LR 3

The Effects of College on Weight: Examining the "Freshman 15" Myth and Other Effects
of College Over the Life Cycle

Author(s): Charles L. Baum II
Source: Demography, Vol. 54, No. 1 (February 2017), pp. 311-336
Published by: Duke University Press on behalf of the Population Association of America
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44161424
Accessed: 16-03-2024 08:58 +00:00
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Population Association of America, Duke University Press are collaborating with JSTOR
to digitize, preserve and extend access to Demography
This content downloaded from 14.139.48.194 on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 08:58:50 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Demography (2017) 54:311-336
DOI 1 0. 1 007/s 1 3524-0 1 6-0530-6 OļļP CrossMaik
The Effects of College on Weight: Examining

the "Freshman 15" Myth and Other Effects of College
Over the Life Cycle
Charles L. Baum II1
Published online: 7 December 2016

© Population Association of America 2016
Abstract This study examines the effects of college on weight over much of the life
cycle. I compare weights for college students with their weights before and after college
and with the weights of noncollege peers using data from the National Longitudinal
Survey of Youth (NLS Y). I also examine the longer-term effects of college measured
almost three decades later. I find that college freshmen gain substantially less than the
15 pounds rumored to be typical for freshmen. Using difference models, individual-
specific fixed-effects models, and instrumental variables models to control for various
sources of potential bias, I find that freshman year college attendance is estimated to
cause only about a one-pound increase. Supplemental results show that those from
lower socioeconomic backgrounds gain more weight during the freshman college year.
Longer term, having a college education consistently decreases weight. These negative
effects have faded over the last 20 years, and they diminish as respondents approach
middle age. These trends are more prevalent for whites and Hispanics than for blacks.
Keywords Weight • Weight gain • College • Freshman 1 5
Introduction
Recent estimates suggest that 35 % of adult Americans are obese, which is roughly a 100
% increase from 25 years prior (Flegal et al. 2012). Those aged 18-29 (who include
college students) form the age cohort experiencing the largest increase in obesity rates
(Mokdad et al. 1999; Yakusheva et al. 2011): as many as 35 % of college students are
either overweight or obese (Douglas et al. 1997; Lowry et al. 2000). Identifying the causes
IS! Charles L. Baum, II

charles.baum@ mtsu.edu
1 Economics and Finance Department, Middle Tennessee State University, P.O. Box 27,
Murfreesboro, TN 37132, USA
Springer
312 C.L. Baum
of excessive w
likely to be o
approach to w
place because
lost weight ty
2007). Determ
occur may aid
College entiy
weight gain be
First, college
exercise, whic
Second, man
Association 2
and consumin
a lack of coo
consume mor
energy-dense
1991; Prentice
be affected b
peer pressure
arrangement
likely to eat in
On-campus fo
Previous stu
presumably w
2008, 2010; G
health by en
information,
1997). Educati
facilitates acc
et al. 201 1). I
reduce the p
infant health
actually enabl
Negative (and
weight chang
health effects
occur after co
produce healt
have a positiv
freshman yea
Studies exam
between soc
1991; Smith
taged counte
advantaged in
reviews, see
Ô Springer
Effects of College on Weight 313
attributed to the factors such as the g

caloric requirements with high-fat, hig
to disadvantaged neighborhoods, where
fewer sidewalks and safety concern
Myers 1999; Poortinga 2006), and to t
adversity - known as the weathering h
association between SES and obesity h
particularly strong for females (Scha
groups, although not always for n
Christakis 2005; Chang and Lauder
2010). This relationship tends to stren
may have weakened over the last seve
This is the first study to examine rig
much of the life cycle. First, I exami
college using data from the National
which is a large, nationally representati
14-year period
I document (1997-2010).
of weight they gain during their fre
compare these data with weight and
attendance and in the year following
weight changes for similarly aged nonc
effects of college attendance with multi
models, individual-specific fixed-effec
also conduct several falsification test
models to explore the robustness of the
Next, I examine the longer-term effec
to almost 30 years after graduation, and
on weight today with these effects fr
similar ages. I use the 1997 NLSY cohor
turn of the twenty-first century is rela
2010. I use the 1979 NLSY cohort (NLS
the late 1970s and 1980s is related to
compare the effects of college on the
respondents with corresponding effec
proximately 20 years earlier, in 1992
weight have changed over time.
Literature Review
Several studies have examined weight for college freshmen (Crombie et al. 2009);
however, all have used small "convenience" samples of students attending a particular
university, typically where the study's researchers are employed. The samples are further
self-selected in that students participating in the survey have volunteered to do so and
ultimately have volunteered to be later reweighed, if multiple weight observations are
collected. Most of these studies have examined sample averages, and none have attempted
to identify the causal effect of college on weight by controlling for potential sources of bias.
ô Springer
314 C.L. Baum
In the econom
education on
identify causa
data from th
overweight an
on weight ar
data, Brunell
index (BMI) f
Webbink et a
did find effe
schooling on
effects sc of
effects for m
overweight a
et al. (201 1) i
examining Da
In this study
amount of we
set (NLSY97)
year period. S
during their
annual weigh
noncollege N
changes in co
year followin
attendance on
models, in add
of bias. Sixth
longer-term e
how the effec
aged individua
In sum, this s
on weight ove
Data
I use NLSY97 data to examine college attendance and weight. The NLSY97 is a large,
nationally representative panel data set that annually collects information about each
respondent's weight and educational attainment.1,2 The NLSY97 began annually
1 I do not use National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data (NHANES) or Behavioral Risk Factor
Surveillance System (BRFSS) data because these are not panel data sets and are therefore unable to identify
year-to-year weight changes. Further, BRFSS data do not include youths, instead examining adults at least 20
years of age.
The NLSY97 measures of weight (and height) are self-reported and are potentially measured with error.
Following Cawley's (2000) procedure, I use self-reported and measured weights and heights in NHANES data
to adjust my measures of weight and height.
Ö Springer
Effects of College on Weight 3 1 5
interviewing 8,984 youths in 1997, when t

