Archive for the ‘Lifestyle’ Category

5 Gifts to Improve Someone’s New Year – 2010 Gift Guide

December 6, 2010

1. Give the give of health

Gift a Single Recreational Cooking or Baking/Pastry Classes. There is a great starter 4-Week Healthy Cooking Series. For your gift all the service, ingredients and equipment to succeed in today’s restaurant kitchens and master techniques that can be used at home. Classes encompass current cooking trends and recipes so that meals will taste fantastic. This is a great way to learn to Cook and Bake, while making new friends and having fun!

2. Give the gift of confidence

There’s not much you can do about height but here’s a simple gift for under $20.00 that could help your friend step into the new year feeling like a brand new person.

3. Give the gift of wellness

Here are 3 ideas around Health and Wellness that extend on the idea of better eating:

I. Give a gift certificate for a day at the spa

II. Get a friend or family member a gym membership to help change their physical appearance and inner outlook on life

III. help a friend find a more balanced day with a gift certificate to Yoga Works
4. Give the gift of giving.

Kiva’s mission is to connect people, through lending, for the sake of alleviating poverty. Kiva empowers individuals to lend to an entrepreneur across the globe. By combining microfinance with the internet, Kiva is creating a global community of people connected through lending.

5. Give the gift of organization.

File with style! These colorful, patterned Letter-Size Interior File Folders make organizing more fun! Made from premium, heavyweight coated card stock, they feature 1/3 cut tabs

The All About Height Holiday Gift Guide – not all about height

December 7, 2009

Here a suggestive little assortment of ’09 Holiday ideas that will help you and your friends walk into 2010 feeling a little bit better.

Virgin airways,The 2 Bandits,Flip Video,Livity Hats,Bose speaker for ipod,Tavik,LiftKits HiTop Insole,Creative Rec Ponti,Moleskin Diary,Blublocker sunglasses

1. An essential item for both men and women are Moleskine Notebooks, whether its and inspirational idea, business notes or for jotting down someones phone # – its a must have. $10 Classic Hardcover Notebook, Moleskine

2. Get up and go! It doesn’t matter where, a plane ticket is most certainly one of the best presents one can receive. Virgin Airways

3. Gotta have a pair of these throwbacks in the drawer. $19.95 Black Nylon BluBlockers

4. I just bought 5 pairs! If you wanna give someone the hottest pair of shoes around, give them a pair of Creative Recs. $140 Creative Recreation Ponti High Tops

5. Super Original, super eco-friendly. Around $40-$50, see where you can get yours by visiting

6. Capture the moment with a Flip. Flip video recorders are too easy to use and even easier to post your content on Facebook and Youtube. $149.99 Flip Camcorder

7. For all you ladies! The best way to transform any pair of boots! $70 a pair $35 each, The 2 Bandits

8. Know a friend who could use a couple more inches…of height? Check out our LiftKits Hi-Top version. Worn best in high top sneakers (like Creative Recs) or in boots. $25 a pair, LiftKits

9. Tavik, a Southern California lifestyle brand kicking out some killer threads for this holiday season. $49 Tavik “Gruseome” Flannel

10. The Bose iPhone/iPod speaker system is a little pricey, but well worth it. The Bose speaker system allows you to enjoy your music or a friends anywhere. $269.95 Bose Series II digital music system

The cost of high heels may be measured in pain

September 30, 2009

Beauty is pain, as the saying goes. Now there’s evidence to back it up: Wearing high-heeled shoes now may mean suffering foot pain later, according to a new study. Here is what the LA Times has to say:

Study subjects were asked whether they felt pain, aching or stiffness in one or both feet on most days, and if so, what part of their foot hurt (nails, forefoot, hindfoot, heel, arch and ball of the foot). The 3,372 participants were from the Framingham Foot Study, made up of people from the Framingham Study Original Cohort and the Framingham Offspring Cohort who were evaluated from 2002 to 2008. Numbers of men and women were about equal.

High Heels; is the pain worth it?
Their most common footwear worn currently and previously was divided into several categories and among age groups. The shoe categories were: poor (high-risk shoes that lacked support and structure, such as high heels, sandals and slippers), average (mid-risk shoes with hard or rubber soles such as work boots) and good (low-risk shoes offering good support and safety, such as sneakers).

One-fourth of all participants said they had generalized foot pain on most days. The researchers also said that in women they found an increased risk between having pain in the hindfoot and wearing poor shoes in the past, even after adjusting for weight and age. Fewer men reported pain than women (19% versus 29%), but only 1.6% of men said they wore shoes in the poor category.

In the study, the researchers said that wearing good shoes makes sense for protecting the hindfoot from pain. They wrote: “It is also possible that the single association seen at the hindfoot is due to the tightness of the heelcords that might result from sustained use of high heels.” If this is the case, they add, stretching exercises might offset problems caused by poor shoes.

