New research, published in the International Journal Pediatrics, conducted by the University of Adelaide shows that a baby's weight gain and head size in the first few months.
According to the study, reported by Science Daily, a baby who puts on 40% of their birth weight within the first four months since birth had an IQ 1.5 points higher by the time they were 6 years old, compared with babies who only put on 15% of their birth weight.
Lead author of the study, Lisa Smithers, discussing the research said: "Those children who gained the most weight scored especially high on
verbal IQ at age 6. This may be because the neural structures for verbal
IQ develop earlier in life, which means rapid weight gain during that
neonatal period could be having a direct cognitive benefit for the
child."
The experiment consisted of data taken from more than 13,800 children who were born full-term. It also revealed that those children who saw the biggest growth in head circumference also had the highest IQs.
Explaining this, Dr. Smithers says: "Head circumference is an indicator of brain volume, so a greater
increase in head circumference in a newborn baby suggests more rapid
brain growth... Overall, newborn children who grew faster in the first four weeks had higher IQ scores later in life."
Previous studies have shown links between the birth-weight and IQ later in life, and other studies which have shown an association between early postnatal diet and IQ, though this study is the first of its kind in linking the IQ benefits of rapid weight gain in the first month of newborn babies.
Dr Smithers says the study further highlights the need for successful feeding of newborn babies: "We know that many mothers have difficulty establishing breastfeeding
in the first weeks of their baby's life... the findings of our study suggest that if infants are having feeding
problems, there needs to be early intervention in the management of
that feeding."
The world is a funny old thing, but no matter what you choose to do with your day, it will keep spinning, but this doesn't mean you don't matter and that the choices you make on a daily basis aren't relevant, so here's 10 questions you should ask yourself today. First, you should look back at what came before
For the past few days I've been trying to convince a friend of the importance of Game of Thrones and why it's worth, not just the investment of time, but also the investment of emotion. Following the events of the 'Red Wedding', which I won't spoil for those who have yet to see it (except for a video at the end of this article), there's a huge fan reaction, showing the dedication of a fans to a show that offers so much, and here's my Top 10 Reasons why those who don't currently watch it, really should.
#10 The Settings
The stories portrayed in Game of Thrones encompass many characters in many conflicts throughout, what can only be described as half a planet's worth of settings. The focus of the show is on events on the of Westeros and Essos which encompasses many different terrains, and beautiful scenery. The filming locations include Iceland, Morocco, Ireland and Croatia and present to us the truly breathtaking and diverse environments from the frozen north to the barren desserts of Essos, they are truly a sight to behold, and they help accentuate the atmosphere and drama of the stories being told. #9 HBO
While to some it may not seem entirely a big deal that HBO are behind the making of the show, for those familiar with HBO and their back catalogue, this is a very important thing indeed. HBO is big, it has the finances, it has the courage and it has the freedom to really work to bring this series to life, and in no way was it going to disappoint. HBO is driven by its subscriber revenue, so isn't privy to the requirements or limits imposed on traditional broadcasters by advertisers and the ability of a more general audience to access their content, resulting in being subjected to censorship rules. They have the freedom and the funds to go all out and make the series a reality, and so far, they've done one hell of a job.
#8 The Budget
While a big budget is not a surefire way to greatness when it comes to on-screen entertainment (see almost every Michael Bay or Roland Emmerich film ever), the huge budget, estimated as between $5-10 million per episode, ensures that the team behind it are able to achieve the level of scope and detail in order to bring this fantasy world to life in as satisfying a way as possible which is something only HBO can manage on a consistent basis.
#7 Not Knowing What To Expect
One of the best things that can be said about George R R Martin in writing his books is that he's honest about the fact he has no idea where he's going with it. He writes as he feels and not having an ultimate plan or end game for the books gives us an unpredictability about the plot and the lives of the characters. Take, for example, Ned Stark from season 1 and the first book in the Songs of Ice and Fire series from which the show got its name.
Almost instantly he became everyone's favourite character. He was honourable, courageous and a family man. He wasn't hell bent on gaining power but he would always do the right thing. This, in my view, if done well, could have been a character that could have carried on through the books and the show and still have been entertaining, yet he was killed in episode 9 of the first season by King Joffrey who agreed to show him mercy.
His death in the show was an immense surprise, as well as the death of Khal Drogo who had become a fan favourite in some respects. The loss of these two characters left fans wondering what next, and it's this unpredictability and this willingness to take risks by killing off main characters that keeps fans on their toes. You don't know what's going to happen next, and that keeps you gripped. #6 Made With The Fans In Mind
One thing that can be credited to the show's creators is that they have always kept the fans of the book in mind when looking to adapt the show. So much so, they actually went ahead and got GRRM to write a few episodes for them. Successfully adapting a book series such as this is no easy feat, and it would have been harder if fans of the books weren't behind it, or felt that it had neglected the source material in making the adaptation.
I've had discussions with people before about the show and the books and I've always held the view that, while the books are better, due to their ability to increase the scale of the story being told, the show is just as good, if not better in some areas. Both act as complementary to one another. There are lines delivered, scenes acted out and characters portrayed in precisely the way you'd imagined them while you were reading the books.
Those who watched the show without or before reading the books, have sorely missed out on something great.
#5 The Lannisters
While only one family in a fantasy world consisting of many involved in the stories being told, I personally felt the Lannisters deserved a special mention. They have presented to us one of our favourite characters in Tyrion, a dwarf with an incredible intellect, great sense of humour and a cunning that sees him easily outsmarting those who underestimate him.
They're a family who always pay their debts, and a family who are, while they have their conflicts, fiercely loyal to one another. Especially Jaime and Cersei who engage in a controversial incestuous relationship that threatens to destroy the entire family. King Joffrey is the most sinister of the family as he's proven to be a rather sadistic and cruel king letting power go to his head the moment he sat on the Iron Throne.
Each family in the show has something memorable or unique about them, but it's the Lannisters who stand out as featuring on the one hand a character you can adore (Tyrion) and a character you can absolutely loathe (Joffrey) with the other members of the family being a bit in the middle.
#4 Complexity Made Simple
Telling a story that spans across two continents with a main cast of more than 30 characters is no easy feat. The scale in the books is obviously somewhat toned down in the show, but that is more due to budgetary constraints than a flaw in the ability to tell the story on screen. There are fairly minor changes made in the show compared to the books which either complement the story or make it simple to keep a handle on it all.
Some stories receive less air time than others, but they still make the same progress and are still told in the same way. Sometimes the viewer needs a break from the politics of managing the 7 kingdoms and the show will shift to a brief story about Bran's journey to the Wall. They've brought the show to an understandable level for the average viewer not acquainted with the book series without sacrificing too much or, in some instances, anything at all.
#3 The Sub-Plots
There are the main plots and the expected sub-plots of the show, but the sub-plots are just as entertaining as the main events that keep the show moving. The best example of this would be Tyrion. Known as the 'imp' because of his dwarfism is someone who is standing up against the adversity created by his situation. He is resented by his family because his birth caused the death of their mother, and he has never truly loved another woman.
He is what most would see as an outcast, but he uses his incredible wit and intellect to his advantage over those of his relatives and from other families that underestimate him. He is not someone to be trifled with. He may not have the ability to use a sword to the same effect as his brother, the Kingslayer Jaime Lannister, but you better be sure he's got a plan to defend himself when it is necessary.
#2 Strong Women
I've read newspaper columns on the show criticising the treatment of women in the show as objects or lesser beings. If I'm honest, this isn't something I would outright dispute. Given the world in which it is set, it's expected that, to some degree, women would feature as the submissive gender, but this does not mean the show is devoid of any strong female role models.
