21 replies to this topic

[doug123]

Link to source

Extreme Obesity in Tots Tied to Low IQ

Difference of 25-30 Points Seen in IQs of Those Very Obese by Age 4 By Miranda Hitti

WebMD Medical News Reviewed By Louise Chang, MD

on Thursday, August 31, 2006

Aug. 31, 2006 -- Children who are very obese by age 4 may be more likely to have lower IQ scores, a new study shows.

The findings are preliminary, but, "It just raises a red flag," Daniel J. Driscoll, MD, PhD, tells WebMD.

Driscoll is a professor of pediatrics and the John T. and Winifred M. Hayward professor of genetics research at the University of Florida.

He notes "a sense of urgency to really address the obesityobesity problem -- the younger the better.

"It's right to worry about heart diseaseheart disease in 20-30 years, or hypertensionhypertension in 20 years, and diabetesdiabetes in 10 years," Driscoll says. "But there could be consequences now," he says.

Morbidly Obese by Age 4

The study by Driscoll and colleagues appears in The Journal of Pediatrics' August edition.

Driscoll's team studied 18 people who had been morbidly obese by age 4. That means they were more than 150% of the ideal weight for their height.

"We're not talking about a little baby fat," Driscoll says. "We're talking about a very select group."

At the time of the study, participants were 4-22 years old (average age: nearly 11). First, they were screened to make sure their early obesity wasn't due to known genetic disorders.

Next, they got their IQ and cognitive skills tested.

For comparison, 24 of their brothers and sisters who hadn't been obese at an early age were also studied. So were 19 children with Prader-Willi syndrome from other families.

Prader-Willi syndrome is "the most commonly-recognized genetic cause of childhood obesity" and is linked to mental retardation, the researchers write.

IQ Gap

The children with Prader-Willi syndrome and those who had been morbidly obese for unknown reasons by age 4 had the lowest test scores.

Average IQ scores were as follows:

Prader-Willi syndrome: 63
Early morbid obesityobesity with unknown cause: 77
No early morbid obesity: 106
The lower scores are "not in the mentally retarded range but it's cognitively impaired, getting borderline" Driscoll says.

The gap between the morbidly obese children and those of more normal weight was about 25-30 points, Driscoll says, adding that IQ scores varied.

White Spots on Brain

Most participants also got brain scans using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

Those who were at least 11 years old and had been morbidly obese by age 4 tended to have spots seen by MRI in different parts of their brains. But their siblings didn't.

Those spots seen on the MRIs aren't fully understood. But they're "not a good thing," Driscoll says.

"We're trying to further investigate that with other techniques," he says.

Similar spots were also seen in the brain scans of Prader-Willi patients who were older than 18.

First Years of Life Crucial

"We're really not talking about older children, someone who gets obese at 12, or 23, or in their 40s or 50s," Driscoll says.

"I mean, there are some really brilliant people" who are obese, he notes. "But that's much different. Their brains are much more fully developed [by the time they become obese]."

The first few years of life are a critical time for brain development.

Very young children "are full of potential, but their brains are very vulnerable," Driscoll says. "We need to be more diligent now."

He and his colleagues aren't sure exactly how extreme obesity at an early age and IQ may be related.

Some children might have an unknown genetic tendency to become obese, Driscoll notes.

Hormonal and metabolic abnormalities linked to obesity might affect the developing brain, but, "We need to do more investigation," says Driscoll.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SOURCES: Miller, J. The Journal of Pediatrics, August 2006; vol 149: pp 192-198. Daniel J. Driscoll, MD, PhD, professor of pediatrics, and John T. and Winifred M. Hayward professor of genetics research, University of Florida. News release, University of Florida.

[jaydfox]

Wow, that's incredible. I wouldn't have been surprised at a small deficiency, but this large of a deficiency (more than a standard deviation) is huge. Imagine having two parent's with 140 IQs, expecting to have a bright young child of their own, and the child ends up "average" because of childhood obesity. A lot of talent could be lost in the next generation, given how prevalant childhood obesity is becoming. I'm not so concerned about raising a generation of cognitively-impaired, "borderline" mentally retarded people. I'm worried about raising a generation with a potential shortage of geniuses.

