Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

The "Snacking Child" and its social network: some insights from an italian survey

  • Dario Gregori1Email author,
  • Francesca Foltran1,
  • Marco Ghidina2,
  • Federica Zobec2,
  • Simonetta Ballali3,
  • Laura Franchin2 and
  • Paola Berchialla4
Nutrition Journal201110:132

DOI: 10.1186/1475-2891-10-132

Received: 22 August 2011

Accepted: 29 November 2011

Published: 29 November 2011

Abstract

Background

The hypothesis underlying this work is that the social network of a child might have an impact on the alimentary behaviors, in particular for what concerns snack consumption patterns.

Methods

1215 Italian children 6-10 ys old were interviewed using a CATI facility in January 2010. 608 "snackers" and 607 "no-snackers" were identified. Information regarding family composition, child and relatives BMI, mother perception of child weight, child, father and mother physical activity, TV watching, social network, leisure time habits and dietary habits of peers, were collected. Association of variables with the status of snacker was investigated using a multivariable logistic regression model.

Results

Snackers children seem to be part of more numerous social network (1.40 friends vs 1.14, p = 0.042) where the majority of peers are also eating snacks, this percentage being significantly higher (89.5 vs 76.3, p < 0.001) than in the "no-snacker" group. The snacking group is identified by the fact that it tends to practice at least 4 hours per week of physical activity (OR: 1.36, CI: 1.03-1.9). No evidence of an association between snacking consumption and overweight status has been shown by our study.

Conclusions

The snacking child has more active peer-to-peer social relationships, mostly related with sport activities. However, spending leisure time in sportive activities implies being part of a social environment which is definitely a positive one from the point of view of obesity control, and indeed, no increase of overweight/obesity is seen in relation to snack consumption.

Keywords

snacks overweight in children social networks physical activity

Background

Child obesity has been described as the product of an interaction between a susceptible host and an environment promoting the disease, and results when energy intake exceeds energy expenditure [1, 2]. Studies finalized to identify behaviors acting as obesity promoters have been mainly focused on evaluating the role of dietary habits in terms of energy intake source [3], and the role of physical activity as a way to increase the energy expenditure [4]. Moreover, recent studies have been addressed to understand individual, familiar and environmental factors determining behaviors suspected to be unhealthy [5, 6].

Among alimentary behaviors, snacking activity has been identified as one potential cause of obesity and/or overweight in childhood and adolescent [7]. Following Hampl [8], a child who's getting more than 15-20% of his/her daily caloric intake from snacks can be defined as a "snacker". Snacks are suspected to be obesity promoters because they are high-fat and high-sugar foods. Nevertheless, even if the percentage of energy from dietary fat or from sugar has been widely investigated as determinant of body fat accumulation, the existence of causal relationships between single nutrients or foods and obesity is controversial. In fact, while cross-sectional studies seem to be suggestive of an association, prospective cohort studies have frequently failed in finding such a correlation. Moreover, snacking has been related with other behaviors, such as TV watching, which are all believed to be, by itself, obesogenic; in this way, a pattern of potentially unhealthy behaviors has been described, identifying snacking children as having a sedentary lifestyle and spending the majority of leisure time alone [9]. However, snacking is also related with social and group activities, as an accompanying activity during social meetings and after them [10]. Social pattern of interaction are of course very different when referred to adults than for children. Nevertheless, for both, the relevant support provided by social networks in maintaining health and well-being has been recently recognized, but the joint effect of snacking activity and social relationships on obesity has been not really investigated, although several reports suggest the existence of an inverse relation among these factors [1113].

The hypothesis underlying this work is that the social network might have an impact on the alimentary behaviors of the child, and in particular, for what is concerning the snacking activity, that: (i) "snacking" is not an individual or family-restricted choice, but instead that the involvement of peers is relevant with respect to this behavior, thus implying that the probability of being a "snacker" is higher in a context were other peers are also "snackers", and that (ii) increased calories intake due to "snacking" might be even compensated by a child who is inserted in a social network, if the latter is active from the perspective of exercise and physical activity.

To this purposes, a survey on children in Italy has been conducted, identifying both a group of "snackers" and one of "no-snackers", and comparing them in terms of social networks and leisure time behaviors, as well as in terms of overweight prevalence.

Materials and methods

Study conduction and identification of the social network

The survey has been conducted using a CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interview) facility on 1215 children age 6-10 years, in January 2010 in Italy. Calls have been conducted by experienced CATI operator. The sample has been stratified according to the definition of snacker, thus collecting information on 608 "snackers" and 607 "no-snackers" children.

One-thousand two-hundred fifteen mothers, randomly selected through an automated system afferent to the Italian landline phone directory have been asked to answer directly on their child and on the group of the closest friends of him/her, defined within a limit of 10 children per referenced child. The random sample was constructed in a way to approximately provide an equal geographical distribution of the families in the North, in the Center and in the South of Italy.

Interviews

The study is based on telephone interview on a randomly chosen set of mothers living in Italy and with a cable-phone connection. Informed consent was obtained from people interviewed before starting the set of questions.

First, mothers answering to the phone calls were asked to provide information useful for stratifying the child as "snacker" or "no-snacker". Thus, the questionnaire was divided into 4 parts. The first part investigated on basic sociodemographic characteristics, like education, composition of the family and work. In the second section mothers were asked to answer about family's physical characteristics, like weight and height. The third part assessed the behavioral aspects of their children, like weekly hours of physical activity and more details on the consumption patterns of snacks. The latter part regarded children's social network; mothers were asked to answer on their children's friends, up to a maximum of 10 children, on snacking habits, physical activities and perception of their nutritional status.

