There is a little secret out in the world. It is something pediatric experts and Hollywood wardrobe consultants have been using on their clients for years. This tool increases self-esteem and provides instant confidence. The secret is that height increasing shoes add inches right away.

Increase Inches Naturally

There are so many different gadgets or gimmicks on the market that say they will increase your height. The problem is that they either cost too much money or take too much time to achieve some doubtful results. LiftKits is a special shoe insole that naturally increases a person’s height right away.

Several Options Available

There are several elevator lift insoles available for people. The first choice depends on whether a person is male or female. At first, there were only male height shoes. This happened until the creators of LiftKits discovered females were using the products developed for males. Then, an insole especially for women was created.
The other option available to people pertains to height. The one version is called Hi-tops, which can be adjusted between 1.5” and 2.0”. This takes places with the help of a 0.5” detachable insert. The Lo-tops are also available and they add a full inch in height.

Height Increase Takes Place Quickly

One of the best things about LiftKits is that it takes place within minutes. This is so much better than time-consuming exercises or waiting for a growth hormone pill. The LiftKits lift insole relieves pressure around the spine and decreases any pressure found in the body’s joints.

Making You Taller

Not everyone needs to use a product like LiftKits, because they either have their height well-established or they don’t care how tall they are. For those who are bothered by their short stature, Liftkits is something to consider. It plays a major factor in confidence levels.

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 “

By Del Jones, USA TODAY
CEOs seem to instinctively know that it’s better to be authoritative than indecisive. They know about the vision thing and the passion thing. They even know a few leadership lessons that aren’t taught in business school — such as, it helps to be tall.

But an unscientific survey of USA TODAY’s panel of CEOs and other evidence suggest that baldness might be a blind spot for many.

TELL US: If you had to change your hair or your height to make it to the top of the corporate ladder, which would you choose?

CEOs say being bald doesn’t impede success and, given a choice, it’s better to be bald than short. So widely held is this conventional wisdom among top executives that when asked to choose, most CEOs say they’d take 2 more inches of height over a full head of Robert Redford hair.

Even most bald CEOs, including many who are both tall and bald, would choose to be taller. “Lack of hair can only mean the brain is busy with more important functions,” says Murray Martin, the 5-foot-8 CEO of $5.7 billion Pitney Bowes, who is being generous when he describes his hair as “thinning.”
FIND MORE STORIES IN: Oklahoma | John McCain | CEOs | Goldman Sachs | Morgan Stanley | Fortune | Forbes | Home Depot | Chevron | Steve Ballmer | Robert Redford | David Paterson | Dwight Eisenhower | New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer | Caucasian | Lloyd Blankfein | John Mack | Malcolm Gladwell | Blink | Pitney Bowes | David O’Reilly | Board of Plastic Surgery | TheLadders

“I don’t believe it ever (affected) my career. But as I progressed, it became less and less of an issue until it is now a point of pride and a personal branding advantage,” says Steve Carley, the 6-foot-1 bald CEO of El Pollo Loco. “It encourages approachability.”

As smart as they are, CEOs have been known as a group to get it wrong. It now appears that was the case just months ago when they almost universally said they didn’t see a recession looming. Could they also be collectively clueless about hair vs. height?

It’s not that being short is a career launching pad. Plenty of studies have found that taller men make more money, gain more success and attract more women. In his book Blink, Malcolm Gladwell says 30% of Fortune 500 CEOs are 6-foot-2 and taller — vs. just 4% of all men.

Bald men are a much bigger slice of the general population. The International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery estimates that 50% of Caucasian men older than 45 and 60% older than 60 have clinical balding. Stress can cause hair to fall out, so all things being equal, the percentage of bald leaders might be expected to be a little higher than average. Yet:

•If elected, John McCain would be the first bald U.S. president since Dwight Eisenhower. To be fair, baldness, unlike height, can be a matter of opinion. At 71, some might say McCain is doing OK in the hair department for his age group. But pictures of 42 presidents indicate that less than 25% were bald or balding, when statistically it should be at least half.

•There are 41 male state governors. Those who are bald or balding make up less than 20% and, yes, that includes the aptly named John Baldacci of Maine. The hair-loss club dropped a governor Wednesday when New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer announced he would resign after being linked as a client to a prostitution ring. He will be replaced by Lt. Gov. David Paterson, who is not bald. Only 10% to 20% of the 84 male U.S. senators are bald or balding.

•Among corporate CEOs, women run four of the largest 125 companies on the Fortune 500. USA TODAY examined photos of the men and considered about 25% to be bald or balding. Bald men running the nation’s largest companies include Chevron’s David O’Reilly, Home Depot’s Francis Blake, Morgan Stanley’s John Mack and Goldman Sachs’ Lloyd Blankfein.

•It may be more difficult to be bald and extremely rich. Warren Buffett, the richest man in the world, according to Forbes magazine, has lost hair in the past year but at 77 still retains a respectable amount. The richest American on the Forbes 400 list who is truly bald is No. 15 Steve Ballmer, CEO of Microsoft. The response of “no comment” was as much a male pattern among CEOs as was their hairline, and Microsoft was among the large corporations with bald or balding CEOs that did not respond to USA TODAY’s requests.

The 11 male U.S. billionaires ahead of Ballmer on the Forbes list have their own hair, or at least appear to. Hair transplants and toupees are still relatively uncommon. Sales of male wigs peaked in the 1970s, and New Hair Institute founder Dr. William Rassman says CEOs are probably no more likely to have rugs or plugs than all men of their age group.

Only 1% of 1,138 professionals making $100,000 or more who responded to an unscientific survey by TheLadders job website said they were bald and trying to cover it up; and just one hair transplant is performed on men for every five breast augmentations performed on women, according to the American Board of Plastic Surgery.

But the success rate of transplants has improved, and they cost less than $7,000 on average, $20,000 on the high end, no more than a one-way ride aboard a corporate jet. Rassman says he has performed hair-transplant surgery on more than 30 billionaires. He declined to identify them.

A 6-foot-6 man creates a commanding presence when he enters a meeting — a feat more difficult to achieve for someone inches shorter, says George Jones, the “follicly challenged” 5-foot-9 CEO of bookstore chain Borders Group. He oversees 34,000 employees and $4 billion in annual revenue.

USA TODAY surveyed its panel of CEOs, retired CEOs and leading executives. There was a lower response rate than for surveys on other topics, but 95% of the 74 who responded said, if given a choice, they would rather be bald than short. More telling is that the 31 CEOs who identified themselves as bald or “headed in that direction” in the unscientific survey were unanimous in saying that being vertically challenged is more detrimental to an aspiring executive’s career.

USA TODAY asked TheLadders to follow up with a survey. The job-search site for high-income professionals got 1,138 responses. Half said they still had as much hair as they did when teens, while 15% said they were bald, and 35% said they were headed in that direction. Among all respondents to the unscientific survey, 67% said 2 inches more in height would be better for career success, vs. 33% who said a full head of hair.

Those results mirrored another unscientific survey taken at USA TODAY’s request by Vistage International, an organization of CEOs. Vistage asked its membership: “If appearances count, what aspect is most helpful in advancing a person’s career?” Of the 219 responding, 66% said taller is better; 34% chose hair.

“I think they are in denial,” Rassman says. He says bald men of power have confessed to him that even they discriminate against other bald men.

Baby-face bias

Academia has largely ignored the impact of balding on success, but Yale University psychology professor Leslie Zebrowitz has written extensively about how people with round faces and other traits that resemble babies are perceived to be more immature in the workplace and in the courtroom by juries and judges.

Zebrowitz says she knows of no research that has tried to determine whether bald men are more likely to have baby faces than men with hair. But if bald men do look more babyish, “Then that could account for their under-representation among CEOs,” she says.

