NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
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 Perth J. Pelto.
In the next couple of pages I hope to compare and contrast these two articles by examining both hypothesis by each. Then, Im 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 nutritionists 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 doesnt 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 be redirected to a much smaller amount of people who suffer from serious malnutrition. 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. Thus, giving relief to humanitarians who thought that hundreds of millions of people were suffering from malnutrition are actually healthy. This brings me to the explanation of why the article Small but Healthy by Pelto and Pelto was written. After Seckler wrote the malnutrition article a lot of arguments were raised against Seckler's article Pelto and Pelto wrote that Seckler failed to extensively define what healthy means.
Seckler stated that healthy was no functional impairment. This was a broad definition of health according to Pelto and Pelto. They also stated that this un impairment of the small but healthy hypothesis was failed to be researched in resistance to disease, re productivity performances, work capacity, school performance, social skills and general economic success. A study was done to examine MMM (mild to moderately malnutrition) of children from 1968 to the 1980 s by Chavez and Martinez.
They found that there was a noticeable difference in the children who suffered from MMM and the children who didnt. The properly nourished children showed a lot more emotional maturity than did the MMM children. Pelto and Pelto also raised the proposition the Seckler's research never explored the long-term effects. This quitting early of Seckler caused him to fail to consider the long-term effects.
In the Malnutrition article Pelto and Pelto noticed that Seckler considered only a very limited domain of possible impairments. He also failed to research the current material about the causes of MMM (research of Chavez and Martinez). Also, Seckler's 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. Scrimshaw and Young consider Seckler's 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.
I read the Seckler article first and I have to admit that while I was reading I definitely agreed with him. 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. Then I read Pelto and Pelto article and they definitely raised a great argument against Seckler's small but healthy hypothesis. Id have to agree with Pelto and Pelto. They took the problem of MMM on a much broader scale. Not only did they contradict Seckler hypothesis countless times with reliable data but they also went into a deeper discussion of the MMM problem.
I agree with Pelto and Pelto that Seckler quit early and failed to study the long-term effects of MMM. In Seckler's world the only people who are suffering from malnutrition are those showing clinical signs. By the studies and research presented by Pelto and Pelto I feel Seckler to be incorrect with his hypothesis. 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. I also agree with Pelto and Pelto when they stated The major cost of MMM appear to be in reducing the adaptive potentials of the individuals who suffer the effects of inadequate food intake in infancy and childhood. If overall adaptation flexibility is impaired further consequence can occur in a very wide range of situations.
In conclusion I want to say I feel that more research needs to be done about MMM. 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. Maybe if Seckler's hypothesis could be true if more studies were done on it, but by the materials that I read caused me to firmly believe the Seckler quite early Bibliography:
Free research essays on topics related to: mmm, hypothesis, long term effects, malnutrition, adaptation
Research essay sample on Seckler Quite Early Long Term Effects Pelto