Definitions

The "snacker" has been defined as consuming at least 3 or more of the following products per day: filled cakes/sweet snacks, plain cakes/sweet snacks, chocolate snacks, sodas (no sugar-free) in can or bottle. This adds up to an average of at least 360-400 calories, which counts up to 18-22% of the recommended daily caloric intake for a child (about 1700-1900 calories per day in the age class 6-10) and it is coherent with the definition of the "snacker" as provided in the literature [8].

Body mass index (BMI) was calculated as weight (kg)/height2 (m). According to the present guidelines, in adults, normal weight, overweight and obesity were defined as a BMI < 25.0 kg/m2, 25.0- 29.9 kg/m2, and ≥ 30.0 kg/m2, respectively [14]. Data on weight and height of the child, used to compute the BMI were updated in 76% of the cases to the last three months and they, in the remaining 24%, never exceeded the year. Children were defined as obese according to the percentile to which they were belonging, according to their age, as indicated from the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) pediatric growths charts [15]; thus, they were defined as "at risk for overweight" if their weight was between the 85th and the 95th percentile and as "overweight" is greater than the 95th percentile [16]. CDC pediatrics growth charts were chosen as recommended when assessing growth's parameters of children older than 2 years [17, 18].

Statistical Methods

Continuous variables are expressed as median and inter-quartile difference and categorical variables as percentages and absolute numbers. Differences between groups were compared using Wilcoxon and McNemar or Chi-Square tests [19, 20], as appropriate.

All variables investigated are listed in Tables 1 and 2. Association of variables with the status of snacker has been investigated using a multivariable logistic regression model. Association of variables with the BMI level of the children in the "snacker" group has been investigated using a multivariable linear regression model. The following model building strategy applies to both models. Variables related (with a maximum p-value of the association, as resulting in the univariable analysis, of 0.25), to the network around the snacker have been also inserted in the model and final estimates have been adjusted for inter-network correlation using a Huber-White estimating equation approach.
Table 1

Description of the families surveyed.

 

N

Snacker

No snacker

Overall

p-value 1

BMI

p-value 2

  

608

607

1215

 

(Snackers only)

 

Number of children in the family

    

p < 0.001

 

p = 0.232

   One

 

63 (10.4)

109 (18.0)

172 (14.2)

 

17.6 [15.2; 19.2]

 

   Two or more

 

545 (89.6)

498 (82.0)

1043 (85.8)

 

17.3 [15.3; 20.4]

 

Number of Children in the family aged 6-10 yrs

    

p = 0.001

 

p = 0.047

   One

 

395 (65.0)

450 (74.1)

845 (69.5)

 

17.8 [15.3; 20.4]

 

   Two or more

 

213 (35.0)

157 (25.9)

370 (30.5)

 

16.6 [15.3; 19.0]

 

Family Composition

    

p = 0.003

 

p = 0.017

   Normal (father, mother and children)

 

527 (86.7)

558 (91.9)

1085 (89.3)

 

17.6 [15.3; 19.2]

 

   Enlarged (normal with grandparents or other relatives living together)

 

81 (13.3)

49 (8.1)

130 (10.7)

 

16.6 [16.0; 23.1]

 

Father's Education

1213

   

p < 0.001

 

p = 0.005

   Up to the mandatory school

 

312 (51.3)

233 (38.5)

545 (44.9)

 

17.6 [15.9; 20.4]

 

   High school degree

 

225 (37.0)

270 (44.6)

495 (40.8)

 

17.8 [15.2; 19.2]

 

   BS or more

 

71 (11.7)

102 (16.9)

173 (14.3)

 

15.9 [13.9; 20.0]

 

Mother's Education

1208

   

p = 0.001

 

p = 0.060

   Up to the mandatory school

 

246 (40.8)

208 (34.4)

454 (37.6)

 

17.8 [16.0; 20.7]

 

   High school degree

 

306 (50.7)

309 (51.1)

615 (50.9)

 

17.3 [15.2; 19.0]

 

   BS or more

 

51 (8.5)

88 (14.5)

139 (11.5)

 

17.5 [14.5; 19.4]

 

Father's Job

1211

   

p = ns

 

p = 0.005

   Independent worker

 

221 (36.3)

237 (39.3)

458 (37.8)

 

18.1 [15.3; 20.4]

 

   Dependent worker

 

377 (62.0)

359 (59.5)

736 (60.8)

 

17.1 [15.3; 19.2]

 

   Other (retired, unemployed)

 

10 (1.6)

7 (1.2)

17 (1.4)

 

15.3 [15.3; 15.3]

 

Mother's Job

1207

   

p = ns

 

p = 0.010

   Independent worker

 

91 (15.1)

89 (14.7)

180 (14.9)

 

16.6 [15.9; 18.2]

 

   Dependent worker

 

247 (41.0)

257 (42.5)

504 (41.8)

 

17.3 [14.9; 19.0]

 

   Other (retired, unemployed, housewife)

 

265 (43.9)

258 (42.7)

523 (43.3)

 

17.8 [15.9; 20.8]

 

Mother has a full time job (40 hrs per week)

1207

   

p = ns

 

p = 0.053

   Yes

 

129 (38.7)

134 (39.0)

263 (38.8)

 

16.5 [14.9; 19.0]

 

   No

 

204 (61.3)

210 (61.0)

414 (61.2)

 

17.8 [15.3; 18.3]

 

Who is taking care of the child outside schooltime

1213

   

p = 0.009

 

p < 0.001

   Mother/Father

 

499 (82.1)

529 (87.4)

1028 (84.7)

 

17.6 [15.9; 20.4]

 

   Other people

 

109 (17.9)

76 (12.6)

185 (15.3)

 

15.3 [14.6; 18.8]

 

Exercise Time (hours per week) of the mother

1175

   

p < 0.001

 

p < 0.001

   None

 

428 (74.8)

416 (69.0)

844 (71.8)

 

16.7 [15.3; 18.8]

 

   Between one and three hours

 

68 (11.9)

138 (22.9)

206 (17.5)

 

19.0 [17.8; 20.8]

 

   Four hours or more

 

76 (13.3)

49 (8.1)

125 (10.6)

 

18.3 [14.9; 20.4]

 

Mother's BMI

1161

23 [21; 24]

22 [20; 24]

22 [20; 24]

p = 0.015

 

p < 0.001

   Underweight/normal

 

454 (79.9)

472 (79.6)

926 (79.8)

p = 0.002

16.7 [15.3; 18.8]

 

   Overweight

 

72 (12.7)

101 (17.0)

173 (14.9)

 

20.0 [17.6; 20.4]

 

   Obese

 

42 (7.4)

20 (3.4)

62 (5.3)

 

21.4 [14.3; 23.4]

 

Exercise Time (hours per week) of the father

1176

   

p = ns

 

p = 0.025

   None

 

425 (73.7)

424 (70.8)

849 (72.2)

 

17.4 [15.8; 19.2]

 

   Between one and three hours

 

93 (16.1)

100 (16.7)

193 (16.4)

 

17.8 [15.3; 20.8]

 

   Between four and six hours

 

43 (7.5)

57 (9.5)

100 (8.5)

 

18.3 [14.9; 19.2]

 

   Seven hours or more

 

16 (2.8)

18 (3.0)

34 (2.9)

 

14.8 [11.6; 22.4]

 

Father's BMI

1100

25 [24; 27]

25 [24; 27]

25 [24; 27]

p = 0.152

 

p < 0.001

   Underweight/normal

 

265 (48.4)

285 (51.5)

550 (50.0)

p = ns

16.6 [15.3; 18.7]

 

   Overweight

 

243 (44.4)

227 (41.0)

470 (42.7)

 

17.8 [15.1; 20.7]

 

   Obese

 

39 (7.1)

41 (7.4)

80 (7.3)

 

18.3 [17.6; 22.8]

 

Nationality of the family

1193

   

p = ns

 

p = 0.003

   Italian

 

557 (94.7)

579 (95.7)

1136 (95.2)

 

17.4 [15.3; 19.8]

 

   Mixed Italian and other nationality

 

21 (3.6)

20 (3.3)

41 (3.4)

 

21.4 [15.3; 25.7]

 

   Other nationality

 

10 (1.7)

6 (1.0)

16 (1.3)

 

-

 

N refers to the number of valid responses. If no indicated, the number is 1215. Absolute numbers and percentages. P-value1 refers to the significance of the difference among snackers and no snackers, p-value2 to the difference in BMI across categories of each variable in the snackers only group.

Table 2

Description of the children surveyed.

 

N

Snacker

No snacker

Overall

p-value 1

BMI

p-value 2

  

608

607

1215

 

(Snackers only)

 

Gender

    

p = ns

 

p = 0.214

   Male

 

344 (56.6)

331 (54.5)

675 (55.6)

 

17.8 [15.9; 20.0]

 

   Female

 

264 (43.4)

276 (45.5)

540 (44.4)

 

17.1 [14.9; 20.4]

 

Age (years)

    

p < 0.001

 

p < 0.001

   6

 

128 (21.1)

121 (19.9)

249 (20.5)

 

16.5 [14.9; 19.0]

 

   7

 

120 (19.7)

102 (16.8)

222 (18.3)

 

18.0 [16.0; 20.0]

 

   8

 

167 (27.5)

114 (18.8)

281 (23.1)

 

15.9 [14.6; 20.7]

 

   9

 

102 (16.8)

135 (22.2)

237 (19.5)

 

17.1 [16.2; 20.4]

 

   10

 

91 (15.0)

135 (22.2)

226 (18.6)

 

17.8 [17.4; 19.8]

 

BMI

1082

17 [15; 20]

18 [15; 20]

18 [15; 20]

p = 0.120

 

p < 0.001

   Underweight/normal

 

326 (60.3)

325 (60.1)

651 (60.2)

 

15.9 [14.6; 16.8]

 

   At risk of overweight

 

91 (16.8)

101 (18.7)

192 (17.7)

 

18.3 [18.1; 20.4]

 

   Overweight

 

124 (22.9)

115 (21.3)

239 (22.1)

 

21.9 [20.7; 23.4]

 

Interest of the child for the snack

1145

   

p = ns

 

p < 0.001

   Focused on the product

 

208 (35.9)

173 (30.6)

381 (33.3)

 

18.3 [16.5; 20.4]

 

   Focused on the gadget accompanying the snack

 

372 (64.1)

392 (69.4)

764 (66.7)

 

16.6 [14.9; 19.0]

 

Age of the mother at time of child birth

1187

30 [27; 33]

31 [28; 34]

30 [28; 33]

p < 0.001

17.4 [15.3; 20.0]

 