Nicholas Rule, who wrote the paper “The Face of Success,” published in February’s issue of Psychological Science, says bald men may be more likely to be victims of the “baby-face bias” described by Zebrowitz. In his study, Rule had Tufts University students look at photos of CEOs and offer their gut reactions about their leadership capabilities. At USA TODAY’s request, Rule examined the data and found that the photos of bald CEOs were considered by the students to be warmer but less powerful than CEOs with hair.

“A great smile is much better” than hair or height, says Howard Behar, the 5-foot-10 and bald former president of Starbucks North America. “I mean, look at Mitt Romney. Lots of hair. Tall and good-looking. Sure didn’t help him. Compare him to the Dalai Lama: short, no hair and not exactly a looker. Just call me the Dalai Behar.”

Some say that worse than bald is trying to cover it up with a “comb-over” that uses remaining hair to cover the exposed scalp. “Like most CEOs, I’m cognizant of my appearance,” says Bob Kodner, CEO of The Crack Team franchiser that fixes leaking basement cracks. Five years ago, Kodner saw his cranium in an elevator mirror and thought someone had “thrown a piece of baloney on my head.” Ever since, he’s been shaving his head once a week. His advice: Don’t “prolong the inevitable.”

Craigslist founder and Chairman Craig Newmark is bald and “almost” 5-foot-7. Company CEO Jim Buckmaster is a foot taller and rich in hair.

“The general Net community does regard me as eye candy, a la George Costanza” from Seinfeld, Newmark says, but he adds that neither bald nor short is a good thing in corporate life. When pressed to make a choice, Newmark says, “I’d prefer to be a few inches taller.”

[polldaddy poll=1185236]

SIZE MATTERS

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

[polldaddy poll=1169404]

Height

Female’s sexual attraction towards a male can be partly determined by the height of the man.[7] Women seem more receptive to an erect posture than men, though both prefer it as an element of beauty; this fact appears correlated to the preference for males who demonstrate confidence, physical strength, and a powerful bearing. This preference can be explained by evolutionary psychology as the fact that ancestral women who were attracted to tall, physically powerful men benefited from better protection and therefore gained evolutionary fitness.[8] Additionally, height in men is associated with status in many cultures, which is beneficial to women romantically involved with them. This preference was passed on genetically. As a corollary, short men are viewed as unattractive for both casual and intended long-term relationships. Studies of women’s personal ads support the existence of this preference; in one study of ads requesting height in a mate, 80 percent requested a height of 6 feet or taller. However, this percentage only was of ads specifying height in the first place, and therefore possibly self-selected and/or biased by a third factor such as female height.[8]

Recent research has found that women are statistically more likely to be attracted to men of average height when looking for long-term commitment, while the opposite is true when a short-term relationship is intended.[9] Cosmopolitan Magazine published an article stating that women are most attracted to men who are 1.1 times their own height. In addition, it was found that women have these different preferences for height depending on the phase of their menstrual cycle at the time. While women usually desire men that are at least the same height as themselves or taller, other factors also determine male attractiveness.[9] To read the entire Wiki on Attractiveness click here…

[polldaddy poll=1162651]

Barack himself will be the 9th tallest President in U.S history.

For the 47 elections in which the heights of both candidates are known, the taller candidate won 28 times (approximately 60% of the time), the shorter candidate won 17 times (approximately 36% of the time), and the candidates were the same height twice (about 4% of the time). Of those who were not President or Vice president at the time of the election, the popular vote was won by six who were shorter and sixteen who were taller. We might assume, however, that James Madison, the shortest President, was shorter than his opponent, and this would increase the number to seven for the shorter candidate.

It should be noted, however, that in three of the cases in which the shorter candidate won, the taller candidate actually received more popular votes but lost in the Electoral College; this happened in 1824, 1888, and 2000 (the other time that the electoral vote winner was not the popular vote winner was in 1876, for which we do not know the height of the loser) as noted by Wikipedia.org.