survey is ongoing. The NLSY97 samp
respondents and an oversample of 2,236
respondents.
First, I identify respondent weight (measured in pounds) at the survey date. I exclude
pregnant females and new mothers (women who gave birth within the past year) because
their reported weight may not be representative of their nonpregnancy weight. I also
exclude respondents with weights below 80 pounds or above 400 pounds (and those with
heights below 48 inches or above 84 inches); this restriction eliminates very few observa-
tions and does not appreciably affect the results. I include observations only for those
whose weight is reported during the months of March, April, or May - at approximately
the end of an academic year and, fortunately, when many of the NLSY97 interviews were
conducted.3 I examine two measures of annual weight change: (1) average annual weight
change since age 16, and (2) weight change since the prior survey. When consecutive
interviews do not occur exactly 52 weeks apart, I divide weight change between surveys by
weeks between surveys and multiply by 52 to convert the data to year equivalents.
Because, all else equal, taller people tend to weigh more, I include height as a
covariate in my weight regressions. To adjust further for height, I also examine BMI
and BMI changes, where BMI is defined as weight divided by squared height (CDC
2006a, b). In supplemental models, I also examined obesity, defined as a BMI greater
than or equal to 30 (CDC 2006b).
I also control for standard demographic characteristics. This includes dummy
variables for gender and race. I control for age using a dummy variable for each age
represented in each model. I also adjust for marital status, the number of children in the
household, family size, work experience measured in years, whether the respondent
lives in an urban area, and the educational attainment of the respondent's mother. I also
include state dummy variables and year dummy variables (one for each year repre-
sented in each model) as covariates throughout the analysis.
For the first part of my analysis - examining weight while in college - I select
NLSY97 high school graduates between the ages of 17 and 23, identifying the years,
if any, in which each attended college as a freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior.
NLSY97 respondents who graduated from high school but were not enrolled in college
serve as a comparison group.4 I also identify the pre-freshman year (the year before
I do not include respondents who reported their survey weight during summer months because I do not want
to confound the effects of college with the effects of summer and summer's various activities on weight.
Sensitivity analyses show that including respondents who reported their weight in June does not appreciably
change the reported results and conclusions.
4 Because the NLSY97 began surveying 12- to 17-year-olds in 1997, some of the respondents were in high
school before the survey began and cannot provide body weight information for those years. I use an
unbalanced panel in my analysis, where a "balanced" panel is defined as a consistent sample of respondents
who provide a weight observation for every year (or age) included in the analysis. Otherwise, respondents who
do not provide valid weight (and height) information in the six requisite post-high school graduation years
(e.g., the pre-freshman, freshman, sophomore, junior, senior, and post-senior years) would be eliminated from
the analysis. With an unbalanced panel, changes in sample average weight over time might reflect attrition
such that, for example, low-income individuals who weigh more might be more likely to drop out,
downwardly biasing the sample average weight in later survey years. On the other hand, a balanced panel
discards potentially useful information. Regardless, I conduct sensitivity analyses to explore whether instead
using a balanced panel would substantively change the results. Results from key models are largely
unchanged, so I do not present results using the balanced panel in the tables.
Springer
316 C.L. Baum
enrolling in c
the college se
I also examine
examine the
respondents w
relatively curr
20 years earli
31) from the
effects of co
when these re
that observab
because gainin
Empirical M
I use multiva
attendance an
attendance (C)
college attend
Wit = ßo + ß 1 + ß2C* + ¿Wit, (1)
for observation i in year t, where X is a vector of standard demographic covari

¿w is the error term in the weight equation. Ordinary least squares (OLS) esti
college attendance on weight will produce biased results if variables unobserv
researcher are correlated with both weight and college attendance.
To control for time-invariant unobserved factors, I examine weight
m-Wit-x):
Wu-Wu-i = ßo + Pi*;, + ß2C,< + tmt. (2)
In a first specification of weight change, I examine average annual weight change sinc
age 16; in a second specification, I examine annual weight change since the prior
survey. I normalize both measures by the time interval (e.g., the number of weeks)
between them and then annualize so that, for example, a weight change of 2.0 means
pounds of weight gain over a year. Models explaining the change in weight between
periods will, by definition, control for time-invariant individual-specific factors.
In addition to the "weight differencing" approach, I estimate individual-specific
fixed-effects models that compare multiple observations from the same respondent. I
the individual-specific unobserved component is the same across observations from th
5 TheNLSY79 collected information about weight in 1981, 1982, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1993,
1994, and every two years thereafter. I do not use NLSY79 data to examine weight in college because weigh
was reported sporadically during the early 1980s, when most NLSY79 respondents were in college. Further
more, not all NLSY79 respondents provided the information needed to identify weight during college because
some began college before the NLSY79 began surveying; this would be true, for example, for a NLSY79
respondent aged 21 in 1979.
Ô Springer
same respondent (time-invariant for e

