Relationships between socio-environmental factors and obesity are poorly understood due to a dearth of longitudinal population-level research. The objective of this analysis was to examine 45-year trends in time-use, household management (HM) and energy expenditure in women. Using national time-use data from women 19–64 years of age, we quantified time allocation and household management energy expenditure (HMEE) from 1965 to 2010. HM was defined as the sum of time spent in food preparation, post-meal cleaning activities (e.g., dish-washing), clothing maintenance (e.g., laundry), and general housework. HMEE was calculated using body weights from national surveys and metabolic equivalents. The time allocated to HM by women (19–64 yrs) decreased from 25.7 hr/week in 1965 to 13.3 hr/week in 2010 (P<0.001), with non-employed women decreasing by 16.6 hr/week and employed women by 6.7 hr/week (P<0.001). HMEE for non-employed women decreased 42% from 25.1 Mj/week (6004 kilocalories per week) in 1965 to 14.6 Mj/week (3486 kcal/week) in 2010, a decrement of 10.5 Mj/week or 1.5 Mj/day (2518 kcal/week; 360 kcal/day) (P<0.001), whereas employed women demonstrated a 30% decrement of 3.9 Mj/week, 0.55 Mj/day (923 kcal/week, 132 kcal/day) (P<0.001). The time women spent in screen-based media use increased from 8.3 hr/week in 1965 to 16.5 hr/week in 2010 (P<0.001), with non-employed women increasing 9.6 hr/week and employed women 7.5 hr/week (P<0.001). From 1965 to 2010, there was a large and significant decrease in the time allocated to HM. By 2010, women allocated 25% more time to screen-based media use than HM (i.e., cooking, cleaning, and laundry combined). The reallocation of time from active pursuits (i.e., housework) to sedentary pastimes (e.g., watching TV) has important health consequences. These results suggest that the decrement in HMEE may have contributed to the increasing prevalence of obesity in women during the last five decades.

Objectives. To systematically review the evidence from prospective and retrospective cohort studies on the association between gestational weight gain (GWG) and offspring’s body weight.Methods. Electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Academic Search Premiere were searched from inception through March 18, 2013. Included studies (n=23) were English articles that examined the independent associations of GWG with body mass index (BMI) and/or overweight status in the offspring aged 2 to 18.9 years. Two authors independently extracted the data and assessed methodological quality of the included studies.Results. Evidence from cohort studies supports that total GWG and exceeding the Institute of Medicine maternal weight gain recommendation were associated with higher BMIz-score and elevated risk of overweight or obesity in offspring. The evidence of high rate of GWG during early- and mid-pregnancy is suggestive. Additionally, the evidence on inadequate GWG and net GWG in relation to body weight outcomes in offspring is insufficient to draw conclusions.Conclusions. These findings suggest that GWG is a potential risk factor for childhood obesity. However, findings should be interpreted with caution due to measurement issues of GWG and potential confounding effects of shared familial characteristics (i.e., genetics and maternal and child’s lifestyle factors).

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0076632.].

Controversies regarding the putative health effects of dietary sugar, salt, fat, and cholesterol are not driven by legitimate differences in scientific inference from valid evidence, but by a fictional discourse on diet-disease relations driven by decades of deeply flawed and demonstrably misleading epidemiologic research. Over the past 60 years, epidemiologists published tens of thousands of reports asserting that dietary intake was a major contributing factor to chronic non-communicable diseases despite the fact that epidemiologic methods do not measure dietary intake. In lieu of measuring actual dietary intake, epidemiologists collected millions of unverified verbal and textual reports of memories of perceptions of dietary intake. Given that actual dietary intake and reported memories of perceptions of intake are not in the same ontological category, epidemiologists committed the logical fallacy of “Misplaced Concreteness.” This error was exacerbated when the anecdotal (self-reported) data were impermissibly transformed (i.e., pseudo-quantified) into proxy-estimates of nutrient and caloric consumption via the assignment of “reference” values from databases of questionable validity and comprehensiveness. These errors were further compounded when statistical analyses of diet-disease relations were performed using the pseudo-quantified anecdotal data. These fatal measurement, analytic, and inferential flaws were obscured when epidemiologists failed to cite decades of research demonstrating that the proxy-estimates they created were often physiologically implausible (i.e., meaningless) and had no verifiable quantitative relation to the actual nutrient or caloric consumption of participants. In this critical analysis, we present substantial evidence to support our contention that current controversies and public confusion regarding diet-disease relations were generated by tens of thousands of deeply flawed, demonstrably misleading, and pseudoscientific epidemiologic reports. We challenge the field of nutrition to regain lost credibility by acknowledging the empirical and theoretical refutations of their memory-based methods and ensure that rigorous (objective) scientific methods are used to study the role of diet in chronic disease.