How can this be?

I'm not a researcher. I don't claim to understand the inner workings of a research project. Nor do I understand how different studies looking at the same problem can produce vastly different results. And I really don't understand the result of this study, reported in an article titled "Physical inactivity doesn't cause childhood obesity."

Here is an excerpt from the article:

Metcalf et al. published their longitudinal study in the June 23, 2010 issue of Archives of Disease in Childhood saying fatness leads to physical inactivity, but inactivity does not necessarily lead to fatness.

In the study, the researchers followed 202 children of whom 25 percent were overweight or obese for 7 to 10 years. 

During the follow-up, the children were asked to wear Actigraph accelerometers for seven days a year to measure their physical activity.  The body weight of each child was measured annually using dual energy x ray absorptiometry.

The researchers found the body fat percentage was predictive of changes in physical activity over the following 3 years, but physical activity levels were not predictive of subsequent changes in body fat percentage over the same follow-up period.

They concluded "Physical inactivity appears to be the result of fatness rather than its cause. This reverse causality may explain why attempts to tackle childhood obesity by promoting physical activity have been largely unsuccessful."

The bold emphasis is mine. And I ask again: How can this be? If overweight results from an imbalance between energy in (calorie intake) and energy out (calories burned), how can one part of the equation have no significance? And why is it that when I (the physical activity specialist) finally tore myself away from the computer and began walking every day, I lost 35 pounds? I did nothing different on the energy-in side of the equation; I simply began making sure I burned some of the calories I'd consumed...

Thoughts?

Comments

[Giles]

this makes sense, being of the correct weight does not mean being active. whereas being overweight typically means not being active. the effects of a balance diet are vast compaired to exercise. it is the combination of the two that really counts.

[Gary D. Pica]

When you find out let me know. I think the person that wrote this has to take another look, and does this person have something to back it up?

[Child Nutrition]

I agree with Giles, it is the combination of exercise and nutrition that complete the full package.

[Pensacola Kids Activities]

I think it would be great to see more physical activities planned in school other than gym. More guidance on nutrition should also be looked into.

[Joel Gray]

I think this work both ways, because one of the reasons why weight increases is due to inactivity. But I think it is more important to address what is the best solution to this existing problem.

[Green Tea and Weight Loss]

I think this is good idea because in school itself they are trained to do physical activity.

[Adipex]

I agree with you Physical
inactivity makes our heath worse.

[Alan Bryce]

I honestly don't think that a child is just fat because. Physical inactivity has a lot to do with it. However, if a child is active but eats 3000 calories a day in junk, it wont do them any good.

[optometrist tarpon springs]

Such article is just a product of an irresponsible writer. How could a writer publish a false information that could really cause some risk? That's just sad to hear.

[3 Wheel Bikes For Adults]

I agree that it is pure common sense that these would definitely be linked. In either case physical activity is good for us all children or adult and is important that we maintain some level of physical activity throughout our lives.

Have a look at an excellent way for both children and adults to both have fun and exercise at the same time;

http://tricyclesforadultsreviews.com/