Time of sleeping of the child per day

1187

   

p = 0.002

 

p < 0.001

   At most 8 hours

 

210 (36.0)

168 (27.8)

378 (31.8)

 

18.0 [16.0; 20.7]

 

   More than 8 hours

 

373 (64.0)

436 (72.2)

809 (68.2)

 

16.7 [15.2; 19.4]

 

Time when the child wakes up

1186

   

p = ns

 

p < 0.001

   7.30 AM or earlier

 

369 (63.3)

402 (66.7)

771 (65.0)

 

17.1 [14.9; 19.2]

 

   Between 7.30 AM and 8.30 AM

 

101 (17.3)

105 (17.4)

206 (17.4)

 

18.1 [16.7; 21.0]

 

   After 8.30 AM

 

113 (19.4)

96 (15.9)

209 (17.6)

 

17.1 [16.0; 20.6]

 

Number of meals per day of the child

1188

   

p < 0.001

 

p < 0.001

   At most three

 

69 (11.8)

132 (21.8)

201 (16.9)

 

16.9 [14.5; 17.9]

 

   Four

 

334 (57.3)

334 (55.2)

668 (56.2)

 

16.8 [15.3; 20.0]

 

   Five or more

 

180 (30.9)

139 (23.0)

319 (26.9)

 

18.3 [16.0; 20.4]

 

Place of meals

1209

   

p = 0.088

 

p = 0.010

   At home

 

538 (89.2)

558 (92.1)

1096 (90.7)

 

17.6 [15.3; 20.0]

 

   Outside home

 

65 (10.8)

48 (7.9)

113 (9.3)

 

16.5 [14.9; 17.8]

 

The place of meals is changing during the week

1208

   

p = ns

 

p = 0.065

   Yes

 

217 (36.0)

205 (33.9)

422 (34.9)

 

17.3 [14.9; 20.0]

 

   No

 

386 (64.0)

400 (66.1)

786 (65.1)

 

17.6 [15.4; 20.4]

 

Number of different sport activities per week

1190

   

p = ns

 

p = 0.008

   None

 

175 (29.5)

176 (29.5)

351 (29.5)

 

17.6 [16.0; 20.4]

 

   One sport

 

312 (52.6)

318 (53.3)

630 (52.9)

 

17.6 [15.2; 20.0]

 

   Two

 

82 (13.8)

85 (14.2)

167 (14.0)

 

17.1 [14.9; 20.4]

 

   Three or more

 

24 (4.0)

18 (3.0)

42 (3.5)

 

16.0 [14.3; 17.5]

 

Time (hours) of sport activities per week

1190

   

p = ns

 

p = 0.133

   None

 

175 (29.5)

176 (29.5)

351 (29.5)

 

17.6 [16.0; 20.4]

 

   Between one and three hours

 

252 (42.5)

246 (41.2)

498 (41.8)

 

17.8 [14.8; 20.4]

 

   More than three hours

 

166 (28.0)

175 (29.3)

341 (28.7)

 

17.4 [15.3; 19.2]

 

Hours per day watching TV or playing videogames

1115

   

p < 0.001

 

p < 0.001

   At most one hour

 

144 (26.4)

233 (40.9)

377 (33.8)

 

17.4 [14.5; 18.0]

 

   Between one and two hours

 

224 (41.1)

215 (37.7)

439 (39.4)

 

17.1 [15.3; 20.2]

 

   More than two hours

 

177 (32.5)

122 (21.4)

299 (26.8)

 

17.8 [15.9; 20.4]

 

Hours of studying outside school time

1041

   

p = 0.113

 

p = 0.006

   At most three hours

 

116 (23.2)

131 (24.2)

247 (23.7)

 

16.8 [14.5; 20.7]

 

   Between three and seven hours

 

179 (35.8)

221 (40.9)

400 (38.4)

 

17.4 [15.3; 19.0]

 

   More than seven hours

 

205 (41.0)

189 (34.9)

394 (37.8)

 

18.1 [16.0; 20.4]

 

What is your perception on the weight of your child

1204

   

p = ns

 

p < 0.001

   He/she is underweight

 

69 (13.9)

60 (11.7)

129 (12.8)

 

14.5 [13.8; 15.3]

 

   He/she is normal

 

428 (86.1)

454 (88.3)

882 (87.2)

 

16.8 [15.3; 19.0]

 

   He/she is overweight

 

101 (16.9)

92 (15.2)

193 (16.0)

 

20.6 [18.1; 22.8]

 

How much, in Kg

298

4 [3; 5]

3 [2; 5]

3 [2; 5]

p < 0.001

18.1 [14.6; 21.4]

 

How much (in case of overweight), in Kg

182

5 [3; 10]

3 [2; 6]

4 [2; 7]

p < 0.001

20.6 [18.1; 22.8]

 

Number of close friends aged 6-10 yrs

1135

   

p = 0.188

 

p = 0.001

   None

 

39 (6.9)

56 (9.8)

95 (8.4)

 

18.9 [14.3; 22.8]

 

   Between one and three

 

100 (17.7)

93 (16.3)

193 (17.0)

 

17.8 [16.7; 20.8]

 

   More than three

 

427 (75.4)

420 (73.8)

847 (74.6)

 

17.6 [15.3; 19.2]

 

N refers to the number of valid responses. If no indicated, the number is 1215. Absolute numbers and percentages. P-value1 refers to the significance of the difference among snackers and no snackers, p-value2 to the difference in BMI across categories of each variable in the snackers only group.

