Breakfast Cereal and BMI

On April 9th, 2013 Reuter's featured an article on a linkage between "Breakfast cereal tied to lower BMI for kids." According to Reuter's:

"Kids who ate cereal four out of the nine days tended to be in the 95th percentile for BMI, which is considered overweight, compared to kids who ate cereal all nine days, whose measurements were in the 65th percentile, in the healthy weight range." and,

"... the fact that for the three days surveyed, each additional day that included cereal was associated with a 2 percentile decrease in BMI."

While the sample size of this study is decent in size (n=625 students), upon looking at the aspects of their actual study, I am surprised they have made their conclusions about Ready-to-eat Cereal (RTEC) as boldly as they have stated in their online journal overview,

"Children who frequently consumed RTEC had greater intakes of essential nutrients at baseline and significantly lower BMI over a 3-year period."

First off, the inclusion of "greater intakes of essential nutrients" is misleading. The study does test the "intake" amount of the foods that the students are ingesting, and thus leads readers to the intuitive (however possibly erroneous) conclusion that consuming Ready-to-eat Cereal leads to better nutrition. While I do agree that RTEC is fortified with vitamins and minerals (Data from General Mills), it is hard to say that the study proves anything about their absorbance by children, as the conclusion infers. Their values for BMI do appear to be accurately calculated, though the fact that children who didn't consume RTEC compared to those who did appears to neglect many confounding variables outside of those that were accounted for, such as actual consumptive quantity and family history of obesity.

Secondly, as for Reuter's coverage of the data, they report values consistent with the literature; however, they fail to mention one key phrase. The title of the article posted by Reuter's implies all children; where as, the specific scope of the study is towards that of low-income minority children (e.g. Association between Frequency of Ready-to-Eat Cereal Consumption, Nutrient Intakes, and Body Mass Index in Fourth- to Sixth-Grade Low-Income Minority Children). One could argue that children are children, but I believe that the fact that the student's come from low-income minority background restricts these results solely to that group because of the lack of accessibility to nutritious foods due to their low-income status. I believe that a more encompassing/random study would be necessary to assert these conclusions to all children.

Though Reuter's title is misleading they do repent, slightly, by adding,

'"They didn't really look thoughtfully at the other types of breakfasts that could be eaten, for example there may be benefits of including oatmeal and low fat turkey sausage that could be part of a healthy breakfast," [Haemer] said.'

'"There's still a lot of science to be done," [Haemer] said. "Cereal appears to be part of the picture but it's not the complete picture."'

Sources:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/09/us-health-breakfast-idUSBRE93815320130409
http://www.andjrnl.org/article/S2212-2672%2813%2900007-5/abstract
http://www.generalmills.com/Home/Brands/Cereals/Big_G_Cereals/Brand%20Product%20List%20Page