This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

RAMSDELL GURNEY, M.D.

Arch Intern Med. 1936;57(3):557-561.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

Definite progress in the treatment of obesity has been made in recent years. Studies in water balance, a better understanding of the glands of internal secretion and their function, a more intelligent conception of dietary requirements and, finally, the pressure of modern fashion, which sends so many stout women to the physician, have all made important contributions to this progress. Yet, when one attempts to classify many cases of obesity, either on an etiologic or on a clinical basis, confusion and uncertainty remain. As early as 1910 Lyon¹ clearly indicated this difficulty, and Jarlov,² in his exhaustive work, well illustrated the disagreement and difficulties in classification, even when the etiology was entirely disregarded. If etiology is considered, there is even more confusion. The arguments for endogenous obesity versus exogenous obesity are familiar.³ The appetite theory, the relationship of occupation to obesity and the depression of metabolism⁴ . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
BUFFALO

From the Department of Medicine, University of Buffalo School of Medicine, and the outpatient department of the Buffalo General Hospital.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?