shiruken OP t1_j614c6q wrote
Reply to comment by AllanfromWales1 in The implementation of a soft drinks industry levy in the UK in 2018 was associated with an 8% reduction in obesity among 10-11 year old girls with the greatest reductions seen in those living in the most deprived areas. No such association was found in 10-11 year old boys or younger children. by shiruken
Authors suggest it could be changes in advertising, which predominantly impacts boys:
>While our finding that the SDIL had greater impacts on obesity prevalence in girls than boys is consistent with previous studies [38], it is unclear why this might be the case, especially since boys were higher baseline consumers of SSBs [13]. One explanation is that there were factors (e.g., in food advertising and marketing) at work around the time of the announcement and implementation of the levy that worked against any associations of the SDIL among boys. There is evidence that soft drink manufacturers altered their marketing strategies in different ways in response to the SDIL including repackaging and rebranding products [55]. Numerous studies have found that boys are often exposed to more food advertising content than girls [56–59], both through higher levels of TV viewing [59] and through the way in which adverts are framed. Physical activity is often used to promote junk food, and boys, compared to girls, have been shown to be more likely to believe that energy-dense junk foods depicted in adverts will boost physical performance [56] and thus they are more likely to choose energy-dense, nutrient-poor products following celebrity endorsements. There is also evidence that girls tend to make healthier choices when it comes to diet (e.g., consuming more fruit and vegetables and less energy-dense foods) and other health behaviours (e.g., brushing teeth) [60]. One possibility for the observed differences between boys and girls may be that girls were more responsive to public health signalling arising from discussions around the SDIL or that they were more likely to choose drinks that had been reformulated to contain less sugar following the SDIL announcement.
BerriesAndMe t1_j62g220 wrote
Wonder how much it has to do with gender stereotypes tbh. Girls are still taught to accommodate while boys are told to go get what they want.
A family saying they have to scale back on sodas due to cost may have different effect on boys and girls in each family.
lightning_palm t1_j6eovib wrote
> A family saying they have to scale back on sodas due to cost may have different effect on boys and girls in each family.
This assumption stands in contrast to the following research:
Durante, K. M., Griskevicius, V., Redden, J. P., & Edward White, A. (2015). Spending on daughters versus sons in economic recessions. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(3), 435-457, https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/42/3/435/1819102
> Abstract > > Although parents often try not to favor one child, we examine whether specific environmental factors might bias parents to favor children of one sex over the other. This research draws on theory in evolutionary biology suggesting that investment in female versus male offspring depends on resource availability. Applying this to consumers, a series of experiments show that poor economic conditions favor resource allocations to daughters over sons. For example, poor conditions led people to bequeath more assets to girls in their will, and to choose girls to receive a US Treasury bond and a beneficial extracurricular activity. It is proposed that this happens because spending on children represents a reproductive investment, and that boys’ and girls’ relative reproductive value varies with economic conditions. Supporting this account, perceptions of which child will have more children statistically mediates the effect of economic conditions on preferences for girls. Consequently, the effect is strengthened as a child approaches reproductive age, and it is moderated by individual differences (risk aversion and monogamy) directly related to our theoretical model. This research contributes to the consumer behavior literature by revealing how, why, and when environmental factors influence spending on girls versus boys.
Thurstans, S., Opondo, C., Seal, A., Wells, J., Khara, T., Dolan, C., ... & Kerac, M. (2020). Boys are more likely to be undernourished than girls: a systematic review and meta-analysis of sex differences in undernutrition. BMJ global health, 5(12), https://gh.bmj.com/content/5/12/e004030
> Abstract > > Background Excess male morbidity and mortality is well recognised in neonatal medicine and infant health. In contrast, within global nutrition, it is commonly assumed that girls are more at risk of experiencing undernutrition. We aimed to explore evidence for any male/female differences in child undernutrition using anthropometric case definitions and the reasons for differences observed. > > Methods We searched: Medline, Embase, Global health, Popline and Cochrane databases with no time limits applied. Eligible studies focused on children aged 0–59 months affected by undernutrition where sex was reported. In the meta-analysis, undernutrition-specific estimates were examined separately for wasting, stunting and underweight using a random-effects model. > > Results 74 studies were identified: 44/74 studies were included in the meta-analysis. In 20 which examined wasting, boys had higher odds of being wasted than girls (pooled OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.40). 38 examined stunting: boys had higher odds of stunting than girls (pooled OR 1.29 95% CI 1.22 to 1.37). 23 explored underweight: boys had higher odds of being underweight than girls (pooled OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.26). There was some limited evidence that the female advantage, indicated by a lower risk of stunting and underweight, was weaker in South Asia than other parts of the world. 43/74 (58%) studies discussed possible reasons for boy/girl differences; 10/74 (14%) cited studies with similar findings with no further discussion; 21/74 (28%) had no sex difference discussion. 6/43 studies (14%) postulated biological causes, 21/43 (49%) social causes and 16/43 (37%) to a combination. > > Conclusion Our review indicates that undernutrition in children under 5 is more likely to affect boys than girls, though the magnitude of these differences varies and is more pronounced in some contexts than others. Future research should further explore reasons for these differences and implications for nutrition policy and practice.
BerriesAndMe t1_j6hhrjm wrote
I was more thinking about personal choices of the kids less the parents.
But I was mostly wondering out loud and have no data at all. So thanks for doing the research for me.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments