Because I'm fairly confident that it's the only demographic where someone could confidently make that type of conclusion. I know it's silly of me to want to contradict a journal article, but I just don't think their conclusion tells the whole story. It's not the kind of information I'd want to parade around.

"Fatness leads to inactivity..." - Yes. This makes logical sense to me even without the numbers provided in the study. And childhood obesity predicts adult obesity, which I think correlates well with this conclusion.

"... but inactivity does not lead to fatness" - No. Active people who become inactive without changing other aspects of their lifestyle can easily gain weight (becoming inactive can put you at risk of weight gain). Of course, inactivity doesn't guarantee that someone will become overweight; I just think it can be factor. Assuming I'm interpreting it correctly, the conclusion of that study can't address teens & adults who aren't obese when they're children.

I also don't think it can properly explain the growing obesity trends (particularly in children) in the past 30-40 years. I doubt there's been a massive change in our general genetic makeup in that period of time, so assuming there hasn't somehow been an influx of obesity-related genes, the most prominent change that has occurred is in our environment. It's easier for us to eat more and move less. And both of these things (in combination with genetics -- perhaps our environment now makes it easier for certain genes to manifest themselves) can dramatically impact our physiology and biochemical pathways in a number of different ways - including but not limited to some of the things you originally listed.

I don't mean to ignore the rest of your post but I think we're pretty much in agreement; it's just that study that I take issue with. I hope I've answered your question, though.

Fatness is good.

__________________

So inactivity has risen because... We eat and don't move. So this explains people who are generally inactive, but I don't think we can go from an average BMI to a BMI >30 within 20 years because we suddenly have computer nerds reproducing like horny rabbits.

I think it has to do more with some aspect of diet than pattern of exercise (in most cases)/"genetics" (isn't it funny how the more agrarian we got the more genetics had to do with everything?)

__________________

Just fat tbh.

Please don't tell me you're one of those people who wants to be fat

__________________

Oh god no

I guess... Haha I don't even know if I'm looking at this the right way, but it seems like that study would interpret that as "inactivity has risen because we have gotten fatter" whereas I would say "inactivity has risen because of our environment - we now live in a world where we don't have to move very much."
In that study they try to apply the results to explain why PA promotion is failing, but I don't think that's the reason (or the sole reason).

I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing. :P -- whatever the reason for inactivity I guess it doesn't really much matter in this topic because I'm not disagreeing with you overall. I think diet has a much bigger impact (especially in extremes like obesity). I'm not trying to say that inactivity is why why are fat, just that becoming more sedentary could at least be considered a [small] contributing factor.

If we became more inactive but our diets stayed the same and we gained weight, would we say we're overeating or we're not exercising enough? Maybe it depends on whom you asked the question to!

Well, first of all we should eat healthier and exerci more. Than we will be fit and happy.

---------- Post added at 02:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:43 PM ----------

And , yes, drinking more water is the key for a healthy life.

__________________
vitamins and supplements
protein supplements
buy protein