trolled for with respondent-specific
specific fixed-effects model essential
same respondent.
Unfortunately, the first-differenced an
respondent's unobserved component is
be biased. To explore the potential for
factors, I estimate instrumental var
attendance and then estimate the effec
Cit - OCQ -f OC'Xit + (X^Z/, + ¿cit (3)
Wit - Wit- 1 = ßo + ßiX,v + ß2 Cu + twa- (4)
I identify IV models by including instruments (Z) in the college attendance model that
are not included in the weight models. Rather than attempt to discover a new instrument
with which to identify college attendance, I use an instrument that has been widely and
successfully used in the literature: proximity of residence to a land-grant institution
(see, e.g., Moretti 2004; Shapiro 2006).6 Under the 1862 and 1890 Morrill Acts, land-
grant institutions were established and supported financially with endowments from the
sale of federal land in an effort to teach agriculture (and science and engineering, as
opposed to the classic liberal arts curriculum), at least partially in response to changes
initiated by the industrial revolution. Specifically, I use as instruments dummy variables
measuring (1) whether the respondent resides in a county with a land-grant institution,
(2) whether the respondent resides in a county that borders a county in the same state
with a land-grant institution, and (3) whether the respondent resides in a county that
borders a county in another state with a land-grant institution. These instruments will be
valid if they significantly explain college attendance and they do not affect weight gain
independently from college attendance. Although the federal government placed land-
grant institutions in apparent random fashion long before the NLSY97 cohort entered
college (more than 100 years ago), the areas in which they were placed may have since
developed differently than areas without these institutions in ways that could affect
health and investments in public health and, consequently, weight. Furthermore, areas
with land-grant institutions have a larger proportion of college graduates and a smaller
proportion of high school graduates with some college, reputedly because the presence
of such a university lowers the cost of attending college (Moretti 2004; Shapiro 2006).
To control for county-specific characteristics that may be correlated with whether a
county has a land-grant institution and weight gain, I include in both the college
attendance and the weight gain models (as part of X¿„ not as instruments) additional
covariates measuring county population density, the percentage of the population aged
1 8-20, the percentage of births to mothers younger than 20, the percentage of the
population aged 25 or older with a bachelor's degree, the unemployment rate, per capita
income, and the percentage of families in poverty. Descriptive statistics suggest these
6 Similarly, Card (1995), Kling (2001), and Currie and Moretti (2003) used the presence of all two- and/or
four-year colleges and universities.
Ô Springer
318 C.L. Baum
county-level
who do not e
Results
Descriptive Statistics
First, I present weighted descriptive statistics for 17- to 23-year-old NLSY97 respon-
dents in Table 1 for the full sample and separately for those who are enrolled and are
not enrolled in college. In my full sample, weight averages 163.5 pounds, and these
college-aged respondents gain between 3 and 4 pounds annually (between surveys, and
yearly since age 16). About 47 % of the observations are from respondents attending
college (or are from the year before the respondent's freshman year or from the year
after the respondent's senior year). More respondents are enrolled as college freshmen
than other college years, perhaps reflecting college attrition (dropouts). Those who are
not enrolled in college weigh more (168.3 vs. 157.9 pounds), but they do not neces-
sarily gain more weight per year. Those not enrolled have gained less weight annually
since age 16 than their peers in college (3.6 pounds vs. 3.7 pounds) but more weight
since the last survey (3.2 pounds vs. 3.0 pounds).
For the next set of descriptive statistics, I select a subsample of NLSY97 respondents
who directly entered college upon high school graduation, advanced one grade per year
until college graduation four years later, and provided valid weight and height and
education information during the freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior college years
as well as for the pre-freshman and post-senior years; I also include NLSY97 respondents
who never entered college during the four years following high school graduation and who
provided valid weight and height and education information during these four post-high
school years (that is, the freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior year equivalents, and the
pre-freshman and post-senior year equivalents). Figure 1 shows the weights of college
students during their freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior years of college, as well as
their weights during the year prior to college enrollment and the year after college
graduation, by gender, using the sampling weights. Figure 1 also depicts the weights of
comparably aged noncollege youths by gender. Both college and noncollege students tend
to gain weight over time. Males weigh more than females, as would be expected given that
they tend to be taller. Noncollege students weigh more than college students. Weight seems
to increase more over this six-year period for noncollege respondents than for their enrolled
peers, particularly for females. Noncollege males gain 14.8 pounds, and college males gain
14.1 pounds; corresponding figures for females are 14.6 and 8.3 pounds, respectively.
Figure 2 presents annual weight changes for college students and noncollege youths by
gender. Male college students gain less weight than noncollege males each year except the
freshman year. In the freshman year, college males gain 5.1 pounds compared with 3.4
pounds in the freshman year equivalent for noncollege males. Female college students
gain more than their noncollege female peers in both the pre-freshman year and freshman
year, but the difference in these years is less than 1 pound. Weight increases the most
during the freshman year for male and female college students. Some evidence suggests
that noncollege peers gain more weight after the freshman year equivalent for females. In
sum, the freshman year seems to be unique. First, college students gain more during this
Ô Springer
Table 1 Selected descriptive statistics for 17- to
Full Sample Enrolled Not Enrolled
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Weight Outcomes
Weight (pounds) 163.524 41.199 157.907 38.003 168.375 43.191
Weight change since age 16 3.695 5.000 3.762 4.868 3.637 5.112
Annual weight change 3.156 7.725 3.085 7.309 3.225 8.111
College Attendance Explanatory Variables
Pre-freshman year 0.084 0.278 0.182 0.386 - -
Freshman year 0.110 0.313 0.237 0.425 - -
Sophomore year 0.099 0.298 0.213 0.410 - -
Junior year 0.079 0.270 0.171 0.377 - -
Senior year 0.061 0.239 0.131 0.337 - -
Post-senior year 0.044 0.205 0.095 0.293 - -
Demographic Characteristics
Male 0.536 0.499 0.460 0.498 0.601 0.490
Black 0.136 0.343 0.110 0.313 0.158 0.365
Hispanic 0.117 0.321 0.094 0.292 0.137 0.344
Age (years) 20.323 2.033 19.868 1.797 20.715 2.140
Height (inches) 67.567 3.756 67.209 3.681 67.876 3.793
Married 0.070 0.256 0.032 0.176 0.103 0.304
Children 0.124 0.413 0.035 0.211 0.200 0.517
Family size 3.473 1.552 3.618 1.501 3.348 1.585
Work experience (years) 8.663 3.339 8.678 3.212 8.651 3.444
Urban resident 0.754 0.431 0.765 0.424 0.744 0.437
Mother's education (years) 12.359 4.191 13.146 4.160 11.678 4.097
Number of Observations 12,484 5,842 6,642
year than in any other, but similarly aged noncollege stud

freshman year is the only year (with the exception of the pre-f
in which college students gain more weight than similarly age
Table 2 presents descriptive statistics for NLSY97 respon
respondents in 1992, and NLSY79 respondents in 2010 separa
those without a college degree. Every measure of weight an
for those without a college degree than for college graduate
changes in 2010 for NLSY79 respondents. The likelihood of
also increasing over time (this probability is higher for NLS
than for NLSY79 respondents).
Regression Results
Next, I estimate models for weight change, presenting coe

college-related covariates in Table 3. As discussed earlier, e
Ö Springer
320 C.L. Baum
weight chang
of unobserve
freshman yea
attendance in
statistically
collectively,
year-olds in
about half a
depending on
its largest ef
students firs
reestimate t
attendance t
For Model 3,
pound and th
about two-fi
statistically in
I also examin
to control fo
using the sam
change since
for 18- and 1
results are di
weight chang
results from
effects of ea
attendance s
enrollment in
Another way
including in
effects mode
vations. Fixed
same format
18- to 22-ye
consistently
is identified
separately in
collegeyears
largely due to
Instrumental Variables
I next explore the potential for unobserved heterogeneity bias due to time-varying
factors, by predicting college attendance using instruments measuring whether the
respondent's county of residence, an in-state bordering county, or an out-of-state
bordering county contain a land-grant university. I reestimate the weight change and
individual fixed-effects models, which already purportedly control for time-invariant
Ö Springer
Fig. 1 Weight of college and noncollege studen
factors, to explore whether also control

The first-stage instruments are suff
significance of 29.56, which is well a
and Stock 1997). However, the second
of the point estimates on the covariat
cally significant. Hausman tests are u
estimates are statistically different th
conclude that examining weight ch
effects sufficiently control for unob
IV estimates are more likely to appea
estimates are imprecisely measured.
Fig. 2 Weight changes for college and noncolle
Springer
322 C.L. Baum
r-xvo^ ©©^HON©ooo'ioro<Ncn
ONmô ©oor^cN'-'^-
fO^fO uo rn (N oo r~; Tf rf -rf rn T^- in
Q Tf^n'oo ©©©©cno^^rôrS
C/3 TT
Ö) ONÍNON r-»nO(N<y'fn<NV000(NťN
<£> (N r- ON asr-oomON^tťN^-H^tosTt
Q g r-vooo Tt-HOÔNinoNr-'-HVOfnoo
o O vo-ô ööövovoö^HisööS
Z S 22 vo (N ^ _r
tj- oo o oor-t/oON^^mmor--
r- »n m or-~vom(NmoN^_oor--m
o CTņ O ^ incNÔOÔTt - -TtřNrnO
~ o 01 ~ §
corf-H CNS©vo©Tr©«-HfO^©<-<
^H(NVO ONsosor-©oio<NmmON
P - ; rfrļrNO^t^vļ'HVO^în
Q OsfSr^ öoööcnö^^rnorn
C/3 m
<D
feb ir> (N o r-oôoor-r-cMTtr-ôm

