Babies born in spring are slightly more likely to develop anorexia nervosa, while those born in the autumn have a lower risk, say researchers.
A report published in the British Journal of Psychiatry suggests temperature, sunlight, infection or the mother's diet could be responsible.
Other academics said the effect was small and the disorder had many causes.
The researchers analysed data from four previous studies including 1,293 people with anorexia.
The researchers found an "excess of anorexia nervosa births" between March and June - for every seven anorexia cases expected, there were in fact eight.
There were also fewer than expected cases in September and October.
Dr Lahiru Handunnetthi, one of the report's authors, at the Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, said: "A number of previous studies have found that mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and major depression are more common among those born in the spring - so this finding in anorexia is perhaps not surprising.
Screening methods
"However, our study only provides evidence of an association. Now we need more research to identify which factors are putting people at particular risk."
The report suggests seasonal changes in temperature, sunlight exposure and vitamin D levels, maternal nutrition and infections as "strong candidate factors".
Dr Terence Dovey, from the Centre for Research into Eating Disorders, at Loughborough University, said: "Anorexia is a very complex multifaceted disorder," adding that the study looked at just one aspect.
"Should we concentrate screening methods to those born in the winter months? No, we should not. It leaves too much error of margin and the potential significant difference is only small."
There are, it has been said, two types of people in the world. There are those who, when presented with a glass that is exactly half full, say: 'This glass is half full'. And then there are those who say: 'This glass is half empty'.
The world belongs, however, to those who can look at the glass and say: 'What's up with this glass? Excuse me? Excuse me? This is my glass? I don't think so. My glass was full! And it was a bigger glass!
With research like this I wonder what the purpose is anyway. Its not going to make a difference to the treatment or detection of Anorexia Nervosa so the money spent on research could have pondered a different theory surely.
Does anyone else smell that? The bullsh*t I mean. This thread reeks of it.
I'm anorexic and I was born in late July. I know at least one other anorexic person born in July, and one in November, and probably a few others not born in spring (I'm not good with birthdays and I can't be bothered to go and check everyone's on Facebook).
Last edited by The War Doctor : 28-04-2011 at 06:06 PM.
I was born in the Spring. The first day of it, in fact!
But my anorexic tendencies are far more to do with my early experience of feeding and nurturance [tube fed at birth, then bottle fed from other mothers and then formula at home, Mum not given a choice about breastfeeding as she was traumatised and on anti-depressants, lack of presence of my mother until I was a month or so old, then only twice a day until I went home at 2 months old], and how food was used and abused by my parents throughout my growing up years. Oh, and the bullying.
There are so many studies like this. Children born in May are likely to be the most positive and optimistic (in my head I got confused and almost wrote 'positimistic'!), but also most likely to be depressed.
There are quite a number of these studies published, all of which are either just correlational, or just plain contradictory.
Last edited by Dreaming. : 29-04-2011 at 08:52 AM.
I was born in August so no link to me there. I think it's more to do with the environment you grow up in and experiences you've been through in your life.
'Cause I'll always remember you the same.
Oh eyes like wild flowers within demons of change ♥
My friend who was severely anorexic (now recovered!) was born in early July. I suspect a dab of pseudoscience is at work here. Ben Goldacre in his book 'Bad Science' points out (to a startling degree) that these kind of reports are usually twisted far beyond what they really say, it's very interesting reading, I recommend it.
The stats look pretty weak on this one. Too lazy to do the actual calculations, but I'm confident that the probability of their results being due to natural variation and not an actual different are pretty high.
Although this is a very old thread, so the research may well not be relevant anymore anyway.
