Wonder why they chose Belarusian babies:

Research has linked greater weight gain in the first month of baby’s life to a higher IQ at early school age.

A team of Australian and Canadian researchers analysed data collected from 14,000 healthy babies in Belarus.

The study found babies who put on 40 per cent of their birth weight in the first four weeks had an IQ 1.5 points higher by the time they were six years of age, compared with babies who only put on 15 per cent of their birth weight.

Dr Lisa Smithers, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Adelaide, led the study, and says she was not surprised by the result.

“Other pieces of the literature pointed to this kind of effect, but nobody’s really also looked at that really early period, those first four weeks of life,” she said.

“This was additional to that other research which says growth in the first year ; well, actually what we’ve shown is growth in those first four weeks is also very, very important.”

Dr Smithers says the study is significant because it looks at the weight gain of healthy babies and focuses on the first month of their life.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-17/weight-gain-in-first-month-of-life-linked-to-higher-iq/4760982

Bubblecar said:

The study found babies who put on 40 per cent of their birth weight in the first four weeks had an IQ 1.5 points higher by the time they were six years of age, compared with babies who only put on 15 per cent of their birth weight.

What about babies who put on 39% of their birth weight or 16% of their birth weight.

Reports like this are nonsensical. They do not mean anything. Hopefully Doctor Lisa’s study s being horribly mis-reported, as so many scientific studies are.

If the hypothesis is simply that babies who have access to better care early in their lives end up having higher IQ’s then fair enough. Test that hypothesis and report the results.

Don’t try to tell me that a baby who puts on 40% weight from birth in four weeks is one and a half times smarter than a baby that puts on 15% weight by the time it’s six. That is obvious bullshit.

Because bewbz

>Don’t try to tell me that a baby who puts on 40% weight from birth in four weeks is one and a half times smarter than a baby that puts on 15% weight by the time it’s six. That is obvious bullshit.

Yes, it is obvious bullshit, which is why they didn’t say it.

1.5 IQ points. Although I’m not sure that can even be statistically significant.

esselte said:

Don’t try to tell me that a baby who puts on 40% weight from birth in four weeks is one and a half times smarter than a baby that puts on 15% weight by the time it’s six. That is obvious bullshit.

1.5 points =/= 150%

Kingy said:

esselte said:

Don’t try to tell me that a baby who puts on 40% weight from birth in four weeks is one and a half times smarter than a baby that puts on 15% weight by the time it’s six. That is obvious bullshit.

1.5 points =/= 150%

Ahh, your right. My mistake. So well cared for babies have an IQ 1.5 points above poorly cared for babies? So, like, the difference between 99 and 100.5 IQ?

The most interesting thing about this is how close the two are. Statistical significance and all that jazz comes in to play.

Ultimately the result of this study was “no significant difference” or “we don’t know/we can’t tell”. IMO that’s more noteworthy than the stuff cited in the article.

>Statistical significance and all that jazz comes in to play

Gee, if only someone had mentioned that a post or two earlier :)

sibeen said:

>Statistical significance and all that jazz comes in to play

Gee, if only someone had mentioned that a post or two earlier :)

I’m too used to doing the heavy lifting around here.

I don’t care for people stealing my thunder by posting what I want to say before I say it.

Fiddlesticks… I say. And humbug. Humbug to you, dear sir.

:)