Preventing childhood obesity: what works?

Rates of overweight in North American children and adolescents have increased dramatically since the 1970s. Childhood obesity has reached epidemic proportions and calls for prevention and treatment programs to reverse this trend have been made. However, the evidence base needed for effective action is still incomplete, especially for childhood obesity prevention programs. This paper focuses on primary prevention of childhood obesity and has three aims: (1) to briefly describe current primary prevention approaches for childhood obesity and the evidence for their impact; (2) to elucidate promising, but untested intervention strategies using an ecological framework and evidence from experimental and epidemiological research on factors influencing children\u27s eating and weight status; and (3) to introduce a multiphase strategy for screening intervention components and building and evaluating potent interventions for childhood obesity. Most childhood obesity prevention programs have focused on school-aged children and have had little success. We suggest that, given these findings, prevention efforts should be expanded to explore other contexts in which children live as possible settings for intervention efforts, including the family and childcare settings. Given that 25% of preschool children are already overweight, intervening with children before school entry should be a priority. A review of experimental research on the developing controls of food intake in infancy and childhood suggests possible intervention strategies, focusing on parenting and aspects of the feeding environment. Epidemiological findings point to even earlier modifiable risk factors, including gestational weight gain, maternal prepregnancy weight, and formula feeding. However, the potential impact of altering these risk factors remains to be evaluated. In response to this problem, we suggest a new, multiphase method for accomplishing this, including screening intervention components, refining intervention designs and confirming component efficacy to build and evaluate potent, optimized interventions

The Human Sweet Tooth

Humans love the taste of sugar and the word "sweet" is used to describe not only this basic taste quality but also something that is desirable or pleasurable, e.g., la dolce vita. Although sugar or sweetened foods are generally among the most preferred choices, not everyone likes sugar, especially at high concentrations. The focus of my group's research is to understand why some people have a sweet tooth and others do not. We have used genetic and molecular techniques in humans, rats, mice, cats and primates to understand the origins of sweet taste perception. Our studies demonstrate that there are two sweet receptor genes (TAS1R2 and TAS1R3), and alleles of one of the two genes predict the avidity with which some mammals drink sweet solutions. We also find a relationship between sweet and bitter perception. Children who are genetically more sensitive to bitter compounds report that very sweet solutions are more pleasant and they prefer sweet carbonated beverages more than milk, relative to less bitter-sensitive peers. Overall, people differ in their ability to perceive the basic tastes, and particular constellations of genes and experience may drive some people, but not others, toward a caries-inducing sweet diet. Future studies will be designed to understand how a genetic preference for sweet food and drink might contribute to the development of dental caries

Behavioral genetics and taste

This review focuses on behavioral genetic studies of sweet, umami, bitter and salt taste responses in mammals. Studies involving mouse inbred strain comparisons and genetic analyses, and their impact on elucidation of taste receptors and transduction mechanisms are discussed. Finally, the effect of genetic variation in taste responsiveness on complex traits such as drug intake is considered. Recent advances in development of genomic resources make behavioral genetics a powerful approach for understanding mechanisms of taste

Psycholinguistic variables matter in odor naming

People from Western societies generally find it difficult to name odors. In trying to explain this, the olfactory literature has proposed several theories that focus heavily on properties of the odor itself but rarely discuss properties of the label used to describe it. However, recent studies show speakers of languages with dedicated smell lexicons can name odors with relative ease. Has the role of the lexicon been overlooked in the olfactory literature? Word production studies show properties of the label, such as word frequency and semantic context, influence naming; but this field of research focuses heavily on the visual domain. The current study combines methods from both fields to investigate word production for olfaction in two experiments. In the first experiment, participants named odors whose veridical labels were either high-frequency or low-frequency words in Dutch, and we found that odors with high-frequency labels were named correctly more often. In the second experiment, edibility was used for manipulating semantic context in search of a semantic interference effect, presenting the odors in blocks of edible and inedible odor source objects to half of the participants. While no evidence was found for a semantic interference effect, an effect of word frequency was again present. Our results demonstrate psycholinguistic variables-such as word frequency-are relevant for olfactory naming, and may, in part, explain why it is difficult to name odors in certain languages. Olfactory researchers cannot afford to ignore properties of an odor's label