LONDON: Curvy women have been admired for their sensual figures. But, a new study has found that ladies with large hips and small waists are cleverer too, than those with apple-shaped bodies. In fact, according to international researchers, women with an hourglass figure are not only intelligent, they also give birth to brighter children, The Sunday Times reported in London on Sunday.
Where would we be without faux science from the London newspapers on a Sunday? All blondes will be vanished in 2312 (not 2311, mind you), we'll evolve into two separate species (humans and reporters), and curvy women are smarter. Guess that makes sooper-models as dumb as a box of rocks.
Oh, come to think of it, perhaps they're onto something with that one ...
"The fat around fuller hips and thighs holds higher levels of omega3 fatty acids which are essential for the growth of the brain during pregnancy," the researchers were quoted as saying.
The scientists at the Universities of Pittsburgh and California came to the conclusion after analysing data from a study of 16,000 women and girls, which collected details of their body measurements and their scores in cognitive tests. The team found that those women with a greater difference between the waist and hips scored significantly higher on the tests, as did their children -- "possibly a result of higher levels of Omega3 fatty acids on the hips".
The research has explained why children born to teenage mothers do worse in cognitive tests: Their mothers may have had insufficient stores of the best fatty acids. "The cognitive development of their children is reduced, and their own cognitive development is impaired compared with those mothers with a later first birth," the researchers were quoted as saying.
The study also noted, however, that children born to teenage girls with traditional hourglass figures seemed to be protected from this phenomenon and did better in tests.
Posted by: john frum ||
11/11/2007 07:16 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11132 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This study makes me super happy! Curves are sooo much better....=)
Posted by: NOLA ||
11/11/2007 7:49 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Wishing there was less of you?
Are you really sure
How much less is more
Girls are shapely by design
Exactly what you've got
Is so easy to adore
Clothes hanger lollipop
Magazine photo op
But I'd rather be a pin-up girl
Than zero size
Throw me a curve not a straight narrow line
Throw me a curve and I'll show you mine
Get the message it's divine
Throw me a curve it looks so fine
Throw me a Curve
By the Go-Gos
Posted by: john frum ||
11/11/2007 8:33 Comments ||
Top||
#3
There is actually a worldwide problem developing because of the interest in Omega-3 fatty acids. Since the most plentiful supply is found in some kinds of fish, they are being widely over fished, just for their Omega-3.
Also, while you can also get Omega-3 from some plants, such as flax, it seems to be less desirable than the fish based fatty acid.
The root of the situation seems to be that Omega-3 is physiologically supposed to be balanced with other Omega fatty acids, such as Omega-6 and to a lesser extent, Omega-9. But most people get relatively far too much Omega-6 from eating meat.
This matters, because Omega-6 tends to cause a mild inflammation effect, which is counteracted by the mild anti-inflammatory properties of Omega-3. Unless you balance the two, it might cause a problem over time.
#4
The research has explained why children born to teenage mothers do worse in cognitive tests: Their mothers may have had insufficient stores of the best fatty acids.
As an alternative explanation to "genetic intelligence", I wonder if this might provide some insight as to why cultures that do not defer childbearing tend to have reduced overall IQs. One look at Africa, Latin America and the MME (Muslim Middle East) makes it pretty clear that cultures with an early onset of chidlbearing don't necessarily breed up quite so many geniuses.
ladies with large hips and small waists are cleverer too
There's also the simple fact of how attractive women frequently enjoy increased opportunities for social interaction that give them more chances to better hone their feminine wiles.
At the risk of putting too fine a point on things, larger breast size also ensures better post-natal nutrition thereby adding more ammunition to an evolutionary explanation for why full bosomed wasp-waisted women have become a preferred physical profile amongst men.
#6
Actually, tho, breast size is not correlated with post-natal nutrition.
From reading the linked article, I would say that the opposite may well be true.
The prolactin receptor theory suggests that frequent milk removal in the early weeks will increase the number of receptor sites. More receptor sites means that more prolactin can pass into the lactocytes and thus milk production capability would be increased.
It would seem an intrinsic fact that larger breasts would possess more alveoli and not only insure greater milk production but also respond better to enthusiastic nursing by the infant. As the article notes:
On the walls of the lactocytes (milk-producing cells of the alveoli) are prolactin receptor sites that allow the prolactin in the blood stream to move into the lactocytes and stimulate the synthesis of breastmilk components.
The ability to better respond to autocrine controlled prolactin stimulus definitely would seem to play a beneficial role in better nutrition for the infant. While any of this can be offset by poor overall nutrition of the mother, this is somewhat precluded by the fact that large breast size has a fairly direct correlation to ample dietary intake, especially of fats.
Storage capacity is not determined by breast size, although breast size can certainly limit the amount of milk that can be stored. Moms with large or small storage capacities can produce plenty of milk for baby. A mother with a larger milk storage capacity may be able to go longer between feedings without impacting milk supply and baby's growth. A mother with a smaller storage capacity, however, will need to nurse baby more often to satisfy babys appetite and maintain milk supply since her breasts will become full (slowing production) more quickly.
