In Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution, which recently finished its six-episode run on ABC, the famous British chef tries to wean the town of Huntington, W.V., off frozen, processed meals and onto fresh, healthful food. It’s suggested several times during the show that serving wholesome food in school cafeterias leads to better academic performance. But is that true?
Actually, yes, according to the findings of a new study published in the American Journal of Public Health. In the study, which involved low-income students at five Florida elementary schools, high-sugar, high-fat meals were replaced with whole grains and fresh fruit. Some of the changes were small. For instance, instead of breading chicken nuggets with white flour, food preparers used whole wheat.
The results were pretty impressive. Over a three-year period, standardized math scores in the schools where healthful food was served were significantly higher than those in the control school (where kids continued to eat what most kids around the country eat). Reading scores also went up, but the increase was relatively small. As part of the study, kids were taught about nutritious eating and given more time to exercise during the day.
In short, it worked. Kids who ate healthful food got better scores.
It’s not as if we needed additional reasons to serve such food—combatting childhood obesity should be more than enough. But considering the emphasis on standardized testing in public schools, perhaps those results will serve as extra encouragement to the administrators who decide what our kids eat.
(An abstract of the article is available on the journal’s Web site. The study was conducted by Danielle Hollar, Sarah E. Messiah, Gabriela Lopez-Mitnik, T. Lucas Hollar, Marie Almon, and Arthur S. Agatston. You can watch “Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution” on Hulu.)
7 Responses to More Veggies = Higher Math Scores
mbelvadi - April 29, 2010 at 6:56 am
This summary doesn’t do the research justice – there were three intervention areas, not just the change in diet. This article makes it sound like the researchers claim that the improvements they saw were entirely due to dietary change. Perhaps the change in exercise alone (and the associated change in overall routine due to making time for it) could account for the entire improvement measured.Of course, I could only read the abstract, not the full article, because the publisher wants to charge money for the full article. I (along with thousands of other librarians) encourage researchers to publish in open access journals whenever possible or at least secure the right to publish the post-print on their own open web site or their institution’s public repository to avoid this obstacle to the dissemination of their work.
potters5 - April 29, 2010 at 8:16 am
Perhaps the change came from simply holding themselves in higher regard. Healthy food is the best, but the connection seems sketchy. Has anyone here been involved in a study where the results were a self fulfilling prophecy?
tombartlett - April 29, 2010 at 11:43 am
@mbelvadi So I did read the whole paper — I wrote the post — and I think my summary does do the research justice. You’re right that there were three areas of intervention (which are all mentioned above, by the way) but the exercise component varied school to school and seemed comparatively minor. The third component was teaching kids about healthy eating. It seemed to me that the emphasis of the study was on healthy eating, which is why I emphasized it in the post. But, again, I did mention that exercise was part of the program. I’m all for open access, too.
adamreed - April 29, 2010 at 5:15 pm
How much of the result is just Hawthorne effect? Was there a control intervention set for comparison?
tombartlett - April 30, 2010 at 3:09 pm
@adamreed There was a control, but whether that was a “control intervention” I don’t know. The Hawthorne effect — that is, that the kids were performing better because they knew they were being studied — doesn’t seem all that likely to me. I doubt the kids were aware that eating healthy food was supposed to make them get better math scores (these were elementary school kids).
rick1952 - May 1, 2010 at 5:17 pm
Tom Bartlett: I only read your summary, so I have no way of knowing how well or poorly you summarized the research article. So, I will not challenge your contention that you did it justice, nor will I accept the claim that you did not. I will just comment on what I read in your post.With respect to Hawthorne effect, doesn’t that effect happen whether or not the subjects know what variable is being examined or the expected outcome of its study? I think what diminishes the possible impact of the Hawthorne effect in this instance, though I don’t think it would eliminate it entirely, is that there was a real intervention that had a real impact on the subjects – the children were provided and ate healthier food which would logically seem to positively impact their learning (of math or any other subject I would imagine.) For my part, I guess it is a reminder of a saying, which may also have been the title of a book, that was popular when I was younger, “you are what you eat.” So, if you eat “smart” food (as in healthier foods like whole grains, fresh fruits and vegetables) you will be “smarter” while if you eat “less smart” foods (like high sugar, high fat foods) you will be “less smart.” So, I agree with you – administrators need to think more healthily about food choices in schools as part of a comprehensive effort to boost learning. (Thank God the Reagan administration’s standards for vegetables in school lunches have been abandoned!)Thanks for sharing this study.
tombartlett - May 1, 2010 at 10:09 pm
@rick1952 Thanks for the thoughts, Rick. And by the way there are other studies that suggest a link between what you eat and how you perform academically.