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
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm
"Bush rejects Saddam 9/11 link
Bush maintains Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda are connected
US President George Bush has said there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks.
The comments - among his most explicit so far on the issue - come after a recent opinion poll found that nearly 70% of Americans believed the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks."
It goes on from there, I just pasted the relevant passage.>>>
Thank you for the info.
Aaaaaagggghhhhhh. I only knew the official version (as reflected by my post).
This quote jumped out at me: (when asked for his take on the threat of Islamic Fundamentalism and potential terrorism, which he was aiding), "What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?"
I wonder how tasty those words were when he had to eat them 3 years later? I guess my time machine needs to go back a little farther and I'd better make sure to bring a photo of people trying to outrun a falling building.
<<>>
Oh okay.
Yeah, I never figured out that national health care thing.
Thing is, MOST of my siblings voted for Bush (I think only one other besides me - of 9 - did not).
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
<<Although I still defend my use of the word embarrassing I do agree "failure" is a better term.>>
Yet you are using this hurricane as an example of how he did his job well in the past?
PumpkinAngel
<<>>
You know, I've heard something bad about all of them, so honestly, I couldn't begin to tell you.
I will certainly take that into account in assessing the validity of your opinion.
Ps.
PumpkinAngel
Pages