Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T18:04:21.422Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Physical activity, sedentary behaviour and energy balance in the preschool child: opportunities for early obesity prevention

Symposium on ‘Behavioural nutrition and energy balance in the young'

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2008

John J. Reilly*
Affiliation:
University of Glasgow Division of Developmental Medicine, 1st Floor Tower Block QMH, Yorkhill Hospitals' Glasgow G3 8SJ, UK
*
Corresponding author: Professor John J. Reilly, fax +44 141 201 0710, email jjr2y@clinmed.gla.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Prevalence of obesity in preschool children has increased dramatically in recent years. The preschool years (age 3–6 years) have been regarded as critical for the programming of energy balance, via the concept of early ‘adiposity rebound’. Children who undergo early adiposity rebound are at increased risk of later obesity. Recent evidence suggests that associations between timing of adiposity rebound and later obesity may not reflect programming, but might denote that ‘obesogenic’ growth trajectories are often established by the preschool period. Studies of objectively-measured physical activity and sedentary behaviour in preschool children show that levels of physical activity are typically low and sedentary behaviour high. The review of evidence presented here is supportive of the hypothesis that physical activity is protective against obesity in the preschool period, and that sedentary behaviour, particularly television viewing, is obesogenic. Definitive evidence on dose–response relationships between physical activity, sedentary behaviour and obesity remain unclear. Dose–response evidence could be obtained fairly readily by intervention and longitudinal observational studies that use accelerometry in preschool children. The generalisability of much of the evidence base is limited and there is a need for research on the influence of physical activity and sedentary behaviour in the preschool years in the aetiology of obesity in the developing world.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2008

Prevalence of obesity among children and adolescents in the developed world and much of the developing world is high and continues to increase(Reference Lobstein, Baur and Uauy1). The obesity epidemic has also affected non-obese children, with secular trends to higher fat mass and more central fat distribution, even in non-obese children and adolescents, at least in the UK(Reference Reilly2). There has been interest in the contribution of environmental exposures for obesity that operate in fetal, neonatal and infant life for many years(Reference Dietz3). The preschool period has been highlighted, and in particular the possibility that risk of obesity might be ‘programmed’ by the timing of the ‘adiposity rebound’(Reference Rolland-Cachera, Deheeger, Bellisle, Sempe, Guilloud-Bataille and Patois4Reference Taylor, Goulding, Lewis-Barned and Williams9), the period when BMI increases after a nadir at age 3–6 years; early adiposity rebound being associated with increased risk of later obesity. Whether or not there is a critical period for later obesity during preschool life (age 3–6 years), it is clear from recent studies that the prevalence of obesity has increased markedly among preschool children and that obesogenic lifestyles must now be prevalent among young children(Reference Reilly, Jackson, Montgomery, Kelly, Fisher, Paton and Grant10). In contrast to lay perceptions of lifestyle among preschool children, there is evidence of widespread non-compliance with public health recommendations in relation to physical activity, sedentary behaviour and diet, and social patterning of both diet and obesity well before school entry in the UK(Reference Armstrong, Dorosty, Reilly and Emmett11, Reference Kinra, Nelder and Lewenden12).

The preschool period may, therefore, be important to long-term energy balance and risk of obesity by mechanisms that involve programming, by the life-course accumulation of positive energy balance that begins in early childhood and/or the early establishment of obesogenic lifestyles that are maintained once habits are formed(Reference Davey-Smith13). The extent to which these processes are important to the obesity epidemic and the role of physical activity and sedentary behaviour in influencing energy balance during and after the preschool period are unclear. The aims of the present review are therefore to:

  1. (a) summarise evidence on the prevalence of obesity among modern preschool children, and the extent to which lifestyles of modern preschool children are likely to be obesogenic;

  2. (b) provide a brief critique of the evidence that the preschool period is critical for programming of energy balance;

  3. (c) summarise recent evidence on the role of physical activity and sedentary behaviour in the development of obesity during and after the preschool period;

  4. (d) identify major gaps in the evidence on relationships between physical activity, sedentary behaviour and energy balance in preschool children.

Importance of obesity among preschool children

Prevalence and trends in obesity in early childhood

Preschool children are widely believed to be protected from obesity by the perception that they are highly-physically-active ‘supercharged dynamos’. In fact, the empirical evidence from studies or surveys of obesity prevalence is consistent in supporting the view that preschool children are actually highly susceptible to obesity and to the early adoption of obesogenic lifestyles. Across the developed world, and much of the developing world, prevalence of overweight and obesity have increased markedly among preschool children(Reference Lobstein, Baur and Uauy1, Reference Wake, Hardy, Cantesford, Sawyer and Carlin14Reference Kalies, Lerz and Von Kries17). In the UK, for example, approximately 10% of children are obese (BMI ≥95th percentile relative to UK 1990 reference data(Reference Freeman, Cole, Chinn, Jones, White and Preece18)) by primary-school entry(Reference Reilly2) and, at least in the past, obesity risk is socially patterned with slightly but significantly higher risk of obesity among more socio-economically-deprived families(Reference Lobstein, Baur and Uauy1, Reference Wake, Hardy, Cantesford, Sawyer and Carlin14Reference Kalies, Lerz and Von Kries17, Reference Whitaker and Orzol19, Reference Dorosty, Siassi and Reilly20), although this pattern may be changing(Reference Hawkins, Cole and Law21). An epidemic of positive energy balance has affected much of the preschool population in the UK in approximately the last 20 years(Reference Reilly2), and their lifestyles must have become much more obesogenic during that period.

Recent longitudinal studies of persistence of overweight and obesity have been rare, but they have tended to suggest that trajectories of excess weight gain are often established well before the preschool period(Reference Reilly, Armstrong, Dorosty, Emmett, Ness, Rogers, Steer and Sherriff22Reference Li, Goran, Kaur, Nollen and Ahluwalia25), and also that overweight and obesity established by the preschool period tends to persist(Reference Nader, O'Brien, Houts, Bradley, Belsky, Crosroe, Friedmanm, Mei and Susman26, Reference Freedman, Khan, Serdula, Dietz, Srinivasan and Berenson27). Furthermore, studies of the treatment of obesity in children in early–mid-childhood suggest that for most obese children the origin of their obesity must lie in the preschool period or earlier. Obese children in mid-childhood must have been in substantial positive energy balance for years(Reference Hughes, Stewart, Chapple, Donaldson, Zabihollah, Ahmed, Kelnar and Reilly28, Reference Quattrin, Liu and Shaw29). For example, in a recent treatment trial(Reference Hughes, Stewart, Chapple, Donaldson, Zabihollah, Ahmed, Kelnar and Reilly28) children by age 8 years had a median body weight of 52 kg, putting them approximately 15–20 kg above the overweight status category and >20 kg above the mean weight for the same age, gender and height in the UK reference population in 1990(Reference Freeman, Cole, Chinn, Jones, White and Preece18).

In summary, preschool children are highly susceptible to overweight and obesity. Recent rapid changes in body fatness, fat distribution and the prevalence of overweight and obesity among preschool children indicate that the preschool population has undergone rapid changes in lifestyle in recent years.

Rationale for study of energy balance in preschool children

The preschool period has been regarded traditionally as a critical period for the development of later obesity (the adiposity rebound) and this factor has provided a rationale for the study of energy balance in preschool children. A secular trend to earlier adiposity rebound has occurred, and reduced habitual physical activity and/or increased habitual sedentary behaviour has probably contributed to this trend(Reference Reilly, Kelly, Ness, Dorosty, Wallace, Gibson and Emmett30, Reference Rolland-Cachera, Johnston, Zemel and Eveleth31).

There is increasing scepticism over the hypothesis that early adiposity rebound is a cause of obesity, and it is not clear that programming of energy balance occurs during a time-sensitive period(Reference Dietz6, Reference Cole7). There is increasing evidence that rapid early-life growth, summarised in a recent systematic review(Reference Baird, Fisher, Lucus, Kleinjen, Roberts and Law32), is predictive of later obesity, but whether rapid growth is the cause of later obesity or simply a marker for individuals on a rapid weight trajectory (who are on an early pathway to obesity) remains unclear. Strong associations between early adiposity rebound(Reference Reilly, Armstrong, Dorosty, Emmett, Ness, Rogers, Steer and Sherriff22) and later obesity might reflect the general influence of rapid early growth on obesity rather than any critical, time-sensitive, programming of energy balance that occurs at around the timing of adiposity rebound.

Early adiposity rebound does appear to reflect an excessive positive energy balance during the preschool period(Reference Taylor, Grant, Goulding and Williams8, Reference Taylor, Goulding, Lewis-Barned and Williams9) but the precise contributions of physical activity, sedentary behaviour and dietary intake to this positive energy balance and to the timing of adiposity rebound remain unclear(Reference Dietz3Reference Taylor, Goulding, Lewis-Barned and Williams9, Reference Reilly, Kelly, Ness, Dorosty, Wallace, Gibson and Emmett30, Reference Rolland-Cachera, Johnston, Zemel and Eveleth31).

From a public health perspective the evidence that the preschool period is important (even if not ‘critical’ in the sense of programming) has been helpful in focusing an increasing amount of research effort at preschool children. Preschool children are particularly suitable as research participants for a variety of reasons. First, compliance with measurement methods (exposures) for dietary energy intake, physical activity and sedentary behaviour is generally very good among preschool children and their parents(Reference Janz, Gilmore, Levy, Letuchy, Burns and Beck33Reference Montgomery, Reilly, Jackson, Kelly, Slater, Paton and Grant39), and dietary energy intake methods have been shown to be unbiased in validation studies relative to doubly-labelled water, in contrast to studies in older children and adolescents(Reference Reilly, Montgomery, Jackson, MacRitchie and Armstrong38, Reference Montgomery, Reilly, Jackson, Kelly, Slater, Paton and Grant39). Objective methods of measuring physical activity and sedentary behaviour are practical in preschool children(Reference Reilly, Jackson, Montgomery, Kelly, Fisher, Paton and Grant10), and accelerometry is currently the method of choice if measures of the amount of physical activity and its intensity are required(Reference Reilly, Penpraze, Hislop, Davies, Grant and Paton40) to characterise ‘dose–response relationships’ between physical activity and sedentary behaviour and obesity risk (for example, see Reilly et al. (Reference Reilly, Ness and Sherriff41), Ness et al. (Reference Ness, Leary, Rogers, Wells, Mattocks, Reilly, Davey-Smith and Riddoch42) and Andersen et al. (Reference Andersen, Nacro, Sardinha, Froberg, Ekelund, Brage and Andersen43)). Many validations (against energy expenditure and/or direct observation of movement) of accelerometry have been published in preschool children(Reference Reilly, Coyle, Kelly, Burke, Grant and Paton37, Reference Wake, Hardy, Cantesford, Sawyer and Carlin44Reference Fairweather, Reilly, Grant, Whittaker and Paton47). These advantages of accelerometry for preschool children have led to its inclusion in population surveillance of physical activity in preschool children in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys in the USA(Reference Troiano, Berrigan, Dodd, Masse, Tilert and McDowell48). Accelerometry also provides a valid and practical means of measuring sedentary behaviour in preschool children(Reference Reilly, Jackson, Montgomery, Kelly, Fisher, Paton and Grant10, Reference Reilly, Coyle, Kelly, Burke, Grant and Paton37). Sedentary behaviour is now regarded as a separate construct from physical activity, it does not simply represent a lack of physical activity, and the determinants of sedentary behaviour may also differ from the determinants of physical activity(Reference Reilly, Penpraze, Hislop, Davies, Grant and Paton40, Reference Biddle, Gorely, Marshall, Murdey and Cameron49, Reference Gordon-Larsen, McMurray and Popkin50). In addition, in intervention studies on the prevention and treatment of child and adolescent obesity targeting a reduction in sedentary behaviour may be more effective than targeting increases in physical activity(Reference Gortmaker, Peterson, Wiecha, Sobol, Dixit, Fox and Laird51, Reference Robinson52).

It is also worth noting that in many countries preschool education is common, and the existence of preschool education provides an opportunity to access the majority of the preschool population. The traditional arguments in favour of school-based obesity prevention can be made easily for preschool obesity prevention when the vast majority of the population attends formal preschool education, as in Scotland(Reference Reilly, Kelly, Montgomery, Williamson, Fisher, McColl, Lo Conte, Paton and Grant53). It has also been shown that preschool education can influence habitual physical activity (as measured by accelerometry) markedly(Reference Pate, Pfeiffer, Trost, Ziegler and Dowda54).

One aspect of the aetiology of paediatric obesity that is becoming increasingly well-established is the concept of heterogeneity in aetiology, the existence of major differences in the behavioural pathways to obesity between groups(Reference Reilly, Ness and Sherriff41). Pathways to obesity by preschool or early school life might be different from pathways at other periods, and aetiology might differ significantly between groups defined by age, gender, ethnicity or socio-economic status(Reference Reilly, Ness and Sherriff41). Indeed, there is already some empirical evidence that physical activity and sedentary behaviour might be more important determinants of energy balance than diet during the preschool period(Reference Jago, Baranowski, Baranowski, Thompson and Greaves55).

In summary, even if the preschool period is not ‘critical’ in the sense of programming of energy balance, it remains an important period of life for the development of obesity. The preschool period also provides a valuable opportunity for population-based obesity prevention.

Habitual physical activity, sedentary behaviour and energy balance among preschool children

Mechanisms relating physical activity and sedentary behaviour to excessive positive energy balance

Physical activity levels are most likely to influence risk of obesity via their effect on physical-activity energy expenditure, with low levels of energy expended likely to predispose individuals and groups to obesity. There is surprisingly little convincing evidence for this hypothesis among healthy preschool children at present, but this situation reflects an absence of evidence rather than evidence of absence(Reference Reilly, Ness and Sherriff41). Secular trends identified from national surveys of energy intake in preschool children (which are not subject to biases in reporting) suggest that levels have remained stable or declined during the course of the childhood obesity epidemic in the UK(Reference Reilly56), implying that reductions in physical-activity energy expenditure must have made a major contribution to the epidemic. Evidence on secular trends in amounts of physical activity of young children over the same period is not available because national surveys of physical activity have used subjective methods that are unlikely to be valid and are also very imprecise(Reference Reilly, Penpraze, Hislop, Davies, Grant and Paton40, Reference Reilly, Ness and Sherriff41, Reference Wareham, Ven Sluis and Ekelund57). Low levels of habitual physical activity may increase obesity risk by more indirect methods; for example, the possibility that at low levels of activity the regulation of energy balance (or ‘coupling’ of intake and expenditure) might become impaired(Reference Reilly, Ness and Sherriff41).

Sedentary behaviour presumably makes a direct contribution to increasing obesity risk by lowering habitual physical-activity energy expenditure(Reference Reilly, Ness and Sherriff41), by displacing physically-active behaviour(Reference Reilly, Jackson, Montgomery, Kelly, Fisher, Paton and Grant10) and possibly via effects on energy intake. Some forms of sedentary behaviour, particularly television viewing, promote energy intake via exposure to food advertising, although most of the evidence on this possible mechanism comes from older children and adolescents(Reference Stead, Hastings and McDermott58). Television viewing might also become linked to the consumption of highly-energy-dense foods or drinks and so promote obesity via effects on energy intake(Reference Gortmaker, Peterson, Wiecha, Sobol, Dixit, Fox and Laird51, Reference Robinson52).

In summary, plausible biological mechanisms link variation in habitual levels of sedentary behaviour and physical activity to variation in the extent of energy imbalance in young children, but evidence confirming such a link is lacking at present. This lack of evidence relates to both a lack of research effort and to the historical dependence on crude methods of measuring the ‘exposures’ of physical activity and sedentary behaviour that do not measure amounts of these behaviours with sufficient accuracy and precision(Reference Reilly, Penpraze, Hislop, Davies, Grant and Paton40, Reference Reilly, Ness and Sherriff41, Reference Wareham, Ven Sluis and Ekelund57, Reference Must and Tybor59). The lack of evidence means that there is currently no conclusive evidence of dose–response effects between activity and obesity in preschool children, and there is only very limited evidence of relationships between free-living physical-activity behaviour and physical-activity energy expenditure(Reference Montgomery, Reilly, Jackson, Kelly, Slater, Paton and Grant60).

Levels of objectively-measured habitual physical activity and sedentary behaviour

Since objective and quantitative methods are required to quantify amounts of free-living physical activity and sedentary behaviour(Reference Reilly, Penpraze, Hislop, Davies, Grant and Paton40) and since levels of habitual physical activity and sedentary behaviour of preschool children have probably changed in recent years, the present section will focus on the body of evidence from recent studies that have used objective measures. The body of evidence on physical activity is small but fairly consistent, based on observational studies using a variety of objective methods: accelerometry; doubly-labelled water; heart-rate monitoring; direct observation of movement; pedometers(Reference Dietz3, Reference Reilly, Jackson, Montgomery, Kelly, Fisher, Paton and Grant10, Reference Finn, Johannsen and Specker35, Reference Cardon and de Bourdeauhuij61, Reference McKee, Boreham, Murphy and Nevill62); all of which suggest that levels of habitual physical activity are typically much lower than current recommendations of 60 min moderate–vigorous intensity physical activity daily (activity at an intensity at least three times the individual's resting energy expenditure).

One methodological point to note is that accelerometry measures of physical activity require that ‘cut-points’ are applied to accelerometry output in order to determine time spent in different intensities of physical activity(Reference Reilly, Penpraze, Hislop, Davies, Grant and Paton40). A consistent body of high-quality evidence shows that when evidence-based cut-points are applied to accelerometry data the habitual moderate–vigorous-intensity physical activity of preschool children appears typically to be low, although older studies that have used inappropriately-low cut-points have suggested that artefactually-high levels of physical activity are typical(Reference Reilly, Penpraze, Hislop, Davies, Grant and Paton40).

Studies of objectively-measured habitual sedentary behaviour in preschool children are more scarce (the author is only aware of the accelerometry and direct observation studies referred to earlier, which suggest that habitual sedentary behaviour is very high(Reference Reilly, Jackson, Montgomery, Kelly, Fisher, Paton and Grant10, Reference Finn, Johannsen and Specker35, Reference Reilly, Coyle, Kelly, Burke, Grant and Paton37, Reference Cardon and de Bourdeauhuij61, Reference McKee, Boreham, Murphy and Nevill62)). There is a larger body of evidence from studies that have used subjective measures of habitual sedentary behaviour, typically US studies using parent-proxy reports of television viewing obtained using questionnaires. With the caveat that subjective measures may not provide accurate estimates of the amount of sedentary behaviour(Reference Reilly, Penpraze, Hislop, Davies, Grant and Paton40), levels of exposure to television viewing that are harmful (by being obesogenic or harmful for other aspects of child health and development) are probably common among preschool children in the developed world(Reference Burdette and Whitaker63Reference Vandewater, Rideout, Wartella, Huang, Lee and Shim69). Systematic reviews have concluded repeatedly that reductions in screen time are beneficial as a strategy in childhood and adolescent obesity prevention and treatment, and a target (maximum) of 2 h/d non-academic screen time has been recommended widely for some time for older children and adolescents(Reference Summerbell, Ashton, Campbell, Edmunds, Kelly and Waters70Reference Barlow and Dietz75). The empirical evidence is fairly consistent in suggesting that levels of television viewing are >2 h/d in large minorities or majorities of the samples of preschool children in most studies(Reference Reilly, Armstrong, Dorosty, Emmett, Ness, Rogers, Steer and Sherriff22, Reference Dennison, Erb and Jenkins65, Reference Taveras, Sandora, Shih, Degnan, Goldman and Gillman66, Reference Vandewater, Rideout, Wartella, Huang, Lee and Shim69, Reference Certain and Kahn76, 77). Furthermore, there is some evidence that levels of television viewing might ‘track’ from the preschool period; individuals with highest exposure at one time point tend also to have highest exposure later in childhood(Reference Certain and Kahn76). An additional concern is the suggestion that amounts of screen time and television viewing might be socially patterned(Reference Jago, Baranowski, Baranowski, Thompson and Greaves55, Reference Taveras, Sandora, Shih, Degnan, Goldman and Gillman66, Reference Certain and Kahn76). In the UK there is no marked social patterning of the amount of habitual sedentary behaviour in the preschool period when measured objectively(Reference Reilly, Penpraze, Hislop, Davies, Grant and Paton40), although objective measures such as accelerometry do not capture information on the types of sedentary behaviour or on associations between sedentary behaviour and energy intake.

In summary, objectively-measured habitual physical activity is low and objectively-measured sedentary behaviour high in preschool children. Levels of physical activity and sedentary behaviour are strikingly different from levels currently recommended. Low levels of physical activity and high levels of sedentary behaviour are likely to be contributing to the epidemic of positive energy balance in preschool children.

Evidence from recent epidemiological studies

In the absence of definitive evidence from physiological (energy balance) studies on the precise role of physical activity and sedentary behaviour in the development of obesity in children(Reference Reilly, Ness and Sherriff41), alternative study designs are helpful; in particular, intervention studies in which physical activity or sedentary behaviour are changed and the impact of the intervention is assessed and epidemiological studies in which measures or estimates of physical activity and sedentary behaviour are related to weight outcomes(Reference Reilly, Ness and Sherriff41). Several reviews of relevant evidence have been published(Reference Wareham, Ven Sluis and Ekelund57, Reference Must and Tybor59, Reference Strong, Malina and Blinke78, Reference Hawkins and Law79). These reviews have concluded consistently that the evidence base in children is somewhat limited in quantity and quality(Reference Reilly, Ness and Sherriff41, Reference Van Sluijs, McMinn and Griffin80). Many studies have been limited by small sample size, use of crude measures of exposure, inadequate adjustment for social factors and cross-sectional design(Reference Reilly, Ness and Sherriff41). In some larger studies that have avoided these problems exposures such as objectively-measured physical activity were not available or not measured during the preschool period. In the large and comprehensive Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, for example, an objective survey of lifestyle at age 3 years did not include measures of physical activity, as these measures were not available and not practical at the time (mid-1990s)(Reference Reilly, Armstrong, Dorosty, Emmett, Ness, Rogers, Steer and Sherriff22). However, the addition of accelerometry to the measurement protocols from age 11 years has been successful in identifying associations between physical activity and body fatness, as well as indicating possible ‘dose–response’ relationships(Reference Ness, Leary, Rogers, Wells, Mattocks, Reilly, Davey-Smith and Riddoch42); the experience of this study illustrates the importance of measuring physical activity and sedentary behaviour objectively from early childhood in future cohort studies.

Despite limitations in the evidence base, the balance of evidence from preschool children is supportive of the hypothesis that higher levels of physical activity protect against obesity and high levels of sedentary behaviour promote obesity(Reference Hawkins and Law79). While there may be an extent of publication bias, with ‘positive’ findings being more likely to succeed in editorial and peer review than ‘negative’ findings, the serious limitations in design and methods make it less likely that any significant associations would be observed(Reference Wareham, Ven Sluis and Ekelund57, Reference Must and Tybor59, Reference Janz81) and should offset publication bias to some extent.

The aim of this section of the present review is to update the searches of previous reviews(Reference Wareham, Ven Sluis and Ekelund57, Reference Must and Tybor59, Reference Strong, Malina and Blinke78, Reference Hawkins and Law79) (from end 2005 to end 2007) with the focus exclusively on preschool studies, in order to provide a summary of recent epidemiological evidence. An updated search was indicated because it seemed likely that greatly improved evidence (from accelerometry studies) might have come to light in the past 2 years.

Evidence from recent intervention studies

Eligibility for inclusion here was restricted to randomised controlled trials in preschool children that had a weight-based primary outcome and followed participants to ≥12 months after the start of the intervention. Only two eligible studies, both cluster randomised controlled trials, were identified(Reference Reilly, Kelly, Montgomery, Williamson, Fisher, McColl, Lo Conte, Paton and Grant53, Reference Fitzgibbon, Stolley, Schiffer, Van-Horn, Kaufer-Christoffel and Dyer82). In one study the intervention was based on modification of physical activity and sedentary behaviour but no net increase in physical activity or decrease in sedentary behaviour, as measured by accelerometry, was found(Reference Reilly, Kelly, Montgomery, Williamson, Fisher, McColl, Lo Conte, Paton and Grant53). The absence of any change in physical activity and sedentary behaviour in this trial meant that it could not be used to test hypotheses in relation to these behaviours and their impact on weight status in preschool children. In the other trial a nursery-based diet and exercise programme also failed to demonstrate benefits for weight status(Reference Fitzgibbon, Stolley, Schiffer, Van-Horn, Kaufer-Christoffel and Dyer82), and the inclusion of both diet and physical activity interventions makes it difficult to identify the contribution of the latter to outcome in any case(Reference Reilly, Ness and Sherriff41, Reference Fitzgibbon, Stolley, Schiffer, Van-Horn, Kaufer-Christoffel and Dyer82).

The absence of benefits to the intervention in the latter study(Reference Fitzgibbon, Stolley, Schiffer, Van-Horn, Kaufer-Christoffel and Dyer82) is of particular interest since in this study the intervention targeted preschools with a largely Latino population, while essentially the same intervention had more marked benefits in the earlier study by this group when carried out in a largely African-American population(Reference Fitzgibbon, Stolley, Schiffer, VanHorn, Kaufer-Christoffel and Dyer83), implying that obesity prevention interventions may have to be more population-specific in future.

Evidence from recent longitudinal observational studies

Studies were included only if they reported on associations between a measure or estimate of physical activity or sedentary behaviour and a weight-based outcome with the exposure measured in the preschool period and outcome ≥1 year later. A total of four eligible longitudinal studies were identified that were not included in the previous review of this topic(Reference Hawkins and Law79) (Table 1).

Table 1. Recent longitudinal studies of associations between physical activity, sedentary behaviour and weight status in preschool children

MVPA, moderate–vigorous-intensity physical activity; TV, television.

* Contribution of preschool measures to findings unclear in this study (measures of exposure made repeatedly during childhood and adolescence).

This study also carried out a cross-sectional analysis (see Table 2).

Of the four longitudinal studies, only one measured habitual physical activity objectively using accelerometry(Reference Janz, Burns and Levy84), one measured physical activity subjectively(Reference Yang, Telema, Leskinen, Mansikkaniemi, Viikari and Raitakari85) and the other two measured television viewing as the exposure, subjectively(Reference Reilly, Armstrong, Dorosty, Emmett, Ness, Rogers, Steer and Sherriff22, Reference Lumeng, Rahnama, Appugliese, Kacioti and Bradley86). This small body of evidence identified after the last major review of this topic is supportive of the hypotheses that higher levels of physical activity in the preschool protect against excess fat gain, and higher levels of exposure to television viewing in the preschool period significantly increase risk of subsequent obesity. It may be of note that in one of these studies significant associations between physical activity and adiposity were found despite a relatively small sample size(Reference Janz, Burns and Levy84); this finding may have been because of the high quality of the exposure measure (physical activity by accelerometry).

Evidence from recent cross-sectional observational studies

In view of the limitations of the evidence base from longitudinal studies it is appropriate to consider recent cross-sectional studies that have attempted to identify associations between physical activity, sedentary behaviour and obesity or body fatness. The principal caveat that applies to cross-sectional studies is doubt over causality, and the cross-sectional study design is inferior to longitudinal design(Reference Reilly, Ness and Sherriff41, Reference Wareham, Ven Sluis and Ekelund57, Reference Must and Tybor59).

For the current review, four eligible and new cross-sectional studies were identified (Table 2). The focus of three of these four studies(Reference Lumeng, Rahnama, Appugliese, Kacioti and Bradley86Reference Lioret, Touvier, Lafay, Volatier and Maire88) was parent-reported television viewing and significant associations with overweight and/or obesity, usually robust to a range of adjustments, were found. In the fourth(Reference Metallinos-Katsaras, Freedson, Fulton and Sherry89), which was a small study, significantly lower risk of overweight and obesity at higher levels of physical activity was reported. Despite the use of accelerometry, no clear ‘dose response’ was identified(Reference Metallinos-Katsaras, Freedson, Fulton and Sherry89) and the authors acknowledge that they used accelerometry cut-points that were inappropriately low, rendering inferences on relationships between intensity of physical activity and overweight doubtful(Reference Reilly, Penpraze, Hislop, Davies, Grant and Paton40, Reference Metallinos-Katsaras, Freedson, Fulton and Sherry89).

Table 2. Recent cross-sectional studies of associations between physical activity, sedentary behaviour and weight status in preschool children

TV, television.

* Study was both cross-sectional and longitudinal (see Table 1).

In summary, the recent evidence from preschool longitudinal and cross-sectional studies is limited but consistent with previous reviews in being supportive of the view that physical activity protects against overweight and obesity, while sedentary behaviour is a risk factor for overweight and obesity(Reference Hawkins and Law79).

Major gaps in the evidence base on relationships between physical activity, sedentary behaviour and energy balance in preschool children

The review carried out for the present study shows that improvements in the evidence base have been fairly modest over the past 2 years. Intervention studies and longitudinal studies have been rare. There is clearly a need for greater emphasis on both types of study focused on preschool children. Intervention studies would have added value in providing potential public health strategies to address the obesity epidemic as well as valuable evidence on the aetiology of obesity.

With the advent of accelerometry, measurement of the important exposures of sedentary behaviour and physical activity is now possible with high accuracy, practical utility, relatively low cost and relatively high precision(Reference Reilly, Penpraze, Hislop, Davies, Grant and Paton40, Reference Reilly, Ness and Sherriff41, Reference Must and Tybor59). Accelerometry also permits physical activity to be partitioned into the distinct constructs of total volume of physical activity, light-intensity physical activity and moderate–vigorous-intensity physical activity(Reference Ness, Leary, Rogers, Wells, Mattocks, Reilly, Davey-Smith and Riddoch42, Reference Montgomery, Reilly, Jackson, Kelly, Slater, Paton and Grant60). The availability of accelerometry could soon provide a greatly-improved understanding of the aetiology of obesity in preschool children. A number of new cohort studies are underway in which the focus is the role of the preschool environment in the aetiology of childhood obesity(Reference Hawkins, Cole and Law21, Reference Moschonis, Grammatikakis and Manios90, Reference L'Abee, Sauer, Damen, Rake, Cats and Stolk91). These cohort studies should improve understanding of the early aetiology of obesity, although to date few of the new cohort studies appear to have included objective measurements of physical activity and sedentary behaviour in early life, which is a missed opportunity.

One gap in the literature that is obvious is the lack of aetiological evidence from outside the USA, and the almost complete absence of evidence from the developing world. The obesity epidemic has progressed rapidly among children and adolescents across much of the developing world(Reference Lobstein, Baur and Uauy1, Reference Kalies, Lerz and Von Kries17) and so intervention and longitudinal studies of preschool children that employ accelerometry should be a priority of future obesity research in developing countries.

Conclusions

While a complete understanding of the precise contributions of physical activity and sedentary behaviour to energy imbalance in early childhood remains elusive, it is clear that preschool children, at least in the developed world, lead highly sedentary lives that must predispose to overweight and obesity in the modern food environment. Other influences on energy imbalance are likely to be important in the preschool period, including potentially-important contributions of parental feeding style on food intake and genetic predispositions, but discussion of these issues is beyond the scope of the current review.

