or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Personal Growth › Boobs...Yuck!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Boobs...Yuck! - Page 4

post #61 of 89
I think that Strong Believer slipped when she used 1800 as a general date to make assertions about traditional diet. There is plenty of research that pre-agricultural homo sapiens had different bodies. World Without Cancer and Angry, Brutish, and Short? are two books that come to mind. There is ample archeological evidence of straight teeth, and long bones, in the presence of adequate traditional diets, and yes, it is likely that one can extrapolate about other tissues being healthy.

As for the toxin / boob connection, the way it works is that the toxins are generally detoxified through liver pathways (and others through sweat and lymph). When the toxins clog these pathways, they decrease liver function. One function of the liver is to process out hormones as they cycle. Clogged liver (often deficient from gestation due to chronic vitamin A deficiency in our populace) = estrogen dominance = larger breasts. We also eat too much wheat, which overloads our liver and increases prolactin.

Someone made the assertion in the bra-free tribe that some African cultures stretch and roll the breasts to make them appear longer, as that is more attractive and indicative of having breastfed more children. I don't know the citation for that assertion, but either way, laughing at African women's bodies seems highly inappropriate to me.

And no, stretch marks are not entirely genetic- epigenetics play a great role, via Vitamin C and Zinc deficiencies, among other issues.
post #62 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdnaMarie View Post


That is hilarious. She's thinking, "This is going to be my biggest, smoothest, roundest baby YET!!!"
Bigger, yes, smoother, no. Volleyballs are not smooth at all. They have ridges, and lots of them.
post #63 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Purity♥Lake~ View Post
Bigger, yes, smoother, no. Volleyballs are not smooth at all. They have ridges, and lots of them.
Okay, well in my experience eggs are pebbly and even with the ridges, volleyballs are relatively smooth. One can only speculate the potential child the mother bird was envisioning... too bad birds don't have a version of makemybaby.com. You know you upload a picture of the volleyball and yourself and the bird that humped you and... voila!
post #64 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Purity♥Lake~ View Post
Bigger, yes, smoother, no. Volleyballs are not smooth at all. They have ridges, and lots of them.
I'm now more interested in the egg/volleyball thing than the breast issue.
post #65 of 89
Here you go-

HOME MADE IMPLANTS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wFhSbJWWZM
post #66 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by E.V. Lowi View Post
Here you go-

HOME MADE IMPLANTS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wFhSbJWWZM
post #67 of 89
Quote:
He had is doctorate in dentistry, therefore he was also a doctor..
Nooooo. This is a huge mistake, to think that a doctor of an academic subject is qualified to practice medicine or comment on medical issues like a medical doctor.

"Doctor" has two definitions. One is "medical doctor" (the term "doctor" being shorthand). The other is a rarely-used title for people who have completed a certain level of education. You can be a doctor of philosophy but that doesn't mean you can comment on human biology as an expert!

Quote:
doctor |ˈdäktər|
noun
1 a qualified practitioner of medicine; a physician.
• a qualified dentist or veterinary surgeon.
• [with adj. ] informal a person who gives advice or makes improvements : the script doctor rewrote the original.
2 ( Doctor) a person who holds a doctorate : he was made a Doctor of Divinity.
• short for Doctor of the Church .
• archaic a teacher or learned person : the wisest doctor is graveled by the inquisitiveness of a child.
3 an artificial fishing fly.
Okay, THREE definitions. But we'll just assume you were not going to consult fishing flies about your physical ailments...
post #68 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdnaMarie View Post
Nooooo. This is a huge mistake, to think that a doctor of an academic subject is qualified to practice medicine or comment on medical issues like a medical doctor.

"Doctor" has two definitions. One is "medical doctor" (the term "doctor" being shorthand). The other is a rarely-used title for people who have completed a certain level of education. You can be a doctor of philosophy but that doesn't mean you can comment on human biology as an expert!
Whoa, okay. My bad. That is an assumption I should have Googled. :P That being said, I wonder why in all the info about him out there he is called DR. Weston A. Price... I think that was the basis for my assumption. Dude still knew what he was talking about.
post #69 of 89
I'm trying to catch up on this thread -- I haven't been on the forums for quite some time.

