Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking. Login or Take a Tour!
I find it absurd that the author closes with the quote you pulled yet has this buried in the middle: So if there's "no reason to believe" that these weak correlations mean anything, why insist that our current definitions make "absolutely no sense"? This is just bad journalism all around.In other words, there is no reason to believe that the trivial variations in mortality risk observed across an enormous weight range actually have anything to do with weight or that intentional weight gain or loss would affect that risk in a predictable way.