Kids of Working Moms Less Healthy: British study

[Anonymous]

I thought this was interesting. Even the children of part-time working moms are affected.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33089859/ns/health-kids_and_parenting/

Children whose mothers work are less likely to eat healthily or exercise as often as children with stay-at-home mums, according to a British study that is likely to raise the hackles of working mothers.

The UK Millennium Cohort Study looked at the dietary habits and physical activity of more than 12,500 children from the age of nine months to the age of five.

It found that, regardless of ethnicity, maternal education or job level, children whose mothers worked part or full time were less likely to eat fruits or vegetables at meals or as snacks.

[Anonymous]

Well that study can just bite me.

[Anonymous]

Hee hee - not my kids! I work on policies related to nutrition, childhood obesity, and community physical activity so I practice what I preach - we are very active and my kids have not met a fruit or veggie they didn't like.

I could see where possibly more moms who work choose convenience foods, but there are so many ways around that. We cook on the weekends to prep for the week - that really helps; and we have a lot of healthy snack items - make-your-own trail mix, raw nuts and seeds, cut up veggies and hummus, fruit, granola, yogurt - stuff you can just grab.

I'll have to give it a read to see if that could be a culprit.

[Anonymous]

What useful information. Did they study whether the father's employment status had any impact on the child's diet too? Didn't think so.

Anyway, my kid learned to love broccoli at daycare - a food I never even approached until he grabbed a stalk at the supermarket and proclaimed how great it was. So I'm not going to sweat the implication that my need to provide for my family (as well as my preference for maintaining my career) are somehow responsible for the world's health problems and the national obesity crisis...

[Anonymous]

Believe me, I am much more MENTALLY healthy because I work, and that means my child is mentally, physically, emotionally, psychologically healthier than he would be if I stayed home. Not true for every one, but that's what works for my family. So like the PP said, the researchers can bite me.

[Anonymous]

Household income is the most important variable that should have been controlled for. And I don't think they did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Household income is the most important variable that should have been controlled for. And I don't think they did.

Totally agreed. Parents' education level + wealth= smartest, healithiest kids. PERIOD. It is such a socioeconomic trend in the US that the poor are the least healthy and the heaviest. I don't give studies like this any thought.

[Anonymous]

What are you trying to do? Good for you for being able to stay at home. Pat yourself on the back and buzz off. Some of us are working so that we can put ANY food on our kids' table. Some of us don't have our husband's fat income to be able to stay at home and work so we can provide a good education for our children later. I'm glad you made yourself feel better now please go away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Household income is the most important variable that should have been controlled for. And I don't think they did.

Totally agreed. Parents' education level + wealth= smartest, healithiest kids. PERIOD. It is such a socioeconomic trend in the US that the poor are the least healthy and the heaviest. I don't give studies like this any thought.

No, this study comes from a very good longitudinal data set that has been used for over a hundred published studies so far. It is very good and controls for all these socioeconomic variables and more.

I don't think we should blow off the results because the findings are not in favor of our particular situation. It is far better to recognize that it takes more effort, on average, to maintain healthy kids when both parents are working.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What useful information. Did they study whether the father's employment status had any impact on the child's diet too? Didn't think so.

Love how these studies seem to bash working moms. Way to undermine women. Let's see some of those studies on men for a change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Household income is the most important variable that should have been controlled for. And I don't think they did.

Totally agreed. Parents' education level + wealth= smartest, healthiest kids. PERIOD. It is such a socioeconomic trend in the US that the poor are the least healthy and the heaviest. I don't give studies like this any thought.[/quote

As far as for the US, yes there are many more poor and uneducated fat people, but it isn't reserved for them. I am educated, own my own business, fairly wealthy, and still pretty heavy. I have medical reasons, not dietary issues or lack of exercise as a reason. It doesn't make me any less fat.

The diet in the UK is different than ours. There is a need for digestive biscuits because there is so little fiber in their diets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What useful information. Did they study whether the father's employment status had any impact on the child's diet too? Didn't think so.

Love how these studies seem to bash working moms. Way to undermine women. Let's see some of those studies on men for a change.

I don't care much which parent is doing the parenting (unless there's a baby needing some breast milk) but the young child NEEDS at least one parent full-time. Let this be a family issue, not women VS men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What useful information. Did they study whether the father's employment status had any impact on the child's diet too? Didn't think so.

Love how these studies seem to bash working moms. Way to undermine women. Let's see some of those studies on men for a change.

That was my first thought.

I don't really care about the study because it does not apply to me. I'm a working mom, nursed my child for a full year (he never had a drop of formula), managed to cook ALL of his food, and NEVER opened a jar of baby food-ever, and I still cook everything from scratch...along wiht having a huge garden that supplies us with almost all of our summer veggies. My 3 yr old eats swiss chard. I don't know many work or SAHMs who can say this. Oh yea, and TV? We're too busy for that. He doesn't watch it at daycare because they spend all of their time outside or in activities and doesn't watch it at home.

I now have a 6 month all who is on track, again 100% breastfed, no formula.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What useful information. Did they study whether the father's employment status had any impact on the child's diet too? Didn't think so.

Love how these studies seem to bash working moms. Way to undermine women. Let's see some of those studies on men for a change.

I don't care much which parent is doing the parenting (unless there's a baby needing some breast milk) but the young child NEEDS at least one parent full-time. Let this be a family issue, not women VS men.

By your logic, it is amazing me and my 2 younger siblings survived. We had 2 working parents and we all went on to be successful, happy, productive members of society who are all extremely close. We still had 2 full time parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What useful information. Did they study whether the father's employment status had any impact on the child's diet too? Didn't think so.

Love how these studies seem to bash working moms. Way to undermine women. Let's see some of those studies on men for a change.

I don't care much which parent is doing the parenting (unless there's a baby needing some breast milk) but the young child NEEDS at least one parent full-time. Let this be a family issue, not women VS men.

Nope, not true. A child does not NEED a parent with them all day, everyday. This should be obvious considering most parents in this country work.