Born with Couch Potato Genes?

An anonymous reader writes "Science Daily is reporting on an experiment that suggests that an individual's activity level shows a genetic basis. From the article: 'Research conducted by scientists at the Oregon National Primate Research Center at Oregon Health & Science University reveals that a person's level of activity is likely an intrinsic property of that individual. [...] Overall, these findings suggest that it is likely to take a significant conscious effort to change one's level of physical activity and override one's intrinsic inclination to be active or inactive. To state it more plainly, if you're a couch potato, suddenly becoming active may be harder than you think,'"

Comments

Dangerous game

[Anonymous Coward]

How soon before we can blame everything we do on genetics?

How convenient

[damnfuct]

Oh, great. Things like these always give people a scapegoat; "I'm not lazy, it's my genes." I'm not saying that it not true, but people like "solid" excuses to be even more lazy.

Re:How convenient

[node 3]

Oh, great. Things like these always give people a scapegoat;

It's not a scapegoat if it's true.

"I'm not lazy, it's my genes."

And if that's the case?

I'm not saying that it not true, but people like "solid" excuses to be even more lazy.

And some people want any "solid" excuse to not feel pity on the less well-off.

Some people deserve their lot in life (whether at the top or bottom of society), and others, try as hard as they might, have the deck stacked against them. The science from this research will better help to distinguish between the two, making for even better allocation of resources. This should satisfy people of both political leanings: the "bleeding-heart" liberals who want to help those who truly need it, and the "cruel" conservatives who abhor spending money on the undeserving.

Naturally

[elronxenu]

It seems obvious that if a person is habitually lazy or idle that it would take more of an effort to break out of that than, say, a person who typically had a high activity level but was forced to be idle by sickness.

The article summary looks wrong. I don't see anything in TFA itself which indicates that laziness is a result of some genetic factor. All they say is that it's intrinsic to the individual - being a rhesus monkey in this case - that a given individual displays similar activity levels in both a stimulating and a non-stimulating environment.

Article summary wrong; Unsupported conclusions.

[David Hume]

The article summary looks wrong. I don't see anything in TFA itself which indicates that laziness is a result of some genetic factor.

You are correct. The article says nothing about genetics.

Plus, it appears the experiment itself was pretty meaningless, and the conclusions therefrom unsupported. Basically, they observed that some monkeys were active and others weren't, and that the level of activity didn't depend on the amount of space a particular monkey had to be active in. Wow.

The only attempt to change an independent variable appears to be as follows:

A follow-up study was performed with an additional 10 monkeys, which were housed in single cages and then moved to larger group housing. Again, a high degree of individual variability was found in activity level. However, activity level did not significantly change when monkeys were moved between types of housing. Sedentary monkeys remained sedentary even when they had a great deal of space to move around in and companions to interact with, while active monkeys remained active even when they were housed in a smaller space with limited interaction with other monkeys.

From this, the scientist concludes:

Overall, these findings suggest that it is likely to take a significant conscious effort to change one's level of physical activity and override one's intrinsic inclination to be active or inactive. To state it more plainly, if you're a couch potato, suddenly becoming active may be harder than you think," said Judy Cameron, Ph.D., senior scientist in the divisions of Reproductive Sciences and Neuroscience at the OHSU Oregon National Primate Research Center.

I don't think so. How do we know any particular monkey made an "conscious effort," much less a "significant conscious effort," to change its level of physical activity? Perhaps more fundamentally, there is not evidence the scientists even provided any incentive for the monkeys to do so. Simply putting a monkey in a bigger cage may not have given it any incentive or reason to be more active.

There seems to be an assumption that because they gave a sedentary monkey more space, it should have wanted to be more active, and because it wasn't, in fact, more active, this must be because its inactivity was "an intrinsic property of that individual." The scientist's argument assumes his conclusion. What if the money+ simply did not want to, and indeed had no reason to, move?

Put a banana at the other end of cage, and watch Mr. Sedentary Monkey take off like a rocket.

My wise old grandmother once said...

[OneSmartFellow]

The less you do, the less you want to do.

I have found this to be very true, and when I find myself getting lazy, I recall these words, and force myself into action.