Is Small Healthy
Is small healthy? Or did Seckler quite early in his research? Both of these questions arose to me after reading the two articles: "Malnutrition": An Intellectual Odyssey by David Seckler and "Small but Healthy by Gretel H Pelto and Pertti J. Pelto. In the next couple of pages I hope to compare and contrast these two articles by examining both hypothesis by each. Then, I'm going to give my opinion on the subject. To start out I would like to briefly explain Seckler's hypothesis. He gives the Idea, which goes against nutritionist's assumption about malnutrition, that people who are short in stature do to mild to moderate malnutrition are in fact healthy and well adapted to the amount of nutrition he or she receives. Seckler believes that In childhood children adapts to the low intake of nutrients by slowing down the rate of growth and by reducing growth he states that the body doesn't need the amount of nutrients considered to be properly nourished stated by nutritionists. According to Seckler "small but healthy individuals make up 80 to 90% of the population of developing countries who live in areas of food scarcity. If Seckler is correct then international food and nutrition programs can b
In Secklers world the only people who are suffering from malnutrition are those showing clinical signs. Seckler presented a good hypothesis to me when I first read it but after reading Pelto and Pelto's article I firmly believed they had a bigger grasp on the subject taking into consideration of long term effects. A study was done to examine MMM (mild to moderately malnutrition) of children from 1968 to the 1980s by Chavez and Martinez. Maybe if Seckler had backed up his argument with sufficient data, then maybe it could be more credible but since Pelto and Pelto's article time and time again backed up what they had to say. "In conclusion I want to say I feel that more research needs to be done about MMM. Not only did they contradict Seckler hypothesis countless times with reliable data but they also went into a deeper discussion of the MMM problem. If overall adaptation flexibility is impaired further consequence can occur in a very wide range of situations. Also, Secklers research of "adaptation" of MMM people was rejected by Scrimshaw and Young who define adaptation as "the maintenance of homeostasis, or the processes of return to some equilibrium status in response to an environmental challenge. I'd have to agree with Pelto and Pelto. Sekler stated that "healthy" was no functional impairment. Scrimshaw and Young consider Secklers "adaptation" to really by "accommodation". Pelto and Pelto further suggest in data that they agree with Scrimshaw and Young and do consider it to be "accommodation" instead of "adaptation". This brings me to the explanation of why the article "Small but Healthy" by Pelto and Pelto was written. More than likely it was do to my limited knowledge on the subject, but nonetheless I was convinced that these MMM people were in fact healthy. The food aid budgets could by reduced by an exceptional amount because these small but healthy people are actually healthy and are not in need.
Common topics in this essay:
Pelto Pelto,
Pertti Pelto,
According Seckler,
Martinez Secklers,
Chavez Martinez,
Pelto Pelto's,
Pelto MMM,
Maybe Seckler's,
pelto pelto,
MMM Secklers,
,
agree pelto,
agree pelto pelto,
long-term effects,
people suffering malnutrition,
properly nourished,
suffering malnutrition,
people suffering,
actually healthy,
pelto pelto stated,
pelto's article,
article pelto pelto,
pelto pelto's,
pelto pelto's article,
malnutrition article,
|
Acceptance Essays
