| Submit your comments on this article | |
| -Short Attention Span Theater- | |
| Curvy women are cleverer too: Study | |
| 2007-11-11 | |
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.
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 |
| #18 So basically what the study says is that women who are smart enough to take care of their body, are clever. |
| Posted by: Icerigger 2007-11-11 20:04 |
| #17 Late tothe converstaion. Looking it over, Znester, you're being a dick. Stop it. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2007-11-11 19:01 |
| #16 Ahmen....You're all missing the point. Where is the appropriately curvy picture to go with the article? |
| Posted by: whitecollar redneck 2007-11-11 17:30 |
| #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. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-11-11 17:17 |
| #14 Yes, Frank. There is something he doesn't know. How to shut up. |
| Posted by: Thor Claviting7015 2007-11-11 17:08 |
| #13 Greg Focker: You can milk just about anything with nipples. Jack Byrnes: I have nipples, Greg, could you milk me? Zen, is there anything he doesn't know? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-11-11 16:54 |
| #12 Going for the close with your usual smarmy insults, I see. Great tactic! |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-11-11 16:35 |
| #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. |
| Posted by: lotp 2007-11-11 16:11 |
| #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 cultures—like Islam and Latin America—where 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 decrease—to whatever related extent—infant 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. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-11-11 16:05 |
| #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. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2007-11-11 15:31 |
| #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. |
| Posted by: lotp 2007-11-11 15:16 |
| #7 Curvy women are cleverer too: Study I have. ...................... 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 2007-11-11 14:58 |
| #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 babyÂ’s 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. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-11-11 14:44 |
| #5 ;-) Actually, tho, breast size is not correlated with post-natal nutrition. |
| Posted by: lotp 2007-11-11 14:15 |
| #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. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-11-11 14:12 |
| #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. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-11-11 10:28 |
| #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 2007-11-11 08:33 |
| #1 This study makes me super happy! Curves are sooo much better....=) |
| Posted by: NOLA 2007-11-11 07:49 |