u TJ- m ON msotôaN^HmooootnTi-
n e m rt m-HO^trNi«n^HONr-r-m«n
oo_ _
« r^(NíN
Ä öööoorô-H'rsioooö^
SO (N vo ^ "i.
"i.
Z 2 SO -H (N
Tj- oo oo «níNmmoONôr-ONOOfN
oo m asinr^^voasO'-Hfn^r-
rsj oo in Tf <N - ; ^ ^ ^ <"S *0 ^ °i
2s i> Q in ^ »ri ööÖÖrnÖÖîNÖcn
ON P c/3 m
.s ^
^ fl) On «n h hootN-HO-iintNinvo^
r fl) só -h on o r-vomr-ONTj-r-mr-oor-
?* <£> g oo h oo inoo^-0N*nm(N(N000N
^ a g ^ ^ oööoor^öö<NOÔ(N^
g <3 I g s ™ ~ *
r- © ^ ©mťNOsřNoovooN^tom
Tt o O ONONÔ«nONVOON-*íOfnÔ
- ; OO (N Tt cnfn«nOOTt^'ÛTfTf p
Q •- < (N oo öÖÖ^fnÖ^^rnOTf
C/3 «n

SO ^ ~
<ZJ
I
a
«/">©© Or^<^vO^<NON(NfOONrn
©oos©oo<Nr-ooo'»osovo
fe o oo m ^ inrNi(N Ttr~:^tvq- « oorno
Z? <L> û rncsr^ ÖÖÖ- 'cnOO^CNO"^
Ź O e M ^
I •s ¿5
Õ £r «i ^ ^ on m^HOOTtor--^«nooôoN
rj «i ëû «-< m o' ONONr-~cNr-r-)Oior-ror-_
¡>* ï> a ^ Tf oo ^tOOr-^tromrfONOOioOs
^ !=s g H (N ööör^r^öö(NooöroS
g! a I - (N - -
C/5
■i
ã
Vi
SO ^
' cfl 5«
>
•a « .a ^ a
ôû -Ç z3 S
•c
ed u » . jS S >% 1/5
g 8 11 s ï !
! î 1 i I .1 lili
-o
J
"ü
C/3 I ^ -i I t .8 i -t ^ B 1 & ! 2 2
«S
Já ^^1 l>ajaj l>^ ^ g1 g ot i ocg

jí cgcö
ü cö §i)53ās
.8 ItSlifllli §i)53ās
S P ^ BTS P 5T 5 ii
£ 2 cg S cö a < §i)53ās ž 2 S S S » P
s ^ Q Z
â Springer
Table 3 The effects of college attendance on we
Weight Change Since Age 1 6 Annua
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
Freshman 1.187** 1.035** 1.368** 1.010** 0.9691" 1.480*

(0.243) (0.246) (0.384) (0.371) (0.599) (0.694)
Sophomore 0.410* -0.105 0.954
(0.180) (0.304) (0.667)
Junior 0.279 -0.400 0.479
(0.240) (0.309) (0.714)

Senior 0.315 0.591 0.989
(0.243) (0.473) (0.787)

College 0.540** 0.285 1.030Ť
(0.164) (0.238) (0.530)
Fixed Effects No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes
Number of 2,352 8,260 8,260 2,147 7,189 7,189 8,574 8,574 8,574
Observations
Ages 18-19 18-22 18-22 18-19 18-22 18-22 18-22 18-22 18-22
Notes: Standard errors are shown in parentheses. Each model contains the indivi
and county covariates and the age, state, and year dummy variables.
V < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01
Falsification Tests
If unobserved factors have been adequately controlled, the weights of college students
should not differ from the weights of their noncollege peers in the year before college. I
test this in a type of falsification test by estimating the effect of the pre-freshman year,
where the pre-freshman year dummy variable equals 1 if the respondent was first a
freshman in college in the subsequent year. Falsification results are presented in Table 4
for the weight-change models and for the fixed-effects weight-level models. As shown
in Model 1, which examines weight changes since age 16 for 17- and 18-year-olds, the
pre-freshman year does not have a statistically significant effect on weight. This
suggests the weight changes of college freshmen are not significantly different than
those of their noncollege peers prior to freshman year. Next, I expand the sample to
those aged 1 7-23 in Model 2 and add dummy variables for the post-senior year and for
the other years of college attendance. In this model, being a freshman significantly
increases weight changes by three-fourths of a pound, and this effect is statistically
significant at the 1 % level. Model 2 also provides some evidence that sophomore year
college attendance significantly increases weight, but this effect is smaller (about three-
eighths of a pound). Somewhat surprisingly, the pre-fřeshman year also significantly
increases weight changes since age 1 6, by about half a pound. The post-senior year is
not significantly associated with weight changes, nor is junior year or senior year
college attendance. Results for models examining weight changes since the prior
survey suggest the freshman year increases weight by almost 1 pound, and this effect
â Springer
324 C.L. Baum
remains stati
of the other
the post-senio
weight when
6, although e
dance signifi
attendance si
the freshman
college stud
potential col
Robustness Tests
Statistically significant weight effects have consistently been found for the college
freshman year but not for other years, so I next estimate several alternative model
specifications, focusing exclusively on the freshman year. Because weight is not reported
on exactly the day the academic year ends, freshman year effects could change with the
portion of the academic year completed (as of the survey date). Thus, I next include
dummy variables for the survey month. As shown in Model 1 of Table 5, the effect of the
freshman year covariate is essentially unchanged. In Model 2, 1 interact the freshman year
covariate with each survey month included in the analysis. Results show that the college
freshman year significantly increases weight by more than 1 pound for each survey month.
This effect is slightly larger for April and May than for March, suggesting that weight
continues to increase through the end of the freshman academic year.
The effects of freshman year attendance could be different for older freshman. To
explore this, I first reestimate the model on 17- and 18-year-olds in Model 3, for 20-
and 21 -year-olds in Model 4, and for 22- and 23-year-olds in Model 5. Indeed, I find
significant, positive effects of freshman year college attendance only for younger
freshman. Results for freshmen aged 22 and older are not statistically significant.
Correspondingly, a freshman attendance x age interaction term in Model 6 (with 17-
through 23-year-olds) has statistically significant negative effects, again indicating that
the effects of freshman year attendance pertain to younger college freshmen.
Long-Term Effects
Next, I examine longer-term implications of education on weight. First, I estimate the

effects of having a college degree on weight change for NLSY97 respondents in 2010. 1
compare these results with similarly aged NLSY79 respondents in 1992 to explore
whether the longer-term effects of education have changed over time. Last, I examine
the effects of college on weight change for NLSY79 respondents in 2010, when they
were aged 45-52, for an estimation of even longer-term effects of education.
Table 6 presents these estimates of the effects of having a college degree on weight
changes. As before, I examine weight changes in an attempt to control for time-invariant
individual-specific factors that may be immeasurable. My first measure of weight change
covers the interval since the respondent was 1 6 years of age. The second measure is weight
changes since the prior survey. In both cases, I normalize to annual weight changes
because the period between weight observations will vary for respondents.
Ô Springer
Table 4 The effects of college attendance on wei
Weight Change Since Age 1 6 Ann
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Pre-Freshman 0.480 0.560* 0.364 0.149 -0.481 -0.152
(0.426) (0.277) (0.407) (0.357) (0.609) (0.669)

