My most-read posts in 2012

Thanks once again to those helper monkeys at WordPress I now know which of my efforts were read most last year.

I added 44 new posts bringing the total to 174 since I started in 2010 but that was about 20 fewer than in previous years.

My readers came from 113 different countries but mostly from the USA followed by the UK and Canada.

For me the bad news was that none of the posts I wrote last year were in the Top 5 most read category; the good news is that people still like to read my older stuff with older favourites still appearing in my most-read list.

My 5th most read post was: “So many “friends” but still lonely” from May 2010. This was a post about Facebook followers not having real social lives. It was also my 3rd most read post in both 2010 & 2011

My 4th most read post was: “Facebook vigilantes cop traffic offenders in Delhi“ from Agust 2010. Another post about the use/misuse of Facebook (and smart phones).

My 3rd most read post was: “Ginger Kid gets free Pizza” from June 2011. This was the story of the pizza server who couldn’t pronounce the customer’s name.

My 2nd most read post was: “Apples and Pears – what fruit is your bum” from May 2010. This was a serious post about the health consequences for overweight women and was also the 2nd most-read post in 2011.

And the most read post was – for the 3rd year running: “Blushing – do men find it attractive?”.  This post has been read by someone every single day since it was first published in May 2010.

One post from 2012 which made it into the top 10 most-read was: “Gorillas (and other Great Apes) you might have missed” from July 2012.

There were couple of other posts which almost made it: “Women in Uniform” from March 2012, and “101 Reasons we can’t live together” from May 2010 which was the 2nd most-read that year.

So something for me to think about. I put more pictures in this year – many of which I took myself on my travels – but readers obviously prefer a story as well.

Also I didn’t write about Facebook as I thought I’d given them enough publicity but I may have to get back to them this year.

And I need to write more posts. I have been tweeting more this year @MikethePsychUK so that’s taken up some of my blogging time.

Finally thank you to everyone who has read, followed, or liked  my posts. Have a great 2013!

Fat or just passively obese?

Jamie Oliver, since parting company with Sainsbury’s, has moved on from being the healthy school meals enthusiast to a wider stage according to a report in the Observer this weekend.

Along with nutrition and health experts he is trying to get the UN to take obesity more seriously. He says “Pre-packed convenience food is seen as a symbol of being modern in developing countries but the problems it causes are long-term and costly”.

It is particularly a problem in India, South America, and the Middle East. Instead Oliver wants countries to pass on local recipes down the generations which makes more sense.

He called on the UN chief Ban Ki-moon to take action and wants “a global movement to make obesity a human rights issue”.

I can understand world poverty being a human rights issue and something that could be tackled if countries weren’t divided by tribal/caste differences, politics and internal conflict, but since when has over-eating been a human rights issue? I think even Cherie Blair would have difficulty with that.

Former Chief Scientist Sir David King said in the Lancet; “We need to make changes… to avoid the morbid consequences of overweight and obesity… (which) will require global political leadership across public policy …).

King reckons that by 2050 60% of men and 50% of women will be clinically obese and without action it could cost the UK £45 billion a year.  The WHO say obesity often sits side by side with under-nutrition (and whose fault is that?) and that 65% of the world’s population live in countries where obesity kills more people than malnutrition.

Oliver says western-style diets cause problems of “bad feeding” which means that we eat highly processed food containing high levels of salt, fats, sugars, additives, and cheap processed meat.

King doesn’t believe that obesity is caused by people being lazy or over-eating. There are several factors being blamed: increased car use; less manual labour; urban living and the availability of cheap, high calorie convenience foods. Most adults in the UK are overweight and every generation is heavier than the last. This what is known as passive obesity.

See also: Light meals, Fat just comes back, what fruit is my bum and Stress & Poverty

Fat just comes back!

You go through the agonies of liposuction (well it is to watch when you see it on TV and I’m sure you must be sore afterwards) and what happens?

The fat just comes back but in a different place.

I suppose if you could choose where it went it might not be so bad – it might save you a boob job – but it doesn’t seem to work that way.

Popular in vacuuming fat from the abdomen, bottom, and hips for the last 30 years, surgeons carried out over 3,000 liposuction procedures last year in the UK each costing between £3,000 and £5,000.

Researchers at the University of Colorado have now conducted the first trial to see if liposuction works in the long-term. They found that a year after the procedure the fat had returned but had moved to the upper part of the body around the shoulders, arms and stomach.

An obesity researcher at the university said that; “the body controls the number of fat cells and when one fat cell dies another grows to replace it”. Liposuction destroys the structure under the skin which may explain why the fat cells come back somewhere else. In the trial the women’s legs stayed thinner but the missing fat had re-appeared on their stomachs.

Research shows that where you store fat and what shape you are can have different outcomes for your health.

Some women are determined to do anything to improve their appearance and plastic surgery is now much more readily available: See: Beauty

Updated 31 May 2011: And if surgery is not bad enough a court case in France has highlighted the dangers of dieting.