I'm struggling with StrongBeliever's strong opinions on the subject of Bras and their alleged connection to Breast Cancer. I just read this on a webpage titled "Do Bras Really Cause Breast Cancer?":

Quote:
The brouhaha over bras and breast cancer was triggered in 1995 when two men published a study which they claimed proved a positive link between bras and breast cancer. Unfortunately, this study is a classic example of a very common problem in science: the tendency to link correlation with causation. The group of women in the study was too small to draw any meaningful conclusions about whether or not bras cause breast cancer, and the higher rates of breast cancer in women who used bras could have been attributed to a number of factors.

The study looked a 4,700 American women in five major cities, and it was supplemented with a study of women in Fiji. The American women had higher cancer rates in general than women in Fiji, and the authors erroneously decided that this was because the American women were more likely to wear bras. Of course, women in Fiji are exempt from many risk factors for breast cancer; for example, white women are at the highest risk for breast cancer, especially when they live in urban areas with a wide range of environmental pollutants, exactly like the women in this study.
You can read more about it here: http://www.wisegeek.com/do-bras-real...ast-cancer.htm
post #70 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by provocativa View Post
I think that Strong Believer slipped when she used 1800 as a general date to make assertions about traditional diet. There is plenty of research that pre-agricultural homo sapiens had different bodies. World Without Cancer and Angry, Brutish, and Short? are two books that come to mind. There is ample archeological evidence of straight teeth, and long bones, in the presence of adequate traditional diets, and yes, it is likely that one can extrapolate about other tissues being healthy.

As for the toxin / boob connection, the way it works is that the toxins are generally detoxified through liver pathways (and others through sweat and lymph). When the toxins clog these pathways, they decrease liver function. One function of the liver is to process out hormones as they cycle. Clogged liver (often deficient from gestation due to chronic vitamin A deficiency in our populace) = estrogen dominance = larger breasts. We also eat too much wheat, which overloads our liver and increases prolactin.

Someone made the assertion in the bra-free tribe that some African cultures stretch and roll the breasts to make them appear longer, as that is more attractive and indicative of having breastfed more children. I don't know the citation for that assertion, but either way, laughing at African women's bodies seems highly inappropriate to me.

And no, stretch marks are not entirely genetic- epigenetics play a great role, via Vitamin C and Zinc deficiencies, among other issues.
post #71 of 89
I thought it was just the stiff metal under wires that caused breast tumors.

I found this interesting-

http://www.bodymechanics.net/subpages/breast.html
post #72 of 89
E.V. Lowi,

I have read in several places that damage to the breast does not increase your risk of developing breast cancer. So it would be a natural conclusion, then, to say that if you damage your breast by wearing an incorrectly fitted bra, that the damage will not increase your risk of breast cancer.

The study mentioned in that post was the same study that I quoted in my above post. The study is actually a book, you can buy it on Amazon for $12 if you want to pay for it. But before you buy their book, I suggest you read some of these one-star reviews.

I am not convinced that wearing a bra makes my breasts "unhealthy", and I will continue to wear a bra when I want my breasts to look more "perky". I do it because it makes ME feel sexy, not for anyone else.
post #73 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kivgaen View Post
E.V. Lowi,

I have read in several places that damage to the breast does not increase your risk of developing breast cancer. So it would be a natural conclusion, then, do say that if you damage your breast by wearing an incorrectly fitted bra, that the damage will not increase your risk of breast cancer.

The study mentioned in that post was the same study that I quoted in my above post. The study is actually a book, you can buy it on Amazon for $12 if you want to pay for it. But before you buy their book, I suggest you read some of these one-star reviews.

I am not convinced that wearing a bra makes my breasts "unhealthy", and I will continue to wear a bra when I want my breasts to look more "perky". I do it because it makes ME feel sexy, not for anyone else.
I don't think the link is so much about damage to the breasts as it is the blockage of the lymph and how you can ameliorate this with the proper breast massage.

Some doctors believe that the mammogram can even cause breast cancer by smashing the delicate tissue and then shooting it with the radiation. When the tissue begins to repair, the cells multiply excessively causing the tumors.

And FWIW, I have read about and also have been counseled by my doctors to avoid under-wire bras.
post #74 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kivgaen View Post
I'm trying to catch up on this thread -- I haven't been on the forums for quite some time.

