Do Fathers Who Exercise Have Smarter Babies?(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Do Fathers Who Exercise Have Smarter Babies?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/09/well/move/do-fathers-who-exercise-have-smarter-babies.html
72 comments
The lack of exercise is a historical abnormality. In that context, which feels more accurate, the title should be: "Do fathers who don't exercise have less intelligent children?"
They should also test fathers/kids who put vinegar on their pizza...
Smarter in which area and would be be at expense of other traits?
Do smarter babies know how to make daddy hit the gym??
Most people don't exercise because no one is paying them to exercise.
If a government wants healthy people, they should pay up $100 per hour to just exercise.
I think this is the conspiracy of rich people to make poor people fat so that they get sick and rich people sell medicines, fast food, and garcinia combogia, gym membership (which is just another name for drugs like cocaine, meth etc.... but licensed and regulated)
I think this is the conspiracy of rich people to make poor people fat so that they get sick and rich people sell medicines, fast food, and garcinia combogia, gym membership (which is just another name for drugs like cocaine, meth etc.... but licensed and regulated)
Not paying people to take care of themselves is a conspiracy? Is paying people to take care of themselves, somehow the natural state of the world?
Assuming that everyone knows how to take care of themselves is ignorance.
We don't live in a natural state, otherwise, it would have been fine for me to kill you for my survival.
We don't live in a natural state, otherwise, it would have been fine for me to kill you for my survival.
[deleted]
Wow, I don't know what happened in your childhood that caused you to hate exercise so much.
There are so many cries for help in this comment that I want to find you and give you a hug.
1) People will only exercise if someone is paying them to exercise.
Hopefully this isn't how you feel for yourself? You don't see any point in exercise until its making you money? Most people exercise because they want to look and feel better. They also know it can reduce their chances of disease and it might allow them to participate in hobbies and activities that someone who is un-fit wouldn't be able to participate in.
2) The government has to pay people $100 an hour to "just exercise"
I don't think the government cares if you are healthy or not. Again, if someone wants to live a sedentary life than I don't see any reason to stop them. No one says you have to exercise, just that there are many positive benefits of doing so. Why would the government pay everyone $100 per hour to exercise? Most people will live their whole lives without making $100 an hour. The concept of such a program is unsustainable. The government is paying you a higher wage than most citizens would ever earn, plus the government would get very little in return. In fact you could argue that if more people lived longer it could cause overpopulation issues, which we are already seeing in many cities. So the government has no incentive to force you to go to the gym. If you don't want to go, thats ok.
3) Rich people make poor people fat
How are rich people making poor people fat? Do they force you to eat fast food every meal? I could maybe see the argument that rich executives behind McDonalds are putting out advertisements to convince you to go to their restaurants. But Chipotle execs are doing the same thing for their stores which offer healthy eating options. Panera bread offers healthy options, and there are likely many local stores around you that you could support that offer local food options. Again, this isn't someone elses fault. Its a personal decision that people make for themselves.
4) Gym Memberships are a drug
I mean if you treated a gym membership like a drug, than most people would be pretty healthy because they would be using it all of the time. I don't really understand this one. There are many new gyms that are propping up around the country like Planet Fitness that offer affordable ($10 a month) no-contract memberships to their gyms.
I also would encourage you to look up your nearest YMCA, which offers subsidized gym memberships for lower income families or individuals. Most YMCA gyms are incredibly nice! They are well kept up, with nice pools, classes, and state of the art equipment. Granted they can't help you with motivation (that's still on you) but at least you have a good facility to go to. Also, many cities will have "Rec Centers" or "Aquatic Centers" which provide memberships for low-income individuals. These are generally operated by your local city government. Again you still need to motivate yourself to go (they aren't going to pay you to come) but at least the facility is available to you.