Cersei is perhaps the best example of this. While she does her womanly 'duty' by marrying Robert Baratheon in order to ensure the alliance between the two families, she is incredibly cunning and always plotting something or other, such as the death of her late husband and the ascension to the throne of her eldest son.
Arya Stark and Melisandre are two other characters who stand out as fierce and filled with strength and determination. Arya, in particular, defies convention from the very beginning. She doesn't want to grow up and become the servant wife, she wants to fight and be strong. Her journey is by no means a simple one, but it's a positive thing to see her grow and keep that strength and determination within her.
#1 The Actors
The show's cast of mostly British actors is the strongest aspect of the show. Not because they are British (although I'm biased in that respect), but because there was great care and attention paid to each and every role being cast.
Again I come back to Tyrion, played by Peter Dinklage, has skyrocketed this little known actor to super stardom purely because he fits and plays the role so well. Your emotional attachment to your favourite character(s) comes from them being played so well and with such dedication by those involved.
If you've not watched the show yet, for whatever reason, you're simply missing out. Everything about it is just perfect. I would suggest that, if you are tempted by the show, that you check out the books first as, like I said above, the show is complementary to the books and you will get more out of the show if you've familiarised yourself with the books.
One problem with seeing films after most of your friends is that you tend to have a high expectation of the film you are about to see. Even without all my friends telling me how great it was, I would still have gone into the cinema expecting great things from Iron Man 3, as I’m sure most people were. For those of you who haven’t seen it, I will keep spoilers to a minimum.
The story takes place in the aftermath of Avengers Assemble, and sees Stark go head to head with mysterious but ruthless terrorist The Mandarin. Stark is suffering as a result of his near death in New York City, and his issues are causing friction with girlfriend Pepper Potts. When faces from his past start to reappear, and the Mandarin’s attacks intensify, Stark has to battle his demons to defeat the threat.
This is a basic sum up of the story, which on the surface looks sound. Unfortunately, I find the story tends to leave a lot of questions unanswered, and the motivations behind the primary villain are left almost wholly unresolved, to this day I do not understand why he did what he did, it seems almost to have been forgotten about. It is nice to see an enemy that isn’t in a suit, one that can match Stark without having to resort to using his own technology against him.
The story starts strongly, but fades badly towards the middle of the film, it occasionally gains in strength with some powerful scenes but this are too far between to remedy the problem. Leading on from this, the acting is spot on in many scenes; Robert Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow once again offer excellent lead performances, and Sir Ben Kingsley does well with what he is given. Some of the supporting cast’s performances are less than impressive, but on the whole they offer solid performances. Guy Pearce in particular is at times disappointing, but it is not a wholly poor performance, just very mixed.
Iron Man 3 had the potential to be a great movie, and in many people’s eyes it undoubtedly is. It is a good movie, but it is let down by an occasionally poor plot, a fading story and some lacklustre acting from some supporting actors. It is too cheesy in places and despite having a dark premise is often too light hearted, which while to be expected, feels out of place at times and takes too much away from the story that had a lot of potential.
For reasons best known to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) they were planning to allow passengers to carry small knives, bats, golf clubs and other sporting equipment onto planes, but announced Wednesday that they were abandoning the plan, reports The Huffington Post
The TSA currently has a list of prohibited items which cannot be carried onto planes from which it was planning to drop the above-mentioned items, though dropping this plan, which would have undoubtedly presented significant security concerns, allows them to focus on other priorities.
Last month 145 House members signed a letter to TSA Administrator, John Pistole, asking him to
keep in place the current policy. Flight attendant
unions, and Airlines for America, which represents major U.S. airlines,
as well as top executives from some of the nation's largest airlines,
came out against the plan.
In commenting on the move to abandon the plan, Pistole said: "After getting the input from all these different constituents, I
realized there was not across-the-board support that would serve us well
in moving forward."
While there is no question that the planned change would open the door to allow the TSA to focus on stricter worries such as screening for explosives, such objects present a possible danger in the hands of a mad-man, so the move to abandon the change will no doubt be positively received.
But what does this tell us about the TSA in general? While they're not the most popular Homeland Security Department anyway, the fact that they were considering something like this indicates that they may be struggling with the current situation. Current screening means that around 2,000 folding knives are confiscated daily, which is a lot for them to manage on top of the other duties.
What do you think about the abandoning of the potential change in policy? Were you a supporter of the change or dead against it? Sound off in the comments below.
Given that relationships are what many people would consider to be naturally
occurring phenomena, it makes sense that there is a natural progression that
they move through as they develop from dating all the way through to whatever
the end is. There is a natural step-by-step process for all relationships, no
one can deny that; what some people do seem willing to dispute is exactly
what those steps are. There is the dating one, which is inevitable; there is
the sexual phase, which is admittedly dependent on how long you’re with the
person, but in this instance we’re addressing long-term relationships so again,
sex is inevitable; what comes after this? That’s where the room for debate
appears.
Do people move in together? Do they have children? And the big, intimidating
and life-changing question that so many people are terrified of answering… do
they get married?
When I was 9 years old, my mum picked me up from school one day and told me
that my dad wouldn’t be coming home. After nearly 22 years of marriage, three
children and a lot of other stuff in between, my dad wasn’t going to be coming
home. Ever again. I’m not sure who took it harder: my mum was fairly cut up
about the whole situation, my sister was angry, and I didn’t really understand.
A time came in my life where I understood exactly what had happened: My dad had
bailed on his family. That harsh reality forced me to come to the conclusion
that marriage was not only a pointless exercise, but also something that I
would never choose to engage in myself.
It’s 10 years this year since my dad made an exit from his marriage and my
life, and although I’m still sceptical on marriage, I’m a lot more open-minded
than I used to be. I’m not about to skip into town and start trying on wedding
dresses – and, to be honest, I cringe at the thought – but I’m open to the idea
that maybe some people can make marriage work. When I first entertained this
idea my plan was to include an example of a marriage that has worked; the only
one I could think of was my grandparents, who are from an age in history where
getting divorced was a shameful business, so I’m not entirely sure they’re a
valid example of how marriage can last when really, they didn’t seem to have
much of a choice. Nevertheless I’m optimistic that somewhere out there, there
is a happily married couple (and no, newlyweds most definitely do not count)…
After a frantic search I’m still drawing a blank. Something I did find
particularly interesting was an article online regarding Myleene Class and her
recent split from her husband. You’re probably wondering why I chose this
particular story. The reason for my choice is that her and her husband have
only been married for six months, but have actually been together for eleven
years prior to their marriage. They have two children, a wonderful home and
they had a relatively happy relationship. So what went wrong? Marriage. That’s
what went wrong.
Have you heard of the expression, “If it’s not broken, don’t fix it”? A modern
twist on that seems to be, “If it’s not broken, don’t marry it.” And this
brings me back to the opening ideas of this article: While there are many
natural steps people take when they’re in a relationship, does marriage have to
be one of them? You might think I’m cynical, but I personally think I’m just
being a realist. Marriage might seem like a brilliant idea at the time, but if
it’s the difference between owning a ring and a divorce certificate or not
wearing a ring and being in a happy relationship then surely NOT getting
married is the best idea? Okay, you might be one of those people that manages
to have a good marriage and not get divorced, but with divorce rates growing,
are you willing to take the risk? It’s not as simple as signing a piece of
paper anymore, marriage has outgrown the purpose of a relationship status and
turned into an outright lifestyle choice due to the fierce impact it has on so
many things.
A lot of people are likely to disagree with me, and maybe one day in the future
I’ll disagree with the arguments I’ve made here and decide that marriage is
something I’d like to try, with the right person. Although it does seem fair to
conclude this article with a thoughtful idea: No, marriage isn’t for everyone,
but for the people who decide to try it, think about what you’re getting yourself
into before you go swapping rings and signing papers.
