Or could it be that girls that start school earlier are exposed to older girls that talk about being "fat" earlier thus creating more body image problems sooner? I mean seriously?! Some of the studies people do get absolutely rediculous.
First, not being overweight is not indicative of a body image problem. Second, this type of research is called "basic research" and it's performed in order to collect data that can be used later with other sets of information to provide a better perspective on large, complex problems like childhood obesity. Third, the researchers themselves claimed to not entirely understand the mechanism of action in this case. Not knowing something is OK in science. It just means that there's more work to be done. Your criticism of basic research simply highlights your ignorance of the scientific process.
I have heard that there there are demographic differences in the timing of conception. That is, babies who are born in the spring tend to have mothers who are on average older, wealthier, better educated, and more likely to be married than babies who are born in the fall. I have 3 kids and while I was married and college-educated for all 3, I was quite a bit older and better off financially at the time of my January baby's birth than I was at the time of my October baby's birth.
This is a very poor research. I knew home schooled girls who are both fat and bone thin. Many of the kids go to school very early on anyway. Their first school is kinder garden and head on straight to college. Somehow along the way they all deviate. Some eat junk blow up to be a balloon and other eat the same junk and still remain bone thin. Other eat nothing and still gain weight and others eat like pig and gain nothing (me).
Instead what they should study is that young people who eat food that does not require fork and knives are likely to gain weight. If the US followed the "Imperial House Order" the kids will grow well groomed and fit not misfits.
Actually, your whole posting is off-topic. You're just promoting religion (a set of false beliefs in higher powers and an afterlife) by threatening worse alternatives.
Scare tactics shouldn't convince anyone to practice fantasy religions designed to control behavior and take money from the masses.
OMG, really the reason is unknown? People who do these studies are dumb. The fact that girls who start school early for their age are slimmer in their teens has nothing to do with starting school earlier. It has to do with their parents, obviously. These girls are obviously more intelligent, which means their parents are more intelligent, loving, and caring. Therefore their diets and lifestyles are, on average, much healthier than Shaniqua's diet of fatback and fried okra. Duh !!
Eh.. these studies are useless... it very could be that girls that start school earlier have parents that push them harder and maybe their home environment is more structured, active etc.....I know quite a few people who kept their kids back a year, started them a year later..the kids are thin to average, girls and boys and the parents said it was one of the best things they could have done. The govt wants us to believe school will solve all of our kids problem.... when it's just a way to get and keep their hands on our kids at younger and younger ages...for longer periods of time. Why not just make schooling compulsory from 2-28 and be done with it already...
Well, duh. Kids (boys and girls) who start school younger actually go out on the playground and PLAY. Parents today are so overly protective of kids that they live their lives inside otherwise. Gee, can I have a grant to study this hypothesis?
Or could it be that girls that start school earlier are exposed to older girls that talk about being "fat" earlier thus creating more body image problems sooner? I mean seriously?! Some of the studies people do get absolutely rediculous.
That question is mentioned in the first paragraph of the article....
First, not being overweight is not indicative of a body image problem. Second, this type of research is called "basic research" and it's performed in order to collect data that can be used later with other sets of information to provide a better perspective on large, complex problems like childhood obesity. Third, the researchers themselves claimed to not entirely understand the mechanism of action in this case. Not knowing something is OK in science. It just means that there's more work to be done. Your criticism of basic research simply highlights your ignorance of the scientific process.
Next up, a study on correlation and causality!
Here's one for you: Correlations cause cancer......
I have heard that there there are demographic differences in the timing of conception. That is, babies who are born in the spring tend to have mothers who are on average older, wealthier, better educated, and more likely to be married than babies who are born in the fall. I have 3 kids and while I was married and college-educated for all 3, I was quite a bit older and better off financially at the time of my January baby's birth than I was at the time of my October baby's birth.
This is a very poor research. I knew home schooled girls who are both fat and bone thin. Many of the kids go to school very early on anyway. Their first school is kinder garden and head on straight to college. Somehow along the way they all deviate. Some eat junk blow up to be a balloon and other eat the same junk and still remain bone thin. Other eat nothing and still gain weight and others eat like pig and gain nothing (me).
Instead what they should study is that young people who eat food that does not require fork and knives are likely to gain weight. If the US followed the "Imperial House Order" the kids will grow well groomed and fit not misfits.
Another study I found is that girls who do not visit church and temple are also likely to gain weight.
And boys who do not frequent church or temple are also likely to be criminals or bums.
And parents who do not visit church or temple as frequently are often irresponsible parents.
Girls with long neck do not gain weight easily.
Boys with long neck are likely to become gay
A Muslim brother whose sister is dating an infidel is likely to become a terrorist. Ok! that is off topic.
Actually, your whole posting is off-topic. You're just promoting religion (a set of false beliefs in higher powers and an afterlife) by threatening worse alternatives.
Scare tactics shouldn't convince anyone to practice fantasy religions designed to control behavior and take money from the masses.
OMG, really the reason is unknown? People who do these studies are dumb. The fact that girls who start school early for their age are slimmer in their teens has nothing to do with starting school earlier. It has to do with their parents, obviously. These girls are obviously more intelligent, which means their parents are more intelligent, loving, and caring. Therefore their diets and lifestyles are, on average, much healthier than Shaniqua's diet of fatback and fried okra. Duh !!
I can't help but wonder how many of those younger girls had eating disorders.
Eh.. these studies are useless... it very could be that girls that start school earlier have parents that push them harder and maybe their home environment is more structured, active etc.....I know quite a few people who kept their kids back a year, started them a year later..the kids are thin to average, girls and boys and the parents said it was one of the best things they could have done. The govt wants us to believe school will solve all of our kids problem.... when it's just a way to get and keep their hands on our kids at younger and younger ages...for longer periods of time. Why not just make schooling compulsory from 2-28 and be done with it already...
Well, duh. Kids (boys and girls) who start school younger actually go out on the playground and PLAY. Parents today are so overly protective of kids that they live their lives inside otherwise. Gee, can I have a grant to study this hypothesis?