As populations grew healthier … they grew taller and fatter … [There are] higher death rates at the lowest and highest body mass indexes. And the best weights for health consistently included ones in the overweight range. Could that mean that the obesity epidemic is actually a good thing, with height increasing because of better nutrition and freedom from disease, with weights increasing too, to allow the average person the best possible health? (p 209)
I still dont see how the logical premise of "And the best weights for health consistently included ones in the overweight range. " leads to the conclusion "Could that mean that the obesity
epidemic is actually a good thing,"
This is a CLASSIC logical fallacy tactic... take a statement about one group of people (the overweight) and make a conclusion that applies to a second group of people (the obese) as if the groups were the same. (politicians do it all the time
It would be the same as concluding that because moderate drinkers of alcohol have better heart factors than teetotallers, therefore alcoholics must be even healthier.
I am willing to concede that the definition of healthy weight and overweight may be a little ....imprecise. I wasnt magically healthier the day I went from 142 to 141.