Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T02:45:45.106Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Child eating behaviours are associated with weight status at two years of age

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2014

E. K. McCarthy
Affiliation:
Maternal and Infant Nutrition Research Group, School of Food and Nutritional Sciences, University College Cork
D. M. Murray
Affiliation:
Department of Paediatrics and Child Health, University College Cork The Irish Centre for Fetal and Neonatal Translational Research, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University College Cork
L. C. Kenny
Affiliation:
The Irish Centre for Fetal and Neonatal Translational Research, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University College Cork
J. O'B. Hourihane
Affiliation:
Department of Paediatrics and Child Health, University College Cork
M. Kiely
Affiliation:
Maternal and Infant Nutrition Research Group, School of Food and Nutritional Sciences, University College Cork The Irish Centre for Fetal and Neonatal Translational Research, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University College Cork
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Abstract
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2014 

The Children's Eating Behaviour Questionnaire (CEBQ) has been validated as a measure of eating behaviours in children( Reference Wardle, Guthrie and Sanderson 1 ). Associations between eating behaviours and weight status have been identified in older children( Reference Viana, Sinde and Saxton 2 , Reference Webber, Hill and Saxton 3 ), however limited research has been carried out in young children. The aim of this analysis was to explore the relationship between eating behaviours and weight status in two year old children.

The CEBQ was completed by the parents of participants of the Cork BASELINE Birth Cohort Study at each child's 24-month assessment(median [IQR] age of 2·1 [2·1, 2·2] years). The CEBQ encompasses eight eating behaviour subscales (four food approach, four food avoidant) and each subscale has three-five questions. Questions are assessed based on a five-point scale and scored appropriately. Anthropometric measures were also taken and participants were categorised into three weight categories (underweight, normal weight, overweight/obese) based on the International Obesity Task Force BMI cut-offs for children( Reference Cole, Bellizzi and Flegal 4 ). Only participants with complete anthropometric and eating behaviour data were included in the analysis, with 1189 participants (50% male) included.

There were no significant differences in subscale scores between males and females, except that females scored higher in “slowness in eating” while males scored higher in “food fussiness” (P < 0·05). There were significant differences in subscale scores between the three weight categories, see table. Participants in the overweight/obese category scored highest in food approach behaviours (“enjoyment of food”, “food responsiveness”), while those in the underweight category scored highest in food avoidant behaviours (“satiety responsiveness”, “slowness in eating”, “food fussiness”).

a,b,cDifferent superscript letters denote statistically differences between groups (P < 0·05).

Child eating behaviours as assessed by the CEBQ were associated with weight status at two years of age. Food approach eating behaviours including “enjoyment of food” and “food responsiveness” appear to be associated with overweight and obesity. The identification of relationships between eating behaviours and food and nutrient intake patterns may provide means of an intervention strategy against later overweight and obesity.

Research supported by National Children's Research Centre.

References

1. Wardle, J, Guthrie, CA, Sanderson, S, et al. (2001) J Child Psychol Psychiat 42(7), 963–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Viana, V, Sinde, S, Saxton, JC (2008) Br J Nutr 100(2), 445–50.Google Scholar
3. Webber, L, Hill, C, Saxton, J, et al. (2009) Int J Obes 33(1), 21–8.Google Scholar
4. Cole, TJ, Bellizzi, MC, Flegal, KM, et al. (2000) BMJ 320(7244), 1240–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar