Quote:
Originally Posted by graciegirl
I know two things. The Journal of the American Medical Association is extremely careful and ethical.
The other is...the computer could take just the facts about weight and activity and see who is living longer.
The other assumptions can be up to you.
|
My complaint was mainly about the column not about the American Medical Association. Their study may have been "careful and ethical" but still, in my opinion, not worth very much if it only took "weight" into account.
We know nothing about how the original studies were conducted and we can't look it up in the journal. So his readers are supposed to take him at his word that the study was a good study. This study was a study of many studies. How were the people selected for the studies? What age range did the studies cover? Did they eliminate smokers and heavy drinkers, etc.?
We shouldn't have to make assumptions.
Of what value is it to say that overweight people are healthier than thin people who are sedentary, when it's a known fact that being sedentary is very bad for health? It's like saying: "Overweight people have destructive eating habits but it's even more destructive to be sedentary." So we know what the worst of the worst is, but he sets no ideal for the average reader. All I see is that he muddied the waters and it's likely that most overweight people will go away thinking that being overweight is not so bad after all.
Studies, and columns from those studies, can be ethical but dumb and misleading at the same time.