Rate of Growth in Relation to Birth Rank and Family Size

Grant, M. W.

doi:10.1136/jech.18.1.35

Cited by 23 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar factors probably account for the effect ofposition in family; this was interpreted by Grant (1964) as indicating that the advent of each additional child per family acts as a check to the growth of all preceding sibs, and this interpretation was supported by the evidence of birth spacing, children following soon after their older sib tending to be smaller than those where there is a greater interval; environment, either in infancy or antenatally, seems clearly implicated. The social class effect appears more complex in origin; it is by no means clear to some that 'class' is anything other than an indirect measure of some more fundamental variable, such as nutrition, or the standard of parental care given to the child (Berry and Cowin, 1954).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Physique and family environment in girls attending a Welsh college.

Dann¹,

Roberts²

1969

Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is a curious fact of the biology of the modem population of Britain that, whereas there is little association between menarcheal age and social class (Douglas, 1964;Nisbet and Illesley, 1963), there remain by contrast clear differences in height and weight between children of different socioeconomic groups. These physique differences persist into adulthood (Clements and Pickett, 1957;Thomson, 1959). This contrast between menarcheal age and body size is the more surprising since both share in the well-established secular trend towards earlier attainment of the former and increase of the latter (Tanner, 1962(Tanner, , 1965.A recent and continuing study of girls in a Welsh college (Roberts and Dann, 1967), the object of which was to assess the relative contributions of particular factors of the environment to variation in menarcheal age, showed, as in other recent studies in Britain, no detectable effect of socio-economic status on menarcheal age. Possible explanations proposed were that the Registrar General's socioeconomic categories are no longer meaningful in terms of expenditure on food, standards of housing, etc., factors which influence biological development; or that socio-economic differences have been eliminated as effective influences of biological development during the growth of the subjects. In the latter respect the sample was unusually uniform; the years of birth (1939)(1940)(1941)(1942)(1943)(1944)(1945)(1946) and early life of the subjects covered a period of economic stringency and nutritional uniformity, and indeed it was this relative homogeneity that prompted the initial analysis. In

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Again, the effect of position in family is in the same direction as other reports. Grant (1964), studying the growth records of L.C.C. children, analysed the height differences between consecutive pairs of children and found the later child to be taller than its predecessor by about 0-8 cm.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physique and family environment in girls attending a Welsh college.

Dann¹,

Roberts²

1969

Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, Grant (1964) as well as Douglas and Simpson (1964) were able to demonstrate a stunting effect with increasing family size for children of various ages. Grant (1964) concluded that each additional birth served in some way to retard the growth of older siblings.…”

Section: Women's Roles and Children's Nutritionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…The studies by Grant (1964) and Douglas and Simpson (1964) can be viewed as having strong implications about family size and nutritional status among children, although genetic or other environmental factors cannot be disregarded. Additionally, the results of at least one British study cited by Terhune (1974) have indicated higher prevalences of obesity among only children and children from small families.…”

Section: Women's Roles and Children's Nutritionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Family size as a determinant of children's dietary intake: A dilution model approach

Kucera

McIntosh

1991

Ecology of Food and Nutrition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The dilution model predicts that larger families reduce the amount of resources (time, energy, money) available for each child, thus hindering social and physical development. In this analysis a national sample, involving a disproportionate number of low-income households, was used to test the effects of family size on nutritional risk, measured by the adequacy of dietary intake among 4-to-6-year-old children. It was hypothesized that children from small families are at lower nutritional risk than those from medium or large families. It was also hypothesized that children from medium families are at lower nutritional risk than those from large families. After controlling for age, sex, ethnicity, family income and maternal education, these hypotheses received support.

show abstract

“…Douglas and Simpson (1964) showed that at age 7, and again at ages 11 and 15, children without siblings were fatter than the others. Grant (1964) found that first-born children with siblings did not achieve the heights and weights of those 'first-born children who remained only children. She suggested that this was related to food consumption, and the results of the present study support this, since consumption of nutrients of only children was significantly higher than that of other children, with the exception that their diet was relatively less rich in carbohydrate and sugar.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%