Dr Pierre Dukan is a best-selling author whose protein-based diet is followed by Hollywood celebrities and who basically says you can eat as much as you like from a limited list and you don’t need to count calories.

In the opposite corner, and being sued by Dukan, is Dr Jean-Michel Cohen, another dietician, who says slimmers should eat a limited amount of most things and exercise regularly. Cohen is being sued for saying that there is a whole slimming industry, including doctors, profiting from these ideas.

He has also upset Dukan by saying that the Dukan diet is a potentially dangerous rehash of old ideas which can increase cholesterol and lead to heart problems and breast cancer. 

A recent report from the French health watchdog Anses surveyed these diets and 13 others and concluded that they all had dangers and weaknesses and that people would be better off just following a balanced diet. (Mothers with daughters take note!)

More than 80% of people who tried book diets put back their weight and more a year later and the head of the nutrition service at the Pasteur Institute said; “slimming makes you fat”.

Updated 25 July 2011: An article in the Sunday Times (24/7/11)providing more scientific proof that diets don’t work.

That won’t stop the diet industry’s efforts of course or the newspapers and magazines promoting them. British women start on average 3 diet regimes a year and spend £25k on diets over their lifetime.

Basically once you gain weight it’s there to stay. Fewer than 10% of people who diet keep the weight off, the other 90% put it back on within a year. There are some advantages to dieting as you probably eat more healthily and may exercise more but yo-yo dieting is not good for you.

The Medical Research Council’s National Survey of Health & Development followed over 5,000 men and women from birth in 1946, and 20,000 people born in 1958. They measured weight and blood pressure and assessed lifestyles.

Interestingly both groups started putting on weight in the 1980s and since then people have been increasing in weight throughout their life. Men tend to put weight on steadily but for women it starts slowly and accelerates in their mid-30s (perhaps after having children?).

The Health Survey for England (2009) shows that 14% of kids and 25% of adults are obese and at least the same percentages are overweight. Excess body fat leads to a higher risk of diabetes, heart disease, arthritis, and cancer.

An endocrinologist, Professor Nick Finer, was reported suggesting that we have not evolved to tackle obesity as it has only become a problem since the mid-20th century. Previously there would have been an evolutionary advantage to be able to store fat in our bodies.

Even the idea of a set point for weight no longer seems true as it becoming overweight can rest it to a higher level. It must have a ratchet effect if losing weight doesn’t reset it lower.

Take me to your (tall and probably attractive) leader!

The pygmy posting is worrying me now (see: “What’s in a (politically correct) name?“) because I’ve been reminded about some research on tallness. I first came across this a few years ago and mentioned it in a leadership workshop in Sweden – along the lines of biological impact on leadership eg good looks, tallness, first born etc. The Swedes were a bit sceptical, especially when I said some of the research had been carried out in Norway – not much Scandinavian sisterhood that day.

But there’s not much doubt about it. Research across the world by psychologists and economists show that every extra inch of height is worth between $500 and $1000 a year. So a 6′ person earns up to $6,000 a year more than a 5′ 6″ person (or $12,000 a year more than someone an anthropologist would class as a pygmy). UK research showed that tall men earn 5% more than average men and 10% more than short men.

There is some good news amongst the bad for diversity campaigners: fat men don’t earn less than thin men – although fat women earn less than thin ones. And good looks seem to effect both men and women equally with unattractive people earning up to 15% less than their more attractive counterparts.

It may be that we give more respect to taller people or think they are smarter because they look down on us. Historically military leaders would come from aristo backgrounds where they were better fed and likely to be taller than the peasants or local villagers. And there were always tall military headpieces to enhance any natural advantage.

And back to what’s in a name? There was a letter in the Times this week about 50% of recent UK Prime Ministers having names beginning with A, B, or C (and about a third of recent US Presidents also follow that pattern). I wondered if they got fed in alphabetical order at public school and got bigger portions, or perhaps were picked as team leaders more often?

Anyway the bottom line is: Tallness = Leaders = higher earnings and Attractiveness = higher earnings.

Not much joy then  if you are short and/or ugly. Let’s see how HR sort that one out when they are practising non-discriminatory recruitment.

It seems that it’s not just Prince, the Hamster, and Nicolas Sarkozy who can be found wearing height-enhancing heels. Men’s heels or “Meels” are back in fashion. Some are obviously cuban-heeled/glam rock throwbacks but “status shoes” offer a more subtle look. A visible heel of 1.25″ can hide an extra lift of 1.5″ – or at least £500 worth of  height-related earnings!

Updated 2 August 2010: It might help shorter people (but not fat women) to feel better knowing that scientists have shown that midges – the mosquitoes of the North which feast on human blood in the Scottish Highlands during the Summer – prefer tall men and large women.

Tall men because midges fly 6′ above the ground, and large women because they produce a greater quantity of moisture, CO2, and heat (did I say hot air?).

Professor Jenny Mordue, leading the study, said; “Larger people would provide a more substantial visual target for host-seeking midges”.  So pygmies would be safe in Scotland then?