All variables considered were entered into the model "as is", i.e. without any transformation or cutting-off. If a significant non-linearity using a score test was found, in relating the covariate's effect with survival, the specific covariate's effect was modeled using a restricted cubic spline. Selection criteria was the AIC (Akaike Information Criterion) applied backward for selecting significant covariates. The final model for each of the three steps was selected if superior in terms of AIC at a significance level of 0.05 and p-values have been explicitly indicated if below the 0.25 threshold, otherwise the "NS" indication is used.

To account for possible overfitting in the regression models secondary to high ratio between covariates and events, cross-validation and bootstrap (200 runs) techniques were applied. For the logistic regression model, Somer's concordance Index Dxy (the closer to one in absolute value the better) were obtained and evaluated for this purpose.

Multivariate Odds Ratios have been presented along with their 95% confidence intervals for the logistic regression model, whereas for the linear regression model effects on BMI scale have been presented along with their 95% confidence levels.

The statistical significance was settled at a p-value <0.05. The R System (release 2.7.0) statistical package and the Harrell's Design and Hmisc libraries were used for analysis.

Results

The interviews were balanced by design in terms of geographical distribution, with 326 (26.8%) in the North, 422 (34.7%) in the Center and 467 (38.4%) in the South of Italy.

The sample is described in Table 1 for what concerns family characteristics and in Table 2 for what regards children.

Snacks

The snacking activity, according to the definition adopted in the study, was eating at least three snacks per day. The distribution of snacks were: Plain cakes 230 (39.2%), Cream filled cakes 336 (57.2%), Chocolate cakes 227 (38.7%), Sugar sodas 299 (50.9%) and other types 16 (2.7%).

The social network

The network around the reference child is described in Table 3. The social network identified according the strict rules adopted in the study was composed by on average 1.27 friends per child surveyed, slightly but significantly higher for "snackers" than for "no-snackers" (1.40 vs 1.14, p = 0.042).
Table 3

Description of the social network of the index child.

 

N

Snacker

No snacker

Overall

p-value 1

BMI

p-value 2

  

858

658

1516

 

(Snackers only)

 

Gender

1510

   

p = ns

 

p = 0.093

   Male

 

468 (54.9)

367 (55.8)

835 (55.3)

 

17.4 [15.9; 19.0]

 

   Female

 

384 (45.1)

291 (44.2)

675 (44.7)

 

17.6 [16.0; 20.4]

 

Age

1510

   

p = 0.005

 

p < 0.001

   At most 8 yrs

 

498 (58.5)

337 (51.2)

835 (55.3)

 

16.6 [15.3; 19.2]

 

   Older than 8 yrs

 

354 (41.5)

321 (48.8)

675 (44.7)

 

17.8 [16.6; 20.4]

 

Place of friendship

1496

   

p = ns

 

p = 0.003

   School

 

570 (67.9)

467 (71.2)

1037 (69.3)

 

17.7 [15.3; 20.4]

 

   Child of a relative

 

126 (15.0)

97 (14.8)

223 (14.9)

 

16.8 [15.8; 20.4]

 

   Neighbor

 

114 (13.6)

75 (11.4)

189 (12.6)

 

17.7 [16.5; 20.7]

 

   Sport/other places

 

30 (3.6)

17 (2.6)

47 (3.1)

 

16.9 [15.9; 17.8]

 

Time (hours) of sport activities per week

1493

   

p = 0.002

 

p < 0.001

   None

 

336 (40.0)

223 (34.2)

559 (37.4)

 

17.6 [16.5; 20.4]

 

   Between one and three hours

 

306 (36.4)

296 (45.3)

602 (40.3)

 

16.5 [15.0; 20.0]

 

   More than three hours

 

198 (23.6)

134 (20.5)

332 (22.2)

 

17.8 [16.0; 20.4]

 

Number of different sport activities per week

934

   

p = ns

 

p = 0.018

   One sport activity

 

422 (83.7)

362 (84.2)

784 (83.9)

 

17.1 [15.3; 19.7]

 

   Two or more sport activities

 

82 (16.3)

68 (15.8)

150 (16.1)

 

17.8 [15.9; 20.8]

 

Is the friend eating snacks

1181

   

p < 0.001

 

p = 0.200

   Yes

 

612 (89.5)

379 (76.3)

991 (83.9)

 

17.8 [16.0; 20.4]

 

   No

 

72 (10.5)

118 (23.7)

190 (16.1)

 

17.8 [16.6; 21.0]

 

Number of snacks per day of the friend

668

   

p = ns

 

p < 0.001

   At most one

 

150 (37.9)

105 (38.6)

255 (38.2)

 

17.1 [15.8; 18.1]

 

   Not more than two

 

120 (30.3)

88 (32.4)

208 (31.1)

 

18.3 [16.5; 20.4]

 

   Not more than three

 

96 (24.2)

53 (19.5)

149 (22.3)

 

20.4 [17.4; 22.4]

 

   More than three

 

30 (7.6)

26 (9.6)

56 (8.4)

 

16.5 [15.3; 19.8]

 

What is your perception on the weight of your child

1484

   

p = 0.82

 

p < 0.001

   He/she is underweight

 

84 (10.1)

89 (13.7)

173 (11.7)

 

19.0 [16.7; 20.7]

 

   He/she is normal

 

588 (70.5)

432 (66.5)

1020 (68.7)

 

17.4 [15.4; 19.2]

 

   He/she is overweight

 

162 (19.4)

129 (19.8)

291 (19.6)

 

17.8 [16.5; 20.4]

 

N refers to the number of valid responses. If no indicated, the number is 1516. Absolute numbers and percentages. P-value1 refers to the significance of the difference among snackers and no snackers, p-value2 to the difference in BMI across categories of each variable in the snackers only group.

