Eating disorder symptoms in teens can be traced back to family hardship, new study shows
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Eating disorders can affect anybody, no matter their age, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status or body size. Yet the myth that eating disorders are “diseases of affluence” persists, and can mean those from wealthier backgrounds are more likely to receive a diagnosis and be able to access treatment.
In fact, people who experience socioeconomic disadvantage may be more at risk of developing eating disorder symptoms, such as excessive dieting, fasting or binge eating.
A new study from the United Kingdom followed 7,824 children, roughly half male and half female, from birth to 18 years. It found those born into financial hardship were more likely than others to later experience eating disorder symptoms as teens.
This means the stereotype that eating disorders only affect the rich is simply not true. And it shows we need to better understand the risk for children from lower-income families, so we can recognise and treat their symptoms earlier.
What the study looked at
Previous research has shown eating disorders can affect people from all socioeconomic backgrounds, not just those with higher economic status. But this new study is one of the first to show deprivation in childhood could be a risk factor for eating disorder symptoms in adolescence.
This new large, long-term study collected data from thousands of people over an 18-year period to investigate the impact of social and financial hardship.
Researchers looked at parents’ education, job type and where they lived. They also examined income, which was split into five groups from low to high. These were more aspects of social studies than previous research had considered.
To assess financial hardship, mothers rated how much they struggled to afford daily expenses such as food, heating, clothing, rent and baby items. They used a scale from 0-15, with higher scores indicating greater hardship.
When the children grew up to be teenagers, researchers assessed eating disorder symptoms in all the young people across the study.
Patterns of disordered eating included excessive dieting, binge eating, vomiting or using laxatives to get rid of food, and fasting. The teens were also asked how they felt about their bodies – for example, how satisfied they were with their appearance, weight and shape.
What the study found
Eating disorder symptoms were higher in young people aged 14–18 whose parents had suffered greater financial hardship when they were babies. For patterns of disordered eating, this meant a 6% higher likelihood for every one point increase between 0 and 15 on the financial-hardship scale.
The study also found teens whose parents completed less formal education (meaning only compulsory schooling) were 80% more likely to experience disordered eating patterns than those whose parents went to university. For teens with parents in the lowest fifth and fourth income band, the risk was 34–35% higher than those in the top band of income.
These results are different to other studies on eating disorders, because they show people from low socioeconomic backgrounds have a higher chance of developing eating disorder symptoms.
The researchers suggest this difference may be because other studies only included participants with a diagnosis or who have sought help. Research has shown those experiencing financial hardship are less likely to be formally diagnosed or access treatment.
While this study is impressive in its size and results, it has a few limitations. Only around half the participants (55.9%) completed the full study, which may have affected the results.
Among those who did complete the study, some of their data was missing. This may also have influenced the findings.
The study also did not measure whether young people had a diagnosed eating disorder – only whether they had symptoms.
So, it may have captured a wider range of eating disorder experiences, including from those who wouldn’t seek formal support. But it means more research is needed to understand the link between socioeconomic status and formal diagnosis.
What does this mean?
People who are born into financial hardship may be more likely to struggle with disordered eating and body image issues in their teenage years than those who are not.
This not only debunks the stereotype that eating disorders occur only in people from affluent backgrounds, it shows disadvantage can be a risk factor.
The study sheds light on the inequalities and barriers in recognising and treating eating disorders.
Rates of people seeking help for an eating disorder are already low – and even lower among people from disadvantaged backgrounds.
The researchers suggested this could be because people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds may also believe eating disorders mainly affect people from wealthier backgrounds.
Another reason may be that lower income is linked to higher rates of obesity and being overweight, and this might limit referrals for eating disorder symptoms.
Eating disorders not associated with thinness, such as bulimia and binge eating disorder, are often less visible and go undetected.
Better education about eating disorders – in schools and for families and health-care professionals – may help us recognise and treat them earlier.
But treatment also needs to be more affordable. In Australia, people can access eating disorder treatment sessions under Medicare, but this typically still involves a gap fee which can be up to A$100 or more, depending on the service. More no- or low-cost services are needed to reach everyone who needs them.
If you have a history of an eating disorder or suspect you may have one, you can contact the Butterfly Foundation’s national helpline on 1800 334 673 (or via their online chat).