[the_eternal]

It's almost 2 standard deviations, depending on the tests they used. Either way, an extremely unpleasant problem.

[jaydfox]

I haven't really followed IQ tests since I was a child (I tested moderately high myself, but not at "super genius" level, so nobody need worship me at this time). What is the typical standard deviation? I've always used 15 or 20, but I don't know what the actual number is.

[Matt]

Last night there was something called "test the nation" on BBC TVhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/testthenation/

I took the test but was interrupted at and was really tired when doing the test (done the test around 9pm and been up since early in the morning). Can these affect IQ scores significantly???

Lets say it was just VERY average... and unexpected, I hope that lack of sleep does really affect IQ scores a lot :S

Edited by Matt, 03 September 2006 - 10:47 AM.

[the_eternal]

I can't find the page I had on it, but most tend to be around 15, and they usually go higher rather than lower, but as I said, it really depends on the tests, although most American ones are normalised to 15.

Personally I've never had my IQ tested, I what I'm smart enough to do, putting a number to it seems superfluous (plus I wouldn't wanna see that I wasn't actually as smart as I think I am, that'd be depressing).

Matt, I wouldn't worry about that test, for IQ to tests to be effective they have to be administered in "exam" conditions or by a psychologist and as far as I know, anything that would make you "feel dumber" eg. fatigue, drugs etc have a significant effect on IQ.

[Matt]

This IQ test was 70 questions, timed, and some of the pictures were just WAY too small to see details on my monitor which I know I would have had the logic to re-order them if the pictures were a bit bigger. I ended up with an IQ of 115 anyway...
(score 48/70).

Over 100,000 people took part in this and vegetarians were the smartest with 113, meat eaters 105
http://www.bbc.co.uk...lts/index.shtml

Anyone here from the UK? If you are try it! and let us know what you get...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/testthenation/iq/

good luck!

[Matt]

I went over my friends and did the test and got 124. As I said early, I needed a BIGGER and more clear picture to see the pictures (which I believe mostly failed me because of my blurry crap monitors). I also never researched the answers before I did the test again, I didn't have a clue which ones I did correct or not the first time.

Whether or not this is valid I don't know, but thats the honest truth, my screen was just too old to see the details on the pictures properly. My main improvement after looking at my results were, as I thought, on the picture section.[B]

I know that im not average intellignece... I should have just waited until the conditions were right lol... Or pay for a proper IQ test.

[Shepard]

Dude, don't fret so much about your IQ. In the grand scheme of things, it isn't very important.

[Matt]

oki

hopefully I do well on UKCAT next year! http://www.ukcat.ac.uk/home/

[Ghostrider]

Matt, easy there, you don't have to rationalize the damn thing. Also, being nervous can really affect your IQ score and yes lack of sleep drops IQ. Most of these tests are pretty pointless. When I was younger I used to take a few of those IQ tests (scores ranged from 130-165, that's a pretty wide spread :-). The most accurate IQ test I have ever taken based the score on how long it took the user to quit the test. The questions started repeating after about the first 40 and the longer you took the test, the lower your score became. Those who aborted immediately received the highest score. That test was probably the most accurate of online IQ tests.

[Ghostrider]

I looked at that test (for about 3 minutes). It's not an IQ test. A true IQ test is not knowledge-based and focuses on problem solving.

[Shepard]

The most accurate IQ test I have ever taken based the score on how long it took the user to quit the test.  The questions started repeating after about the first 40 and the longer you took the test, the lower your score became.  Those who aborted immediately received the highest score.  That test was probably the most accurate of online IQ tests.

Yeah, wasn't that on some joke site?