Cost is usually an excuse anyway. For example most low income families still manage to find a way to pay for cable or satellite. These costs can usually be anywhere between $60 - $120 a month! They manage to pay these costs, but then complain about a gym that might be $10 or $20 a month (or maybe free depending on some of the programs i just outlined). For what its worth, i have a gym membership but do NOT have a cable or satellite membership. Its all about priorities.
You also don't need a gym to stay fit. I work out 6 times a week (I train for triathlons... most people don't need to, and probably shouldn't, work out this often). Of 6 days a week of training, I only go to the gym 3 days a week (and sometimes only twice). I'll swim laps 2-3 times a week and do strength training on those same days, which is why i go to the gym. However, the other than those swim/strength days, I am biking outside or running outside. There is no membership fee to run in the streets of your own city! There is no membership fee to ride your bike in the city and most people own a bike of some kind. Check out a free app called "Strava". This will allow you to track your activities, but more importantly it has crowdsourced routes/segments where people that live near you often run or bike. This is a great way to find good places to exercise.
Also, before you say that you have to have a gym for an EFFECTIVE workout, ill say this: I track ALL my training against a TSS score (training stress score), which is a score to rank the effort and effect that training has on your body. Maintaining a solid TSS will positively increase your fitness. If you take my total TSS each week and took out the TSS from the activities that I did at the gym, only about 25% of my TSS each which is from the gym. Why i say this, is because you can get more of an effect from being outside than from the gym! I only mess with the gym to do some targeted muscle exercises and for swimming. That's it. The majority of my fitness (75% or so) actually comes from no-membership-required activities like running and cycling in the streets.
The only reason I write all this is to hopefully motivate you. A gym is not required to workout. In fact I dread the gym, my favorite days are the ones where I get to run outside. However even if you want a gym, there are options available like the YMCA or Recreation Centers operated by your local government that can provide those facilities to you at no cost or a minimal cost if you can't afford it. Exercise because you want to live longer and feel better, don't wait around for someone to pay you to do something. This will never happen. Your health is your concern, not someone elses. Take control of it.
There are so many cries for help in this comment that I want to find you and give you a hug.
1) People will only exercise if someone is paying them to exercise.
Hopefully this isn't how you feel for yourself? You don't see any point in exercise until its making you money? Most people exercise because they want to look and feel better. They also know it can reduce their chances of disease and it might allow them to participate in hobbies and activities that someone who is un-fit wouldn't be able to participate in.
2) The government has to pay people $100 an hour to "just exercise"
I don't think the government cares if you are healthy or not. Again, if someone wants to live a sedentary life than I don't see any reason to stop them. No one says you have to exercise, just that there are many positive benefits of doing so. Why would the government pay everyone $100 per hour to exercise? Most people will live their whole lives without making $100 an hour. The concept of such a program is unsustainable. The government is paying you a higher wage than most citizens would ever earn, plus the government would get very little in return. In fact you could argue that if more people lived longer it could cause overpopulation issues, which we are already seeing in many cities. So the government has no incentive to force you to go to the gym. If you don't want to go, thats ok.
3) Rich people make poor people fat
How are rich people making poor people fat? Do they force you to eat fast food every meal? I could maybe see the argument that rich executives behind McDonalds are putting out advertisements to convince you to go to their restaurants. But Chipotle execs are doing the same thing for their stores which offer healthy eating options. Panera bread offers healthy options, and there are likely many local stores around you that you could support that offer local food options. Again, this isn't someone elses fault. Its a personal decision that people make for themselves.
4) Gym Memberships are a drug
I mean if you treated a gym membership like a drug, than most people would be pretty healthy because they would be using it all of the time. I don't really understand this one. There are many new gyms that are propping up around the country like Planet Fitness that offer affordable ($10 a month) no-contract memberships to their gyms.
I also would encourage you to look up your nearest YMCA, which offers subsidized gym memberships for lower income families or individuals. Most YMCA gyms are incredibly nice! They are well kept up, with nice pools, classes, and state of the art equipment. Granted they can't help you with motivation (that's still on you) but at least you have a good facility to go to. Also, many cities will have "Rec Centers" or "Aquatic Centers" which provide memberships for low-income individuals. These are generally operated by your local city government. Again you still need to motivate yourself to go (they aren't going to pay you to come) but at least the facility is available to you.
Cost is usually an excuse anyway. For example most low income families still manage to find a way to pay for cable or satellite. These costs can usually be anywhere between $60 - $120 a month! They manage to pay these costs, but then complain about a gym that might be $10 or $20 a month (or maybe free depending on some of the programs i just outlined). For what its worth, i have a gym membership but do NOT have a cable or satellite membership. Its all about priorities.
You also don't need a gym to stay fit. I work out 6 times a week (I train for triathlons... most people don't need to, and probably shouldn't, work out this often). Of 6 days a week of training, I only go to the gym 3 days a week (and sometimes only twice). I'll swim laps 2-3 times a week and do strength training on those same days, which is why i go to the gym. However, the other than those swim/strength days, I am biking outside or running outside. There is no membership fee to run in the streets of your own city! There is no membership fee to ride your bike in the city and most people own a bike of some kind. Check out a free app called "Strava". This will allow you to track your activities, but more importantly it has crowdsourced routes/segments where people that live near you often run or bike. This is a great way to find good places to exercise.
Also, before you say that you have to have a gym for an EFFECTIVE workout, ill say this: I track ALL my training against a TSS score (training stress score), which is a score to rank the effort and effect that training has on your body. Maintaining a solid TSS will positively increase your fitness. If you take my total TSS each week and took out the TSS from the activities that I did at the gym, only about 25% of my TSS each which is from the gym. Why i say this, is because you can get more of an effect from being outside than from the gym! I only mess with the gym to do some targeted muscle exercises and for swimming. That's it. The majority of my fitness (75% or so) actually comes from no-membership-required activities like running and cycling in the streets.
The only reason I write all this is to hopefully motivate you. A gym is not required to workout. In fact I dread the gym, my favorite days are the ones where I get to run outside. However even if you want a gym, there are options available like the YMCA or Recreation Centers operated by your local government that can provide those facilities to you at no cost or a minimal cost if you can't afford it. Exercise because you want to live longer and feel better, don't wait around for someone to pay you to do something. This will never happen. Your health is your concern, not someone elses. Take control of it.
Yup. No need for a gym membership. I can do a lot with a pull-up bar. Bodyweight squats, one leg or two legs. Pushups, planks, bridges.
Dribbling a basketball.
Kettlebells.
The list goes on.
Dribbling a basketball.
Kettlebells.
The list goes on.
Most people don't exercise because they can't be bothered to. They think that they need energy before they can exercise, when it works exactly the other way around.
Maybe for some people. Exercise doesn't give me energy. I do it anyway and find ways to make it enjoyable, but if I'm tired it's a slog.
Most people exercise, most people don't play - there is a difference. Watch kids play, they are still exercising but having fun. Pick up a playful form of exercise. Mountain biking, skateboarding, BMX etc... Do it just to have fun, you will see a difference - more energy.
I think you should define 'energy' somewhat. As it stands, both you and the person you and wanderr are right as far as I'm concerned. My body is pretty tired right now and even hurts a bit after 2 hours of bmx. But yes, I still feel energy, the urge do the things, to be creative and whatnot. But that's mainly mentally. I couldnt really go for another ride. Tomorrow though it'll be different: after a night of good sleep I'll be energetic both physically and mentally. An effect which unfortunately wears off after some days. Likely the reason sports are addictive.
Also it's really not as simple as 'play, don't exercise'. I do admit the playful sports work better for me, but it's not that the more boring plain exercise ones don't do anything at all. And I can imagine some people just don't care for the play at all.