Catherine Houlihan, Senior Lecturer in Clinical Psychology, University of the Sunshine Coast and Kathina Ali, Senior Lecturer in Clinical Psychology, University of the Sunshine Coast
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
How much weight do you actually need to lose? It might be a lot less than you think
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
If you’re one of the one in three Australians whose New Year’s resolution involved losing weight, it’s likely you’re now contemplating what weight-loss goal you should actually be working towards.
But type “setting a weight loss goal” into any online search engine and you’ll likely be left with more questions than answers.
Sure, the many weight-loss apps and calculators available will make setting this goal seem easy. They’ll typically use a body mass index (BMI) calculator to confirm a “healthy” weight and provide a goal weight based on this range.
Your screen will fill with trim-looking influencers touting diets that will help you drop ten kilos in a month, or ads for diets, pills and exercise regimens promising to help you effortlessly and rapidly lose weight.
Most sales pitches will suggest you need to lose substantial amounts of weight to be healthy – making weight loss seem an impossible task. But the research shows you don’t need to lose a lot of weight to achieve health benefits.
Using BMI to define our target weight is flawed
We’re a society fixated on numbers. So it’s no surprise we use measurements and equations to score our weight. The most popular is BMI, a measure of our body weight-to-height ratio.
BMI classifies bodies as underweight, normal (healthy) weight, overweight or obese and can be a useful tool for weight and health screening.
But it shouldn’t be used as the single measure of what it means to be a healthy weight when we set our weight-loss goals. This is because it:
- fails to consider two critical factors related to body weight and health – body fat percentage and distribution
- does not account for significant differences in body composition based on gender, ethnicity and age.
How does losing weight benefit our health?
Losing just 5–10% of our body weight – between 6 and 12kg for someone weighing 120kg – can significantly improve our health in four key ways.
1. Reducing cholesterol
Obesity increases the chances of having too much low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol – also known as bad cholesterol – because carrying excess weight changes how our bodies produce and manage lipoproteins and triglycerides, another fat molecule we use for energy.
Having too much bad cholesterol and high triglyceride levels is not good, narrowing our arteries and limiting blood flow, which increases the risk of heart disease, heart attack and stroke.
But research shows improvements in total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and triglyceride levels are evident with just 5% weight loss.
2. Lowering blood pressure
Our blood pressure is considered high if it reads more than 140/90 on at least two occasions.
Excess weight is linked to high blood pressure in several ways, including changing how our sympathetic nervous system, blood vessels and hormones regulate our blood pressure.
Essentially, high blood pressure makes our heart and blood vessels work harder and less efficiently, damaging our arteries over time and increasing our risk of heart disease, heart attack and stroke.
Losing weight can lower your blood pressure.
Prostock-studio/ShutterstockLike the improvements in cholesterol, a 5% weight loss improves both systolic blood pressure (the first number in the reading) and diastolic blood pressure (the second number).
A meta-analysis of 25 trials on the influence of weight reduction on blood pressure also found every kilo of weight loss improved blood pressure by one point.
3. Reducing risk for type 2 diabetes
Excess body weight is the primary manageable risk factor for type 2 diabetes, particularly for people carrying a lot of visceral fat around the abdomen (belly fat).
Carrying this excess weight can cause fat cells to release pro-inflammatory chemicals that disrupt how our bodies regulate and use the insulin produced by our pancreas, leading to high blood sugar levels.
Type 2 diabetes can lead to serious medical conditions if it’s not carefully managed, including damaging our heart, blood vessels, major organs, eyes and nervous system.
Research shows just 7% weight loss reduces risk of developing type 2 diabetes by 58%.
4. Reducing joint pain and the risk of osteoarthritis
Carrying excess weight can cause our joints to become inflamed and damaged, making us more prone to osteoarthritis.
Observational studies show being overweight doubles a person’s risk of developing osteoarthritis, while obesity increases the risk fourfold.
Small amounts of weight loss alleviate this stress on our joints. In one study each kilogram of weight loss resulted in a fourfold decrease in the load exerted on the knee in each step taken during daily activities.
Losing weight eases stress on joints.
Shutterstock/Rostislav_SedlacekFocus on long-term habits
If you’ve ever tried to lose weight but found the kilos return almost as quickly as they left, you’re not alone.
An analysis of 29 long-term weight-loss studies found participants regained more than half of the weight lost within two years. Within five years, they regained more than 80%.
When we lose weight, we take our body out of its comfort zone and trigger its survival response. It then counteracts weight loss, triggering several physiological responses to defend our body weight and “survive” starvation.
