The weight of the child is believed to develop according to a particular formula – now a new study to question the assumption

In the study Two new types of childhood body mass index development have been observed, the University of Oulu reports.

The results confirm the notion that the body mass index alone is not an adequate measure of children’s weight assessment, says research editor, doctoral researcher Anni Heiskala In the University of Oulu bulletin.

The body mass index reflects a person’s weight in relation to his height. The type of body mass index refers to how a person’s body mass index changes over time.

According to Heiskala, identifying types of development can help you understand the individual variation of the body mass index, which is important in targeting obesity prevention and treatment.

The study looked at children’s body mass index at certain intervals from three months to the age of 16. The material consisted of information from 6,200 children. They were collected from the birth cohorts of 1966 and 1986 in Northern Finland.

Earlier Studies have shown that changes in body mass index in childhood follow one formula. However, in the new study, three distinctive profiles were observed in the changes. They differ in how slowly or quickly the body mass index changes over time.

The development of type 1 body mass index corresponds to the previously detected formula. There, the child’s body mass index rises a lot after birth. At its peak, it will run at the end of the first year of age until it begins to decrease with length growth.

At its lowest, type 1 body mass index is between four and six years. After that, it grows quite steady until adulthood.

For type 2 infant body mass index changes are more severe than type 1, but the peak hits the same age at both. The subsequent phase of the smaller body mass index continues for longer with type 2.

Changes in type 3 in the body mass index follow the type 1 formula. However, the changes are more irregular, and the peak and bottoms of the body mass index are not as clear as in other types.

In the study There was also a difference in the prevalence of type 2 profiles between 1966 and 1986 birth cohorts. In the younger age group, type 2 was more common than in the older one.

The difference may be explained by changes in the environment and society between generations. There may be differences between generations, including nutrition, availability of social security and primary care practices.

“The research shows that there are differences in our development in timing that should be better taken into account in the study of the childhood body mass index,” Heiskala says in a news release from the University of Oulu.

The study did not succeed in determining what affects which of these profiles the child’s body mass index development is followed by.

Research was published in the International Journal of Obesity.