The preschool years may not be a critical period for the regulation of long-term energy imbalance, but establishment of obesogenic behaviours by or during the preschool period appears to be common in the developed world. These lifestyles commonly cause the establishment of obesogenic growth trajectories by the preschool years. The preschool period is likely to be critical in the public health sense because future efforts at obesity prevention will need to focus on ensuring that many fewer preschool children establish obesogenic lifestyles and develop obesogenic growth trajectories.

Acknowledgements

The author declares no conflict of interest. The author's research on energy balance in preschool children has been supported by the Scottish Government Health Directorates Chief Scientist Office, the British Heart Foundation and Sport Aiding Medical Research for Kids.

References

1.Lobstein, T, Baur, L & Uauy, R (2004) Obesity in children and young people: a crisis in public health. Obes Rev 5, 485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Reilly, JJ (2006) Tackling the obesity epidemic: new approaches. Arch Dis Child 91, 724726.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Dietz, WH (1994) Critical periods in childhood for the development of obesity. Am J Clin Nutr 59, 995999.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Rolland-Cachera, MF, Deheeger, M, Bellisle, F, Sempe, M, Guilloud-Bataille, M & Patois, E (1984) Adiposity rebound in children: a simple indicator for predicting adiposity. Am J Clin Nutr 39, 129135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Whitaker, RC, Pepe, MS, Wright, JA, Seidel, KD & Dietz, WH (1998) Early adiposity rebound and the risk of adult obesity. Pediatrics 101, e5e11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Dietz, WH (2000) Adiposity rebound: reality or epiphenomenon? Lancet 356, 20272029.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Cole, TJ (2004) Children grow and horses race: is the adiposity rebound a critical period for later obesity? BMC Pediatr 4, 69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Taylor, RW, Grant, AM, Goulding, A & Williams, SM (2005) Early adiposity rebound. Curr Op Clin Nutr Met Care 8, 607612.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Taylor, RW, Goulding, A, Lewis-Barned, NJ & Williams, SM (2004) Rate of fat gain is faster in girls undergoing early adiposity rebound. Obes Res 12, 12281230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Reilly, JJ, Jackson, DM, Montgomery, C, Kelly, LA, Fisher, A, Paton, JY & Grant, S (2004) Total energy expenditure and physical activity in young Scottish children: mixed longitudinal study. Lancet 363, 211212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Armstrong, J, Dorosty, AR, Reilly, JJ & Emmett, PM (2003) Co-existence of social inequalities in under-nutrition and obesity in preschool children: population-based cross-sectional study. Arch Dis Child 88, 671675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Kinra, S, Nelder, RP & Lewenden, GJ (2000) Deprivation and childhood obesity: a cross-sectional study of 20,973 children in Plymouth, UK. J Epidemiol Comm Health 54, 456460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Davey-Smith, G (2007) Life-course approaches to inequalities in adult chronic disease risk. Proc Nutr Soc 66, 216236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Wake, M, Hardy, P, Cantesford, L, Sawyer, M & Carlin, JB (2007) Overweight, obesity, and girth of Australian preschoolers: prevalence and socio-economic correlates. Int J Obes (Lond) 31, 10441051.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Sherry, BL, Mei, Z, Scanlon, KS, Mokdad, A & Grummer-Strawn, L (2004) Trends in state-specific prevalence of overweight and underweight in 2–4 year old children from low income families 1984–2000. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 158, 11161124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Armstrong, J & Reilly, JJ (2003) Use of the National Child Health Surveillance System for monitoring obesity, overweight, and underweight in Scottish children. Scot Med J 48, 3237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Kalies, H, Lerz, J & Von Kries, R (2002) Prevalence of overweight and obesity and trends in BMI in German preschool children, 1982–1997. Int J Obes (Lond) 26, 12111217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Freeman, JV, Cole, TJ, Chinn, S, Jones, PRM, White, EM & Preece, MA (1995) Cross sectional stature and weight reference curves for the UK. Arch Dis Child 73, 1724.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Whitaker, RC & Orzol, SM (2006) Obesity among US urban preschool children: relationship to race, ethnicity, and socio-economic status. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 160, 578584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Dorosty, AR, Siassi, F & Reilly, JJ (2002) Obesity in Iranian children. Arch Dis Child 87, 388391.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Hawkins, SS, Cole, TJ & Law, C (2008) Maternal employment and early childhood overweight. Int J Obes (Lond) 32, 3038.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Reilly, JJ, Armstrong, J, Dorosty, AR, Emmett, PM, Ness, AR, Rogers, I, Steer, C & Sherriff, A (2005) Early life risk factors for childhood obesity: cohort study. Br Med J 330, 13571362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Ekelund, U, Ong, K, Linne, Y, Neovius, M, Brage, S, Dunger, SB, Wareham, NJ & Rossner, S (2006) Upward percentile crossing in infancy and early childhood independently predicts fat mass in young adults. Am J Clin Nutr 83, 324330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Huus, K, Ludvigsson, JF, Enska, K & Ludvigsson, J (2007) Risk factors in childhood obesity: findings from the All Babies in South-East Sweden (ABIS) cohort. Acta Paediatr 96, 13211325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Li, C, Goran, MI, Kaur, H, Nollen, N & Ahluwalia, JS (2007) Developmental trajectories of overweight during childhood: role of early life factors. Obesity 15, 760771.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.Nader, PR, O'Brien, M, Houts, R, Bradley, R, Belsky, J, Crosroe, R, Friedmanm, S, Mei, Z & Susman, EJ (2006) Identifying risk for obesity in early childhood. Pediatrics 118, e594e601.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27.Freedman, DS, Khan, LK, Serdula, LK, Dietz, WH, Srinivasan, SR & Berenson, GS (2005). Racial differences in the tracking of childhood BMI to adulthood. Obes Res 13, 928935.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28.Hughes, AR, Stewart, L, Chapple, J, Donaldson, M, Zabihollah, M, Ahmed, SF, Kelnar, CZH & Reilly, JJ (2008) Randomized controlled trial of a best practice individualized behavioral program for treatment of childhood overweight: Scottish Childhood Overweight Treatment Trial (SCOTT). Pediatrics 121, e539e546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29.Quattrin, T, Liu, E & Shaw, N (2005) Obese children who are referred to the pediatric endocrinologist: characteristics and outcome. Pediatrics 115, 348351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30.Reilly, JJ, Kelly, A, Ness, P, Dorosty, AR, Wallace, WHB, Gibson, BES & Emmett, PM (2001) Premature adiposity rebound in children treated for acute lymphoblastic leukemia. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 86, 27752778.Google ScholarPubMed
