Does Curvy = Traditional When it Comes to Women?

When I'm not pregnant, I've got very much of an hourglass figure. My weight has fluctuated somewhat as an adult, but I seem to gain & lose pretty evenly all over. I might be a 38D-25-38 size 8 or a 34C-22-34 size 4 or something in between but my waist-hip ratio (WHR) stays fairly constant (in the 0.64-0.66 range). If a pair of pants or a skirt fits me in the hips, it almost certainly is going to need to be taken in at the waist.

So I found it very interesting to read about a new study in the December issue of the journal Current Anthropology done by Dr. Elizabeth Cashdan of the University of Utah. Previous work has established that a WHR of 0.7 or lower in women is associated with higher fertility and lower rates of chronic disease. Studies have also shown that men prefer a WHR of 0.7 or lower when looking for a mate, which makes sense from an evolutionary psychology standpoint. Dr. Cashdan noted, however, that the average WHR for women in 37 societies around the world she examined was >0.8.

"If 0.7 is the magic number both in terms of health and male mate choice, why are most women significantly higher? That's where the hormones come in.

Androgens, a class of hormones that includes testosterone, increase waist-to-hip ratios in women by increasing visceral fat, which is carried around the waist. But on the upside, increased androgen levels are also associated with increased strength, stamina, and competitiveness. Cortisol, a hormone that helps the body deal with stressful situations, also increases fat carried around the waist.

'The hormonal profile associated with high WHR (waist-to-hip ratio) … may favor success in resource competition, particularly under stressful circumstances,' writes Cashdan. 'The androgenic effects - stamina, initiative, risk-proneness, assertiveness, dominance - should be particularly useful where a woman must depend on her own resources to support herself and her family.'"

In societies where women tend to be less economically independent, the typical female WHR is lower than in societies where women bear more responsibility for providing for themselves and their families.

The question Dr. Cashman's research raises in my own mind is this: given that I'm both curvy and prefer a more traditional gender role, which is the direction of the causality? Am I curvy because I'm more traditional or am I more traditional because I'm curvy?

Manipulatives Bad for Teaching Math?

Which math problem would you rather solve?

A. One train leaves Station A at 6 p.m. traveling at 40 miles per hour toward Station B. A second train leaves Station B at 7 p.m. traveling on parallel tracks at 50 m.p.h. toward Station A. The stations are 400 miles apart. When do the trains pass each other?

B. 40 (t + 1) = 400 - 50t

If you're like me, you'd pick question B in a heartbeat. It's a trick question, however, since the two questions are actually the same.

Researchers at Ohio State University have found that college students learn math better from abstract equations like question B than ones incorporating "real-world" examples like question A.

Dr. Jennifer Kaminski told the New York Times:

"The motivation behind this research was to examine a very widespread belief about the teaching of mathematics, namely that teaching students multiple concrete examples will benefit learning. It was really just that, a belief.

The problem with the real-world examples was that they obscured the underlying math, and students were not able to transfer their knowledge to new problems. They tend to remember the superficial, the two trains passing in the night. It’s really a problem of our attention getting pulled to superficial information."

The researchers found similar results when they tested 11 year olds, and they are now testing even younger children. Dr. Kaminski wants to know whether the manipulatives used in so many elementary school math programs are counterproductive.

It's an interesting question, but from what I remember of Piaget, young children's minds are much more concrete than older children's and adults. It's the whole "concrete operational" (5 or 6 up to 11 or 12) vs. "formal operational" (11 or 12+) thing.

"Baby Einstein" Videos *HURT* Language Development

A new study published in the Journal of Pediatrics by Frederick Zimmerman, Dr. Dimitri Christakis, and Andrew Meltzoff of the University of Washington found that with every hour per day spent watching baby DVDs and videos, infants learned six to eight fewer new vocabulary words than babies who never watched the videos. These products had the strongest detrimental effect on babies 8 to 16 months old, the age at which language skills are starting to form.

"The more videos they watched, the fewer words they knew," said Dr. Christakis. "These babies scored about 10% lower on language skills than infants who had not watched these videos."

"Parents and caretakers are the baby's first and best teachers. They instinctively adjust their speech, eye gaze and social signals to support language acquisition. Watching attention-getting DVDs and TV may not be an even swap for warm social human interaction at this very young age. The youngest babies seem to learn language best from people," Meltzoff said.

"In my clinical practice, I am frequently asked by parents what the value of these products is," said Dr. Christakis. "The evidence is mounting that they are of no value and may in fact be harmful. Given what we now know, I believe the onus is on the manufacturers to prove their claims that watching these programs can positively impact children's cognitive development."

The authors of the new study might suggest reading instead: children who got daily reading or storytelling time with their parents showed an increase in language skills.

I'll admit that both my children have occasionally watched "Baby Einstein" and LeapFrog DVD's. However, it's a fraction of the time DH & I spend reading to them. Parents need to understand that "educational" videos are no substitute for human interaction. If one wants a "brainy baby", what one needs to do is spend quality time with him/her!

