Europe PMC
Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

Europe PMC requires Javascript to function effectively.

Either your web browser doesn't support Javascript or it is currently turned off. In the latter case, please turn on Javascript support in your web browser and reload this page.

This website requires cookies, and the limited processing of your personal data in order to function. By using the site you are agreeing to this as outlined in our privacy notice and cookie policy.

Abstract 


Background

Understanding the factors that contribute to physical inactivity in children is important because sedentary behavior strongly relates to metabolic disorders such as obesity and diabetes.

Objective

We aimed to quantify the genetic and environmental influences on physical activity energy expenditure (PAEE) in 100 sex-concordant dizygotic (n = 38) and monozygotic (n = 62) twin pairs aged 4-10 y.

Design

Resting metabolic rate (RMR) was assessed by using respiratory gas exchange, total energy expenditure (TEE) by using doubly labeled water, and body composition by using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Structural equation modeling was used to partition the phenotypic variance into additive genetic (a2) and common (c2) and unshared (e2) environmental components.

Results

Because PAEE [TEE - (RMR + 0.1 x TEE)] depends on body weight, which is highly heritable, we tested several models: 1) after adjustment for age, sex, ethnicity, study date, season, and weight, a2 explained none of the phenotypic variance in PAEE (95% CI: 0%, 38%), whereas c2 and e2 accounted for 69% (33%, 77%; P = 0.001) and 31% (23%, 39%; P < 0.001) of the variance, respectively; 2) after adjustment for the cofactors in model 1, a2 explained 19% of the phenotypic variance in TEE (0%, 60%; P = 0.13), whereas c2 and e2 accounted for 59% (16%, 79%; P = 0.007) and 23% (17%, 31%; P < 0.0001) of the variance, respectively; 3) in models adjusted as above (excluding weight), a2 explained no variance in physical activity level (TEE/RMR) (0%, 32%; P = 0.50), whereas c2 and e2 explained 65% (34%, 60%; P = 0.001) and 35% (28%, 45%; P < 0.0001) of the variance, respectively.

Conclusions

Our data suggest that the familial resemblance in physical activity in these children is explained predominantly by shared environmental factors and not by genetic variability.

Citations & impact 


Impact metrics

Jump to Citations

Citations of article over time

Article citations


Go to all (59) article citations

Funding 


Funders who supported this work.

Intramural NIH HHS