Live data from Hacker News

Do Fathers Who Exercise Have Smarter Babies?

nytimes.com

41–50 of 73 posts

Re: Do Fathers Who Exercise Have Smarter Babies?

#41
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.

Re: Do Fathers Who Exercise Have Smarter Babies?

#42
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?

Re: Do Fathers Who Exercise Have Smarter Babies?

#43
post #28

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?

Interesting thought, could also lead to lower fertility is the other side of the coin there.

Re: Do Fathers Who Exercise Have Smarter Babies?

#44

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 regula…

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.

Re: Do Fathers Who Exercise Have Smarter Babies?

#45
"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.

Re: Do Fathers Who Exercise Have Smarter Babies?

#46
post #41

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…

Epigenetics is a nascent field and it has become easier to get funding for such studies. That s my guess

Re: Do Fathers Who Exercise Have Smarter Babies?

#47
post #41

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 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.

Re: Do Fathers Who Exercise Have Smarter Babies?

#48
post #42

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.

Re: Do Fathers Who Exercise Have Smarter Babies?

#49

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…

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.

Re: Do Fathers Who Exercise Have Smarter Babies?

#50
post #41

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 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 h…

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.

Post reply on HN