"Witch Hunt" of Scientist Who First Publicized Autism-MMR Link

Even as new research indicates that 1 out of every 58 children in Great Britain have autism or Asperger's syndrome, the researcher who first blew the whistle on the link between the condition and the combined Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine is facing persecution for daring to criticize the medical establishment. Dr. Andrew Wakefield is facing a July 16th disciplinary hearing before the General Medical Council, the British organization that investigates alleged malpractice.

The hearing stems from allegations about Dr. Wakefield's research published in 1998 in the medical journal Lancet that found a link between the combined MMR vaccine, autism, and inflammatory bowel disease. The researchers believe that in some children the combination live virus vaccine damaged the immune system leaving them susceptible to illness. Dr. Wakefield told journalists who asked about the safety of the combined MMR vaccine:

"It's a moral issue, and I can't support the continued use of these three vaccines given in combination until this issue has been resolved."

Naturally, this infuriated the medical establishment and Dr. Wakefield was publicly vilified by the Chief Medical Officer, the then Health Secretary and then Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Muckraking by investigative journalist Brian Deer of The Sunday Times led to a whole laundry list of supposed ethical lapses by the Wakefield team. Dr. Wakefield has steadfastly denied all the accusations and considers them to be part of "a long-running 'Stalinist' campaign to ruin his reputation."

According to the Observer article:

"To supporters, Wakefield is a hero, a lone crusader for truth and a principled, caring doctor challenging a policy that is harming significant numbers of children. Some scientists, a handful of doctors and parents of sons and daughters they claim have been damaged by the triple vaccine see him as the victim of a Department of Health-led plot to discredit him, and the GMC hearing as a show trial designed to suppress an uncomfortable truth.

Wakefield, talking to The Observer in his only interview before the hearing, says he plans to defend himself vigorously against allegations he sees as ill-conceived and malicious. 'I've done what I've done because my motivation is the suffering of children I've seen and the determination of devoted, articulate, rational parents to find out why part of them has been destroyed, why their child has been ruined. Why would I go through this process of professional isolation if it was simply to do with egomania? My alleged egomania doesn't explain things very well. There's been no upside for me in having pursued this issue. It's been very difficult.

'As Vaclav Havel once said: "Follow the man who seeks the truth; run from the man who has found it." I can't tell you that we know that the MMR vaccine causes autism. But the Department of Health can tell you with 100 per cent certainty that it doesn't, and they believe that, and that concerns me greatly.'"

I encountered this resistance by the medical establishment first-hand a couple months ago when I requested my pediatrician give my DS the monovalent (separate) Measles vaccine rather than the combined MMR. The chances of him being exposed to either mumps or rubella in the following six months are very slim, and even if he were to catch those diseases the chances for serious complications are low. Given the uncertainty surrounding the combined MMR vaccine, I believe it is less risky to separate them out. Yes, my DS will need to get three jabs rather than one and we will have extra co-pays, but so what? Autism is such a profoundly life-changing condition that it's worth a few extra minutes of discomfort and dollars to reduce my child's risk of developing it.

My pediatrician had an absolute hissy fit over this simple request. She ranted at me for probably a good fifteen minutes about what a mistake she thought I was making and kept claiming that science had proven the combined MMR is safe. Now I had done my homework and knew that was not a true statement. There are serious problems and conflicts of interest with the studies purporting to show there is no link. I don't know for sure whether there is indeed a link, but enough questions have been raised about it to warrant caution.

I hope Dr. Wakefield prevails in his fight to keep his medical license! I have no doubt that he is being targeted as retribution for daring to criticize the establishment. Would his critics be going after him with such a vengeance if his research supported the status quo? I think not! Dr. Wakefield is not the first whistleblower to face persecution for making public information that reflects poorly on the powers that be. I applaud his courage for refusing to back down in the face of this "witch hunt".

UPDATE: You can sign a petition in support of Dr. Wakefield here.

SAT Scores Predicted by Finger Length?

A new study led by Dr. Mark Brosnan of the University of Bath to be published in The British Journal of Psychology has found a link between the relative lengths of a child's index & ring fingers and performance on standardized tests.

In boys, a longer ring finger than index finger was associated with scoring higher on the math portion of the SAT than the verbal portion. In girls, a shorter ring finger than index finger was associated with scoring higher on the verbal portion of the SAT than the math portion.

The researchers believe that differing levels of prenatal testosterone and estrogen affect both fetal brain development and finger length. Dr. Brosnan says, "Testosterone has been argued to promote development of the areas of the brain which are often associated with spatial and mathematical skills. Estrogen is thought to do the same in the areas of the brain which are often associated with verbal ability. We can use measurements of these fingers as a way of gauging the relative exposure to these two hormones in the womb and as we have shown through this study, we can also use them to predict ability in the key areas of numeracy and literacy."

Interesting theory but what may be true on the average for a group predicts absolutely nothing for any given individual. I've always scored significantly higher on the verbal portion of standardized tests than the math portion. Reading and writing have always come easily for me but math has not- particularly geometry & trigonometry, which were a real struggle.

Dr. Brosnan's research would predict that I should have a shorter ring than index finger; however, my ring finger is significantly longer than my index finger.

Guess we can't scrap the SAT in favor of finger length measurements any time soon...

(HT: the Daily Mail via Ednews.com)