(Corrected accordingly thanks to the Sylvinator's chastening. Oh, the clumsiness of permanent intellectual addlement....)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(209)
-
▼
February
(35)
- WWJD? If he were a scary freakin' clown that is...
- The L-Word
- It'll Be A Tragedy! (Unless It Happens During A D...
- Woman In A Lampshade
- Ashes and Asses
- Back To That Same Old Place
- One Flu Over?
- When playing chicken goes horribly wrong
- Whatever you can muster
- Keys To The Gates
- Because A Little Pee Makes All The Difference
- Winning The Lovely Bugger Outright
- Anything Else?
- Whory Shearer
- So There IS An Advantage To The New Blogger
- Just One Book
- Medieval Tech Support
- There's A Tarantino Movie In There
- Feinting With Damned Praise
- Stop and Buy Goods (On a Snowy Afternoon)
- lub-dub, lub-dub
- It's All About Dixon Boys
- Fox News
- Let there be dancing in the streets, drinking in t...
- A New Development; Mark Your Calendars!
- Libretto By Sir Mix-A-Lot
- With A Parricidal Toe
- The Dragon In Winter
- Legislators Gone Wild
- Feared Science
- Once More Unto The Well
- Surely He Can't Be Serious
- Gloomy Tuesday
- Contractually Obligatory Friday Entry, or Fakes, F...
- Chats Nod Nod
-
▼
February
(35)
3 comments:
Article forgets to mention the fact that Britain is also Europe's fattest nation, and more fat equals...
(affect, dude. tsk, tsk.)
I guess there's not much point in wondering why on earth anyone would set out to answer this particular research question (market research for selling Victoria's Secret, presumably).
In any case, I don't think any solid conclusions can be drawn without taking into account data on breastfeeding rates/duration, augmentation/reduction surgery rates, average BMI, etc. And nobody's going to be arsed to carry out that study.
Sure, draw attention to my knee-jerk proofreading ... ;^)
Post a Comment