The study appears in the October issue of the journal Arthritis Care & Research.

— Jeannine Stein

Photo credit: Peter Foley / EPA

Selling yourself short?

May 8, 2009

If you have ever been uncomfortable in your own skin, you’re not alone. Just take a look around; people are constantly battling the pressures and negative influences from the world, community and ‘friends’ around them.

Selling yourself short means you’re not giving yourself full credit where it is deserved. (i.e. “The professor told Jack not to sell himself short regarding his grade on his Mathematical exam; he scored the highest grade in the class.”)

Sometimes it can be a birthmark in a strange place, the fact that you’re shorter than the average person, you have a receding hairline, really anything… ‘Friends,’ co-workers, even family may even induce this low self-esteem. The best way to work your self out of it is to make changes, and think positive; always reinforcing the good things about yourself.

An report titled “Coping With Low Self-Esteem – Discover a Powerful Way to Change the Way You Think About Yourself” talks about the pain of low self-esteem, selling yourself short and how to turn it all around.

Low Self-Esteem is probably the number one reason people do not achieve their goals in life.

While most of us like to find reasons for failure in outer circumstances, we don’t realize that it is the way we think about ourselves that will ultimately determine the outcome of our endeavors.

When you don’t believe in yourself failure becomes a viable option. It is strange how quick we are to accept thoughts of inadequacy about ourselves. However, when it comes to believing that we are good at something, we demand substantial proof before accepting that.

It is all a matter of mindset. We are what we think we are. Every decision we make is based on whatever thought patterns we have in our mind.

Our mindset has been framed by all the good or bad information we have received throughout our life. And -like it or not- it definitely governs our life.

Once your mind has accepted a certain thought pattern about yourself and what you are capable of, it will determine your actions in every area of your life.

If you think you are a victor, you will accomplish much and always have success in life.

On the other hand, if you think you are a victim or a loser who is not capable of much, that is exactly what your life is going to look like.

Thought patterns are powerful, but the good news is that they can be broken by a weightier source….

Some things never change…

May 3, 2009

In reading this article I didn’t realize that it had been published in 1971 until I reached paragraph 5. It seems just as relevant today as it was the day it was published by Time Magazine – Monday, Oct. 04, 1971. Here’s their report on heightism then and I’m sure it hasn’t changed much in the now.

No matter what his race, creed or financial status, the American male under 5 ft. 8 in.—the height of the average American man—is a victim of discrimination. That is the conclusion of a Cleveland sociologist who has begun a personal crusade against a seldom mentioned form of prejudice that, like racism and sexism, is well established in U.S. society: heightism.

So pervasive is the American bias against the short man, Saul Feldman told a recent meeting of the American Sociological Association, that no one notices it—no one, that is, except the short man himself. To Sociologist Feldman of Case Western Reserve University, that point is well illustrated by the language. Instead of the neutral “What is your height?”, the question is always the invidious “How tall are you?” Dishonest cashiers shortchange customers, and people who lack foresight are shortsighted.

In romantic matters, too, the little man is cut down to size. A woman’s idealized lover is never short, dark and handsome, and both sexes seem to feel that the male should be taller than the female. The tall man thus has all of womankind to choose from; the short man must make do with the little woman. In the movies, either the romantic hero is tall or the heroine is photographed standing in a trench. Violins never throbbed for Mickey Rooney; false eyelashes never fluttered at Edward G. Robinson.

Little Napoleons. In most sports, the short man is given short shrift. Business, it seems, is interested in the short man mostly as a customer for elevator shoes. A survey of recent University of Pittsburgh graduates, for example, shows that those 6 ft. 2 in. and over received average starting salaries 12.4% higher than those under 6 ft. In another study, 140 corporate recruiters were asked to make a hypothetical choice between two equally qualified applicants, one 6 ft. 1 in., the other 5 ft. 5 in. Nearly three-quarters hired the tall man; only 1% chose the short one. (About one-quarter had no preference.)

Yet when he succeeds—despite the tall odds against him—the short man is accused of being a “little Napoleon.” This might be one reason, perhaps, that Americans usually favor the tall political candidate: Feldman says that since 1900 the taller of the two major presidential candidates has always been sent to the White House,* even when the margin was Richard Nixon’s one-inch advantage over Hubert Humphrey’s 5 ft. 11 in.

By Feldman’s reckoning, however, Nixon is soon due for a long rest in San Clemente. Except for Humphrey, all the current major Democratic contenders are taller than the President. Edmund Muskie is a Lincolnesque 6 ft. 4 in., Edward Kennedy 6 ft. 2 in., and George McGovern 6 ft. 1 in.

