Sharing, otherwise knows redistributing wealth, does not come naturally to everyone, and researchers at the University of California in Santa Barbara are convinced that it does not come as often of as easily to men with great upper body strength. Strange? Not so much. A UC Santa Barbara news release reports that when researchers analyzed data on bicep size, socioeconomic status, and support for economic redistribution from hundreds of people in the United States, Argentina, and Denmark, they found that stronger men are more likely to assert their economic self interest.

What counts as self-interest regarding redistribution, however, varies based on socioeconomic status. Redistribution increases the share of resources of men with fewer resources, and decreases the share of resources of wealthier men. “Men of low-socioeconomic status stand to gain, whereas men of high-status stand to lose,” the researches wrote. “What we found is that higher upper-body strength exacerbates your self-interested stance. Bigger biceps correlate with more support for redistribution among low-socioeconomic status men, and with more opposition to redistribution among high-socioeconomic status men.”

The researchers found that, conversely, men with lower upper-body strength were less likely to assert themselves. High-socioecomic status men of this group showed less resistance to redistribution, while those of low socioeconomic status showed less support.

“Our results demonstrate that physically weak males are more reluctant than physically strong males to assert their self-interest,” said one of the paper’s lead authors. What about you. Would you like to share this story?

The good news? There is some truth to the adage “practice makes perfect.” The bad news? In most cases, two thirds of all cases, according to researchers at Michigan State University, the adage is approximately one third truth and two-thirds fiction. A Michigan State news release reports that researchers analyzed 14 studies of chess players and musicians, looking specifically at how practice was related to differences in performance. Practice, they found, accounted for only about one-third of the differences in skill in both music and chess. The rest, says Michigan State University’s Zach Hambrick, is explained by intelligence or innate ability, as well as the age at which people start the particular activity. A previous study conducted by Hambrick suggested that working memory capacity – which is closely related to general intelligence – may sometimes be the deciding factor between being good and great. Wait, Hambrick also found more good news in his results: “If people are given an accurate assessment of their abilities and the likelihood of achieving certain goals given those abilities,” he said, “they may gravitate toward domains in which they have a realistic chance of becoming an expert through deliberate practice.” In other words, they won’t overreach. Read more from Michigan State.

Yes, calcium is good for your bones, but it’s also good for the amount of time you spend on earth. That, according to research conducted at McGill University. A McGill news release reports that researchers analyzed data from the large-scale Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study, hoping to learn if calcium and vitamin D intake were associated with overall increased risk of death. And the answer is…complicated. The researchers found no evidence that vitamin D influenced mortality in any way. They also found that women who took up to 1,000 mg of calcium a day did live longer than those who took no calcium. And finally, calcium did nothing to improve the longevity of men. Read more from McGill University.