Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Socioeconomic position and risk of short-term weight gain: Prospective study of 14,619 middle-aged men and women

  • Lisa R Purslow1, 2,
  • Elizabeth H Young1, 3,
  • Nicholas J Wareham1Email author,
  • Nita Forouhi1,
  • Eric J Brunner4,
  • Robert N Luben3,
  • Ailsa A Welch3,
  • Kay-Tee Khaw3,
  • Shelia A Bingham5, 6 and
  • Manjinder S Sandhu1, 3
BMC Public Health20088:112

DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-8-112

Received: 16 July 2007

Accepted: 09 April 2008

Published: 09 April 2008

Abstract

Background

The association between socioeconomic position in middle age and risk of subsequent, short-term weight gain is unknown. We therefore assessed this association in a prospective population based cohort study in Norfolk, UK.

Methods

We analysed data on 14,619 middle-aged men and women (aged between 40–75 at baseline) with repeated objective measures of weight and height at baseline (1993–1997) and follow up (1998–2000).

Results

During follow up 5,064 people gained more than 2.5 kg. Compared with the highest social class, individuals in the lowest social class had around a 30% greater risk of gaining more than 2.5 kg (OR 1.29; 95% CI 1.11–1.51; p for trend = 0.002). This association remained statistically significant following adjustment for sex, age, baseline BMI, smoking, and follow up time (OR 1.25; CI 1.07–1.46; p for trend <0.001). We also found no material difference between unadjusted models and those including all confounders and potential mediators.

Conclusion

Individuals of low socioeconomic position are at greatest risk of gaining weight during middle age, which is not explained by classical correlates of socioeconomic position and risk factors for obesity.

Background

Across the UK there has been a rapid increase in the prevalence of obesity in recent decades [1]. Since obesity is associated with a greater risk of morbidity and mortality [2], identifying the determinants of weight gain and obesity is fundamental to the development of preventative strategies at the individual and societal level. Social inequalities in health are well recognised, and several studies suggest that adverse socioeconomic position is associated with obesity [35]. However, the association between socioeconomic position in middle age and risk of subsequent, short-term weight gain is unknown [5]. Additionally, few studies have attempted to investigate the mechanisms underlying the associations between socioeconomic position and weight gain [5, 6]. We therefore investigated this association in a prospective population based study of 14,619 middle-aged men and women.

Methods

We used data from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) Norfolk cohort. The study was approved by the Norfolk Health District Ethics Committee and full details of participant recruitment and study procedures have been published previously [7]. Briefly, recruitment started in March 1993 and was completed by the end of 1997 when 25,631 individuals (aged 40 – 75) had attended a baseline health check. Between 1998 and 2000 15,028 individuals completed a follow up health check. Of these participants we analysed data on 14,619 (97%) men and women who had complete data and did not report stroke, cancer or heart attack at baseline. Height and weight were measured and blood samples taken [8]. All participants completed a food frequency [9] and health and lifestyle questionnaire. Physical activity was assessed using a previously validated 4-level occupation and recreation activity index [10]. Physical activity and dietary data were only collected at baseline. We used social class to categorise socioeconomic position, based on the Registrar General's occupational classification: I professional; II intermediate; IIIa skilled non-manual; IIIb skilled manual; IV semi-skilled; and V unskilled [11, 12].

All analyses were carried out using STATA version 8 (Stata Corporation, College Station, Texas). Linear regression analyses were used to assess the association between socioeconomic position, baseline BMI, and weight change over the follow up period. There was no material difference in baseline BMI (p = 0.73) or weight change over follow up (p = 0.23) between individuals with no social class coding and all other individuals.

Weight change is a complex phenomenon encompassing individuals who gain weight (positive energy balance), lose weight (negative energy balance) and remain weight stable (energy balanced) [13]. We therefore also assessed the association between socioeconomic position and weight gain using an arbitrary cut-off of 2.5 kg [13]. Specifically, we assessed the relation between socioeconomic position and positive energy balance by comparing individuals who gained more than 2.5 kg over the follow up period with those who maintained a stable weight or lost weight (≤ 2.5 kg) using logistic regression.

In subsequent analyses, we explored whether behaviours related to socioeconomic position (diet and physical activity) mediated these associations. We have previously shown that plasma vitamin C levels in this cohort positively correlate with fruit and vegetable intake [14]; we therefore used this biomarker as an indicative measure of fruit and vegetable intake.

Results

Complete anthropometric data were available for 14,619 of the 15,028 (97.3%) individuals who attended both health checks. Compared with the highest social class, mean BMI was greatest in the lowest social class (Table 1) for both men (p for trend <0.001) and women (p < 0.001). As expected the proportion of smokers was greatest in the lowest social class (p for χ2 test for heterogeneity <0.001 men, p < 0.005 women) and energy intake was highest in the lowest social class (p = 0.005 men, p < 0.001 women). At baseline there was a statistically significant interaction between sex and social class with BMI (p = 0.0001). Specifically, the positive association between social class and BMI was stronger in women.
Table 1

Characteristics of the EPIC-Norfolk cohort by social class measured at baseline from 1993 – 1997

 

I

II

IIIa

IIIb

IV and V

P value*

Men N

526

2655

818

1459

965

 

Age (years)

59.7 (0.40)

59.6 (0.18)

60.6 (0.31)

59.2 (0.23)

60.1 (0.27)

0.627

Weight (kg)

79.9 (0.46)

80.7 (0.21)

80.2 (0.37)

79.7 (0.28)

79.3 (0.37)

0.002

Height (cm)

175.5 (0.27)

175.0 (0.13)

174.4 (0.23)

173.3 (0.17)

172.7 (0.21)

<0.001

BMI (kg/m 2 )

25.9 (0.13)

26.3 (0.06)

26.3 (0.11)

26.5 (0.08)

26.6 (0.11)

<0.001

Follow up time (years)

3.6 (0.03)

3.7 (0.02)

3.6 (0.03)

3.7 (0.02)

3.6 (0.02)

0.084

Smoking N (%)

      

   Current

24 (5)

196 (7)

72 (9)

175 (12)

134 (14)

<0.001

   Former

255 (48)

1409 (53)

463 (57)

836 (57)

541 (56)

 

   Never

247 (47)

1050 (40)

283 (35)

448 (31)

290 (30)

 

Physical Activity N (%)

      

   Inactive

141 (27)

744 (28)

288 (35)

353 (24)

254 (26)

<0.001

   Moderately inactive

190 (36)

786 (30)

237 (29)

224 (15)

168 (17)

 

   Moderately active

119 (23)

629 (24)

164 (20)

423 (29)

259 (27)

 

   Active

76 (14)

496 (19)

129 (16)

459 (31)

284 (29)

 

Energy Intake (kj) §

9091 (111)

9162 (50)

9190 (87)

9476 (72)

9256 (87)

0.005

Plasma Vitamin C (umol/l) #

53.3 (0.86)

51.0 (0.36)

49.0 (0.69)

46.7 (0.51)

45.6 (0.64)

<0.001

Women N

574

3052

1619

1657

1294

 

Age (years)

57.5 (0.37)

57.9 (0.16)

59.9 (0.23)

57.5 (0.21)

58.6 (0.24)

0.084

Weight (kg)

66.4 (0.47)

67.0 (0.20)

66.8 (0.27)

67.6 (0.28)

68.7 (0.34)

<0.001

Height (cm)

162.5 (0.25)

161.9 (0.11)

161.1 (0.15)

160.7 (0.15)

160.6 (0.17)

<0.001

BMI (kg/m 2 )

25.2 (0.17)

25.6 (0.07)

25.7 (0.10)

26.2 (0.10)

26.7 (0.13)

<0.001

Follow up time (years)

3.5 (0.03)

3.6 (0.01)

3.7 (0.02)

3.7 (0.02)

3.7 (0.02)

0.002

Smoking N (%)

      

   Current

39 (7)

248 (8)

141 (9)

172 (10)

139 (11)

<0.005

   Former

161 (28)

959 (31)

530 (33)

533 (32)

403 (31)

 

   Never

374 (65)

1845 (60)

948 (59)

952 (57)

752 (58)

 

Physical Activity N (%)

      

   Inactive

108 (19)

725 (24)

503 (31)

444 (27)

345 (27)

<0.001

   Moderately inactive

197 (34)

1042 (34)

562 (35)

522 (32)

372 (29)

 

   Moderately active

171 (30)

778 (25)

341 (21)

380 (23)

301 (23)

 

   Active

98 (17)

507 (17)

213 (13)

311 (19)

276 (21)

 

Energy Intake (kj) §

7982 (86)

8035 (40)

8143 (54)

8200 (57)

8288 (68)

<0.001

Plasma Vitamin C (umol/l) #

64.1 (0.88)

62.9 (0.39)

59.7 (0.49)

58.6 (0.48)

57.0 (0.58)

<0.001

All N

1100

5707

2437

3116

2259

 

Women N (%)

574 (52)

3052 (53)

1619 (66)

1657 (53)

1294 (57)

0.008

Age (years)

58.6 (0.28)

58.7 (0.12)

60.2 (0.18)

58.3 (0.16)

59.3 (0.18)

0.165

Weight (kg)

72.9 (0.39)

73.4 (0.17)

71.3 (0.25)

73.3 (0.23)

73.3 (0.27)

0.913

Height (cm)

168.7 (0.27)

168.0 (0.12)

165.6 (0.18)

166.6 (0.16)

165.8 (0.18)

<0.001

BMI (kg/m 2 )

25.5 (0.11)

25.9 (0.05)

25.9 (0.07)

26.3 (0.07)

26.6 (0.08)

<0.001

Follow up time (years)

3.6 (0.02)

3.7 (0.01)

3.7 (0.01)

3.7 (0.01)

3.7 (0.02)

<0.001

Smoking N (%)

      

   Current

63 (6)

444 (8)

213 (9)

347 (11)

273 (12)

<0.001

   Former

416 (38)

2368 (41)

993 (41)

1369 (44)

944 (42)

 

   Never

621 (56)

2895 (51)

1231 (51)

1400 (45)

1042 (46)

 

Physical Activity N (%)

      

   Inactive

249 (23)

1469 (26)

791 (32)

797 (26)

599 (27)

<0.001

   Moderately inactive

387 (35)

1828 (32)

799 (33)

746 (24)

540 (24)

 

   Moderately active

290 (26)

1407 (25)

505 (21)

803 (26)

560 (25)

 

   Active

174 (16)

1003 (18)

342 (14)

770 (25)

560 (25)

 

Energy Intake (kj) §

8509 (71)

8561 (33)

8495 (47)

8797 (47)

8701 (55)

<0.001

Plasma Vitamin C (umol/l) #

58.8 (0.64)

57.3 (0.28)

56.1 (0.41)

53.0 (0.37)

52.1 (0.45)

<0.001

All values are means and standard errors unless otherwise stated.

* Social class is coded as 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and treated as a continuous variable to calculate p for linear trend.

Some totals may exceed 100% due to rounding.

P value for χ2 test for heterogeneity.

§N = 14,292

# N = 13,042

For the prospective analyses, sex stratified results (see Additional file 1) were similar to combined results (men and women) for weight change and for weight gain (all p for interactions >0.3); we therefore present data for the combined analyses. Although baseline BMI was significantly negatively correlated with weight change (r = -0.05, p < 0.001) there was no statistically significant interaction between baseline BMI and social class with weight gain. Mean weight change was +1.42 kg (SE 0.08) for individuals in the lowest social class, whereas mean weight change was +0.97 kg (0.12) for those in the highest social class (p for trend = 0.016) (Table 2), reflecting an absolute mean difference of 0.45 kg (p = 0.002). These associations remained statistically significant after adjustment for sex, age, baseline BMI, smoking, and follow up time (p for trend <0.001). The average follow up time for the whole study population was 3.66 years (SE 0.01).
Table 2

Association between social class, baseline BMI and weight change from baseline to follow up of 6,423 men and 8,196 women in the EPIC-Norfolk cohort

Social Class

Baseline BMI

Weight change over follow up (kg)

 

Unadjusted

Adjusted*

Unadjusted

Adjusted

I

25.5 (0.11)

25.5 (0.11)

0.97 (0.12)

0.94 (0.12)

II

25.9 (0.05)

25.9 (0.05)

1.30 (0.05)

1.28 (0.05)

IIIa

25.9 (0.08)

25.9 (0.07)

1.29 (0.08)

1.36 (0.08)

IIIb

26.3 (0.07)

26.4 (0.07)

1.36 (0.07)

1.34 (0.07)

IV and V

26.6 (0.08)

26.6 (0.08)

1.42 (0.08)

1.46 (0.08)

P for trend

<0.001

<0.001

0.016

<0.001

All values are means and standard errors unless otherwise stated.

* Adjusted for sex, age and smoking.