[Anne]

I definitely think there is such thing as "intelligence", but I'm suspicious of the concept of IQ. It seems to only be useful (the concept) from a large-scale, statistical standpoint. As far as individuals go, I know of people who have tested with IQs between 24 and 80 who can write very well and who most definitely possess high complex reasoning ability judging from how they write. I don't think Internet-based IQ tests are anything more than aggrandized puzzle games, though I suppose the same could be said of any IQ test.

I've been tested twice, officially: once at age 4 and once at age 20. The first test was done according to the Weschler Intelligence Scale for Children, while the second was done according to the Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale. These tests consist of a number of subtests grouped into Verbal and Performance subsections. A comprehensive IQ report as provided by the output of a professionally-administered test will include not only the "full scale" IQ, but also the sub-scores for the various subtests and a Verbal and Performance sub-score. In most individuals, there tends to be a bias toward either Verbal or Performance in terms of where their strengths lie, and further picking-apart of the results reveals more specific areas of strength and weakness.

My scores were "all over the place", so to speak. Scores on individual subtests ranged from the Superior range to the "borderline" range (as in, borderline retarded). I'm not ashamed to admit any of this. I don't think it matters all that much. The test I performed most poorly on was one in which the objective was to put pictures in order so as to make them describe a comic social interlude appropriately.

To me, the pictures all looked very random, and I'd argue that in order to score well on this subtest, a person would necessarily have to be highly attuned to picking up social information and context from his / her environment. Though this could certainly be construed as one facet of intelligence, it certainly isn't anything I'm going to stay up crying over. So what if I'm gossip-impaired? I'd much rather have higher abilities in other areas anyway. (I kicked ass in Block Design, which indicated good spatial ability and embedded-figure discernment.)

And this of course has nothing to do with obesity, but I have a bit of a fascination with intelligence and testing. I think that a lot of presently-existing intelligence tests are little better than astrology in terms of scientific veracity, but I do hold out some optimism that intelligence might be better quantified at some date in the future and that more objective means of measurement could be established.

[doug123]

I definitely think there is such thing as "intelligence", but I'm suspicious of the concept of IQ.  It seems to only be useful (the concept) from a large-scale, statistical standpoint.  As far as individuals go, I know of people who have tested with IQs between 24 and 80 who can write very well and who most definitely possess high complex reasoning ability judging from how they write.  I don't think Internet-based IQ tests are anything more than aggrandized puzzle games, though I suppose the same could be said of any IQ test.

Current IQ tests are very poor measures of intelligence. What is most important to success of anyone, in the REAL WORLD is something called emotional intelligence.

Most (I'd say over 90%) of the REALLY successful individuals I know either went to second or third tier colleges or straight up didn't even finish college. The same goes with many highly successful MDs and PhDs I know (except they obviously finished their schooling). It's just that 90% of colleges and medical schools aren't considered "first tier."

I'd say some of the best discussions at ImmInst on the merits of intelligence, what is and what isn't measured is covered in the topics Best Supplement for creativity and Do brain enhancers work? I'm still waiting for Olli (opales) to further explicate his view how IQ (which kinds do you mean, Olli?) is ovevalued over what he calls "social cognition."

I posted part of this discussion below for a taste:

I posted a thread a while ago, A Dose Of Genius: 'Smart Pills' Are on The Rise. But Is Taking Them Wise? By Joel Garreau; Washington Post Staff Writer; Sunday, June 11, 2006 and it has comments on the issue of measuring IQ with outdated/useless methods that are very valid:

http://nootropics.ip...p?showtopic=747

Nonetheless, pharmaceutical companies are racing to bring to market new drugs aimed at fundamentally altering our attitudes toward having a healthy brain. The idea is less to treat a specific disease than it is to, in the words of the old Army recruiting commercial, "Be all that you can be."

Of Mice and Men

Is this what smart has come to in the early 21st century? Is Ken Jennings, the "Jeopardy" phenom, our model of smart? Do SATs and grade-point averages measure all of what it means to be intelligent? If so, these drugs have a potent future. But definitions of intelligence may change -- already, some colleges have stopped requiring SAT scores from applicants.