Freshman 0.776** 0.905** 1.151*
(0.227) (0.303) (0.586)

Sophomore 0.377* -0.070 1.1431"
(0.169) (0.287) (0.618)
Junior 0.238 -0.356 0.710
(0.224) (0.314) (0.664)

Senior 0.228 0.621 0.644
(0.219) (0.416) (0.729)

Post-Senior -0.076 -0.261 -0.470
(0.187) (0.497) (0.810)

Fixed Effects No No No No Yes Yes
Number of Observations 1,696 11,906 1,661 10,379 9,502 12,484

Ages 17-18 17-23 17-18 17-23 17-21 17-23
Notes: Standard errors are shown in parentheses. Each m

and county covariates and the age, state, and year dummy
V < .10; *p < .05; **/? < .01
As shown in column 1 of Table 6, a college d

changes by about one-third pound (over the per
in 2010. Contrary to earlier results showing that a
finding suggests that any negative weight effects
not while enrolled. This effect is larger in ab
respondents in 1992 but smaller for 45- to 52
Negative longer-term effects of college on weig
value) over time for specific ages and to fade ove
changes gradually, the effects of college on weig
Results for weight changes since the precedi
only marginally significant for NLSY97 respo
icantly affect weight changes between survey
1992 or 2010. Unlike for weight-change m
indicate that, if anything, the negative weight
in absolute value for similarly aged individual
Longer-term effects of having a college edu
individual-specific fixed-effects models becaus
only one weight observation (e.g., a weight o
observations from additional survey years (e
problem because education does not vary a
education is complete.
Ô Springer
326 C.L. Baum
Table 5 The effe
Weight Chan
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Freshman 1.172** 1.229** 0.492 -0.016 4.063**
(0.236) (0.378) (0.517) (0.689) (1.338)

Freshman: March 1.083**
(0.311)
Freshman: April 1.352**
(0.437)
Freshman: May 1.224*
(0.546)
Freshman: Age -0.162*
(0.064)
Month Dummy Variables Yes Yes No No No No
Number of Observations 2,352 2,352 1,207 1,465 947 6,074
Ages 18-19 18-19 17-18 20-21 22-23 17-23
Notes: Standard errors are shown in parentheses. Each mo

and county covariates and the age, state, and year dummy v
ł p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01
To explore the potential for unobserved heter

using the same instruments described earlier. I
NLSY97 respondents in 2010 and NLSY79 respo
second-stage results for weight changes since a
table also shows the effects of the instruments i
Examining first-stage results, the instrumen
in explaining college education for NLSY
respondents. For this sample, a joint test fo
instruments produces a test statistic of 3
threshold recommended by Staiger and St
NLSY79 respondents is between 5.45 and
residing in a county with a land-grant ins
probability of earning a college degree. Som
in a bordering county in a neighboring state
having a college degree.
In every case but one, second-stage weight-chang
degree decreases the weight measure. Many of the
laiger in absolute value than corresponding OLS
cases, Hausman tests indicate that negative IV
absolute value) than negative OLS estimates. In
tests cannot reject the null hypothesis that the I
different from one another. Taken together, this s
40 Springer
Table 6 The effects of college graduation on weight
Weight Change Since Age 16 Annual Weight Change

(1) (2)
NLSY97 in 2010
College degree -0.353** -0.436f

(0.124) (0.236)
Number of observations 5,220 4,292
Age 25-31 25-31

NLSY79 in 1992
College degree -0.596** -0.319

(0.132) (0.334)
Age 25-31 25-31
NLSY79 in 2010
College degree -0.128* 0.489

(0.052) (0.435)
Age 45-52 45-52
Notes: Standard errors are s

and county covariates and th
ł p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01
term effects are unde

bounds. Specifically, re
the negative effects of
olds, both in 2010 and i
Effects by Gender
Results could differ b

females but not necess
physical activity on th
penalties in the labor m
may be more concern
pregnancy affects only
(Argys and Rees 2008
2005; Conley and Gla
influence each of thes
weight by gender. For
year college attendanc
tions (average annual w
Sample results are pres
attendance increases w
pounds for males vs. 0
Ô Springer
328 C.L. Baum
analysis, hav
25- to 3 1 -ye
for 45- to 52
Effects Alon
Education m
prevalence of
(Flegal et al
2005; Chang
relationships
marital stat
Following t
weight in t
pounds vs.
college educ
Table 7 The effe

regression estima
NLSY97 in 2010 NLSY79 in 1992 NLSY79 in 2010
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Second-Stage Effects
College degree -1.434** -2.695* -1.673** -1.840 -0.756* 4.205*
(0.475) (1.585) (0.511) (1.856) (0.315) (2.186)
Number of observations 5,220 4,292 2,796 2,661 2,122 2,178
Age 25-31 25-31 25-31 25-31 45-52 45-52
Weight change since age 16 XXX
Annual weight change XXX
First-Stage Instruments
Resident county 0.340** 0.252* 0.274*

(0.060) (0.107) (0.120)
In-state border county 0.012 0.116 0.028
(0.070) (0.092) (0.094)
Out-of-state border 0.286** -0.074 -0.034
(0.097) (0.268) (0.279)

Joint F test 37.47 7.00 5.45
Hausman tests
Chi-square statistics 5.35 2.10 4.61 0.64 4.11 3.01

Prob. > Chi-square .020 .147 .031 .425 .042 .082
Notes: Standard errors are shown in parentheses. Each model contains t

and county covariates and the age, state, and year dummy variables.
* p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01
<0 Springer
Some long-term evidence also sugg

weight most for Hispanics.
Although too few college students are
freshman year weight gain by marital st
anything, a college education decreases w
their nonmarried counterparts. As for th
a college education have faded over tim
those who are and who are not married.
Also shown in Table 8 are results by
with a high school education or less; t
more are classified as from a high soci
whose mother has some college are in n
backgrounds gain significantly more wei
from high socioeconomic backgrounds
amount of freshman year weight gain
Thereafter, the socioeconomic backgr
effects from having a college educati
high school diploma or less in 1992 bu
BMI and Obesity
Last, I examine BMI to explore the rob

measure, and obesity to explore the ef
distribution. A representative set of
available upon request. Effects on BM
weight, with freshman year attendan
college degree significantly decreasin
those not obese at age 16 and those ob
probability models) the effects of fresh
on obesity transitions: becoming obes
college attendance has statistically insi
few 18- to 19-year-olds are obese at th
degree decreases the probability of bec
25- to 31 -year-olds in 1992 and 2010 a
52-year-olds in 2010. The sample size f
estimate the probability of no longer be
why results from this model are often
Conclusions
This analysis provides new estimates of the effects of college on weight. College
students from the NLSY97 gain about 4 pounds during their freshman year and
between 2 and 3 pounds during subsequent college years. However, because results
in this analysis show that these students gain a couple of pounds in the year before and
in the year after college, this weight gain is not necessarily caused by attending college.
Furthermore, similarly aged youth who are not in college gain several pounds per year.
Ö Springer
330 C.L. Baum
- ôo ^ r- oo 7Z
ílr/3 - 00 (N -f. i TÍ- 00 art | O r- |
5w ílr/3 5 -. 00 « (N ? -f. eb i 3 TÍ
E 00 W OO^t -* <^> © 00 (N <^> O - < CM
* *
^c/5 r-
oc -rf 2} o' P n Zļ ^ ^ (N ^
oo r- i o^tm i' ô m on i
o ^c/5 w oo r- ^ oo -i r- <¿ i o
_lc/3w - ' © - • - < ļ O m CM Cp O <N <N
T3
 O -H CM
•o * *
© * ^ - * ^-v -
'C
'C CM<N- '^sosot"-!^ - -
E (Nin^Vw-jvOTt'V
I SS
SS ^ III
^ III III IIII I I©^ -^
I Cp ^ <N
«A ^Ô^-«A
(N
EA
<5 • Sá * *
•g i ON CM 2¡ f) ^ ^ ří ~
öü a, co o' ^ "T so so © i m oc ^ <y ~
â ^ <*. co 00 o' ^ ^ ¿ «- so -1 so © ~ iA
È X !£✓ © © TJ- ^ <^> © ^ CM <N
so"

J2 r- ^m
o r? r? «r>
UO CM ON ^
<0 <y on00 ©
!£ 0 V
J
'ć/5 5 ^ P^rJ 00 -:^<n m «r> <0 «A 0 <A
a> P3 S - ■ © «n ^ 00^ (N <^> © r- (N
I
0
W) * *
,22 IT) M 1/1 2J meso Zļ 00 h 0' rr.

1 •s so © V r- tj- so <7 os m 00 rr. 'y
•s £ ^ I t 00 *A ^ ^ ^ A
0
e
¡>£3 ^ © ^ ^ <^> © (N CM C15 © - < CM
to
!
SO
<D r- * „ „
SP jS r- « ^ * „ _ _ * „ ~
^ 13 *-« ^ so r- 2 ^ 0 <D _ rn
(U C ^tôT rovoov <D rn a (N <n 7
<u
(U O C g ^ ^tôT Os ro - ¿ «n ^ <N ^ sq (N -h ^
00
"Õ
0
.S pH Ü OO-^ ^ O (N (N CpO^H <N

e •s
r-
- qsg u
Ö ^r-ûo
- i> Ö £a'BM
5- ü^Sž
Ö ^
00
2 r- « 3000^0
Ö 3000^0 -i so 31
o bp ¿ u «
g £ z
s
fi
â Springer
- IC ? in
'S
Ä W ^ 1 1 m 
>ï
£ Cfl ® vo ? «n TD
£ owô Cfl vo J> ä
_) C/3 w <ļ> © Tf
-o
§
(U
1 s
I § S 00 7 I
1-5 C' . Vi A)
D w O O . ON ^ £ A)
1
c/3
I
•g IÑ ^
SS•g
® c¡> I
o - ^SS
¿, ® S8t £ I
¡ 0
T3
S i
'S -, O
5 m on 'S
5 6 _ m S on s
£ _ ^ o ö m ^ Ö)
1
T3
0
te
C/5 H- /^s ~ , rs
¿4 H- r» /^s r» ^ ~ , o
|ç
PQ PQSSoo o
fivo
o 2.Tt
a vo
^ S Tt ^ 8-
1
.>
1
* řo 00 -S 
bo g
I ^
u I
IŁ S S S £ £ ?
J5
t>t>l*rl
13 l*rl1-
1- r^
. o. ^-
iÀ*0
*0 _
:> l*rl 2 o <^> . © . -^
1 5
§X
Ě *
u g *.
SS P& «g
&° °ed
s-S^12J^VCi,
M
I tíS T3
•- tí 1) Ö Ž J *
00 ř JUS
ff -g g ¿0 0
G QJ
ja £ O 3 O ÖD >i
3 2 u Z < § v
fi z
Ô Springer
332 C.L. Baum
College stude
they had not
Using nationa
specific fixed
pound during
significantly d
they provide c
weight. These
different sam
gender, and fa
In the longer
the protective
ular, those wi
than their pe
pound less pe
likely be o to
beneficial eff
females in pr
et al. 2011; K
evidence in th
the last 20 ye
cohorts. By co
increase with
gradually dilu
This analysis
health dispari
subsequent SE
particular age
increase weigh
after graduati
tant implicati
protective we
youths become
and other beh
trajectories. E
minor and see
on weight ove
significant pr
Examining th
primary risk
Fontaine et al
high choleste
et al. 1999). In
Stewart et al.
Chang 2007; F
7 For somewhat d
â Springer
and results in financial costs from in

productivity (Andreyeva et al. 2004; F
Acknowledgments I would like to thank the Fac

and Michael D. Allen at Middle Tennessee State U
References
Alley, D. E., & Chang, V. W. (2007). The changing relationship of obesity and disability, 1988-2004. Journal
of the American Medical Association, 298, 2020-2027.
Allison, D. B., Fontaine, K. R., Manson, J. E., Stevens, J., & Vanltallie, T. B. (1999). Annual deaths
attributable to obesity in the United States. Journal of the American Medical Association, 282, 1 530-
1538.
American College Health Association. (2005). The American College Health Association National College
Health Assessment (ACHA-NCHA): Spring 2003 reference group report. Journal of American College
Health, 53, 199-210.
Anderson, J. W., Konz, E. C., Frederick, R. C., & Wood, C. L. (2001). Long-term weight-loss maintenance: A
meta-analysis of U.S. studies. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 74, 579-584.
Andreyeva, T., Sturm, R., & Ringel, J. S. (2004). Moderate and severe obesity have large differences in health
care costs. Obesity Research, 12, 1936-1943.
Arendt, J. N. (2005). Does education cause better health? A panel data analysis using school reforms for
identification. Economics of Education Review, 24, 149-160.
Argys, L. M., & Rees, D. I. (2008). Searching for peer effects: A test of the contagion hypothesis. Review of
Economics and Statistics, 90, 442-458.
Baum, C. L., & Ruhm, C. J. (2009). Age, socioeconomic status, and obesity growth. Journal of Health
Economics, 28, 635-648.
Brunello, G., Fabbri, D., & Fort, M. (2013). The causal effect of education on body mass: Evidence from
Europe. Journal of Labor Economics, 31, 195-223.
Card, D. E. (1995). Using geographic variation in college proximity to estimate the returns to schooling. In L.
N. Christofides & R. Swidinsky (Eds.), Aspects of labour market behavior: Essays in honor of John
Vanderkamp (pp. 201-221). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Cawley, J. (2000). Body weight and women's labor market outcomes (NBER Working Paper No. 7841).
Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Cawley, J. (2004). The impact of obesity on wages. Journal of Human Resources, 39, 451-474.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2006a). Body mass index (BMI). Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/bmi/index.htm
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2006b). Overweight and obesity: Defining overweight
and obesity. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/adult/defining.html
Chang, V. W. (2006). Racial residential segregation and weight status among US adults. Social Science &
Medicine, 63, 1289-1303.
Chang, V. W., & Christakis, N. A. (2005). Income inequality and weight status in US metropolitan areas.
Social Science & Medicine, 61, 83-96.
Chang, V. W., Hillier, A. E., & Mehta, N. K. (2009). Neighborhood racial isolation, disorder, and obesity.
Social Forces, 87, 2063-2092.
Chang, V. W., & Lauderdale, D. S. (2005). Income disparities in body mass index and obesity in the United
States, 197 1-2002. Archives of Internal Medicine, 165, 2122-2128.
Chung, C., & Myers, S. L. (1999). Do the poor pay more for food? An analysis of grocery store availability
and food price disparities. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 33, 276-296.
Colditz, G. A., Giovannucci, E., Rimm, E. B., Stampfer, M. J., Rosner, B., Speizer, F. E., . . . Willett, W. C.
(1991). Alcohol intake in relation to diet and obesity in women and men. American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition, 54, 49-55.
Conley, D., & Glauber, R. (2007). Gender, body mass, and socioeconomic status: New evidence from the
PSID. Advances in Health Economics and Health Services Research, 17, 253-275.
Ô Springer
334 C.L. Baum
Crombie, A. P.,
phenomenon re
Currie, J., & Mo
Evidence from
Cutler, D., & Ll
Schoeni, J. S. H
economic policy
Cutler, D., & Lle
of Health Econo
Debate, R. D., T
dietary practice
Douglas, K. A., C
from the 1995 N
55-66.
Drewnowski, A., & Specter, S. E. (2004). Poverty and obesity: The role of energy density and costs. American
Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 79, 6-16.
Finkelstein, E. A., Fiebelkorn, I. C., & Wang, G. (2003). National medical spending attributable to overweight
and obesity: How much, and who's paying. Health Affairs. Advance online publication, doi: 10. 13 77
/hlthaff.w3.219
Flegal, K. M., Carroll, M. D., Kit, B. K., & Ogden, C. L. (2012). Prevalence of obesity and trends in the
distribution of body mass index among US adults, 1999-2010. Journal of the American Medical
Association, 307, 491-497.
Flegal, K. M., Graubard, B. I., Williamson, D. F., & Gail, M. H. (2005). Excess deaths associated with
underweight, overweight, and obesity. Journal of the American Medical Association, 293, 1861-1867.
Fontaine, K. R., Redden, D. T., Wang, C., Westfall, A. O., & Allison, D. B. (2003). Years of life lost due to
obesity. Journal of the American Medical Association, 289, 187-193.
Franz, M. J., VanWormer, J. J., Crain, A. L., Boucher, J. L., Histon, T., Caplan, W., . . . Pronk, N. P. (2007).
Weight-loss outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of weight loss clinical trials with a
minimum 1-year follow-up. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 107, 1755-1767.
Freedman, V. A., & Martin, L. G. (2000). Contribution of chronic conditions to aggregate changes in old-age
functioning. American Journal of Public Health, 90, 1755-1760.
Freedman, V. A., Schoeni, R. F., Martin, L. G., & Comman, J. (2007). Chronic conditions and the decline in
late-life disability. Demography, 44, 459-477.
Geronimus, A. T., Hicken, M., Keene, D., & Bound, J. (2006). 'Weathering' and age patterns of allostatic load
scores among blacks and whites in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 96, 826-833.
Grossman, M. (1972a). On the concept of health capital and the demand for health. Journal of Political
Economy, 80, 223-255.
Grossman, M. (1972b). The demand for health: A theoretical and empirical investigation. New York, NY:
Columbia University Press.
Grossman, M. (1975). The correlation between health and schooling. In N. E. Terleckyj (Ed.), Household
production and consumption (pp. 147-211). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Grossman, M. (2006). Education and nonmarket outcomes. Handbook of the Economics of Education, 1, 577-
633.
Grossman, M., & Kaestner, R. (1997). Effects of education on health. In J. R. Behrman & N. Stacey (Eds.),
The social benefits of education (pp. 69-123). Ann Arbor. University of Michigan Press.
Haberman, S., & Luffey, D. (1998). Weighing in college students' diet and exercise behaviors. Journal of
American College Health, 46, 189-191.
Haomiao, J., & Lubertkin, E. I. (2005). The impact of obesity on health-related quality-of-life in the general
adult US population. Journal of Public Health, 27, 156-164.
Huang, Y., Song, W. O., Schemmel, R. A., & Hoerr, S. M. (1994). What do college students eat? Food
selection and meal patterns. Nutrition Research, 14, 1143-1153.
Johnston, D. W., & Lee, W.-S. (2011). Explaining the female black-white obesity gap: A decomposition
analysis of proximal causes. Demography, 48, 1429-1450.
Jurges, H., Reinhold, S., & Salm, M. (2011). Does schooling affect health behavior? Evidence from the
educational expansion in Western Germany. Economics of Education Review, 30, 862-872.
Kemptner, D., Jurges, H., & Reinhold, S. (2011). Changes in compulsory schooling and the causal effect of
education on health: Evidence from Germany. Journal of Health Economics, 30, 340-354.
Kenkel, D., Lillard, D., & Mathios, A. (2006). The roles of high school completion and GED receipt in
smoking and obesity. Journal of Labor Economics, 24, 635-660.
Ö Springer
Kling, J. R. (2001). Interpreting instrumental v

Business and Economic Statistics, 19, 358-364.
Lleras-Muney, A. (2005). The relationship between
of Economic Studies, 72, 189-221.
Lowry, R., Galuska, D. A., Fulton, J. E., Wechsl
food choice, and weight management goals and
of Preventive Medicine, 18('), 18-27.
Lundborg, R (2013). The health returns to school
Economics, 26, 673-701.
Marmot, M., Smith, G. D., Stansfeld, S., Patel, C.,
among British civil servants: The Whitehall II
Martin, L. G., Schoeni, R. F., & Andreski, P. M. (
Past, present, future. Demography, 47, S17-S40
McLaren, L. (2007). Socioeconomic status and o
McTigue, K., Larson, J. C., Valoski, A., Burke, G
outcomes and cardiac and vascular outcomes
Medical Association, 296, 79-86.
Mehta, N. K., & Chang, V. W. (2009). Mortality
United States. Demography, 46, 851-872.
Mokdad, A. H., Bowman, B. A., Ford, E. S., Vinic
epidemic of obesity and diabetes in the United St
1195-1200.
Mokdad, A. H., Serdula, M. K., Dietz, W. H., Bowman, B. A., Marks, J. S., & Koplan, J. P. (1999). The spread
of the obesity epidemic in the United States, 1991-1999. Journal of the American Medical Association,
282, 1519-1522.
Moretti, E. (2004). Estimating the social return to higher education: Evidence from longitudinal and repeated
cross-sectional data. Journal of Econometrics, 121, 175-212.
Must, A., Spadano, J., Coakley, E. H., Field, A. E., Colditz, G., & Dietz, W. D. (1999). The disease burden
associated with overweight and obesity. Journal of the American Medical Association, 282, 1523-1529.
Nader, P. R., O'Brien, M., Houts, R., Bradley, R., Belsky, J., Crosnoe, R., . . . National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network. (2006). Identifying risk for obesity
in early childhood. Pediatrics, 118, e594-e601.
Ogden, C. L., Carroll, M. D., Curtin, L. R., Lamb, M. M., & Flegal, K. M. (2010). Prevalence of high body
mass index in US children and adolescents, 2007-2008. Journal of the American Medical Association,
303, 242-249.
Poortinga, W. (2006). Perceptions of the environment, physical activity, and obesity. Social Science &
Medicine, 63, 2835-2846.
Prentice, A. M. (1995). Alcohol and obesity. International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic
Disorders, 19, S544-S550.
Quesenbeny, C. P., Caan, B., & Jacobson, A. (1998). Obesity, health services use, and health care costs among
members of a health maintenance organization. Archives of Internal Medicine, 158, 466-472.
Sander, W. (1995a). Schooling and quitting smoking. Review of Economics and Statistics, 77, 191-199.
Sander, W. (1995b). Schooling and smoking. Economics of Education Review, 14, 23-33.
Scharoun-Lee, M., Gordon-Larsen, P., Adair, L. S., Popkin, B. M., Kaufman, J. S., & Suchindran, C. M.
(2011). Intergenerational profiles of socioeconomic (dis)advantage and obesity during transition to
adulthood. Demography, 48, 625-651.
Shapiro, J. M. (2006). Smart cities: Qualify of life, productivity, and the growth effects of human capital.
Review of Economics and Statistics, 88, 324-335.
Smith, J. P. (2004). Unraveling the SES-health connection. In L. J. Waite (Ed.), Aging, health, and the public
policy: Demographic and economic perspectives (Vol. 30, pp. 108-132). New York, NY: Population
Council.
Sobal, J., & Stunkard, A. J. (1989). Socioeconomic status and obesity: A review of the literature.
Psychological Bulletin, 105, 260-275.
Staiger, D., & Stock, J. (1997). Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments. Econometrica, 65,
557-586.
Stewart, S. T., Cutler, D. M., & Rosen, A. B. (2013). US trends in quality-adjusted life expectancy from 1987
to 2008: Combining national surveys to more broadly track the health of the nation. Journal of Public
Health, 703(11), e78-e87. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301250
â Springer
336 C.L. Baum
Webbink, D., M
overweight? Jo
Westerterp-Plan
and normal-wei
Yakusheva, O., K
experiment. Eco
Ô Springer

LR 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

LR 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Effects of College on Weight: Examining the "Freshman 15" Myth and Other Effects

of College Over the Life Cycle

The Effects of College on Weight: Examining

Charles L. Baum II1

Published online: 7 December 2016

Keywords Weight • Weight gain • College • Freshman 1 5

IS! Charles L. Baum, II

attributed to the factors such as the g

interviewing 8,984 youths in 1997, when t

Wit = ßo + ß 1 + ß2C* + ¿Wit, (1)

for observation i in year t, where X is a vector of standard demographic covari

Wu-Wu-i = ßo + Pi*;, + ß2C,< + tmt. (2)

same respondent (time-invariant for e

Cit - OCQ -f OC'Xit + (X^Z/, + ¿cit (3)

Wit - Wit- 1 = ßo + ßiX,v + ß2 Cu + twa- (4)

Table 1 Selected descriptive statistics for 17- to

Full Sample Enrolled Not Enrolled

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

year than in any other, but similarly aged noncollege stud

Next, I estimate models for weight change, presenting coe

Fig. 1 Weight of college and noncollege studen

factors, to explore whether also control

Fig. 2 Weight changes for college and noncolle

feb ir> (N o r-o^ooor-r-cMTtr-^om

Já ^^1 l>ajaj l>^ ^ g1 g ot i ocg

Table 3 The effects of college attendance on we

Weight Change Since Age 1 6 Annua

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Freshman 1.187** 1.035** 1.368** 1.010** 0.9691" 1.480*

(0.240) (0.309) (0.714)

(0.243) (0.473) (0.787)

Next, I examine longer-term implications of education on weight. First, I estimate the

Table 4 The effects of college attendance on wei

Weight Change Since Age 1 6 Ann

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Pre-Freshman 0.480 0.560* 0.364 0.149 -0.481 -0.152

(0.426) (0.277) (0.407) (0.357) (0.609) (0.669)

(0.227) (0.303) (0.586)

(0.224) (0.314) (0.664)

(0.219) (0.416) (0.729)

(0.187) (0.497) (0.810)

Number of Observations 1,696 11,906 1,661 10,379 9,502 12,484

Notes: Standard errors are shown in parentheses. Each m

As shown in column 1 of Table 6, a college d

Table 5 The effe

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Freshman 1.172** 1.229** 0.492 -0.016 4.063**

(0.236) (0.378) (0.517) (0.689) (1.338)

Ages 18-19 18-19 17-18 20-21 22-23 17-23

Notes: Standard errors are shown in parentheses. Each mo

ł p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01

To explore the potential for unobserved heter

Table 6 The effects of college graduation on weight

Weight Change Since Age 16 Annual Weight Change

College degree -0.353** -0.436f

Age 25-31 25-31

College degree -0.596** -0.319

College degree -0.128* 0.489

Age 45-52 45-52

Notes: Standard errors are s

term effects are unde

Results could differ b

Table 7 The effe

NLSY97 in 2010 NLSY79 in 1992 NLSY79 in 2010

Freshman 1.187 1.035 1.368 1.010 0.9691" 1.480*

Freshman 1.172 1.229 0.492 -0.016 4.063**