Originally Posted by Torn
The demographic was a rather weird choice, I agree.
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"
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.