31.Rolland-Cachera, MF (1999) Obesity among adolescents: evidence for the importance of early nutrition. In Human Growth in Context, pp. 245258 [Johnston, FE, Zemel, B and Eveleth, PB editors]. London: Smith-Gordon.Google Scholar
32.Baird, J, Fisher, D, Lucus, P, Kleinjen, J, Roberts, H & Law, C (2005) Being big or growing fast?: systematic review of size and growth in infancy and later obesity. Br Med J 331, 929934.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33.Janz, KF, Gilmore, JM, Levy, SM, Letuchy, EM, Burns, TL & Beck, TJ (2007) Physical activity and femoral neck bone strength during childhood: the Iowa Bone Development Study. Bone 41, 216222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34.Oliver, M, Schofield, GM & Kolt, GS (2008) Physical activity in preschoolers: understanding prevalence and measurement issues. Sports Med (In the Press).Google Scholar
35.Finn, KJ, Johannsen, N & Specker, B (2002) Factors associated with physical activity in preschool children. J Pediatr 140, 8185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36.Jackson, DM, Reilly, JJ, Kelly, LA, Montgomery, C, Grant, S & Paton, JY (2003) Objectively measured physical activity in 3–4 year old children. Obes Res 11, 420425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37.Reilly, JJ, Coyle, J, Kelly, LA, Burke, GB, Grant, S & Paton, JY (2003) An objective method for measurement of sedentary behavior in 3–4 year olds. Obes Res 11, 11551158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38.Reilly, JJ, Montgomery, C, Jackson, DM, MacRitchie, J & Armstrong, J (2001) Energy intake by multiple pass 24-hour recall and total energy expenditure: a comparison in a representative sample of 3–4 year olds. Br J Nutr 86, 601605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39.Montgomery, C, Reilly, JJ, Jackson, DM, Kelly, LA, Slater, C, Paton, JY & Grant, S (2005) Validation of energy intake by 24-hour multiple pass recall: comparison with total energy expenditure in primary school age children. Br J Nutr 94, 5663.Google Scholar
40.Reilly, JJ, Penpraze, V, Hislop, J, Davies, G, Grant, S & Paton, JY (2008) Objective measurement of physical activity and sedentary behaviour: review with new data. Arch Dis Child (In the Press).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41.Reilly, JJ, Ness, AR & Sherriff, A (2007) Epidemiological and physiological approaches to understanding the etiology of pediatric obesity: finding the needle in the haystack. Pediatr Res 61, 646652.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42.Ness, AR, Leary, SD, Rogers, IS, Wells, JC, Mattocks, C, Reilly, JJ, Davey-Smith, G & Riddoch, C (2007) Objectively measured physical activity and fat mass in a large cohort of children. PLOS Med 4, e97e101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
43.Andersen, LB, Nacro, M, Sardinha, LB, Froberg, K, Ekelund, U, Brage, S & Andersen, SA (2006) Physical activity and clustered cardiovascular risk in children. Lancet 368, 299304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
44.Finn, KJ & Specker, B (2000) Comparison of Actiwatch activity monitor and Children's Activity Rating Scale in children. Med Sci Sports Exerc 32, 17941797.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
45.Sirard, JR, Trost, SG, Pfeiffer, KA, Dowda, M & Pate, RR (2005) Calibration and evaluation of an objective measure of physical activity in preschool children. J Phys Act Health 3, 325336.Google Scholar
46.Pate, RR, Almeida, MJ, McIver, KL, Pfeiffer, KA & Dowda, M (2006) Validation and calibration of an accelerometer in preschool children. Obesity 14, 20002006.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
47.Fairweather, SC, Reilly, JJ, Grant, S, Whittaker, A & Paton, JY (1999) Using the CSA activity monitor in preschool children. Pediatr Exerc Sci 11, 414421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48.Troiano, RP, Berrigan, D, Dodd, KW, Masse, LC, Tilert, T & McDowell, M (2008). Physical activity in the US measured by accelerometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc 40, 181188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
49.Biddle, SJ, Gorely, T, Marshall, SJ, Murdey, I & Cameron, NJ (2004) Physical activity and sedentary behaviours in youth: issues and controversies. J Roy Soc Health 124, 2933.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
50.Gordon-Larsen, P, McMurray, RG & Popkin, BM (2000) Determinants of adolescent physical activity and inactivity patterns. Pediatrics 195, e83e87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
51.Gortmaker, SL, Peterson, K, Wiecha, J, Sobol, AM, Dixit, S, Fox, MK & Laird, N (1999) Reducing obesity via a school-based interdisciplinary intervention among youth: Planet Health. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 53, 409418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
52.Robinson, TN (1999) Reducing children's television viewing to prevent obesity: a randomised controlled trial. JAMA 282, 15611567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
53.Reilly, JJ, Kelly, L, Montgomery, C, Williamson, A, Fisher, A, McColl, JH, Lo Conte, R, Paton, JY & Grant, S (2006) Physical activity to prevent obesity in young children: cluster randomised controlled trial. Br Med J 333, 10411045.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
54.Pate, RR, Pfeiffer, KA, Trost, SG, Ziegler, P & Dowda, M (2004) Physical activity among children attending preschools. Pediatrics 114, 12581263.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
55.Jago, R, Baranowski, T, Baranowski, JC, Thompson, D & Greaves, KA (2005) BMI from 3–6 years of age is predicted by TV viewing and physical activity, not diet. Int J Obes (Lond) 29, 557564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
56.Reilly, JJ (2005) Prevalence and Causes of Childhood Obesity. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Sciences Nutrition and Natural Resources, vol. 1, no. 2. Wallingford, Oxon.: CABI; DOI: 10.70ay/PAVSNHR2005.1002.Google Scholar
57.Wareham, NJ, Ven Sluis, EM & Ekelund, U (2005) Physical activity and obesity prevention: a review of the current evidence. Proc Nutr Soc 64, 229247.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
58.Stead, M, Hastings, G & McDermott, L (2007) The meaning, effectiveness and future of social marketing. Obes Rev 8, Suppl. 1, 189193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
59.Must, A & Tybor, DJ (2005) Physical activity and sedentary behavior: a review of longitudinal studies of weight and adiposity in youth. Int J Obes (Lond) 29, s84s96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
60.Montgomery, C, Reilly, JJ, Jackson, DM, Kelly, LA, Slater, C, Paton, JY & Grant, S (2004) Relation between physical activity and energy expenditure in a representative sample of young children. Am J Clin Nutr 80, 591596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
61.Cardon, G & de Bourdeauhuij, I (2007) Comparison of pedometer and accelerometer measures of physical activity in preschool children. Pediatr Exerc Sci 19, 205214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
