T he article by Slusser et al. ‘‘Pediatric overweight prevention through a parent training program for 2–4 year old Latino children,’’ published in Childhood Obesity in February, 2012, indicates that the intervention included Ellyn Satter’s ‘‘.philosophy of internal regulation related to eating,’’ among the other intervention materials. In her 1996 article ‘‘Internal regulation and the evolution of normal growth as the basis for prevention of obesity in children,’’ Satter pointed out that when parents do their jobs with feeding, children do their jobs with eating and growing. To support internal regulation, parents and caregivers need to trust the ‘‘children’s innate growth processes and inclinations for [food consumption] and movement that support those tendencies.’’ From Satter’s perspective, desirable growth is consistent growth at any percentile level. Intervention from the Trust perspective, ‘‘identifies and resolves factors that disrupt homeostasis and establishes consistent and positive eating and activity’’ to allow the child to restore the growth pattern that is natural and expected for them. In contrast, the Bright Futures curriculum, Traffic Light Diet, and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) childhood obesity prevention Expert Committee recommendations attempt to get the child’s BMI to go down to a lower percentile by controlling food selection and manipulating the caloric density of the child’s diet—essentially by getting the child to undereat and lose weight. In my view, the intervention by Slusser et al. straddles the Trust versus Control paradigm as described by Satter. On the one hand, this intervention recommends mothers ‘‘implement consistent daily routines centered on eating..’’ On the other hand, it attempts to indirectly control the child’s energy intake by manipulating dietary caloric density emphasizing healthy foods. Author Disclosure Statement
Read full abstract