Multivariable analysis for characterizing the "snacker"

To understand which individual, familiar or social network characteristics are associated with the status of "snacker", a multivariable model has been built, following the variable selection procedure as described in the statistical section among all variables listed in Table 1 and in Table 2. Results of the multivariable model are presented in Table 4.
Table 4

Multivariable logistic model for the association with the status of Snacker of selected variables.

 

Effect

OR

CI

95%

Age of the mother

33 vs. 28

0.79

0.67

0.93

Time (hours) of sport activities per week of the mother

2 vs. 0

0.55

0.38

0.79

Time (hours) of sport activities per week of the child

4 vs. 2

1.36

1.03

1.9

Number of meals/day of the child

5 vs. 2

3.22

1.49

6.98

Number of friends in the network

More than 3 vs. At most 3

1.28

1.01

1.71

Time (hours) of sport activities per week of the friends in the network

4 vs. 2

1.18

1.05

1.43

Is the friend eating snacks?

Yes vs. No

2.44

1.67

3.57

Hours of sport activities of the mother and of the child are showing a non-linear effect (respectively, p = 0.002 and p = 0.0009). Somer's Dxy equal to 0.65.

Multivariable analysis for the BMI levels in the "snacker" group

To understand which individual, familiar or social network characteristics are associated with any given BMI of the "snacker", a multivariable model has been built, following the variable selection procedure as described in the statistical section among all variables listed in Table 1 and in Table 2 but limited to the group of the 608 "snackers". Results from this multivariable analysis are shown in Table 5.
Table 5

Multivariable model for the BMI of the "snacker" child.

Variable

Value

Effect

S.E.

CI

95%

Mother's BMI

4 points increment

0.85

0.12

0.62

1.08

Age (Mother)

5 years increment

0.73

0.17

0.41

1.06

Time studying per day (hours)

6 hrs increment

0.83

0.15

0.53

1.13

Time in sport activities per day (hours)

3 hrs increment

-0.43

0.18

-0.77

-0.08

Time in front of TV per day

≤ 1 h vs. 1-2 hrs

-2.09

0.36

-2.8

-1.38

 

>2 hrs vs. 1-2 hrs

-0.26

0.29

-0.83

0.3

Municipality income (low vs. high)

 

1.82

0.28

1.26

2.37

Linear model for snackers only. The column "value" refers to the interquartile difference for continuous variables or for specific reference categories for categorical variables.

Discussion

Familiar and social environment role in determining snacking activity

Results of the limited research on behavioral mediators of familial patterns of overweight indicate that parents' own eating behaviors and parenting practices influence the development of children's eating behaviors, mediating familial patterns of overweight. Parents provide food environments for their children's early experiences with food and eating, and overweight parents seem to select environments that promote overweight among their children [21].

In our study two parental characteristics have been evaluated in relation to child eating behavior: parental BMI and parental habit to practice physical activity.

No association between fathers' BMI and child snacking consumption has been found, while the association between mothers' BMI and child snacking consumption observed in the univariate analysis disappears in multivariable analysis.

On the other hand, in our study children dietary habits seems to be strictly related to mothers' attitude toward physical activity. Indeed, mothers of no-snackers seem to be more prone to healthy behaviors, practicing at least 2 hours of sport activities during the week. But this not necessarily translates in a healthier lifestyle for their children, since no-snackers children tend have a more sedentary lifestyle.

On the contrary, snacking children profile is controversial, since, in according to the literature, they spend more time than no-snackers watching TV, but also, they seem to be more active, since the great part of them practices at least 4 hours per week of physical activity. Differences in family composition could explain this fact: while no-snacking children usually may come from classical families (father, mother and children) and may have not brothers or sisters, snacking children frequently come from numerous, enlarged families. Classical families having one child, may pay more attention on their children lifestyle and on their dietary habits, whereas, in an enlarged familiar environment, parents may have to delegate other people or relatives, such as grandparents, to take care of their children, ending up in a less strict control of their children's dietary habits.

Differently from what described in previous studies on snacking activities [22], in which snacking children are largely described as children usually spending time in solitary activities, in our analysis snacking children, having a more active lifestyle than no-snackers, are part of a more numerous social networks. Thus, instead of observing the well-studied vicious circle in which more isolated children stay at home, spending time in sedentary activity and eating snacks [22], we observed that snacking children are practicing physical activity more than no-snackers and are part of a larger social network. Indeed, in the snackers' social network, most of peers are both practicing sports and eating snacks. The attitude to "regress to the mean" in term of behaviors among peers, with the tendency of mimicking others' behaviors [23] could also contribute to explain these findings.

On the contrary, as a direct consequence of a more sedentary lifestyle, no-snackers children have less social relationships and, similarly to that observed among snackers, their peers tend to share the same eating and leisure time habits.

Snacking and overweight

The existence of an association between snack consumption and risk of being overweight or obese has been previously evaluated in numerous studies obtaining contrasting results: is was shown in some studies but not in others [9].

In our study we found that the status of snacker seems not to be associated with overweight and/or obesity being the BMI equivalent among snacking and not snacking children. The key factor in explaining such result might be the role of physical activity of the child. In addition to the positive effect of physical activity, by itself, on obesity prevention, also spending leisure time in sportive activities implies being part of a social environment which is definitely a positive one from the point of view of obesity control [24]. Indeed, results do not show an increase of overweight/obesity in relation to snack consumption.