Just as the problem is evolutionary, the solution is evolutionary too. Successfully losing weight long-term comes down to:
losing weight in small manageable chunks you can sustain, specifically periods of weight loss, followed by periods of weight maintenance, and so on, until you achieve your goal weight
making gradual changes to your lifestyle to ensure you form habits that last a lifetime.
Setting a goal to reach a healthy weight can feel daunting. But it doesn’t have to be a pre-defined weight according to a “healthy” BMI range. Losing 5–10% of our body weight will result in immediate health benefits.
At the Boden Group, Charles Perkins Centre, we are studying the science of obesity and running clinical trials for weight loss. You can register here to express your interest.
Nick Fuller, Charles Perkins Centre Research Program Leader, University of Sydney
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
-
Cantaloupe vs Lychees – Which is Healthier?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Our Verdict
When comparing cantaloupe to lychees, we picked the cantaloupe.
Why?
Both have their merits and it was close!
In terms of macros, there’s no meaningful difference except that lychees have more carbs, so that could swing this any which way depending on how you feel about that. There’s enough fiber in both that it’s a non-issue metabolically though, so we call this round a tie.
In the category of vitamins, cantaloupe has more of vitamins A, B1, B3, B5, B7, B9, and K, while lychees have more of vitamins B2, B6, C, and E; a 7:4 win for cantaloupe.
Looking at minerals, cantaloupe has more calcium, magnesium, potassium, and zinc, while lychees have more copper, iron, phosphorus, and selenium, for a 4:4 tie in this round.
Adding up the sections makes for a modest overall win for cantaloupe, but by all means enjoy either or both, as diversity is good!
Want to learn more?
You might like:
Some Surprising Truths About Hunger And Satiety ← our main feature in which we examine the science of volumetrics, including a study that shows how water that is part of a food (but not served with a food) decreases caloric intake.
Another reason to enjoy melons!
Share This Post
-
This 10-Minute Habit Cuts Glucose Spikes by 30% (Everyone Should Do This)
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Dr. Alex Wibberley explains:
The steps we need to take
The trick is: a 10-minute movement break!
A study (cited in the video) found that a single 45-minute exercise session before sitting produced only a small effect on post-meal glucose spikes, whereas breaking up sitting with 10-minute light walks every 20 minutes reduced post-meal blood sugar spikes by about 30% compared with uninterrupted sitting.
The problem with prolonged sitting (or rather, one problem of many), is that when you sit for long periods your muscles remain largely inactive, their insulin-independent pathway* shuts down, and glucose control relies mostly on insulin, which can lead to higher and longer-lasting glucose spikes if insulin function is already impaired.
*contracting muscles can pull glucose from the blood through an insulin-independent pathway triggered simply by muscle activity, meaning movement itself helps clear sugar from the bloodstream.
In particular, short activity after meals—such as walking for 5–10 minutes, climbing stairs, or moving around the house—can reduce the rise in blood sugar that begins roughly 15–30 minutes after eating.
Note: if you spend 5–10 minutes clearing up the dinner-things walking back-and-to between kitchen and dining room, that’s it covered already! But time yourself once or twice, to see if it really does take that long, or if it just feels like it 😉 See if there are some other post-dinner chores you might build into the following few minutes, to enjoy the full benefit (and perhaps a cleaner/tidier house, as a bonus)!
For more on all of this, enjoy:
Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!
Want to learn more?
You might also like:
The Japanese Health Initiative That Lowers Blood Sugars
Take care!
Share This Post
-
Dual-Task, High-Velocity Training For The Brain
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
…and other items from this week’s health news:
Body & brain
The research question posed by Dr. Rachel Duckham et al: can long-term dual-task high-velocity functional power training improve cognitive function in older adults, compared with usual care?
First you may be wondering, what’s that? So, it’s group-based dual-task functional power training performed twice weekly, combining high-velocity resistance movements with simultaneous cognitive and/or motor tasks.
Here’s what they found:
- Short-term effects: after the 6-month supervised phase, the intervention improved choice reaction time, attention, and psychomotor-attention compared with usual care.
- Long-term effects: at 12 and 18 months, benefits extended to visual learning and learning-working memory in the intervention group.
- Control group finding: the usual care group showed a slight, lesser improvement in executive function at 18 months.
In short, the answer is: yes, yes it can!
Related: A Surprising Extra Way Exercise Fights Dementia
The downstream effects of vaccines
Vaccines have a single, simple purpose: reduce the incidence of the diseases they are created to vaccinate against, especially in the most vulnerable demographics. For example, RSV, flu, pneumococcal, and COVID vaccines primarily reduce infection, hospitalization, and disease severity in populations with higher baseline risk.
