As stated earlier, regular physical activity will help children be healthy, and can help set habits for them to exercise throughout their life, thus leading to a better quality of life. In reality, there are lazy children. Some children do not like to participate in exercise for a variety of different reasons. According to the textbook, “Some children are predisposed by temperament to lead more sedentary lifestyles and resist even the most engaging playground equipment and incentives to be physically engaged” (Saudino & Zapfe, 2008). This brings up the nature vs. nurture debate, which the textbook strongly supports the nature aspect. It seems very odd that children do not wish to exercise based off of genes alone, in comparison to the home lifestyle and other influences, such as lack of support from parents, poor diet, etc. The study cited does talk about the influence of genes on children’s exercise levels. For much of the study, they merely talk about the correlations, without any actual data to back it up. Eventually the study shows real evidence behind the claims. They tested very young children, as young as six months old, for activity levels. They discovered that children at age three, the genetic changes in activity levels matched the changes used to measure activity levels with growing children. The study even states that the findings “[raise] the question as to whether the observed genetic change reflects true developmental change or differences in the measure at 36 months” (Saudino 267). Basically what the study is saying that the observed “genetic change” may either be the child growing according to the child’s genetics or the way the child’s activity levels are measured. If the standards of the child’s activity levels are altered, then it cannot be proven that genetics predispose children to sedentary lifestyles. In the end, the study does support the claim made by the textbook,