62.McKee, DP, Boreham, CAG, Murphy, MH & Nevill, AM (2005) Validation of the Digiwalker pedometer for measuring physical activity in young children. Pediatr Exerc Sci 17, 345352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
63.Burdette, HL & Whitaker, RC (2005) Resurrecting free play in young children: looking beyond fitness and fatness to attention, affiliation, and affect. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 159, 4650.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
64.Christakis, DA, Zimmerman, FJ, Di-Giuseppe, DL & McCarty, CA (2004) Early television exposure and subsequent attentional problems in children. Pediatrics 113, 708713.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
65.Dennison, BA, Erb, TA & Jenkins, PL (2002) Television viewing and television in bedroom associated with overweight risk among low-income preschool children. Pediatrics 109, 10281035.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
66.Taveras, EM, Sandora, TJ, Shih, MC, Degnan, DR, Goldman, DA & Gillman, MW (2006) The association of television and video viewing with fast food intake by preschool-age children. Obesity 14, 20342041.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
67.Hancox, RJ & Poulton, R (2006) Watching television is associated with childhood obesity but is it clinically important? Int J Obes (Lond) 30, 171175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
68.Viner, RM & Cole, TJ (2005) Television viewing in early childhood predicts adult body mass index. J Pediatr 147, 429435.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
69.Vandewater, EA, Rideout, VJ, Wartella, EA, Huang, X, Lee, JH & Shim, MS (2007) Digital childhood: electronic media and technology use among infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. Pediatrics 119, e1006e1015.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
70.Summerbell, CD, Ashton, V, Campbell, KJ, Edmunds, L, Kelly, S & Waters, E (2003) Interventions for treating obesity in children. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2003, issue 3, CD001872. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
71.Summerbell, CD, Waters, E, Edmunds, LD, Kelly, S, Brown, T & Campbell, KJ (2005) Interventions for preventing obesity in children. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, issue 1, CD001871. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
72.Reilly, JJ, Wilson, M, Summerbell, CD & Wilson, DC (2002) Obesity diagnosis, prevention, and treatment: evidence based answers to common questions. Arch Dis Child 86, 312395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
73.National Health and Medical Research Council (2003) Clinical practice guidelines for the management of overweight and obesity in children and adolescents. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/Publishing.nsf/Content/obesityguidelines-guidelines-children.htm (accessed March 2008).Google Scholar
74.Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Institute of Nutrition, Metabolism and Diabetes (2004) Addressing childhood obesity: the evidence for action. www.irsc.gc.ca/e/23293.html (accessed March 2008).Google Scholar
75.Barlow, SE & Dietz, WH (1998). Obesity evaluation and treatment: expert committee recommendations. Pediatrics 192, e29e34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
76.Certain, LK & Kahn, RS (2002) Prevalence, correlates, and trajectory of television viewing among infants and toddlers. Pediatrics 109, 634642.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
77.The Scottish Government (2005) Scottish Health Survey 2003 results. Children report. chapters 1–10. www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/11/25145024/50251 (accessed March 2008).Google Scholar
78.Strong, WB, Malina, RM, Blinke, CJR et al. (2005) Evidence-based physical activity for school-age youth. J Pediatr 146, 732737.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
79.Hawkins, SS & Law, C (2006) A review of risk factors for overweight in preschool children: a policy perspective. Int J Pediatr Obes 1, 195209.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
80.Van Sluijs, EM, McMinn, AM & Griffin, SJ (2007) Effectiveness of interventions to promote physical activity in children and adolescents: systematic review of controlled trials. Br Med J 335, 703707.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
81.Janz, KF (2006) Physical activity in epidemiology: moving from questionnaire to objective measurement. Br J Sports Med 40, 191192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
82.Fitzgibbon, ML, Stolley, MR, Schiffer, L, Van-Horn, L, Kaufer-Christoffel, K & Dyer, A (2006) Hip Hop to Health Junior for Latino preschool children. Obesity 14, 16161625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
83.Fitzgibbon, ML, Stolley, MR, Schiffer, L, VanHorn, L, Kaufer-Christoffel, K & Dyer, A (2005) Two-year follow-up results for Hip Hop to Health Junior. J Pediatr 146, 618625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
84.Janz, KF, Burns, TL & Levy, SM (2005) Tracking of activity and sedentary behaviors in childhood. Am J Prev Med 29, 172178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
85.Yang, X, Telema, R, Leskinen, E, Mansikkaniemi, K, Viikari, J & Raitakari, OT (2007) Testing a model of physical activity and obesity tracking from youth to adulthood. Int J Obes (Lond) 31, 521527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
86.Lumeng, JC, Rahnama, S, Appugliese, D, Kacioti, N & Bradley, RH (2006) Television exposure and overweight risk in preschoolers. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 160, 417422.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
87.Jouret, B, Ahluwalia, N, Cristini, C, Dupay, D, Negre-Pages, L, Grandjean, H & Tauber, M (2007) Factors associated with overweight in preschool age children in South Western France. Am J Clin Nutr 85, 16431649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
88.Lioret, S, Touvier, M, Lafay, L, Volatier, JL & Maire, B (2008) Dietary and physical activity patterns in French children are related to overweight and socio-economic status. J Nutr 138, 101107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
89.Metallinos-Katsaras, ES, Freedson, PS, Fulton, JE & Sherry, B (2007) The association between an objective measure of physical activity and weight status in preschoolers. Obesity 15, 686694.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
90.Moschonis, G, Grammatikakis, E & Manios, Y (2008) Perinatal predictors of overweight at infancy and preschool childhood: the GENESIS Study. Int J Obes (Lond) 32, 3947.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
91.L'Abee, C, Sauer, PJJ, Damen, M, Rake, JP, Cats, H & Stolk, RP (2007) The GECKO Drenthe Study: overweight programming during early childhood. Int J Epidemiol (In the Press).Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Recent longitudinal studies of associations between physical activity, sedentary behaviour and weight status in preschool children

Figure 1

Table 2. Recent cross-sectional studies of associations between physical activity, sedentary behaviour and weight status in preschool children