Howard Gardner of Harvard is the godfather of the idea that smart is more than what IQ tests test. In his seminal 1983 book, "Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences," and later works, he laid out a then-novel model of cognition that included many other kinds of sagacity.

"I feel that what we call 'intelligence' is almost always 'scholastic skill' -- what it takes to do well on a certain kind of short-answer instrument in a certain kind of Western school," he writes in an e-mail. "Other uses of intellect -- musical competence, facility in the use of one's hands, understanding of other people, sensitivity to distinctions in the natural world, alertness to one's own and others' emotional states etc. -- are not included in our definitions of intelligence, though I think that they should be. Unless performances in these other domains were directly tapped, we'd have no idea of whether 'performance enhancing pills' affect these other forms of intelligence as well."

Eric R. Kandel is shocked by the idea that powerful elixirs like the ones he is developing might rapidly trickle down to am

Edited by nootropikamil, 16 September 2006 - 08:39 AM.

[Mind]

Its not how smart you are but what you do with your "smarts" that matters.

[opales]

I'll just make a quick comment:

While I do not perceive IQ as even near perfect proxy of "intelligence", as which it is sometimes portrayed especially in the American discourse ("Jack is smarter than John because Jack's IQ is 132 and John's only 130"), I was perhaps misinterpreted earlier on as being some sort of extreme IQ skeptic, which I am not. In fact, I do believe IQ has high predictive value of variety of achievements (more than any other measure I think, including "emotional intelligence"), especially in the few deviation ranges around the mean. But even then there are many other skills, of which I think "social cognition" being the most important one, that affect whatever it is that you want to use as a measure of achievement, be it intellectual or finacial or social. But make no mistake, IQ and social skills correlate to some extent, so in fact I think some of IQ's predictive value is mediated via social cognition.

Anyway, I think there was a recent discussion in SL4 about intelligence which I think pretty much covered my views of what constitutes what I see as "intelligence"(intelligence=problem solving ability), for example Ben Goertzel's views are something I pretty much agree with:

http://sl4.org/archive/0608/15678.html

Someone with 120+ IQ but a relatively weak ability for rapid logical
problem-solving, may not score 160+ on the IQ test, but may excel
intellectually via a combination of quick, broad-minded creativity
plus a strong ability for SLOW logical problem-solving (something that
does not show up on an IQ test). There is a lot of diversity among
peoples' cognitive mechanisms.

I have a very high IQ (based on childhood, psychologist-administered
tests) and went to a couple meetings of a high-IQ society once, many
years ago. That experience was enough to convince me that high IQ is
not any kind of guarantee of having really powerfully useful cognitive
habits and abilities. Being clever at solving logic puzzles fast does
NOT mean you have the right cognitive machinery for solving really
hard intellectual problems.

Of course IQ matters but I still think that, once one has a
sufficiently high IQ, there are things that matter more for real
achievement. I will agree that the emotional intelligence mantra has
been used to justify some amount of BS, but the fact remains that how
you handle people matters more than how you handle symbols on a piece
of paper.
The real world is *complex* and one has to deal with complexity. I
trust you will agree that a person is more complex than triangles and
circles.
Sorry to put it in these blunt terms but I used to be one of those
high IQ kids who would have happily traded a few IQ points for some
more people skills. I did learn some people skills along the way, but
there are people who handle "emotional intelligence" issues naturally.
These tend to be the real achievers, of course if they *also* have a
sufficiently high IQ.

Note that I still think that social cognition is distinct from the intelligence as problem solving ability discussed above, although they probably correlate even quite substantially. In addition, real life achievement requires variety of other skills such as persistance, energy, good looks (yes it matters), luck etc.

