Melissa C Nelson1, Penny Gordon-Larsen, Linda S Adair. 1. Department of Nutrition, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27516-3997, USA. Melissa_Nelson@unc.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cohort analyses suggesting that breast-feeding protects against being overweight have been criticized for inadequately controlling for confounding associated with the self-selection of feeding practices. METHODS: Using nationally representative U.S. data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (1994-1996), we performed traditional cohort analyses (n = 11,998) using logistic regression to estimate the relation between breast-feeding and adolescent overweight (body mass index > or =85 percentile, based on year 2000 CDC growth charts), controlling for known potential confounders. Breast-feeding also was assessed in a subsample of 850 sibling pairs to account for unmeasured genetic and environmental factors. RESULTS: Among girls in the full cohort, the odds of being overweight declined among those who had been breast-fed at least 9 months; odds ratios ranged from 0.90 (95% confidence interval = 0.74-1.09) for <3 months of breast-feeding to 0.78 (0.64-0.96) for > or =9 months. A similar effect was seen in boys, although these trends were less consistent. In contrast, an analysis of sibling pairs provided no evidence of breast-feeding effects on weight within discordant trends. CONCLUSION: Cohort data indicate that odds of being overweight decrease as breast-feeding duration increases, at least among girls. However, sibling analyses suggest that this relationship may not be causal but rather attributable to unmeasured confounding related to mothers' choice to breast-feed, or to other childhood risk factors for overweight. Our results illustrate the utility of sibling analyses in understanding the true effect of early life exposures (such as breast-feeding) on health outcomes over time, independent of confounding factors that may not be satisfactorily controlled using traditional prospective cohort methods.
BACKGROUND: Cohort analyses suggesting that breast-feeding protects against being overweight have been criticized for inadequately controlling for confounding associated with the self-selection of feeding practices. METHODS: Using nationally representative U.S. data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (1994-1996), we performed traditional cohort analyses (n = 11,998) using logistic regression to estimate the relation between breast-feeding and adolescent overweight (body mass index > or =85 percentile, based on year 2000 CDC growth charts), controlling for known potential confounders. Breast-feeding also was assessed in a subsample of 850 sibling pairs to account for unmeasured genetic and environmental factors. RESULTS: Among girls in the full cohort, the odds of being overweight declined among those who had been breast-fed at least 9 months; odds ratios ranged from 0.90 (95% confidence interval = 0.74-1.09) for <3 months of breast-feeding to 0.78 (0.64-0.96) for > or =9 months. A similar effect was seen in boys, although these trends were less consistent. In contrast, an analysis of sibling pairs provided no evidence of breast-feeding effects on weight within discordant trends. CONCLUSION: Cohort data indicate that odds of being overweight decrease as breast-feeding duration increases, at least among girls. However, sibling analyses suggest that this relationship may not be causal but rather attributable to unmeasured confounding related to mothers' choice to breast-feed, or to other childhood risk factors for overweight. Our results illustrate the utility of sibling analyses in understanding the true effect of early life exposures (such as breast-feeding) on health outcomes over time, independent of confounding factors that may not be satisfactorily controlled using traditional prospective cohort methods.
Authors: Krista Casazza; Andrew Brown; Arne Astrup; Fredrik Bertz; Charles Baum; Michelle Bohan Brown; John Dawson; Nefertiti Durant; Gareth Dutton; David A Fields; Kevin R Fontaine; Steven Heymsfield; David Levitsky; Tapan Mehta; Nir Menachemi; P K Newby; Russell Pate; Hollie Raynor; Barbara J Rolls; Bisakha Sen; Daniel L Smith; Diana Thomas; Brian Wansink; David B Allison Journal: Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr Date: 2015 Impact factor: 11.176
Authors: Matthew W Gillman; Sheryl L Rifas-Shiman; Catherine S Berkey; A Lindsay Frazier; Helaine R H Rockett; Carlos A Camargo; Alison E Field; Graham A Colditz Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Richard M Martin; Rita Patel; Michael S Kramer; Lauren Guthrie; Konstantin Vilchuck; Natalia Bogdanovich; Natalia Sergeichick; Nina Gusina; Ying Foo; Tom Palmer; Sheryl L Rifas-Shiman; Matthew W Gillman; George Davey Smith; Emily Oken Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-03-13 Impact factor: 56.272