Factors related to BMI in the snacking group

In the present study, determinants of BMI in snacking group have been explored; according to previous large-scale researches which found correlations between paternal or maternal anthropometric measures and children's adiposity [2527], also in our analysis an increment in mother BMI seems to contribute to an increment in children BMI. As previously mentioned, this intergenerational relationship reflects genetic, social, cultural, and environmental components since, when parents make food consumption choices (or provide the feasible food consumption set) for children for meals eaten at home, this common environment generates a correlation between generations when both eat unhealthy (or healthy) food together [28].

Moreover, a positive relationship between maternal age and children BMI has also been found, suggesting that younger mothers tend to pay more attention to their children's dietary habits or to encourage them to practice sport.

As expected, energy balance-related behaviors, including sport activity, studying and watching TV are related to children BMI: an increment in the first one induces a BMI reduction, while, more time spent in sedentary activity determines a BMI increasing, as expected.

Finally, as observed elsewhere [29], a positive relationship between low income (indirectly measured here by the municipality income) and body weight seems to exist: the association of child and household food insecurity with childhood overweight has been demonstrated in several studies [30]; moreover, children in low-income families could experience adverse psychosocial conditions which may contribute to poor eating habits and lower physical activity levels [31].

Study limitations

This study is a survey, without direct interaction between the investigator and the interviewed people and thus relying only on self-reported measurements for what concerns anthropometric characteristics, physical activity levels and dietary patterns. Although this approach has been widely used [32], it still presents the general limitation of such approaches, like reporting bias, barrier effect leading to interview refusal, tendency of ameliorant responses in presence of sensitive questions [31]. The authors used interview and analysis techniques to reduce each of such potential biases, like the involvement of only highly experienced interviewers in interview conduction and multivariable modeling for confounding adjustment.

Final remarks

No evidence of an association between snacking consumption and overweight status has been shown by our study. This fact can be explained by the different attitude toward physical activity observed in snackers and no-snackers: in fact, differently from common findings in scientific literature, in our study the snacking child can be described as practicing sport more than no-snakers and, as a consequence, having more active peer-to-peer social relationships, mostly related with sport activities. Among snackers, factors traditionally related to body weight such as mother BMI, energy balance-related behaviors and municipality income have been confirmed as major determinants of children BMI.

Conclusions

Obesity control appeared to be positively influenced by peer-to-peer social relationships, especially those related to sport activities. Snacking behavior didn't present association with overweight and obesity, that instead were linked with families' characteristics, like income or parents' age and BMI. These conclusions point out the chiefly role of energy expenditure in regulating the energy gap, stressing the necessity of to consider obesity as a multifactorial disease, influenced by social behaviors, in first instance related with the familiar environment.

List of abbreviations

AIC: 

Akaike Information Criterion

BMI: 

Body Mass Index

CATI: 

Computer Assisted Telephone Interview

CDC: 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

CI: 

Interval of Confidence

NS: 

Non Significant

OR: 

Odds Ratio

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Zeta Research's CATI team for its role in data collection.

This research was partially funded by an unrestricted grant of the University of Padova and of Prochild ONLUS. The research did benefit also from a technical grant of ZETA Research Ltd for conducting the Survey.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Laboratory of Epidemiological Methods and Biostatistics, Department of Environmental Medicine and Public Health, University of Padova
(2)
ZETA Research Inc.
(3)
Prochild ONLUS
(4)
Department of Public Health and Microbiology, University of Torino

