We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
I'm just not sure that what they are saying is what they mean. For example if they use the BMI measure of obesity (BMI>30) I'm not sure they can prove their claims. Also they say nothing about the obesity paradox (which in brief is that there are more negative health outcomes from being under weight than there are from being overweight AND that in some cases outcomes from being overweight are even better than having normal BMI).
However if they are using the classical measure of obesity (that is more along the lines of weighing 350-450 lbs or so) than I do believe they can prove their claims.
The problem is that this so often happens that people who claim to be making a scientific study vacillate back and forth between health expectations of someone who is grossly overweight and try to conflate that with someone who merely exceeds the normal BMI. IMHO as soon as they pull this trick they lose all credibility and than it is simply a matter of determining which agenda they are pushing.
But what is 'fat'? I think that is the problem. The government has decided BMI determines what is fat, but I think we know some people don't do well in a BMI measurement.
Anyway, I'm going on bad memories of the military and 'weigh ins' where I was in ideal physical condition (right after boot camp especially) and still 'overweight' by 1 or 2 pounds according to their standards. Had to get taped every single time for 6 years. Past the tape measurement every single time. So clearly, pounds does not tell the whole story.
It used to irritate me to no end when rotund, apple women who were 5'2" and clearly out of shape were 'in regs,' while I was not. I exercised 3 to 4 times a week...at one point taking up swimming for 45 minutes 3 times a week. Never did I get into weight standards. MADDENING.
Tall women with musculature get dinged by these 'standards' whether they be BMI or some other standard measurement. Been that way my whole life.
I agree w above comments, coming from a family of mesomorphs. A Hobbit family? Also, if/when you get sick you survive much better (chemo or even just some nasty infectious disease) if you aren't anorexically thin. Not to mention, whenever the females in the family HAVE been extremely thin they have trouble conceiving and/or keeping up a good milk supply without becoming calcium depleted (drawing from their own bones).
Excessive worry about weight is narcissistic. We just half kill ourselves athletically in youth then settle into hiking, gardening and doing our chores after middle age, try not to be greedy, and most live into the 90s.
However weight matters if you have osteoarthritis from running in youth. Then it's worth eating a disgusting low carb diet to get thinner to reduce stress on joints and therefore pain. Problem there is that low carb can cause gout and exacerbate joint pain....which is where exercise comes in as the only way to burn off that excess fat.