Which would seem to dictate that smaller breasted women will experience some inconvenience due to the need for more frequent nursing. This would tend to predict increased chances of an infant not being nursed as often thereby negatively impacting its post-natal nutrition. All of which militates towards larger breasted women being able to provide superior post-natal nutrition for their offspring. Again, I do not see where the article decisively decouples breast size and better opportunity for adequate post-natal nutrition.
does this relate to the topic.. I mean the following observation?
I find that being in close proximity to whimmins with milk engorged breasts to be very stimulating.. mentally turned on.. as it were...
(.)(.)
Posted by: Red Dawg ||
11/11/2007 14:58 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Oh, gosh, Zen. Sorry - I know you're really bright. But in this case your assumptions, while they may seem reasonable, aren't quite how things work in most cultures WRT breastfeeding and aren't quite how the whole milk production thing works.
Quick response:
1. The need to breastfeed often isn't a detriment to baby nutrition. In most traditional cultures, women breastfeed children for years, and do so on demand. Not only is this perfectly acceptable, it also serves as a mild form of birth control, spacing children a bit.
Moreover, we're talking *maybe* one additional feeding per day, at most. Most women produce way more milk than their babies need - ask any woman whose breasts ached in the first few months postnatal, no matter what the breast size.
Also, while nutrition does influence the size of fat deposits in the breast, it does so within the parameters of genetic inheritance.
I could go on but don't want to hijack the comment thread.
I do think you're absolutely right about the nutritional impact on intelligence in many parts of the world.
#9
"One look at Africa, Latin America and the MME (Muslim Middle East) makes it pretty clear that cultures with an early onset of chidlbearing don't necessarily breed up quite so many geniuses."
In addition to nutrition there are additional factors such as poverty, infection, depression, and lack of stimulation.
#10
1. The need to breastfeed often isn't a detriment to baby nutrition.
While this might pertain in some Third World locations, what about in cultureslike Islam and Latin Americawhere public breastfeeding is equated with public nudity and thereby frowned upon? This might certainly discourage frequent feedings and therefore milk production.
ask any woman whose breasts ached in the first few months postnatal, no matter what the breast size.
As opposed to one prolactin-deficient girlfriend of mine for whom breastfeeding was an agonizing nightmare. Admittedly, she was an exception to the rule.
while nutrition does influence the size of fat deposits in the breast, it does so within the parameters of genetic inheritance.
None of which alters the propensity for larger breasted women to produce greater quantites of milk and thereby decreaseto whatever related extentinfant mortality rates for their own offspring. Larger breasted women may well even enjoy a degree of extra societal support for their ability to function as wet nurses. All of which points towards my trailing observation about the possibility for some degree of natural selection.
I do think you're absolutely right about the nutritional impact on intelligence in many parts of the world.
Which was my central point, if only you had bothered to notice the distinct qualifier I prefaced the last paragraph in my original post with. I'm glad to see that we are in agreement with the major issue I sought to mention.
#11
Sigh. I quit. No doubt you know a LOT more about breastfeeding than a mother who not only did so with her child but who also was a volunteer with La Leche League for 5 years, supporting Latina women in the LA area.
We are truly blessed to have your insights. On everything. And anything.
#15
Try to remember that it wasn't me who sought to dispute a rather minor point made in passing. Especially so, despite actual concurrence on the more central issue. How am I to blame for that? Did any of you bother to read the article linked by lotp? If someone can demonstrate where it unequivocally backs lotp's assertion, I'll be happy to apologize.
Boris adds "and Moose, too!"
In a tree-lined street in south-west London, Paul Richardson, a university-educated banker, grips an air pistol in his right hand and takes aim from a rear first-floor window of his elegant Edwardian house. The pellet fizzes across his garden towards the target, 10 yards away: a grey squirrel ripping open a black bin bag and foraging for food. It misses, but the alarmed squirrel flees across the lawn and up a tree to safety.
The softly spoken Mr Richardson, aged 42, is an unlikely killer. He took up arms earlier this year because, he says, the squirrels are "out of control". He has killed "a fair few", he admits, but declines to say exactly how many.
#1
Just like American idiots kept importing European starlings and sparrows, English and European idiots kept importing American grey squirrels and raccoons. In both cases the beasts finally escaped, bred in the wild, and the populations exploded, being more aggressive than the native species. Darwin always wins.
#7
When I was just out of school and had little money, .22 LR's were cheaper than beef or chicken.
So I ate a lot of squirrels. Like dark meat turkey.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
11/11/2007 20:25 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I knew of one guy who was tormented by pigeons, so set up an elaborate electrical trap for them. They would land for food, where he could see them with a nearby surveillance camera, then he would zap them with house current, and push a remote button, dropping the dead bird through the "floor" into a plastic trash bag.
He didn't have to leave the house. Killing them regularly, it was still months before he saw any decline in the numbers.
