|
Post by principled on Feb 8, 2011 18:43:45 GMT 1
I am sure that most posters have seen the reports of the West Country's Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC). If the reports are to be believed, diet plays an important role in one's IQ.
Does anyone know about or have access to the original research? I am wondering whether, along with "What food did you give your children?", there were other questions relating to parental attitudes towards- and support of- learning, parental time spent interacting and teaching offspring, etc.
I know that IQ tests are supposed to measure innate intelligence, but I'm not convinced that nurture can be disregarded. P
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 11, 2011 23:07:41 GMT 1
Franky I don't think diet is a major contributing factor to intelligence other than in extreme cases of malnutrition. There seems to be plenty of evidence that highly intelligent people can function with minimal nutritional intake and I think it is more a question of innate plus environmental factors. Of course, in the case of prodigies innate genetic contributions seem to be the most significant. The problem is to identify the level of nutritional support that will affect someone's intellectual performance.
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Feb 12, 2011 0:45:43 GMT 1
Not sure about IQ tests, or even the concept of 'Intelligence' as defined by the tests. They are merely puzzles against the clock. As puzzles, they follow basic forms, and will succumb to technique. They can be trained for.
I suspect they were a device for selecting-out the 'easy to teach' children, and so are an artefact of the state eduction system. I'd go so far as to say they are dehumanising.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 12, 2011 0:52:12 GMT 1
So how would you measure intelligence?
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Feb 16, 2011 10:28:28 GMT 1
Franky I don't think diet is a major contributing factor to intelligence other than in extreme cases of malnutrition. There seems to be plenty of evidence that highly intelligent people can function with minimal nutritional intake and I think it is more a question of innate plus environmental factors. Of course, in the case of prodigies innate genetic contributions seem to be the most significant. The problem is to identify the level of nutritional support that will affect someone's intellectual performance. Nutrition during pregnency and when the body is developing will obviously effect intelligence. Look at people from sink estates where the diet is a mixture of heroin and pot noodles - they seem to have the intelligence of a small potato.
|
|
|
Post by principled on Feb 16, 2011 11:48:08 GMT 1
Since my posting, I have had the chance to read a Sunday Times article about the research. As I suspected, the research (over 19 years?), did take into account things such as play activities, books etc. in its results. The average figure was five IQ points less for those on a poor diet. The central issue comes down to the development of young brains and the need for what the scientists called micro nutrients which are apparently missing in "junk food". Malnutrition also causes a lowering of average IQ for the same reason. Posters may be amazed to hear that babies as young as 9 months were recorded as having been given crisps and a fizzy drink as part of their daily diet! In calorific terms that is between 33% and 50% of their required energy intake, thus leaving little room for "proper food" with the above mentioned micro nutrients. P
|
|
|
Post by jonjel on Feb 16, 2011 12:14:42 GMT 1
Principled.
This is quite interesting.
I know there was some research done some time back about babies being given Oxygen in the womb, but can't find a reference to it. It was suggested that it increased IQ. There was also a test done in a couple of Welsh schools where half a class were given a daily placebo and the other half given essential vitamins, and those who took the vitamins did a lot better in tests after a few months.
If a child whether through poor diet or malnutrition in infancy has an impaired IQ will that adjust if the child is then well nourished in later life?
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 16, 2011 12:34:57 GMT 1
Clearly a minimum level of nutritional support is essential for a healthy body and brain to function at optimum level and obviously, drug abuse will have a deleterious effect on intellectual performance, but that said and all things being equal, it is more a matter of environmental/innate abilities that are most significant.
|
|
|
Post by eamonnshute on Feb 16, 2011 12:55:18 GMT 1
Ben Goldacre writes about the alleged value of fish-oil in children's diet, and despite claims to the contrary it has negligible effect. I would not be surprised if it is the same with other nutrients. www.badscience.net/2010/06/the-return-of-a-2bn-fishy-friend/#more-1675"...someone has finally now conducted a proper trial of fish oils pills in mainstream children, to see if they work: a well-conducted, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, in 450 children aged 8–10 years old from a mainstream school population....and they found no improvement."
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Feb 16, 2011 13:10:14 GMT 1
Since my posting, I have had the chance to read a Sunday Times article about the research. As I suspected, the research (over 19 years?), did take into account things such as play activities, books etc. in its results. The average figure was five IQ points less for those on a poor diet. The central issue comes down to the development of young brains and the need for what the scientists called micro nutrients which are apparently missing in "junk food". Malnutrition also causes a lowering of average IQ for the same reason. Posters may be amazed to hear that babies as young as 9 months were recorded as having been given crisps and a fizzy drink as part of their daily diet! In calorific terms that is between 33% and 50% of their required energy intake, thus leaving little room for "proper food" with the above mentioned micro nutrients. P Jezz I would have thought that it was self evident that those children given crisps and fizzy drinks as a major part of their diet, by definition come from low-intellligence households. So no wonder there is a correlation between poor diet and low intelligence, but whether A causes B or B causes A is another matter.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Feb 16, 2011 14:21:46 GMT 1
Ben Goldacre writes about the alleged value of fish-oil in children's diet, and despite claims to the contrary it has negligible effect. I would not be surprised if it is the same with other nutrients. www.badscience.net/2010/06/the-return-of-a-2bn-fishy-friend/#more-1675"...someone has finally now conducted a proper trial of fish oils pills in mainstream children, to see if they work: a well-conducted, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, in 450 children aged 8–10 years old from a mainstream school population....and they found no improvement." The test was on "fish oils pills"; possibly they should have used properly cooked fish instead. The intelligence giving properties may have been absent in the pill or destroyed in the manufacturing process. The original hypothesis was that ancient tribes from coastal regions developed large brains due to their diet of fish and shellfish. I doubt they had access to "fish oils pills".
|
|
|
Post by principled on Feb 16, 2011 14:57:33 GMT 1
Hi Jonjel
Below is an extract from the Telegraph article (unfortunately the S. Times is subscriber). As you can see, the indication is that it is early years diet that does the damage and this is not "undone" later by improving/altering the diet.
"Scientists tracked the long term health and wellbeing of around 14,000 children born in 1991 and 1992 as part of the West Country's Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC).
Parents were quizzed about the types and frequency of the food and drink their children consumed when they were three, four, seven and eight and a half years old.
They were marked on a sliding scale which ranged from minus two for the most healthy to 10 for the most unhealthy.
IQ was measured using a validated test – the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – of 4,000 children when they were eight and half years old.
The results found after taking account of potentially influential factors, a predominantly processed food diet at the age of three was associated with a lower IQ at the age of eight and a half, 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 one point increase in dietary pattern linked to a 1.2 increase in IQ. Dietary patterns between the ages of four and seven had no impact on IQ.
Although a modest increase, the scientists said the study's findings were in line with previous ALSPAC research that linked early childhood diet and later behaviour and school performance.
Dr Kate Northstone said: "This suggests that any cognitive and behavioural effects relating to eating habits in early childhood may well persist into later childhood, despite any subsequent changes – including improvements – to dietary intake. "
P
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 16, 2011 15:46:03 GMT 1
principled, I think it should be made clear, however, that the most one can hope for is that any child be given the opportunity to reach their full potential, whether this means ensuring a healthy diet or the best possible educational facilities, not to mention loving parents. Sadly, it's only the lucky ones who receive all of this.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Feb 16, 2011 15:48:03 GMT 1
The solution is, of course, to prevent chavs and pikeys from breeding.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 16, 2011 15:53:52 GMT 1
The solution is, of course, to prevent chavs and pikeys from breeding. Oh dear, can you be any worse?
|
|