However, Dr. Stefania Maggi, geriatrician and senior fellow at the Institute of Neuroscience at the National Research Council in Padua, has shown how vaccines have “downstream effects” and, in her words, “are key tools to promote healthy aging and prevent physical and cognitive decline.”
For example her research found reduced dementia risk after vaccination for multiple diseases, including shingles, flu, pneumococcal disease, and Tdap (Tetanus, diphtheria, and polio).
This was a large-scale meta-analysis, and across 21 studies with more than 104 million participants, shingles vaccination was associated with a 24% reduction in dementia risk, flu with 13%, pneumococcal with a 36% reduction in Alzheimer’s risk, and Tdap with about a one-third reduction.
There are other downstream benefits too, for example decades of data link flu shots in older adults to lower risks of hospitalization for heart failure, pneumonia, heart attack, and stroke.
Read in full: Vaccines are helping older people more than we knew
Related: Vaccine Mythbusting
US officially leave the WHO
At the end of a process that we wrote about on January 24 last year (after Trump initiated the process of leaving via an executive order, accusing the World Health Organization of being too China-centric in the wake of the first flushes of the COVID pandemic, when multiple studies indicated that delayed lockdowns and politicized avoidance of public health measures worsened American health outcomes and especially mortality in the United States), the US has now officially withdrawn from the WHO as of 23 January 2026.
On the one hand, this has caused economic problems all around, including the US is/was several years behind on payments, with arrears estimated at $260m that Washington says it will not pay. Also, it has of course caused a lot of job losses across the US.
On the other hand, US officials said they would rely on bilateral relationships, NGOs, and faith-based groups for disease surveillance and global health work, but provided no concrete details. Those same US officials were also unsure whether the country would continue participating in global information sharing and development of the annual influenza vaccine.
Read in full: US officially leaves World Health Organization
Related: Stop The World… “US vs Them”?
Take care!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Edamame vs Kidney Beans – Which is Healthier?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Our Verdict
When comparing edamame to kidney beans, we picked the edamame.
Why?
In terms of macros, edamame has slightly more protein, while kidney beans have slightly more fiber and nearly 3x the carbs. So, which wins this round will come down to a subjective assessment of how those carbs fit into your preferred way of eating, and whether you would rather have more or less. We’ll call this round a tie based on the protein and fiber, but it could be swung either way by your opinion of the carbs.
In the category of vitamins, edamame has a lot more of vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B5, B7, B9, C, E, K, and choline, while kidney beans have (slightly) more vitamin B6. An easy win for edamame.
When it comes to minerals, edamame has more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, and zinc, while kidney beans have slightly more selenium. Another clear win for edamame.
Adding up the sections makes for a clear overall win for edamame, but by all means enjoy either or both; diversity is good!
Want to learn more?
You might like:
Why You Can’t Skimp On Amino Acids ← kidney beans are good for these, but edamame is excellent
Enjoy!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Chetna’s Healthy Indian – by Chetna Makan
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Indian food is wonderful—a subjective opinion perhaps, but a popular view, and one this reviewer certainly shares. And of course, cooking with plenty of vegetables and spices is a great way to get a lot of health benefits.
There are usually downsides though, such as that in a lot of Indian cookbooks, every second thing is deep-fried, and what’s not deep-fried contains an entire day or more’s saturated fat content in ghee, and a lot of sides have more than their fair share of sugar.
This book fixes all that, by offering 80 recipes that prioritize health without sacrificing flavor.
The recipes are, as the title suggests, vegetarian, though many are not vegan (yogurt and cheese featuring in many recipes). That said, even if you are vegan, it’s pretty easy to veganize those with the obvious plant-based substitutions. If you have soy yogurt and can whip up vegan paneer yourself (here’s our own recipe for that), you’re pretty much sorted.
The cookbook strikes a good balance of being neither complicated nor “did we really need a recipe for this?” basic, and delivers value in all of its recipes. The ingredients, often a worry for many Westerners, should be easily found if you have a well-stocked supermarket near you; there’s nothing obscure here.
Bottom line: if you’d like to cook more Indian food and want your food to be exciting without also making your blood pressure exciting, then this is an excellent book for keeping you well-nourished, body and soul.
Click here to check out Chetna’s Healthy Indian, and spice up your culinary repertoire!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
