Work is good for your health?
Find a Conversation
| Mon, 05-15-2006 - 5:25am |
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/healthnews.php?newsid=43421
Working Mothers Healthier Than Full-time Housewives
Main Category: Women's Health / OBGYN News
Article Date: 15 May 2006 - 1:00am (PDT)
According to new research carried out in Britain, working mothers enjoy better health than full-time housewives. Despite the stress working mothers face by holding down a job, dealing with childcare, housework and striving to keep the family happy.
It appears that working mothers, when compared to full-time housewives, are less likely to become overweight, have a better level of health and a healthier relationship. The study also found that single mothers experience worse health than working mothers who have a partner and children.
You can read about this study in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.
Team leader, Dr. Anne McMunn, University College London, said that women who combine work with children and marriage do seem to have better health than full-time housewives. Even though they may experience high levels of stress sometimes.
It is not a question of chicken-and-egg either. Dr. McMunn said it is the experience of work plus having a family that brings on the better health, not the fact that only healthier mothers decide to carry on working.
The researchers examined data on women born in 1946 from the Medical Research Council's National Study of Health and Development. The data registers their health from 1946 until they are 54. Women's health was examined, with the help of a questionnaire at the ages of 26 through to 54. Every decade, the questionnaire collects data on each woman's work history, whether she is/was married, has children, her height and weight.
The healthiest women were the ones who had all three of the following:
-- A Partner
-- Children
-- A job
Those reporting the worst health were stay-at-home mothers, followed by childless women and single mothers.
38% of stay-at-home mothers were obese when they reached their 50s, for working mothers the percentage was 23%.
Written by: Christian Nordqvist
Editor: Medical News Today

Pages
Maybe someone should explain that he was a threat in the Cold War when USSR was a Super Power and was backing Castro, and one of the reasons he had nuclear warheads pointed to the states were the Nuclear War heads pointed toward USSR in Turkey....and that now, since the Cold War is Over, and the USSR no longer exists, meaning - no one to help cuba take over the USA, he is not as large of a threat as he once was.
Just a thought - I would say something, but I'm only 20, so what do i know?
Why, when I can watch you sling it here?
Rehabilitation is not necessary or even relevent. If it were, we wouldn't have relations with China. What is important is that the source of his power- the Soviet Union- is gone. Which renders him harmless. It doesn't render him "nice", but that isn't relevent in foreign relations.
I'm starting to suspect that you are completely unaware of the Soviet Union's role in his power and think that he alone was a threat. The threat was never him per se. It was the Soviet Union. His only source of power was his willingness to let them use Cuba as an outpost near US soil. Without them he would have been nothing. With them gone he goes back to being nothing. The continuance of sanctions is ridiculous.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/july-dec05/insurance_11-28.html
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/030602/2chronic.htm
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/health/briefs/other/hb050609a.htm
http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml
PumpkinAngel
Did they have this pre-existing condition when they were 21 (when it was time to leave Mommy's and Daddy's nest?)
One sometimes has to work for expensive things in life.
No, never said that.
PumpkinAngel
Jennie
No, your reasons simply don't exist anymore.
PumpkinAngel
Pages