Infant growth and income 50 years later
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Childhood growth influences cognition in the Thousand Families study, but not income at age 50.
    • Mark S Pearce, Senior Research Associate
    • Other Contributors:
      • Louise Parker

    Dear Editor,

    Barker et al. recently reported a relationship between short length at age 1 year and lower incomes in adulthood [1]. Citing results from an early report from the Newcastle Thousand Families Study showing a relationship between height at age 3 years and intelligence at age 11 [2]. Barker et al. interpreted this as evidence that slow infant growth may lead to a lifelong impairment of cognitive functio...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    The larger the better?

    Dear Editor,

    It is interesting to note that now birth size is shown to be related to income in later life! However, I wonder whether a correlation of 0.04 or 0.1 can be considered substantial. Although the P values are impressive (<_0 it="it" is="is" due="due" to="to" the="the" relative="relative" large="large" sample="sample" size="size" in="in" their="their" study="" p="p"> Another interesting po...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.