Another aspect: something like 'plain' road cycling is fairly easy on your body and is not really hard to do. The 3 other sports you mention are different though so they're just nor for everyone. As much as I love jumping a set of stairs for instance, the impact is hard on your body and the older I get the more care I have to take. E.g. if I don't properly warm up now I'd just damage myself. That used to be different when I was 20. And it's extremely likely at one point I'll just have to give up on bmx because I simply won't be able to do it anymore. Man, I wish that day would never come. But it will.
Also it's really not as simple as 'play, don't exercise'. I do admit the playful sports work better for me, but it's not that the more boring plain exercise ones don't do anything at all. And I can imagine some people just don't care for the play at all.
Another aspect: something like 'plain' road cycling is fairly easy on your body and is not really hard to do. The 3 other sports you mention are different though so they're just nor for everyone. As much as I love jumping a set of stairs for instance, the impact is hard on your body and the older I get the more care I have to take. E.g. if I don't properly warm up now I'd just damage myself. That used to be different when I was 20. And it's extremely likely at one point I'll just have to give up on bmx because I simply won't be able to do it anymore. Man, I wish that day would never come. But it will.
I would suggest to eat some carbs 1 h before exersising
.
It's worth reading the article, it's about an interesting study in lab mice.
Are you implying only rich people have time to exercise?
Actual title: "Do Fathers Who Exercise Have Smarter Babies?"
To further quote the article: “My personal opinion is that exercise is probably much more important” than mental stimulation for altering brains and gene expression and potentially even the aptitudes of one’s offspring, Dr. Fischer says.
If the author of the article specifically phrased it as a question, let's not jump to making a definitive statement by changing the title.
To further quote the article: “My personal opinion is that exercise is probably much more important” than mental stimulation for altering brains and gene expression and potentially even the aptitudes of one’s offspring, Dr. Fischer says.
If the author of the article specifically phrased it as a question, let's not jump to making a definitive statement by changing the title.
> If the author of the article specifically phrased it as a question [...]
Small but important correction: authors typically don't get to specifically phrase the title of their article, that is usually controlled by the editor (or some clickbait-optimizing a/b testing algorithm to maximize revenue).
Small but important correction: authors typically don't get to specifically phrase the title of their article, that is usually controlled by the editor (or some clickbait-optimizing a/b testing algorithm to maximize revenue).
So wouldn't the study just need to compare athelete's children with a rocket scientist's children?
Most of the rocket scientists I know also exercise
I know a handful at Boeing (inc. family) and they're pretty representative of the American male population for their ages (meaning some healthy, some less healthy, with more in the latter than the former categories).
By the way, I'm talking literal rocket engineers in the sense that they work on ICBMs and counter systems as contractors for the US Government.
By the way, I'm talking literal rocket engineers in the sense that they work on ICBMs and counter systems as contractors for the US Government.
Correlation implied as causation.
Here is another correlation into causation article linking cardiovascular fitness to IQ[0]
Another way to look at it can be from the per-capita relation of economic class to fitness[1]. It is entirely possible that, because people higher up the economic ladder are more likely to be fit, and because they are more likely to receive better prenatal care, generally have better nutrition, and give their children more educational opportunities, that the actual cause may be economic status.
[0] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/quilted-science/2009...
[1] https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/06/10/the-correla...
Here is another correlation into causation article linking cardiovascular fitness to IQ[0]
Another way to look at it can be from the per-capita relation of economic class to fitness[1]. It is entirely possible that, because people higher up the economic ladder are more likely to be fit, and because they are more likely to receive better prenatal care, generally have better nutrition, and give their children more educational opportunities, that the actual cause may be economic status.
[0] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/quilted-science/2009...
[1] https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/06/10/the-correla...
Actually its a case of "Read the whole article, and NOT just the headline, before leaving a comment" syndrome.
The study was presented on mice who all lived in the same laboratory in identical little cages. They were not exposed to various economic classes. We don't need to run a per-capita relational analysis on them because they were mice... living in cages. One group of mice was provided tools like an exercise wheel in their cages after they reached adulthood to provide them means of exercising, which they took advantage of. The male mice that exercised sired "smarter" offspring (details into how they make that determination are in the article) even when paired with sedentary females.
Now yes I agree with you that there is a strong relationship in humans between exercise and economic class. On average humans with higher economic status tend to be more fit. There are numerous reasons for this. However, that really doesn't have anything to do with this study. This study concluded that adult males who exercise regularly, pass positive mental traits to their offspring. You could later argue that therefore a higher percentages of kids from high economic classes will display these same desirable mental traits... which I would probably agree with, but that is an entirely different argument than what is made in this study.
So yes take the 3 minutes that it takes to read this 1,200 or so word article before leaving a comment claiming that the article is wrong.
The study was presented on mice who all lived in the same laboratory in identical little cages. They were not exposed to various economic classes. We don't need to run a per-capita relational analysis on them because they were mice... living in cages. One group of mice was provided tools like an exercise wheel in their cages after they reached adulthood to provide them means of exercising, which they took advantage of. The male mice that exercised sired "smarter" offspring (details into how they make that determination are in the article) even when paired with sedentary females.
Now yes I agree with you that there is a strong relationship in humans between exercise and economic class. On average humans with higher economic status tend to be more fit. There are numerous reasons for this. However, that really doesn't have anything to do with this study. This study concluded that adult males who exercise regularly, pass positive mental traits to their offspring. You could later argue that therefore a higher percentages of kids from high economic classes will display these same desirable mental traits... which I would probably agree with, but that is an entirely different argument than what is made in this study.
So yes take the 3 minutes that it takes to read this 1,200 or so word article before leaving a comment claiming that the article is wrong.
Actually, it is not correlation implied as causation.
See https://www.cell.com/cell-reports/fulltext/S2211-1247(18)304...
"Highlights
•Exercising male mice pass a cognitive benefit to their offspring
•This phenomenon is mediated by altered expression of sperm RNA
•Levels of miR212/132 in sperm play a key role in this intergenerational effect"
This appears to be causation implied as causation.
See https://www.cell.com/cell-reports/fulltext/S2211-1247(18)304...
"Highlights
•Exercising male mice pass a cognitive benefit to their offspring
•This phenomenon is mediated by altered expression of sperm RNA
•Levels of miR212/132 in sperm play a key role in this intergenerational effect"
This appears to be causation implied as causation.
It's actually a perfect example of correlation to causation. The title could easily have been "fathers perpetually kept in cramped quarters produce dumb babies".
This article is about a study done on mice. Having not read the underlying study, and it not being my field, I can't speak to how well the article articulates the study's findings, but I don't think it's fair to dismiss it with the "correlation does not imply causation" argument.
> on mice
And the article automatically relates it to humans, when absolutely no study has been done. Correlation to causation.
And the article automatically relates it to humans, when absolutely no study has been done. Correlation to causation.
>And the article automatically relates it to humans,
From the article:
"Of course, this study involved mice and not men and cannot tell us whether the same processes occur in people."
> when absolutely no study has been done. Correlation to causation.
It is unethical to run certain studies on humans, which is why the mice models are used (also pigs, fish, flies, worms, etc) initially. And such models have been fantastically successful. It seems like you are rather unfamiliar with the scientific process...
From the article:
"Of course, this study involved mice and not men and cannot tell us whether the same processes occur in people."
> when absolutely no study has been done. Correlation to causation.
It is unethical to run certain studies on humans, which is why the mice models are used (also pigs, fish, flies, worms, etc) initially. And such models have been fantastically successful. It seems like you are rather unfamiliar with the scientific process...
[deleted]
" mice whose fathers grew in environmentally enriched cage have better LTP". That's basically what the study says, and they attribute it to epigenetic effects through some miRNA. The effect lasted for 1 generation.
How can someone take that, put an image of a human baby and start talking about "smart babies" and "fathers who exercise" is beyond me.
How can someone take that, put an image of a human baby and start talking about "smart babies" and "fathers who exercise" is beyond me.
The title makes it sound like a dull statistical correlation was found in some sociology report, but they did some actual measuring. From the report summary:
> We show that this effect is mediated through sperm RNA and especially miRs 212/132. In conclusion, our study reports intergenerational inheritance of an acquired cognitive benefit and points to specific miRs as candidates mechanistically involved in this type of transmission.
https://www.cell.com/cell-reports/fulltext/S2211-1247(18)304...
> We show that this effect is mediated through sperm RNA and especially miRs 212/132. In conclusion, our study reports intergenerational inheritance of an acquired cognitive benefit and points to specific miRs as candidates mechanistically involved in this type of transmission.
https://www.cell.com/cell-reports/fulltext/S2211-1247(18)304...
In mice, though. It's an open question to what extent rodent results apply to humans. This result should open doors to future research, but by itself should be taken with the appropriate grain of salt.
It's a well known fact that mice and humans promdominantly share the same genome, so this research should be taken with more than grain of salt, methinks.
> mice and humans promdominantly share the same genome
And yet you're 70kg and a mouse is 20g. Plenty of diseases have been treated/cured in mice in ways that don't translate to the clinic, so I think the caution is warranted.
And yet you're 70kg and a mouse is 20g. Plenty of diseases have been treated/cured in mice in ways that don't translate to the clinic, so I think the caution is warranted.
Isn't that also true of me and corn?
~85% with mice, ~60% with bananas. I suspect corn is more like a banana than a mouse.
So that would imply that people who actually must exercise for their job (construction workers) would have smarter children, on average? And how would that be measured if the child gets stuck in a poorly performing school and no real academic challenges?
Not smarter in absolute sense, just smarter than they would be without exercise, I suppose.
Exercise for work and exercise done for play may have different outcomes though. I remember reading George Sheehan’s Running and Being and he says dockworkers etc don’t seem to get the same health benefits from their work exercise. There’s something unique about it being for play.
Importantly, mice are exercised by being forced to run in wheels, i.e., cardio.
There have been studios in humans showing that cardio exercise has mental benefits, presumably in part due to increased blood flow to the brain. And anecdotally, among knowledge workers like lawyers and doctors, cardio exercise is disproportionately over-represented compared to average populations.
There have been studios in humans showing that cardio exercise has mental benefits, presumably in part due to increased blood flow to the brain. And anecdotally, among knowledge workers like lawyers and doctors, cardio exercise is disproportionately over-represented compared to average populations.
The last bit is interesting. But ya have to wonder which came first...the runner or the knowledge worker. Know what I mean?
Maybe, unless there's a correlation (or inverse correlation) between smartness and those who must exercise for their job (vs those who don't).
Makes me think about the old question about those who have a higher paying mostly mental desk job. Is it because they're smarter (say through some genetic predisposition), or is it because of all the socioeconomic situations that led them to that job?
(Yes there are exceptions, like you, the one who's about to quote an anecdote. I'm talking about the majority)
Makes me think about the old question about those who have a higher paying mostly mental desk job. Is it because they're smarter (say through some genetic predisposition), or is it because of all the socioeconomic situations that led them to that job?
(Yes there are exceptions, like you, the one who's about to quote an anecdote. I'm talking about the majority)
[deleted]
Makes me wonder how sperm motility correlates with offspring IQ.
And could an improved selection for higher sperm motility (e.g. by giving sperm some extra challenge before they reach the ovum), lead to higher IQ or some other beneficial trait?
And could an improved selection for higher sperm motility (e.g. by giving sperm some extra challenge before they reach the ovum), lead to higher IQ or some other beneficial trait?
Interesting thought, could also lead to lower fertility is the other side of the coin there.
I wish HN would ban all betteridge's style headlines.
How much did newton or einstein's father exercise? Were they body builders?
How much did newton or einstein's father exercise? Were they body builders?
>How much did newton or einstein's father exercise? Were they body builders?
Why would that matter? Are they the only smart people? And why are you conflating exercising with body building?
Why would that matter? Are they the only smart people? And why are you conflating exercising with body building?
Did anyone else notice that there's been an increasing number of mildly successful research that hint towards Lamarckian evolution as being real sometimes?
Has something changed (either ease or impetus) that's made it easy to do such research?
Or does it have something to do with the fact that most people's conception of evolution is Lamarckian in nature?
Whenever I ask someone to describe evolution, they describe it the way Lamarck thought it worked. And when I talk about natural selection, they say they need time to digest that.
Has something changed (either ease or impetus) that's made it easy to do such research?
Or does it have something to do with the fact that most people's conception of evolution is Lamarckian in nature?
Whenever I ask someone to describe evolution, they describe it the way Lamarck thought it worked. And when I talk about natural selection, they say they need time to digest that.
Be aware that actual biologists wince when epigenetics and related phenomena are described as "Lamarckian evolution" (much like physicists do when quantum effects are claimed to be "proof" of non-materialism or New Age woo). They are superficially similar in their effects but the underlying mechanisms are very different and (as far as we know) epigenetic changes rarely persist beyond a few generations and probably can't impact populations very much.
The way I conceptualize of it is that evolution is still almost entirely Darwinian, but that there's also a ton of other stuff that happens. Without wanting to get political, I think a good analogy would be human gender and sexuality. The statement that there are two human sexes, male and female, and that they seek each other out for the purpose of mating explains somewhere around 95% of what you see in humans. But human sexuality is complicated and to get to an explanation that encompasses 100% of what you observe requires vastly expanding your model of what's going on. So what's going on now with evolution is that we are discovering all the little ways in which evolution is complicated.
A slight mismatch in your analogy is that G&S studies doesn't explain anything, they just categorize it. They aren't proposing any mechanisms.
There is definitely serious research into the causal mechanisms of homosexuality and transgenderism.
[deleted]
But thats how all economic models work. The reliability of the model depends on how many standard deviations you go out to the left or right from the center.
So I don't think it's anything really new.
So I don't think it's anything really new.
Epigenetics is a nascent field and it has become easier to get funding for such studies. That s my guess
How do you even define smart?
Is it quantified by the IQ tests?
Does smartness include the factor of social skills(EQ) and how someone may present himself or herself in a social situations. How do you decide what's smart and what's not smart?
Why do social skills have any preferred treatment over any other skills? I'd say smart is best measured by IQ.
What do you exactly measure by comparing IQs? A person who does not do well on math test can become much more "successful" than a person who does. How does IQ really correlate with success?
It correlates a lot, actually. It even may be one of the best predictors (if not the best, I dunno honestly).
They should both be important is his point. And measurements for IQ (and EQ frankly) aren't very reliable. His point seems to be that "smart" is not really measurable as we don't include EQ and our measurements of IQ are poor as well.
"They also hope in future animal studies to tease out the individual effects of running from those of playing with toys and being otherwise mentally engaged, he says."
How can they not have done this yet still draw the conclusion that the exercise was the important factor?
I wouldn't be surprised if the "sedentary" individuals would have been diagnosed with depression, had they beem humans. What would make an interesting study is epigenetic effects of depression on human patients.
How can they not have done this yet still draw the conclusion that the exercise was the important factor?
I wouldn't be surprised if the "sedentary" individuals would have been diagnosed with depression, had they beem humans. What would make an interesting study is epigenetic effects of depression on human patients.
Fathers that exercise have more active children?
Meaning, less to do with sperm and more to do with the development of and interaction with the infant?
If I am a sloth, my child is likely sitting in a cradle watching TV with me.