Here, here, Spibby of Xark!

They say a lot about what the studies report (Shocker! A rock ‘n’ roll lifestyle is not conducive to longevity!), but say very little about what they mean or what you or I, or even a rock ‘n’ roller, should do about any of this. You’re either genetically skinny or you’re not. If you’re a heterosexual female, you’re also either hot enough or you’re not (interesting that these two stories came out on the same day, no?). And it turns out that, in both cases, being skinny and “hot” may not be the best thing, except the articles don’t go into too much detail about what you could or could not do about it if you were or were not. You are whatever you are, and then that’s that. Frankly, it’s neither science nor reporting so much as it is just charting. They put the diagram up on the board, and then you stand next to it and see how you measure up. What comes next … well, apparently that isn’t important. To my mind, I don’t think it is too much to ask of science journalism that, when reporting a study, they take a few steps out on the limb and and answer the notorious “So what?” question.