Adjusted for sex, age, baseline BMI, smoking and follow up time

Over the follow up period 5,064 people gained more than 2.5 kg (Table 3). Compared with those in the highest social class, individuals in the lowest social class had a greater risk of gaining more than 2.5 kg (OR 1.29; 95% CI 1.11–1.51; p for trend = 0.002). This association remained statistically significant following adjustment for sex, age, baseline BMI, smoking, and follow up time (OR 1.25; CI 1.07–1.46; p for trend <0.001).
Table 3

Association between social class and risk of gaining more than 2.5 kg over the follow up period of 6,423 men and 8,196 women in the EPIC-Norfolk cohort

Social Class

Weight stable gain ≤ 2.5 kg N (%)

Weight gain >2.5 kg N (%)

Unadjusted odds ratio (95% CI)

Adjusted odds ratio* (95% CI)

I

760 (8)

340 (7)

1

1

II

3760 (39)

1947 (38)

1.16 (1.01 1.33)

1.13 (0.98 1.30)

IIIa

1590 (17)

847 (17)

1.19 (1.02 1.39)

1.21 (1.04 1.41)

IIIb

2014 (21)

1102 (22)

1.22 (1.06 1.42)

1.16 (1.00 1.34)

IV and V

1431 (15)

828 (16)

1.29 (1.11 1.51)

1.25 (1.07 1.46)

P for trend

  

0.002

<0.001

* Adjusted for sex, age, baseline BMI, smoking and follow up time

To assess whether certain lifestyle factors mediated the association between socioeconomic position and weight change or gain, we included plasma vitamin C level, total energy intake and physical activity as covariates in the adjusted models (see Additional file 2). For weight change, based on a subset of 12,760 participants with complete data on confounders and potential mediators, there was no material difference between the unadjusted model and a model including all covariates (data not shown). Similarly, for weight gain there was no material difference between the unadjusted model (lowest social class compared to highest OR 1.35; CI 1.14–1.60; p for trend <0.001) and a model including all confounders and potential mediators (OR 1.33; CI 1.12–1.57; p for trend <0.001). Plasma vitamin C levels in this cohort positively correlate with fruit and vegetable intake [14] Using vitamin C as a correlate of dietary intake, we found that this biomarker was not associated with subsequent weight gain (data not shown).

Discussion

Our data indicate that men and women of low socioeconomic position are more likely to gain weight in middle age than individuals of high socioeconomic position. Specifically, we found that individuals in the lowest category gained 0.45 kg more than those in the highest, over an average follow up time of 3.66 years. Similarly, compared with the highest social class, individuals in the lowest social class had around a 30% greater risk of gaining more than 2.5 kg over the follow-up period. These associations were not materially altered by adjustment for confounders or potential mediators, including baseline correlates of energy intake and expenditure. Our findings indicate that the mechanisms underlying these associations are complex, and are not explained by classical correlates of social inequality and obesity risk factors.

Prospective studies have reported on the association between socioeconomic position and weight change or gain in adulthood [6, 15, 16]. However, these results were based on self reported past and present weight. Because greater underreporting of weight occurs in overweight or obese individuals, and prevalence of obesity is greater in people with a low socioeconomic position, reliance on self-reported weight could lead to an underestimation of the true association between socioeconomic position and weight gain [17]. As far as we are aware, our study is the first to use objectively measured weight to show that socioeconomic position predicts short-term weight gain in middle-aged men and women.

Diet [18, 19] and physical activity [20] are correlates of socioeconomic position, which may mediate the association between socioeconomic position and weight gain. Therefore we included plasma vitamin C level (as a marker of fruit and vegetable intake), energy intake, and physical activity, all measured at baseline, as potential mediators. Previous research has suggested that while behavioural factors such as diet and physical activity are associated with BMI, social gradients in these factors do not wholly explain socioeconomic differences in BMI [6, 21]. In keeping with these findings, our results suggest that neither baseline, plasma vitamin C, energy intake nor physical activity is likely to fully account for the association between socioeconomic position and short-term weight gain. However, we cannot rule out the possibility that differential reporting of diet and physical activity by social class may have occurred.