SAN DIEGO (AP) - An explosion in the hull of a Navy cruiser during routine maintenance injured six workers on Saturday, two of them critically, authorities said. Subcontractors from the National Steel and Shipbuilding Co. were working in the fuel tank of the USS Lake Champlain as it sat in dry dock when the explosion occurred just after noon, said San Diego Fire Department spokesman Maurice Luque.
``Apparently it was caused by flammable gas that ignited,'' Luque said. ``We don't know how or why.''
Two of the workers were taken to UC San Diego Medical Center with ``major trauma burns'' that Luque said were life-threatening. Two others had moderate injuries and were taken to the hospital, Luque said, and two more were treated at the scene and released.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/11/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11128 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
Amen to that, tw. I volunteered a while ago in a regional trauma center with a burn unit, the kind of place these guys would have been medevac'd to. Don't know what 3rd degree burn treatment is like now, but at the time it was horrendously painful and took months.
Redford's Lions for Lambs made about $2.1M on its debut night. Redford had predicted $4M.
Other anti war/anti Bush movies have done worse. Rendition has finally reached a cumulative of about $10M after 3 weeks (and they had Reese Witherspoon!!! and Jake Gyllenhaal). In the Valley of Elah has reached a cumulative of about $7M after a month and a half.
#2
Debbie Schlussel categorized the layers of deceit in "Rendition." If I want to be lied to I will go to the CAIR website, rather than shell out bucks for Hollywood snakeoil. Redford, Cruise and Streep are all has-beens in any case.
#4
From the linked movie review: Miss Streep's character, Janine Roth, is the most damaging, because, unlike the politician, merely another power-luster, or the student, who may not know better, she knows she's being usedlike most of today's top press members, she is part of the status quoand she is more conscious of popular downloads than she is of what comes with her byline. Her New Left ideals are as powerless in assuaging her guilt as they are in opposing a war with a premise, i.e., altruism, identical to her own. She is the embodiment of today's media stars: a willing exponent of a wrong war. The anti-war journalist and the pro-war politician share one another's philosophy; he uses liberal jargonlike that tipping point nonsenseto hustle his poison and she takes his dose of neo-conservatism with barely a whimper.
Wow. I am really, like, so DUMB! I'm gonna rush out NOW and go see the movie, so I can be SMARTER!
Posted by: Bobby ||
11/11/2007 7:05 Comments ||
Top||
#5
There's a saying: There are some things worse than war.
We now know what one of them are: Robert Redford movies.
#6
They're whining in Hollyweird, no one wants war movies during war. Bull!!!. They don't want pure unadulterated anti-American screed. Check the box office takes for 2006.
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006) $423,032,628
Night at the Museum (2006) $250,863,268
Cars (2006) $244,052,771
X-Men: The Last Stand (2006) $234,360,014
The Da Vinci Code (2006) $217,536,138
300 (2006) $210,592,590
source:http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross
The suits lie through their teeth when they say the public doesn't want 'war' movies. "300" was hardly family affair to take the 8 year olds to. Plenty of blood and gore. Even the main characters die in the end. Sacrifice is never pretty, but it holds a lot move virtue than cowardice.
The 300 shows people want heroes. American people will pay to see American heroes. The web identifies plenty in the WoT and they're not the anti-war/American punks who inhabit Hollyweird's universe. There's nothing needed to make up. Hot reality. Real profits.
So if Hollyweird isn't interested in profits, let's join the rest of the industry and tax "get our cut of" the gross, not the net.
#7
It's also important to note that the Redford movie had a wide opening in 2,215 theaters. That works out to about $970 per theater.
Divided by three showings is $323 each. Average national movie ticket price is $6.55. This means that about 50 people saw the movie each showing, on opening day. The typical theater seats 300.
#12
This strange, 1985 2007 experiment by Ridley Scott (Blade Runner) Robert Redford (A Bridge Too Far, 1977) starred the up-and-coming painfully fading Tom Cruise in a fairy-tale world of dwarfs and unicorns and demons Hollywood.
Seriously, this is the best shot they could send. 3 big name actors and all that advertising money and this is what gets turned in?
Agreed #8 A$$=lost. Game over, man! (Aliens, 1986, still one of the best, wonder why..)
#14
Oooh, Anonymoose, a mind that can do numbers is a terrible weapon ;)
50 people... not a lot is it?
Hollyweird really doesn't get it, do they?
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
11/11/2007 11:54 Comments ||
Top||
#15
D'oh - hadn't thought of that Seafarious. Thanks for that... ;)
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
11/11/2007 11:57 Comments ||
Top||
#16
As a matter of fact, I'm visiting all of Fred's fine advertisers today. And don't forget that if your holiday shopping includes Amazon, go in thru Fred's portal there on the sidebar --->
$6,710,000 (Estimate). This means that each day they had about the same b.o. Typically, the opening weekend is seen as the most profitable, with b.o. going downhill from there.
#22
"In other words, for a fat girl it doesn't sweat too much."
Do not mock this phrase lightly.
A buddy of mine went up to a girl on a dance floor once and used the line, "You don't sweat much for a fat girl", she ate it up, and they were an item for years.
Truth stranger than fiction, and all that.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
11/11/2007 20:23 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
