Unbelievably bad reporting on top of weak studies. From the article:
"...showed that young men who smoked just before puberty produced sons who were more likely to be overweight, beginning in adolescence."
So I looked at the study. They "found" that fathers who began smoking at very young age produced sons (but not daughters) with a higher BMI at age 9 (but not at 7). Note the fine distinctions, all from a sample size of just 330 such fathers. This reeks of a Munchhausen Grid.
But it gets better: the difference is between a BMI of 17.23 and one of 18.15. What an enormous difference! And both values are considered underweight.
So, guys, better start smoking before you're ten years old, or you risk siring underweight sons!
Normal BMI values are for adults. Child BMI differs somewhat sharply depending on age and gender.
This [1] is a tool from the CDC for measuring the BMI of children. For instance a 9 year old with a BMI of 22.5 (in the middle of the normal range for an adult) would be considered obese. A BMI of 17.6 (very underweight for an adult) would mean they're more overweight than 70% of other children their age, but it's still considered a healthy weight - just on the high side. By contrast dropping down just 1 BMI point (to 16.6) puts the child at the 55th percentile, meaning it's a perfectly average weight.
"...showed that young men who smoked just before puberty produced sons who were more likely to be overweight, beginning in adolescence."
So I looked at the study. They "found" that fathers who began smoking at very young age produced sons (but not daughters) with a higher BMI at age 9 (but not at 7). Note the fine distinctions, all from a sample size of just 330 such fathers. This reeks of a Munchhausen Grid.
But it gets better: the difference is between a BMI of 17.23 and one of 18.15. What an enormous difference! And both values are considered underweight.
So, guys, better start smoking before you're ten years old, or you risk siring underweight sons!