I'm struggling with StrongBeliever's strong opinions on the subject of Bras and their alleged connection to Breast Cancer. I just read this on a webpage titled "Do Bras Really Cause Breast Cancer?":

You can read more about it here: http://www.wisegeek.com/do-bras-real...ast-cancer.htm
There was also a time when cigarette smoking only had an "alleged connection" to lung cancer. A correlation with cancer risk is one of the reasons why I chose to stop wearing a bra... Anything that reduces the the circulation and lymphatic flow to an area of the body can't be good. When it comes to something as serious as breast cancer(many cases of which are from lifestyle and environmental factors and preventable) I am not going to play around with ANYTHING that has a reasonable correlation to breast cancer. These guys weren't saying that wearing pink socks on Tuesdays causes breast cancer... It's based on science.
post #75 of 89
Quote:
These guys weren't saying that wearing pink socks on Tuesdays causes breast cancer... It's based on science.
If it were in fact based on "science", I would take them seriously. But the research wasn't based on "science". Neither of the authors, Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer, are trained as medical doctors, medical research doctors, statisticians, or epidemiologists. Their background does not, in and of itself, make them sloppy or poor researchers, but it does diminish their authority to speak on the subject of causation of breast cancer.

They also observed a high percentage of breast cancer in a certain group, but did not eliminate OTHER factors that could also have caused the increase in breast cancer. If they happened to observe that a majority of the breast cancer cases wore a gold wedding band and the ones without a gold wedding band had less incidence of breast cancer, they could similarly make the same claim that wearing a gold wedding band caused their breast cancer.

In their study, the majority of breast cancer cases were white females in a high-population city. Maybe the cause was them being white? Or being in a high-population (and therefore high-smog, high-polluted area)? In the study, they didn't match up similar backgrounds, genetics, race, etc. with the control group. They didn't eliminate all OTHER possible explanations for the discrepancy in the numbers. The "cause" of the increase in breast cancer could have been attributed to any other number of potential known risks for breast cancer. The "Cause" may also have just been in relation to a larger cup-size. If you have a larger cup-size, then there is more breast tissue. The more breast tissue that you have, perhaps, the more likely it is that a cancerous mutation will occur in some of that tissue. And it also follows that a larger cup-size woman is more likely to wear a bra. So then the cause may not even be related to the bra at all -- it could just be the SIZE of the breast!

I haven't seen any OTHER significant studies that show the correlation between wearing a bra and breast cancer. If it was such a bad, evil, nasty thing, there would be at least one study to back up their claims... I'm looking, but I haven't found one yet. This "breakthrough" study, as the authors claim, was 15 years ago. If it were such a "breakthrough", the medical community would have taken it more seriously.

Anyway, I really don't care either way. I'm not at risk regardless, I only wear a bra on special occasions, and almost never when I'm at home, so I'm well under the 12 hours/day that was quoted in the study.
post #76 of 89
Anyway
My boobs suck!
post #77 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by mom2happy View Post
Anyway
My boobs suck!
Lol... Point taken.

I echo what previous posters have said -- an expensive well-fitting bra works wonders for me.
post #78 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kivgaen View Post
Lol... Point taken.

I echo what previous posters have said -- an expensive well-fitting bra works wonders for me.
I was just playing.
If I could only find a well fitting bra. When Im done nursing (did I mention how lovely they are when Im nursing?)
Anyway when Im done nursing and they are back to size AA and deflated, I will look in the teenage section for a sexy bra.

I shouldnt be able to FIND a sexy bra in the training bra area, but have you seen them lately.
It's like Fredricks of Hollywood stuff. I dread the day DD wants to go bra shopping.
post #79 of 89
I went to la senza, (only because I'm Canadian and Victoria secret wasn't a viable option) and my experience was very pleasant. It was an expensive trip, but well worth it, IMHO.


ETA: if at all possible, arrange your trip to occur during the day on a week day. You are more likely to get better service and will probably get a full-time bra fitter to help you. If you have a specific outfit in mind that you want to look fabulous wearing, bring it with you. I've always had breasts on the small side and never knew it was possible to actually show cleavage!!!
post #80 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda on the move View Post
I'm now more interested in the egg/volleyball thing than the breast issue.
Here's more if you're curious:

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Supernormal_Stimuli
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Personal Growth
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Personal Growth › Boobs...Yuck!