As a limitation, we cannot exclude the possibility that random measurement error may explain why we found no evidence of mediation by diet or physical activity. In the context of systematic error, differential reporting of dietary intake and physical activity by weight gain status could distort the interrelation among socioeconomic position, potential mediators and weight gain. However, in the prospective analysis mediators were assessed prior to weight gain. Additionally we included plasma vitamin C level as an objective measure of dietary intake [14], which is an unbiased assessment. In addition it is worth noting that short-term weight gain is an ongoing process during adult life; it is therefore likely that some weight gain preceded the baseline measures and influenced behaviour prior to exposure measurement. We only examined the impact of baseline correlates of energy intake and expenditure on the association between socioeconomic position and weight gain. Changes in these correlates (for example, diets and physical activity) between baseline and follow up might also have an important impact on the magnitude of the association between socioeconomic position and weight gain. Changes in these factors during follow up might therefore mediate our observed association between baseline socioeconomic position and subsequent weight gain. Although the use of logistic regression to calculate the odds ratio may substantially overestimate the risk ratio, as a measure of association the odds ratio still has utility. Our aim was to examine whether there was an association between socioeconomic position and subsequent risk of obesity, and whether this was mediated by correlates of socioeconomic position. In order to confirm the magnitude of association between socioeconomic position and weight gain further research is needed.

Conclusion

Our study indicates that the mechanisms underlying the association between social inequalities and weight gain are complex. Given our findings, it remains unclear which components or correlates of low socioeconomic position underlie its relation with short-term weight gain. Differences in dietary patterns, including fast food intake – which is associated with weight gain independently of education, smoking, physical activity and dietary intake of fruit and vegetables [22] – may explain this relation. Alternatively, psychological stress is associated both with low socioeconomic position and with eating behaviour, metabolism and fat distribution [21, 2326], and is a predictor of both general and central obesity [27]. Therefore, stress could mediate the socioeconomic position and weight gain association.

In conclusion, in this prospective analysis of 14,619 individuals, we have shown that individuals of low socioeconomic position are at greatest risk of gaining weight during middle age, which is not explained by baseline classical correlates of socioeconomic position and risk factors for obesity. In order to reliably confirm the magnitude of the association between social class and weight gain, additional studies contextualised with systematic overviews will be required.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Norfolk cohort study is supported by research program funding from Cancer Research UK and the Medical Research Council with additional grants from the Stroke Association, the British Heart Foundation, the Department of Health, the Europe against Cancer Program Commission of the European Union, the Food Standards Agency, and the Wellcome Trust.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
MRC Epidemiology Unit, Institute of Metabolic Science
(2)
Cancer Research UK Health Behaviour Research Centre, UCL
(3)
Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge
(4)
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, UCL
(5)
MRC Dunn Human Nutrition Unit
(6)
MRC Centre for Nutrition in Cancer Epidemiology Prevention and Survival, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge

References

  1. Department of Health: Forecasting obesity to 2010. 2006, London , Joint Health Surveys Unit: National Centre for Social Research and Department of Epidemiology and Public Health at the Roayl Free and Univeristy College Medical SchoolGoogle Scholar
  2. Flegal KM, Graubard B, Williamson DF, Gail MH: Excess deaths associated with underweight, overweight, and obesity. The Journal of the American Medical Association. 2005, 293 (15): 1861-1867. 10.1001/jama.293.15.1861.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Black D: Inequalities in health: a report of a research working group. 1980, London , Great Britain Department of Health and Social SecurityGoogle Scholar
  4. Sobal J, Stunkard AJ: Socioeconomic status and obesity: a review of the literature. Psychological bulletin. 1989, 105 (2): 260-275. 10.1037/0033-2909.105.2.260.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Ball K, Crawford D: Socioeconomic status and weight change in adults: a review. Social Science & Medicine. 2005, 60 (9): 1987-2010. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.08.056.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Martikainen PT, Marmot MG: Socioeconomic differences in weight gain and determinants and consequences of coronary risk factors. The American journal of clinical nutrition. 1999, 69 (4): 719-726.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Day N, Oakes S, Luben R, Khaw KT, Bingham S, Welch A, Wareham N: EPIC-Norfolk: study design and characteristics of the cohort. European Prospective Investigation of Cancer. Br J Cancer. 1999, 80 (Suppl 1): 95-103.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Lohman T, Roche A, Martorell R: Anthropometric standardization reference manual. 1991, Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics BooksGoogle Scholar
  9. Bingham SA, Gill C, Welch A, Cassidy A, Runswick SA, Oakes S, Luben R, Thurnham DI, Key TJ, Roe L, Khaw KT, Day NE: Validation of dietary assessment methods in the UK arm of EPIC using weighed records, and 24-hour urinary nitrogen and potassium and serum vitamin C and carotenoids as biomarkers. International Journal of Epidemiology. 1997, 26 (Suppl 1): S137-S151. 10.1093/ije/26.suppl_1.S137.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Wareham NJ, Jakes RW, Rennie KL, Schuit J, Mitchell J, Hennings SJ, Day NE: Validity and repeatability of a simple index derived from the short physical activity questionnaire used in the European Prospective Investigation into Caner and Nutrition (EPIC) study. Public Health Nutrition. 2003, 6 (4): 407-413. 10.1079/PHN2002439.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Donkin A, Lee YH, Toson B: Implications of changes in the UK social and occupational classifications in 2001 for vital statistics. Popul Trends. 2002, 23-29.Google Scholar
  12. Warwick Institue for Employment Research: Computer Assisted Standard Occupational Coding (CASOC). Edited by: www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/ier/publications/software/casoc/ A. Warwick University Institute for Employment Research. Available from http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/ier/publications/software/casoc/
  13. Wedick NM, Mayer-Davis EJ, Wingard DL, Addy CL, Barrett-Connor E: Insulin resistance precedes weight loss in adults without diabetes : the Rancho Bernardo Study. Am J Epidemiol. 2001, 153 (12): 1199-1205. 10.1093/aje/153.12.1199.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Khaw KT, Bingham S, Welch A, Luben R, Wareham N, Oakes S, Day N: Relation between plasma ascorbic acid and mortality in men and women in EPIC-Norfolk prospective study: a prospective population study. European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. Lancet. 2001, 357 (9257): 657-663. 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04128-3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Fogelholm M, Kujala U, Kaprio J, Sarna S: Predictors of weight change in middle-aged and old men. Obes Res. 2000, 8 (5): 367-373.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Lahmann PH, Lissner L, Gullberg B, Berglund G: Sociodemographic factors associated with long-term weight gain, current body fatness and central adiposity in Swedish women. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2000, 24 (6): 685-694. 10.1038/sj.ijo.0801219.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Gunnell D, Berney L, Holland P, Maynard M, Blane D, Frankel S, Smith GD: How accurately are height, weight and leg length reported by the elderly, and how closely are they related to measurements recorded in childhood?. Int J Epidemiol. 2000, 29 (3): 456-464. 10.1093/ije/29.3.456.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Jeffery RW, French SA: Socioeconomic status and weight control practices among 20- to 45-year-old women. Am J Public Health. 1996, 86 (7): 1005-1010.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Smith AM, Owen N: Associations of social status and health-related beliefs with dietary fat and fiber densities. Prev Med. 1992, 21 (6): 735-745. 10.1016/0091-7435(92)90080-2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Crespo CJ, Ainsworth BE, Keteyian SJ, Heath GW, Smit E: Prevalence of physical inactivity and its relation to social class in U.S. adults: results from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988-1994. Medicine and science in sports and exercise. 1999, 31 (12): 1821-1827. 10.1097/00005768-199912000-00019.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Ball K, Mishra GD, Crawford D: Social factors and obesity: an investigation of the role of health behaviours. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2003, 27 (3): 394-403. 10.1038/sj.ijo.0802237.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Pereira MA, Kartashov AI, Ebbeling CB, Van Horn L, Slattery ML, Jacobs DR, Ludwig DS: Fast-food habits, weight gain, and insulin resistance (the CARDIA study): 15-year prospective analysis. Lancet. 2005, 365 (9453): 36-42. 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17663-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Wamala SP, Wolk A, Orth-Gomer K: Determinants of obesity in relation to socioeconomic status among middle-aged Swedish women. Prev Med. 1997, 26 (5 Pt 1): 734-744. 10.1006/pmed.1997.0199.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Epel EE, Moyer AE, Martin CD, Macary S, Cummings N, Rodin J, Rebuffe-Scrive M: Stress-induced cortisol, mood, and fat distribution in men. Obes Res. 1999, 7 (1): 9-15.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Epel ES, McEwen B, Seeman T, Matthews K, Castellazzo G, Brownell KD, Bell J, Ickovics JR: Stress and body shape: stress-induced cortisol secretion is consistently greater among women with central fat. Psychosom Med. 2000, 62 (5): 623-632.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Laitinen J, Ek E, Sovio U: Stress-related eating and drinking behavior and body mass index and predictors of this behavior. Prev Med. 2002, 34 (1): 29-39. 10.1006/pmed.2001.0948.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Brunner EJ, Chandola T, Marmot MG: Prospective Effect of Job Strain on General and Central Obesity in the Whitehall II Study. 2007, 165 (7): 828-837.Google Scholar
  28. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/8/112/prepub

Copyright

© Purslow et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2008

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement