By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 10 May 2010
Edit Thread
sieanr said:
Kasz216 said:
 

I don't think you understand what moving the goalposts mean and are saying that simply because you think it sounds insulting.

Nor does it seem like you understand how basic research works... I mean do you understand how they accounted for socio-economic status in this study?

They didn't apply a formula.  They simply split up the rich kids and the poor kids.   They compaired rich fat kids, with rich fit kids.

They also compaired poor rich fat kids, with poor fit kids.  


This leads to MANY counfounding variables that leads the research to ruin.

 

1) Parental involvement as stated.  Fit kids are much more likely to have less involved parents.  How else do you think a rich fat kid gets fat outside of genetic reasons?  Most unfit kids clearly don't have involved parents... because guess what... they are unfit!  For every kid that isn't fat because of genetics it's clear their parents aren't that involved and assertive with their child... otherwise you know... they would try and work with the kid to get his weight down.  I mean do you think a parent that is planning his sons involvement in sports, education, taking them to the library etc is also letting their kid get fat?  The parent who is meticuliously planning their childs life isn't watching his caloric intake?

2) Not all Fat kids are fat because of lack of fitness.  There are plenty kids that are unfit due to genetics.  These kids get plenty of exercise.  Additionally, there are plenty of kids that don't have to exercise at all to be fit.  There are plenty of kids that can exercise a lot and never be fat nor fit.

You dismissed a piece of evidence contrary to your opinion (hormones released during exercise promoting brain growth). You claimed the article didn't account for outside factors, then switched and said socio-economic status is a poor indicator of parental involvement (its not) and name dropped a pop-sociology book to boot. Now you're trying to discredit the testing methodology by making assumptions. Thats the definition of moving the goalpost - you've changed what the research would need to address to be valid.

Now unless you have the original journal article the link I posted drew from in front of you, any discussions on the validity of said research is meaningless. (not to mention that the article cites several studies, not just one)

You're also assuming that fit children are much more likely to have involved parents and vice versa. Thats a big leap, and I've seen plenty of evidence to the contrary. Maybe you could back it up?

Correlation between weight and genetics is a weak one, and the research I've seen indicates that it can be overcome by exercise in all but the most extreme cases. So again, not really relavent.

I dismissed it because it's not relevent.  There is no indication that said brain growth actually HELPS.

The thing about intellegence is... it's not like strength.  You only have to be "smart enough" to understand something.  After that it's all about effort.

Having an IQ of 105 doesn't really make you any smarter then someone with an IQ of 100.  Your IQ has to be a LOT higher for it to make any difference.  Way more then the minor "working out" would provide.  Parents providing there children with proper study habits, and making sure they learn outside of a classroom are going to help their children succeeed far more then jogging would, which likely isn't helping at all.

You've seen plenty of evidence to the contrary that parents who play an involved role in their childrens lives making sure they are always on task and studying have fat and unfit children?  Really?

http://health.dailynewscentral.com/content/view/0002284/52/

Note, Authoritative parents create fat kids... Permissive parents create even fatter kids.  Flexable yet rule setting parents who keep their children on task create fit kids. Authortative parents = good parents who make sure their kids are on task but aren't dicks on it. 


Better parenting leads to more fit kids.  I don't see why you are even argueing this... other then it goes against your arguement.  I mean, it's pretty obvious.

Parenting style is greatly going to effect EVERYTHING about a child.  Heck, if you know enough about parenting you can actually predict 9 times out of 10 what kind of household they came from just based on a psych test and a test of their grades.

 

Now guess which parenting style is show to lead to the best results in schools... that would be Authortative parents.  You are seeing two effects and calling one a cause... when in reality they are both the effects of good parenting.