If I had to put some heuristic on for example monetary achievement I'd say it is (on average of course, the specific situation demands a specific skill set)

20% pure non-intelligence mediated social cognition (which would perhaps best be described as empathy+having the right social strategies and knowledge)
20% intelligence (=problem solving, covering the part of social skills that call for problem solving)
30% some other abilities (persistance, motivation, optimistic attitude, appearance etc.)
30% pure randomness (having right skills at the right time and place plus some pure luck)

On intellectual achievement (on average of course, the specific situation demands a specific skill set):
50% intelligence (=problem solving, covering the part of social skills that call for problem solving)
20% pure non-intelligence mediated social cognition (which would perhaps best be described as empathy+having the right social strategies)
15% some other abilities (persistance, motivation, optimistic attitude, appearance etc.)
15% pure randomness (having right skills at the right time and place plus some pure luck)

Obviously this is not fully consicise presentation or system of thought here, but perhaps on some level captures my heuristics on these matters. I would be happy if someone could point some faulty beliefs that I might have to correct?

[opales]

FYI, my emphasis on social cognition stems from my own observations plus research on social networks, which are emerging as more powerful explanatory paradigms as opposed to attributes of individuals (that reside in a network). Emphasizing social cognition really tries to draw a connection between the power of a network to the level at which individuals can direct their own destiny via the network.

http://en.wikipedia....cial_networking

The power of social network theory stems from its difference from traditional sociological studies, which assume that it is the attributes of individual actors -- whether they are friendly or unfriendly, smart or dumb, etc. -- that matter. Social network theory produces an alternate view, where the attributes of individuals are less important than their relationships and ties with other actors within the network. This approach has turned out to be useful for explaining many real-world phenomena, but leaves less room for individual agency, the ability for individuals to influence their success, so much of it rests within the structure of their network.

[Anne]

It's also important to remember that there are different types of social cognition. There's:

1. Analytical social cognition (which might be thought of as a sort of anthropological skill in observing and interpreting the behavior of others and performing ethical analyses)

2. More spontaneous social cognition (things like being able to quickly process and make a judgement of a facial expression, or quickly figure out that someone is uncomfortable and know what it would take to make them more comfortable).

I would wager that the second sort of social cognition / skill is only useful inasmuch as a person continues to surround themselves with people who are already a lot like themselves, culturally and even morphologically to a certain extent. I've encountered a few people who are supposedly highly charismatic, and who are rated by their peers as being very socially skilled, but who constantly and consistently misinterpret MY signals. (And the signals of others who I'd classify as more like me)

This very clearly points to a severe limitation in the faculties of the socially "skilled" at dealing with people who are significantly different from how they are. I think that a lot of what passes for good social cognition (in the general sense) is really an example of sharing a fairly narrow set of cultural and interpersonal assumptions with the majority of people in their environment.

That is, people assume that everyone around them is probably thinking like they are and sending / receiving signals similar to their own, and if their "type" or culture is the majority, this assumption works expediently much of the time. This can certainly allow the person to climb the figurative social ladder in a certain grouping of individuals, but it doesn't guarantee success, by anyone's definition, in any other grouping.

As for the IQ issue specifically, I think Ben Goertzel is right: being good at logic puzzles doesn't necessarily mean someone is facile at other types of intellectual challenges. The thing about tests is that they break things down into very tiny pieces, which means that the person being tested doesn't have to keep track of very many simultaneous variables and dependencies.

Hard intellectual labor -- such as that required for inventing things or developing new complex technologies -- requires a person to be able to build up an entire mental "space" for a particular project, much larger than the space required to solve a logic puzzle on an IQ test. Hard intellectual labor also requires stamina and focus; someone who can solve twelve compartmentalized logic puzzles may still not have the sort of mind it takes to devote him/herself to the rigors of following a complicated endeavor through from start to finish. Participating in a project or attempt at invention can literally last for years, and I'd almost say that people with greater stamina and focus have the highest advantage of all. And I don't know of any traditional IQ test that actually tests for intellectual stamina.

[doug123]

Read this article to get a better understanding of EQ.

[quote name='http://www.eiconsortium.org/research/what_is_emotional_intelligence.htm']Contemporary Interest in the Topic

When Salovey and Mayer coined the term emotional intelligence in 1990, they were aware of the previous work on non-cognitive aspects of intelligence. They described emotional intelligence as "a form of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them, and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and action".