What can the short man do? Rebel, of course, like everyone else. He could refuse to look up to the tall man, for example, and force him to stoop into an ungraceful and uncomfortable position for face-to-face conversations. He could sneer at the dangers tall men face, such as low tree branches and the cramped back seats of cabs and tiny cars. He could even nominate a short man for President. Sociologist Feldman, who measures a full 5 ft. 4 in., is no doubt available.

*Actually, the shorter candidate occasionally wins. In the election of 1924, for example, 5-ft. 10-in. Calvin Coolidge defeated John Davis, who was 5 ft. 11 in.

LiftKits interview at Sundance Film Festival 2009

March 4, 2009

LiftKits interview with Tropikana TV at Sundance Film Festival 2009

Why are tall women considered superior to shorter women?

January 24, 2009

Why are tall women considered superior to shorter women?

Because if you’re tall like Uma Thurman, other women think you’re more intelligent, assertive and independent, and if you’re as short as Kylie Minogue, you’re merely considerate and nurturing

By Roger Dobson

Generations of women have complained about high-heeled shoes and the crushed toes and bunions they suffer for the sake of an extra inch or two. Now ground-breaking research has proved their sacrifice is not in vain.

Both men and women judge a tall female on first sight as more intelligent, assertive, independent and ambitious. For good measure, they are also judged richer and more successful, whatever the reality.

Psychologists at the universities of Liverpool and Central Lancashire have run the first scientific experiments to prove that “heightism” – which has always been associated with competition between men – colours our view of women’s talents too.

They found that when volunteers were shown digitally lengthened and shortened pictures of women, they made a series of instant judgments about their likely personalities, not all of them flattering. According to Dr Simon Chu, who led the research, it is “the first direct evidence that female height influences perception of their character”.

Tall women do not have things all their own way. The researchers also found that the male volunteers judged small women to be more nurturing and likely to be better mothers.

Shorter women also get support from a separate new analysis from University College London, which shows that women with an hour-glass figure – associated more commonly with small and medium-sized rather than tall females – are seen not only as more attractive, but more intelligent, flirtatious, healthy and fertile. They found that women whose waist was 70 per cent of the size of their hips were thought the most attractive, as well as the most intelligent.

In the Liverpool and Lancashire study, psychologists manipulated pictures of women standing against cars so that the same casually dressed woman appeared in different images to be tall or short. The height of the shorter women was just under 5ft 1in and the taller females 5ft 8in. A hundred men and women, aged 18 to 62, were then asked to rate the women for eight characteristics.

Men believed that shorter women were more considerate, nurturing and homely. However, women on the panel believed that there was no difference between tall and short women for these three traits.

Why men see short females as more caring and more homely is not clear. One theory is that taller women mature sexually later, because more energy is being expended on growing at a time when the reproductive system is developing. Other research has shown that shorter women have more reproductive success – which may be why men see them as more nurturing.

“The accumulating evidence converges on the view that short stature is linked with reproduction, while tall stature is linked with strength,” the report says.

At the same time, expending more energy on growing means that taller women are bigger and stronger, both of which are associated with independence and self-reliance.

Certainly, they are well represented on the public stage. Nicole Kidman, at 5ft 11in, has hardly been held back, although she was unable to wear heels while married to the significantly shorter Tom Cruise. Nor has Uma Thurman, at 6ft. Jodie Kidd, another six-footer, says her height has rarely been a handicap. “I’ve always been very content with the way I look. The only time being so tall has been a problem was when I was showjumping – my feet used to hang down and knock down all the fences.”

The aptly named Liz Large, who runs a clothing company for tall women, said: “I’m 6ft 1in, and it does mean you are noticed automatically. At work I was promoted very young – people just assumed I was grown up and a safe pair of hands.”

Dr David Weeks, a consultant clinical neuropsychologist at the Superyoung clinic in Edinburgh said: “In the past in Britain, being tall has been associated with leadership and social class. If you go back to the early 1940s when they were sorting out who was suitable to be an officer, there three factors – height, dash and moustache. The more, you had the better. Being tall can make a good first impression but it can also be far more enduring and long lasting in people’s perceptions.”

Not that being short is always a handicap. Dr Ros Taylor, a clinical psychologist who has researched image, believes that any advantage a tall person has lasts for a maximum of 30 seconds, after which the positive impression has to be backed up by substance.

“It’s not as if when you are tall that in itself gives you power. It is an initial advantage, and it certainly is an advantage, but if you don’t have it there are other compensations” – an argument that Kylie Minogue, 5ft 1in, and Charlotte Church, 5ft 2in, would support wholeheartedly.

LiftKits Launches Height Increasing Insole Product

December 25, 2008

For those of us who were not fortunate enough to be born into a family of NBA All-Stars or had parents kind enough to pump us full of HGH (Human Growth Hormone) when they noticed we were smaller than the average kid – there is now help (hope).
LiftKits height increasing insoles gives us the opportunity to be more competitive and carry the confidence of people who have always been taller than us.

