Prof Patrick Holford is somewhat sensitive to remarks about himself, his qualifications and scientific rigour. It is the more remarkable given that his own Food for the Brain (FFTB) organisation has no qualms about labelling children as “stupid”. The press release for the recently released FFTB survey trumpeted (reproduced as is, errors are theirs):
BRITAIN’S BIGGEST EVER SURVEY OF OVER 10,000 CHILDREN REVEALS FOODS THAT MAKE CHILDRENSMART … OR STUPID
Outstanding sensitivity; thank goodness that they decided to perform a bodyswerve and avoid sensationalising their findings or adversely labelling some of the participants.
At some point, we may find the time to address this report that is:
- based on self-selected participants
- based on a questionnaire that (mostly) parents filled out about their children’s diet
- based (mostly) on parental reports of behaviour and school performance (with SAT scores for around 30% of the children)
- included respondents from a school that was involved in an FFTB project and other special measures (including reading schemes and other measures that were already improving SATS performance).
On a usability testing note, the questionnaire included unclearly worded questions and did not provide explanatory footnotes. E.g., whether I cook from scratch or cook for the freezer, it is not unusual for my preparations to start with frying an onion. You will understand that this is not deep-frying and I am not referring to cooking battered onion rings, tempura or pakora in recycled fat. Nonetheless, Q. 60 asks how many times a child “Eat(s) fried food, takeaway food or foods cooked in heated fat?” Is sweating down onions or other vegetables in olive oil prior to making a soup, casserole, dhal or pasta sauce really equivalent to (say) a deep-fried, battered fish or chips? Does a stir-fry or frittata count or not? If the way in which somebody cooked the food, or its quantity, is relevant, then the question needs to be expressed differently and with appropriate nuance.
It might be interesting to read the report and find out if there were any interesting correlations between the answers to (say) the questions about drug abuse or type of school (independent prep; state with/out selection etc.) and SAT scores or reports on behaviour. I have no idea what FFTB did with the information about marital status, household income, primary occupation of the breadwinner etc. but consideration of that can wait. After all, we have the more pressing issue of learning which foods “make children smart…or stupid”.
Except that we don’t. We have the results of a survey that shows some correlations but most people are familiar with the notion that correlation does not indicate causation. In the press release, we don’t have a definition of “stupid” so it is difficult to know how the report can definitively tell us about children who were made stupid by particular foods. Although, it may not be the food so much as the preparation of that food (e.g., deep-frying?). It is a little puzzling that the table is supposed to be a summary of results that:
shows the difference in overall health, behaviour and academic performance SAT scores between high and low consumers of different food groups.
As presented, the table doesn’t seem to present any explicit information about high and low consumers of different food groups. There do seem to be some interesting gaps or quirky results. E.g., fruit seems to be neutrally associated with SAT scores; dairy consumption (unspecified) seems to co-occur with good health, have no discernible links to behaviour or performance at school yet have a deleterious association with SAT scores.
Rather more disturbingly, the analysis of the results lead Holford to comment:
Children who eat good fats, from raw nuts, seeds and oily fish, double their chances of high academic performance. Children who eat damaged fats, in fried food and takeaways, are twice as badly behaved, as well as performing badly at school. In a sense these fats make your brain thicker, less responsive, and they appear to make children thicker too…
Failures in government initiatives to improve academic performance may be because we’re not putting money where our mouth is. This survey provides strong evidence that an optimal diet, with more vegetables, oily fish, nuts, seeds, fruit and wholefoods makes a big difference.
“Thicker”? Really? When was the last time you heard that expression used? Again, exquisite sensibility when discussing children and their academic performance. The more so when there is no information about what is meant by “stupid” or “thicker”. Do these terms relate to an objective measurement such as IQ or SAT scores? How was the bad behaviour quantified, so that we know how the assessment “twice as badly behaved” could be made?
I don’t know anybody who needs to be convinced of the value of a good, healthy way of eating for children. However, I don’t know of any evidence that indicates that the benefits of a special diet and supplements outweighs the value of small class sizes, good school facilities etc. for the general population of children.
I do wonder if Holford has any misgivings about appearing to so readily discount the advantages of his own education at Westminster School (according to a Lucy Mayhew piece). One might be interested in whether attending some schools such as Westminster rather than others (such as those in ‘special measures’) might, in itself, make “a big difference” or “double [children's] chance of high acacemic performance”.
Whatever the shortcomings of the press release, I have to admit that I find it distasteful to see such use of the words “stupid” and “thicker” when describing children and their performance. It is the more extraordinary when it is associated with someone who displays exquisite sensibilities in the matter when the subject is himself.
Update Jan 12 2008: it seems that FFTB noticed Holford Watch‘s objections to their insensitive and inappropriate language. Rather than refer you to an archived copy of the page, we have included a snapshot of the page at that time where you can read some of the text that we mention.
Update: Feb 6 2008. Holford Watch has carried out a multi-part analysis of the Food for the Brain Child Survey 2007. The quality of the report is even more lamentable than we had anticipated.
Further Reading
Food for the Brain Child Survey 2007: The Promotion
Holford Watch looks at the literature review:
Food for the Brain Child Survey 2007: Review Part 1
Food for the Brain Child Survey 2007: Review Part 2
Food for the Brain Child Survey 2007: Review Part 3
Food for the Brain Child Survey 2007: Review Part 4
Food for the Brain Child Survey 2007: Review Part 5
Holford Watch appeals for help to Professor Holford and two members of the Scientific Advisory Board who approved this report and then looks at the data and analyses:
Food for the Brain Child Survey 2007: Review Part 7
Hmm, think someone in the camp hasn’t been taking their own advice. I’ve cut and paste some of the press release headline here:
REVEALS FOODS THAT MAKE CHILDRENSMART
Childrensmart? That’s a word now?
I know, I’m childish. But when one is making press releases about intelligence, one should make sure that the headline (at the very least) is correct!
Indeed, Coracle.
It has been pointed out to me that the Holford CV/case for support for his professorship is riddled with spelling mistakes and grammatical solecisms. I, likewise, thought that it might be gratuitously unkind to comment on such slips even though one might expect better proof-reading for such an important document.
I might make a remark about age-appropriate tantrums and how to judge behaviour but I shall refrain for now.
The Brain Bio Centre page on dyslexia and dyspraxia contains this gem:
“A number of studies have proved the connection between high lead levels and low intelligence and in addition Copper is another toxic element that has been reported to be high in dyslexic children.”
A page on how to treat dyslexia – which rather implies that dyslexic people are of low(er) intelligence – and they rather mangle the sentence structure.
Remind me, how do you spell ‘irony’ ;)
Well, I would suggest an alternative spelling for irony, Jon, but perhaps I need to consult the vade mecum that Holford kindly provided to govern my interwebs use before I engage in any such activity.
I see dairy foods get ‘highly significant negative’ when it comes to SATs scores – which can influence a child’s chances of admission to secondary schools. Cue the pushy parents banning dairy from children’s diets. I wonder how my daughter managed to achieve all level 5s in her Year 6 SATs, despite her intake of dairy.? Worrying, considering a recent study on spinal BMC in young teenage girls who restricted dairy foods, in some cases due to perceived intolerance – http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/562475 . This Medscape report requires registration.
Yes, Claire. Unfortunately, some people might be tempted to ban dairy at a time when young people are in need of plenty of calcium for so many reasons.
I loathe the Sesame Street classification of this issue as ‘good’ and ‘bad’ foods.
Some of the writing in the post was quite contorted as I was trying to emphasise that this is a data dredge and the analysis can only show correlation rather than causation. Maybe the report proposes putative mechanisms of action as to why ‘bad’ fats make children “thicker” or why dairy has a +ve association with health but not SATS but I’m yet to be convinced on this point.