Salovey and Mayer also initiated a research program intended to develop valid measures of emotional intelligence and to explore its significance. For instance, they found in one study that when a group of people saw an upsetting film, those who scored high on emotional clarity (which is the ability to identify and give a name to a mood that is being experienced) recovered more quickly. In another study, individuals who scored higher in the ability to perceive accurately, understand, and appraise others’ emotions were better able to respond flexibly to changes in their social environments and build supportive social networks.

In the early 1990’s Daniel Goleman became aware of Salovey and Mayer’s work, and this eventually led to his book, Emotional Intelligence. Goleman was a science writer for the New York Times, whose beat was brain and behavior research. He had been trained as a psychologist at Harvard where he worked with David McClelland, among others. McClelland was among a growing group of researchers who were becoming concerned with how little traditional tests of cognitive intelligence told us about what it takes to be successful in life.

IQ by itself is not a very good predictor of job performance. Hunter and Hunter estimated that at best IQ accounts for about 25 percent of the variance. Sternberg has pointed out that studies vary and that 10 percent may be a more realistic estimate. In some studies, IQ accounts for as little as 4 percent of the variance.

An example of this research on the limits of IQ as a predictor is the Sommerville study, a 40 year longitudinal investigation of 450 boys who grew up in Sommerville, Massachusetts. Two-thirds of the boys were from welfare families, and one-third had IQ’s below 90. However, IQ had little relation to how well they did at work or in the rest of their lives. What made the biggest difference was childhood abilities such as being able to handle frustration, control emotions, and get along with other people.

Another good example is a study of 80 Ph.D.’s in science who underwent a battery of personality tests, IQ tests, and interviews in the 1950s when they were graduate students at Berkeley. Forty years later, when they were in their early seventies, they were tracked down and estimates were made of their success based on resumes, evaluations by experts in their own fields, and sources like American Men and Women of Science. It turned out that social and emotional abilities were four times more important than IQ in determining professional success and prestige.

Now it would be absurd to suggest that cognitive ability is irrelevant for success in science. One needs a relatively high level of such ability merely to get admitted to a graduate science program at a school like Berkeley. Once you are admitted, however, what matters in terms of how you do compared to your peers has less to do with IQ differences and more to do with social and emotional factors. To put it another way, if you’re a scientist, you probably needed an IQ of 120 or so simply to get a doctorate and a job. But then it is more important to be able to persist in the face of difficulty and to get along well with colleagues and subordinates than it is to have an extra 10 or 15 points of IQ. The same is true in many other occupations.

We also should keep in mind that cognitive and non-cognitive abilities are very much related. In fact, there is research suggesting that emotional and social skills actually help improve cognitive functioning. For instance, in the famous "marshmallow studies" at Stanford University, four year olds were asked to stay in a room alone with a marshmallow and wait for a researcher to return. They were told that if they could wait until the researcher came back before eating the marshmallow, they could have two. Ten years later the researchers tracked down the kids who participated in the study. They found that the kids who were able to resist temptation had a total SAT score that was 210 points higher than those kids who were unable to wait.[/quote]

[roof01]

people with greater stamina and focus have the highest advantage of all

I think intellectual stamina is to a certain degree a skill in itself, but it also depends on the effort you have to invest to solve problems. That means, if it's easy for you, you experience less frustration and maybe even the opposite of it.

Sidenote: why is there only a relative IQ scale? I don't like zero sum games.

[Brainbox]

Apart from the general discussion on intelligence and IQ, I wonder regarding the original post, what determines the diet of an infant.

- Social circumstances, e.g. the (in)correct upbringing of children by parents, the level of intelligence of the parents so to speak.
- The genotype intelligence (not IQ) of the child itself.

I think it's the first. So this means that it's very plausible that development of children could be severely impaired due to the ignorance of parents. I'm not aware of the broader statistical background of this research, but I would not be surprised if the social / environmental circumstances do determine more than 50% of the development of these children.

A very nasty issue indeed.