Monogamy, as the relationship where two people stay committed to each
other sexually and romantically at the same period of time, is an
underpinning feature of society and has a weight of tradition thrust
upon its shoulders. But are those shoulders starting to ache now?
UK law is partially helping to prop it up with bigamy being illegal.
In fact there is only one US state where it is legal (Utah) and it is
only really acceptable within the Muslim community, but even then a
Muslim man would only be allowed one wife while living in the UK. “Why
on earth would someone want more than one mother-in-law?” Some would
exclaim with somewhat flabbergasted facial expressions. Who knows.
But what is becoming more and more apparent is that monogamy seems to
collide with our biological need for sex. Due to our primitive roots
men, genetically and historically, want to pro-create with as many women
as possible to give their genes the most spread. This obviously
conflicts with the notion of a faithful exclusive relationship.
Certainly if you tune into The Jeremy Kyle show there is plenty of
evidence to suggest that extra-marital sex is an ever-present phenomena
and perhaps if human beings were designed for complete monogamy then
these people would “Keep it in their trousers” as the no-nonsense TV
host would say. In addition to this, the growing number of footballers
and celebrities who struggle to stay loyal will also further perpetuate
adultery to continue with your children when they’re older. So as large
sectors of society step away from religion’s strong hold over their
moral compasses and we become more liberal and open to doing as we
please without feeling that we are under scrutiny from a god who will
surely punish us for not staying faithful, along with the amalgamation
of the other factors stated, the pillars on which monogamy stands are
cracking and crumbling catastrophically quickly.
In a study from 2009 by Dr David Holmes, a psychologist from
Manchester Metropolitan University, it was suggested that 20% of males
admit to cheating and 15% of females admit to it. And bear in mind that
the other 75% of males and 85% of females in the study may be guilty too
but just chose not to admit to it. Whilst the results are obtained by
anonymous computer surveys, that still doesn’t stop people giving false
answers. It’s even estimated by Buss and Shackelford that 30%-60% of
married individuals cheat. Perhaps you or someone you know has ‘done the
dirty’. And as society progresses, swingers parties and inviting a
third party into the sexual relationship is becoming increasingly
acceptable. It is becoming undeniably clear that marriage and monogamy
may be a social construct that is in fact at war with our biological
instincts.
There are many reasons for being unfaithful. According to a marriage
counsellor from Texas, “When you first meet someone there’s an increase
in the brain of chemical known as phenylethylanine”. This chemical
wears off after around 2 years of being with someone though. So,
naturally, there is an urge to find that chemical which is linked to
excitement and that inevitably leads to some finding it with a person
outside of their marriage for some.
This issue seems so deeply rooted that even if we don’t commit the
act of cheating, we may still be thinking/fantasizing about it. Whilst
this is less harmful than sexual infidelity, you could label it intellectual infidelity. And
whilst many people won’t have a problem with their other half dreaming
about being with someone else (after all, it’s only a meaningless
fantasy, right?), it could lead to physical infidelity and even if it
does stay as merely thoughts and not physical actions, would every
single human being in a relationship be ‘a-okay’ with their partner
desiring someone else? The only thing stopping a person making a
particular dream a reality may be the concept of monogamy, meaning that
the person is not fulfilling themselves. Hicks and Leitenberg found that
80% of married women admit to fantasizing about someone other than
their husbands. Again, the other 20% may not be admitting to it as
opposed to genuinely not fantasizing about someone else.
Dear reader, I am not saying monogamy is bad. In fact, I think the
exact opposite. But with overwhelming scientific evidence into the
validity of monogamy I would say that, despite it being ideal, it is at
its most fragile and the immediate defence of the concept of monogamy
can be/has been construed as insecurity and denial over such fragility.
Social normalities are at war with what’s encoded in our DNA and it
seems that the battle is greater than ever.