I have just viewed 2 clips of Holford on the GMTV website (you can browse and find them easily) Its just blatent advertising…You can see his bank balance increasing KERCHING…! Im all for healthier food in schools, and for children getting the most out of their schooling….but this whole supplement holford thing in schools is just wrong. Are the parents of the children in chineham going to feel obligated to buy supplements for their children? Do they really believe that their children will become smarter? It beggers belief. Yes you can improve your results in tests with practice and good teaching…but your intelligence..you get that in your genes its inate..and as long as you get the right start as an infant thats it. End of.
How can the food for the brain be a charity? when its website promotes supplements and holfords books? Hes just getting more advertising without paying tax…
Im sorry I have to leave another message! I have just read your disclaimer re: dont expect to get medical advice from a Blogg..yes quite right too… why does Holford on GMTV give out loads of advice??? He actually says that he needs to get “Autistics” when their young as when their in their 20 s he cant help them as much….hes really patronising.
Sorry Holford maybe Im thick and my kids are thick….maybe I dont care…Also I really love cheese….yum…and my kids hate fish.
James, it does seem as if Holford has a smart and capable business team to support his developing network of books, supplements, workshops, TV appearances etc.
I really don’t know whether there is any provision for continuing to fund supplements for the children in the studies now that the ‘experimental’ period is over. Depending on your children and their age, providing supplements for all of them might be quite costly, especially when you might just spend that money on foodstuffs.
Pingback: Patrick Holford and the ASA: Advertising Must Be Legal, Decent, Honest and Truthful « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science
Just a comment on the dairy thing. Im not sure of the occupation of Shinga, but do you really not see the cons of consuming dairy products. There are much healthier ways to consume calcium. We are the only adult species to eat dairy
There are low levels of magnesium, it is so mucus forming. Lots of studies show that it increases risk of diabetes. There are problems with allergies and eczma etc.
Have you all really fallen for the calcium arguement, oh no!!
Dunc, milk isn’t mucus-forming (at least, not in the sense in which people usually mean). Instead:
We’re already discussed this here. Of course some people need to avoid dairy – due to allergy, intolerance etc. – but that doesn’t mean that everyone should. And yes, dairy can be a valuable source of calcium – and tasty :)
So much better ways to get calcium! What about the cal/mag ratio which is so important. What about the high levels of antibiotics and hormones in milk. Dairy is just not a food group that promotes health. The dairy industry is extremely powerful.
Lets look at the fact that no other species on the planet consume milk into adulthood. This has to tell you something.
Dunc- that’s good, so you agree now that milk isn’t mucus-forming in healthy subjects?
Lets look at the fact that no other species on the planet consume milk into adulthood. This has to tell you something.
Absolutely – we’re the only species on that planet that has developed a system for farming dairy animals.
By the way, we’re also the only species on the planet to take vitamin supplement pills. Does this tell you something? ;)
Most cats seem to be partial to cheese. Presumably some other creatures are when given the opportunity to sample it.
Supplements can have tremendous impact on health, in a world that puts us under a huge amount of stress and gives us food with dramatically declined micronutreints.
dunc, we evolved while consuming our micronutrients in whole foods – rather than in pill form. It appears that the different constituents of foods such as fruit and veg work together synergistically in our bodies: e.g. while a diet rich in beta carotene is a good thing, supplementing it may actually increase mortality.
Yes im fully aware of that, i am afood man through and through, but that cannot take awy the fact that supplements have there place. I have been studying for many years. Antioxiadnts need to be taken in synergy with others if supplemented. Hey i was reading on another page concerning holfords book, nutrition for the mind. It was claiming he says that we should cut out all sugars. This is incorrect, what he is saying is cut out fast releasing sugars. It is so important to get sugar from long chain slow releasing sugars, to prevent glucose imbalance. What do you think. It seems like you lot are criticising his works unjustly sometimes. I think holford is definatly a business man, but hes certainly pretty clued up as well.
are you aware of Robert o young and his works, what do you think.
Lee T That is a very poor arguement, but out unless youve got it goin on buddy!