References

  1. James PT, Leach R, Kalamara E, Shayeghi M: The worldwide obesity epidemic. Obes Res. 2001, 9 (Suppl 4): 228S-233S.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bray GA, Bellanger T: Epidemiology, trends, and morbidities of obesity and the metabolic syndrome. Endocrine. 2006, 29 (1): 109-117. 10.1385/ENDO:29:1:109.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Campbell KJ, Crawford DA, Ball K: Family food environment and dietary behaviors likely to promote fatness in 5-6 year-old children. Int J Obes (Lond). 2006, 30 (8): 1272-1280. 10.1038/sj.ijo.0803266.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Janssen I, Katzmarzyk PT, Boyce WF, Vereecken C, Mulvihill C, Roberts C, Currie C, Pickett W: Comparison of overweight and obesity prevalence in school-aged youth from 34 countries and their relationships with physical activity and dietary patterns. Obes Rev. 2005, 6 (2): 123-132. 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2005.00176.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. van der Horst K, Oenema A, Ferreira I, Wendel-Vos W, Giskes K, van Lenthe F, Brug J: A systematic review of environmental correlates of obesity-related dietary behaviors in youth. Health Educ Res. 2007, 22 (2): 203-226.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Campbell KJ, Crawford DA, Salmon J, Carver A, Garnett SP, Baur LA: Associations between the home food environment and obesity-promoting eating behaviors in adolescence. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2007, 15 (3): 719-730. 10.1038/oby.2007.553.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Erlanson-Albertsson C, Zetterstrom R: The global obesity epidemic: snacking and obesity may start with free meals during infant feeding. Acta Paediatr. 2005, 94 (11): 1523-1531. 10.1080/08035250500323780.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Hampl JS, Heaton CL, Taylor CA: Snacking patterns influence energy and nutrient intakes but not body mass index. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2003, 16 (1): 3-11. 10.1046/j.1365-277X.2003.00417.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Miller SA, Taveras EM, Rifas-Shiman SL, Gillman MW: Association between television viewing and poor diet quality in young children. Int J Pediatr Obes. 2008, 3 (3): 168-176. 10.1080/17477160801915935.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Ginioux C, Grousset J, Mestari S, Ruiz F: [Prevalence of obesity in children and adolescents attending school in Seine Saint-Denis]. Sante publique (Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy, France). 2006, 18 (3): 389-400. 10.3917/spub.063.0389.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Hainer V, Toplak H, Mitrakou A: Treatment modalities of obesity: what fits whom?. Diabetes care. 2008, 31 (Suppl 2): S269-277.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Browne D: Exercise by prescription. Journal of the Royal Society of Health. 1997, 117 (1): 52-55. 10.1177/146642409711700113.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Brownell KD, Kaye FS: A school-based behavior modification, nutrition education, and physical activity program for obese children. The American journal of clinical nutrition. 1982, 35 (2): 277-283.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Clinical guidelines on the identification, evaluation, and treatment of overweight and obesity in adults: executive summary. Expert Panel on the Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of Overweight in Adults. Am J Clin Nutr. 1998, 68 (4): 899-917.
  15. CDC Pediatric Growth Charts. [http://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts]
  16. Barlow SE, Dietz WH: Obesity evaluation and treatment: Expert Committee recommendations. The Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services. Pediatrics. 1998, 102 (3): E29-10.1542/peds.102.3.e29.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Lama More RA, Alonso Franch A, Gil-Campos M, Leis Trabazo R, Martinez Suarez V, Morais Lopez A, Moreno Villares JM, Pedron Giner MC: [Childhood obesity. Recommendations of the Nutrition Committee of the Spanish Association of Pediatrics. Part I. Prevention. Early detection. Role of the pediatrician]. An Pediatr (Barc). 2006, 65 (6): 607-615. 10.1157/13095854.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Birch LL, Parker L, A B, (eds): Early Childhood Obesity Prevention Policies Committee on Obesity Prevention Policies for Young Children. 2011
  19. McNemar Q: Note on the sampling error of the difference between correlated proportions or percentages. Psychometrika. 1947, 12 (2): 153-157. 10.1007/BF02295996.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Wilcoxon F: Individual comparisons of grouped data by ranking methods. J Econ Entomol. 1946, 39: 269-View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Rozin P: The meaning of food in our lives: a cross-cultural perspective on eating and well-being. Journal of nutrition education and behavior. 2005, 37 (Suppl 2): S107-112.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Gubbels JS, Kremers SP, Stafleu A, Dagnelie PC, de Vries SI, de Vries NK, Thijs C: Clustering of dietary intake and sedentary behavior in 2-year-old children. The Journal of pediatrics. 2009, 155 (2): 194-198. 10.1016/j.jpeds.2009.02.027.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. van der Horst K, Timperio A, Crawford D, Roberts R, Brug J, Oenema A: The school food environment associations with adolescent soft drink and snack consumption. Am J Prev Med. 2008, 35 (3): 217-223. 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.022.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Lindsay AC, Sussner KM, Greaney ML, Peterson KE: Influence of Social Context on Eating, Physical Activity, and Sedentary Behaviors of Latina Mothers and Their Preschool-Age Children. Health Educ Behav. 2009, 36 (1): 81-96.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Lake JK, Power C, Cole TJ: Child to adult body mass index in the 1958 British birth cohort: associations with parental obesity. Archives of disease in childhood. 1997, 77 (5): 376-381. 10.1136/adc.77.5.376.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Danielzik S, Langnase K, Mast M, Spethmann C, Muller MJ: Impact of parental BMI on the manifestation of overweight 5-7 year old children. Eur J Nutr. 2002, 41 (3): 132-138. 10.1007/s00394-002-0367-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Sekine M, Yamagami T, Hamanishi S, Handa K, Saito T, Nanri S, Kawaminami K, Tokui N, Yoshida K, Kagamimori S: Parental obesity, lifestyle factors and obesity in preschool children: results of the Toyama Birth Cohort study. J Epidemiol. 2002, 12 (1): 33-39. 10.2188/jea.12.33.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Classen TJ: Measures of the intergenerational transmission of body mass index between mothers and their children in the United States, 1981-2004. Economics and human biology. 2010, 8 (1): 30-43. 10.1016/j.ehb.2009.11.002.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Laitinen J, Power C, Jarvelin MR: Family social class, maternal body mass index, childhood body mass index, and age at menarche as predictors of adult obesity. The American journal of clinical nutrition. 2001, 74 (3): 287-294.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Casey PH, Simpson PM, Gossett JM, Bogle ML, Champagne CM, Connell C, Harsha D, McCabe-Sellers B, Robbins JM, Stuff JE, et al: The association of child and household food insecurity with childhood overweight status. Pediatrics. 2006, 118 (5): e1406-1413. 10.1542/peds.2006-0097.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Gundersen C, Lohman BJ, Garasky S, Stewart S, Eisenmann J: Food security, maternal stressors, and overweight among low-income US children: results from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (1999-2002). Pediatrics. 2008, 122 (3): e529-540. 10.1542/peds.2008-0556.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Kromeyer-Hauschild K, Zellner K, Jaeger U, Hoyer H: Prevalence of overweight and obesity among school children in Jena (Germany). Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1999, 23 (11): 1143-1150. 10.1038/sj.ijo.0801044.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Gregori et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2011

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.