Yeah.... that was when the left learned statistics

Count ALL ice bergs then claim a huge spike

Count the wealth of the nation then claim during economic highs or lows the Middle class lost this much or the rich gained this much

And if the bill does not reflect it then your taxes are not paying for abortions at all.

Meanwhile Chris, a toast to your good health!

lol this study was prolly done somewhere really cold

can u give a link to the source of this claim please ^_^

Due to modern medicine smokers are living longer also. Does that mean smoking is now considered healthy?

http://news.menshealth.com/overweight-men-mortality/2013/01/02/

When a study is this large.... it is evidenciary and valid.

And yes BMI sucks. I knew a soldier who was ALL muscle. The guy was intimidatingly strong. He failed the basic BMI test and had to be given the water test.

However the real problem here is derived statistics versus actual statistics. Derived Statistics is where you are asked to generate, based upon incomplete information, a likely statistical outcome.

The left sadly loves their derived statistics and won't resort to actual statistics.

i'm going to build a Dalek gun*

so fat Americans in scooters can mount it on the yoke, and ride around wearing Dalek hats, shouting "Exterminate!" and shooting you X(

* the room-broom not the bolt

For the most part, the relationship between obesity and health is mostly weak.  Probably being fat raises your chances of getting diabetes and hypertension.  But correlations between obesity and other health outcomes, are likely confounded by other factors that are also likely to affect health outcomes, and therefore relying on just simple regressions or correlations between obesity and outcomes are meaningless and a waste of time.

Nice citation of nothing. You act as if slightly heavy people not suffering health problems is the same thing as fat people not suffering health problems as a result of their weight. This is not the case.

People your size still die decades early on average as a result of their weight, Einstein.

^Flint, like most topics, you understand about 20% of the material (to be charitable to be you). 

Sampling size does not correct for selection bias.  Think of Dewey vs. Truman.  You can have a large sample, and still get the wrong estimate.  A large sample size only makes the estimate more precise.  It can't correct for ommitted variables, simultaneity, or selection bias.

People self-select their weight, and therefore BMI suffers from endogeneity. the missing variable that influences a person's BMI could also influence their longevity.  The OLS/LOGIT/PROBIT estimates are only valid if BMI is uncorrelated with unobserved/ommitted variables.  That's clearly not true. BMI is likely correlated with other variables t hat are unobserved. Including education, income, physical activity, diet would be a start, but even that may not get us the "true" parameters.

I am going to read the article tonight.

Externalities such as diet, genetics, and such are unimportant with such a cross section.

It is the depth and scope of this study which makes it sound.

Again, Flint, you don't understand statistics. 

Whether you have a cross section, or a panel, diet will always matter.  If you have a panel, genetics may not matter.  Though people who believe in epigenetics would argue otherwise.   

It's nice that you understand some buzz words from economics.  Please look up the meaning of externality.  Your genetics are not an externality.

If you believe in depth and scope of these studies, I've come across tons of studies employing similar "research designs" to conclude that countries with higher taxation have happier citizens, and of course the relationship between man-made CO2 and global warming.  So I am certain, you as a lover of studies with "rich depth and scope" will support higher taxation and a reduction in CO2 levels.