The 1 and 2 inch height increasing insoles are now available for purchase at The site is in a very early beta so if you experience any issues or just have questions, the company can be reached at or emailed directly at You can also post questions to GetSatisfaction where the company as well as other wearers of the LK insoles might assist you.

The LiftKits team likes to communicate with its customers in as many ways as possible. You can find them on:
Facebook (has the most comprehensive info and images about the product)
YouTube (How to’s – coming soon)

Real Celebrity Heights (or not so much)

December 17, 2008

Ever wonder how tall your favorite celebrities are? We’ll be publishing more of these from time to time.

Tom Cruise 5′ 7 ”

Robin Williams 5′ 7 ”

Dustin Hoffman 5 ‘ 6 ”

Al Pacino 5′ 5 1/2 ”

Seth Green 5 ‘ 4 ”

Dudley Moore 5 ‘ 2 1/2 ”

Danny DeVito 5 ‘ 0 ”


Drew Barrymore 5 ‘ 4 ”

Mena Suvari 5 ‘ 4 ”

Jodie Foster 5 ‘ 3 1/2 ”

Reese Witherspoon 5 ‘ 2 ”

Kristin Chenoweth 4 ‘ 11 ”

The Height of Success

December 5, 2008

Published: November 5, 2006


How Height Affects the Health,

Happiness, and Success of Boys —

and the Men They Become.

By Stephen S. Hall.

388 pp. Houghton Mifflin. $26.

To the many indignities visited upon shorter than average males — lower incomes, disadvantage in mate selection, cut rates for their deposits at the local sperm bank, long odds of making the N.B.A. — has now been added this one: short people are stupider than tall people. That’s the finding of a recent study by two Princeton economists who conclude, painfully for those of us who are south of 5 feet 9 inches, that the reason taller people make more money is that they are smarter.

That finding was published too late to make it into Stephen Hall’s provocative book, but it’s in keeping with the litany of obstacles arrayed against short men that he documents in ”Size Matters.” Consider the very word ”stature.” Its primary definition refers to physical height, but it can also connote everything from presence and charisma to virtue and importance; on a metaphorical level, height and worthiness of esteem are linked in the human mind. ”Nobility of soul accompanies tallness of body,” wrote one 18th-century German physician, reflecting the conventional wisdom of the time. Repeated studies in the modern era have shown that people unconsciously ascribe positive qualities to the tall: in addition to being deemed more intelligent, tall people are automatically considered more likable, more dependable and more commanding. It seems that benefits accrue to the tall beginning almost from birth, and then keep accruing, leading to what is, generally speaking, a society where the tall lead and the short follow — an ”altocracy,” as Hall puts it. Only 3 of 43 American presidents — James Madison, Benjamin Harrison and Martin Van Buren — have been under 5 feet 7 inches, and it is well known that the taller of two presidential candidates usually wins the election.

The association of height with cultural desirability and even existential value has deep historical roots. The Roman historian Tacitus, writing in the first century A.D., associated height with both strength and moral virtue. Drawing on Tacitus and his successors, King Frederick William of Prussia became obsessed with recruiting — and breeding — an army of behemoths in the early 1700’s. His so-called Potsdam Giants regiment was led by a man reported to be over 7 feet tall, and included at least one mercenary well over 8 feet; none of the Giants were under 6 feet. (James Tanner, the dean of human growth studies, has observed that this was probably the tallest group of men assembled before the advent of professional basketball in America.) Other militaries emulated Frederick (taller soldiers had longer strides, could thrust their bayonets farther, and had an easier time reloading their long rifles) and Hall argues that it was at this point in history — when tall soldiers were more coveted than shorter ones — that the market (and moral) value of height first became institutionalized.

As a man of a mere 5 feet 5 and three-quarters inches himself, Hall is on something of a quest, seeking not just to understand the science and culture of stature but also to come to terms with what the cartoonist Garry Trudeau has called his ”inner shrimp” — that distinctive ”I’m smaller than the rest of the world so I hope I don’t get beaten up” outlook that is imprinted at an early age and never dispelled, no matter what our final adult heights. Mixing traditional science reporting with personal anecdote, Hall ranges widely across popular culture and the scientific literature to explore such issues as what the average height of a population can reveal about culture and society (Why are the Dutch so tall? And why are Americans becoming relatively shorter?), and how the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of human growth hormone as a ”treatment” for undersize children in 2003 changed the politics and science of height. Here’s an interesting philosophical question: If what matters psychologically is relative height, by treating short children with growth hormone, aren’t we creating a whole new class of undersize ”victims,” the untreated kids they surpass in height? Have we launched an arms race of avoiding shortness? If so, it’s not hard to understand why. As Hall puts it, height matters because ”it clearly has an impact on social perceptions, romantic interactions, workplace hierarchies and our self-perception long after we’ve stopped growing.”

Article continues here: NY Times