Having a big waist may raise women's death rates, even in women who aren't overweight. The results of a recent study of 44,600 female nurses who were enrolled in a long-term health study showed that large waists were worse for you than being overweight. Being in the normal weight range was less important than having a waist less than 34.6 inches and a waist-to-hip ratio of less than 0.88 .
To calculate your waist-to-hip ratio, divide your waist measurement by your hip measurement. "Although maintaining a healthy weight should continue to be a cornerstone in the prevention of chronic diseases and premature death, it is equally important to maintain a healthy waist size and prevent abdominal obesity," the researchers reported in the April 1 edition of Circulation.
When the nurses were 40 to 65 years old, they measured their waists and hips for the study. At the time, none had had heart disease or cancer. Every two years, they updated their health and lifestyle records for the study, including their physical activity, smoking, alcohol use, and menopausal status.
The nurses health was accuratly tracked for 16 years. During the time of the study, a total of 3,507 of the nurses died, including 751 who died of heart disease and 1,748 who died of cancer. Regardless of other factors, including BMI (body mass index, which relates height to weight), women with larger waists and greater waist-to-hip ratios had higher death rates from all causes, including heart disease and cancer, which are the top two killers of U.S. women. For example, among women of normal weight, those with a waist larger than 34.6 inches were three times as likely to die of heart disease, compared to women with smaller waists. Large hips weren't a problem, if the waist wasn't also large. In fact, having large hips and a small waist was associated with lower risk of death from heart disease.
Simply measuring your waist is all that's needed. The researchers found that waist-to-hip ratio was a worse predictor of death rates and was more effort.
Cuilin Zhang, MD, PhD, of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development used the definitions for abdominal obesity recommended by the American Heart Association and U.S. Department of Agriculture. Those ranges are waist circumference of 34.6 inches for women and 40 inches for men.
The study doesn't definately prove that abdominal fat is lethal. Observational studies like this one don't prove cause and effect.
Actually, a lot depends on you and which you like best: blogs or traditional websites, and also what you want the traffic for. I also wonder why the distinction is being made, since anybody serious about internet marketing and getting plenty of traffic, will use both. There is really no need to choose one or the other. However, when I hear such arguments I get the feeling that it is more academic than which provides the more traffic. Feelings, however can be wrong, so it is worth discussion.
When you think about it, the type of traffic you get from a blog could very well have different needs and interests to those that reached your site after carrying a search on Google or Yahoo using specific keywords. OK, you can get to blogs from search engines also, and through the use of keywords, but if you are looking to buy something you wouldn't normally log onto a blog, would you?
Let's say you wanted the best price for a gross of Titleist golf balls, you wouldn't visit a blog site. Similarly if wanted to discuss their benefits, you would go to a blog or a forum. Sometimes it gets difficult to tell the difference these days, since blogs are becoming increasingly more interactive, but you get my general drift. I hope!
With a blog you can advertise whatever you want to, and the same is true of a website. However, you are more likely to make a direct purchase from a website, and to seek information from a blog. Hence, the traffic you get on a blog are information seekers and those on your website may also be looking for info, but might also be wanting to make a purchase. So right away we can kind of separate blog readers from website visitors.
It's not a well defined separation, but bloggers tend not to be looking for something different to what a search engine user is looking for. If you have a blog on your website, your blog page will be likely to attract prospects that will tend to be more regular visitors than those that are checking out your website. If the latter don't respond to your opt-in form, you will be unlikely to see them again, but a visitor to your blog page might return frequently.
However, to return to the question: what is better, blog traffic or SEO traffic, as long as each is free it doesn't really matter I would have thought. I suppose that it could be argued that the SEO traffic is more focussed because they have used your specific keywords to get to the page they landed on ,and blog traffic could come from ezines and other sources that are perhaps not specific to any product you are selling. Me, I would accept any traffic no matter where it came from, and quite frankly once the traffic gets to your webpage it is up to you to convert it to sales.
The difference between the two is that if you don't make an immediate impact with the SEO visitors, you could be struggling to keep them returning to your website, but you are likely to have more time with the bloggers, since they tend to keep coming back to the blog. The SEO visitors might register with your opt-in page, but that only allows you to keep in contact with them, and you still have to try to induce them to return to your website.
On the other hand, the blog readers need no such inducement, since they visit your site each time you publish a new posting. That is assuming that your blog is on your own website, and not on the blog server as many (perhaps most) are.
Perhaps I am completely on the wrong track, but I will keep tabs on it and report on my website what my findings are regarding blog traffic and SEO traffic, and whether or not one tends to buy more that the other. It is useful to know, since for a website that is designed to sell products it can determine whether or not it is worth having a blog on your site or keep trying to improve your SEO.
That is a big decision to make, and if it could make the difference between success and failure then it should be determines mathematically and scientifically rather than by conjecture and opinion. It is scientific testing that frequently makes the difference between those that are successful in internet marketing and those that fail.
So, is blogging traffic or SEO traffic generation the best? Who knows? I hope to know shortly though, and I will share it with you on my site when I finish my testing.
Both Matthew Bettison & Peter Nisbet are contributors for EditorialToday. The above articles have been edited for relevancy and timeliness. All write-ups, reviews, tips and guides published by EditorialToday.com and its partners or affiliates are for informational purposes only. They should not be used for any legal or any other type of advice. We do not endorse any author, contributor, writer or article posted by our team.