed by the administration. 'This is one more alarming example of the Trump administration's ongoing and highly-politicized effort to obfuscate scientific truth to further its dangerous and deadly pro-fossil fuel agenda,' Cleetus said. The DOE last week also released its own climate report, commissioned by Wright, that questions the severity of climate change. 'Both models and experience suggest that [carbon dioxide]-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed, and excessively aggressive mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial,' the report says. Daniel Swain, a climate scientist with the University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, noted in a post on X that the previous National Climate Assessments were authored by hundreds of scientists who were leading domain experts in their fields. 'This would mark an extraordinary, unprecedented, and alarming level of interference in what has historically been a fair and systematic process,' Swain said of the possibility that previous reports could be altered. The Department of Energy did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
