EXAMINING LATINO BODY MASS INDEX BMI WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF HISTORY, POLITICS, AND CLASS STATUS IN CA

1
EXAMINING LATINO BODY MASS INDEX (BMI) WITHIN THE
CONTEXT OF HISTORY, POLITICS, AND CLASS STATUS
IN CALIFORNIA

• Mirna Troncoso, MPH
• School of Public Health, Department of Community
  Health Sciences
• University of California Los Angeles

Research Questions
Background
Results Question 2

• 1) How does generation affect BMI among
  Californias population, when we control for
  education, ethnicity, and age?
• 2) Among the Mexican origin population in
  California, how do
• generation and education, controlling for age
  affect BMI?

• Mexican Origin Population in CA
• A Mexican immigrant who has been in the U.S lt10
  years has a BMI .70 units lower than a 2nd
  generation Mexican-American, holding constant age
  and education.
• For 1G Mexicans in U.S. lt10 years, the
  difference in BMI for someone with a college
  education versus someone with less than a H.S.
  education is 4.09
• Among ltH.S. educated Mexican origin population
• There is a .44 difference in BMI between 2G vs
  1G gt10 years
• No difference between 2G and others
• Among the H.S. educated Mexican origin
  population
• the difference in BMI among the 2nd and 3rd
  generation is .49
• No difference between 2G and others

• Mexicans have been foundational in California
  (Hayes-Bautista, 2004) yet have the lowest
  educational attainment rates in the state of
  California (Hill Hayes, 2003).

Methods
METHODS OLS Regression Question 1 Outcome
BMI Model 1 Ethnicity Model 2 Ethnicity
Education Model 3 Ethnicity, Education,
Age Model 4 Ethnicity, Education, Age
Generation Model 5Ethnicity, Education, Age
Generation, GenerationEthnicity Question 2
Outcome BMI for Mex Origin Model 1
Education Model2 Education, Age Model 3
Education, Age, Generation Model 4 Education,
Age, Generation, GenerationEducation

• DATA California Health Interview Survey 2005
  Sample n43,020 Design population-based
  random-digit dial telephone survey
• Dependent Variable Body Mass Index (BMI) range
  12-99, mean 26.47. Normal 18.5-24.99
  Overweight25-29.99 Obese 30
• Independent Variables
• Ethnicity (White, Mexican, Other and Mexican
  Origin)
• Educational Attainment (ltH.S., H.S.,
  AA/Vocational/ Some College College)
• Age (25-40, 41-55, 56-70, 71-85)
• Generation (1Glt10 years in U.S. 1Ggt10 years in
  U.S. 2G 3G)

• There are large gains in education from Mexican
  immigrants to their children but the tendency
  for improvement in the 3rd generation and beyond
  is fairly flat (Telles Ortiz, 2008).

• Among the college educated Mexican origin
  population,
• There is a .75 difference in BMI for those in the
  3G v 1Glt10 years

• All ethnic groups have seen a rise in overweight
  and obesity in the U.S., but Latino adults are
  more likely to be overweight (but not obese) than
  either non-Latino white or non-Latino black
  adults (Pleis Lucas, 2007).

Discussion, Implications, Recommendations
Results Question 1

• Highlights
• Whites vs. Mexicans by Generation With
  increasing generations all ethnic groups achieve
  a higher BMI, but
• Immigrant Mexicans, even though less heavy than
  Mexican Americans, start out heavier than White
  immigrants and White Americans
• The Least Educated Mexicans Less than a H.S.
  education from the U.S. versus Mexico seems to be
  similar in in its effect on BMI except for 2nd
  generation versus longer-stay immigrants (but the
  difference is quite small)
• The High School Graduates The main difference
  is between the U.S. born Mexicans, with the 3rd
  generation experiencing a higher BMI than 2G.
• The College-Educated Mexicans third-generation
  had a lower BMI than those in U.S. lt10 years
• However, by using generation this study reveals
  that even though Mexican Americans may be more
  overweight, the college educated 3rd generation
  may not be doing as badly.
• Conclusion
• The use of generation to examine within group
  differences of the Mexican-origin population can
  reveal nuances that may be missed when using
  dichotomous categorization such as Mexican
  American and Mexican immigrant. These nuances
  reveal a varied portrait of how education and
  generation are intertwined in BMI outcomes.

• All Californians
• Like education, generation has a gradient effect
  on BMI.
• The BMI of 3G Californians is 2.13 higher than
  that of immigrants in U.S. lt10 years, holding
  constant age, education, ethnicity
• The effect of generation on BMI varies by
  ethnicity
• The difference in BMI between Mexicans and Whites
  for the 1G in the U.S. lt 10 years is 1.81.
• Among Mexicans, the difference in BMI between
  3G and 1G lt10 years in US is 1.70.
• The difference in BMI among 3G and 1Glt10 years
  in U.S. Whites is 1.18.

BODY MASS INDEX (BMI) Normal 18.5-24.99
Overweight 25-29.95Obese 30

• However, immigrant Latinos tend to have lower
  BMIs than U.S. born Latinos when they arrive in
  the U.S. and only surpass them after being in the
  U.S. more than 10 years (Antecol Bedard, 2006).
  
• Since generation is important for education, and
  education is important for BMI, the purpose of
  this study was to examine the relationship
  between BMI, generation, education and ethnicity
  in California with an emphasis on the
  Mexican-origin population

References
Antecol, H. Bedard, B. (2006). Unhealthy
Assimilation Why Do Immigrants Converge to
American Health Status Levels? Demography
43(2) 337-60. Hayes-Bautista, D. (2004). La
Nueva California Latinos in the Golden State.
Berkeley University of California Press. Hill,
L.E., Hayes, J.M. (2003). Californias newest
immigrants. California Counts, 5(2) 1-19. Pleis
J.R., Lucas JW. (2009). Summary health
statistics for U.S. adults National Health
Interview Survey, 2007. National Center for
Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 10(240).
2009. Telles, E.E. Ortiz, V. (2008).
Education. In Generations of Exclusion Mexican
Americans, Assimilation, and Race. New York
Russell Sage Foundation
Acknowledgements The author would like to
acknowledge her new advisor Professor Steve
Wallace and her former advisor Professor Judith
Siegel for their assistance on this project
Professor Gary Orfield for his inspirational work
on educational segregation and inspiring
lectures on the need for a movement to transform
educational opportunities in the U.S. and for
Hector and Tony Dominguez who have been so
tolerant of the many days and nights that she has
been away working on this project. This project
has been made possible by a University of
California Graduate Division Graduate Research
Mentorship Fellowship (GRMF) in 2008-2009 and
from funding from the UCLA School of Public
Healths Community Health Sciences Department.

• Areas for Future Investigation
• It is recommended that this same study be
  conducted with census tract data to test whether
  neighborhood is an intervening variable within
  generation.