Boobs...Yuck! - Page 5

[EdnaMarie]

These guys weren't saying that wearing pink socks on Tuesdays causes breast cancer... It's based on science.

Science is a method that requires REPEATED experiments all showing the same thing, in more detail, with different environments.

This is one study and it's not even controlled. Science is a method, not an answer.

If bras caused cancer, imagine how many NEW over-the-shoulder-boulder-holders, "Proven not to cause cancer!" we'd all be asked to pay for. Everyone replacing every bra all at once? It'd be a bonanza for the bra companies.

I'm not convinced. Not least because, in case you were interested, breast cancer occurs where people don't wear bras. Rarely, because life expectancy isn't that long, but it happens.

[graceomalley]

Originally Posted by provocativa

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.

absolutely.

However, didn't she say

Compare the diet of an impoverished woman from a couple hundred years ago to the standard American diet eaten by many women today, and I'll bet the impoverished gal ate better.

The diet of an impoverished 'gal' (who is probably feeding 7 kids and has undergone 15 pregnancies - maybe back to back - if we're going with the idea that the life expectancy is 40 because of the rate of children dying before their 5th birthday) has a better diet than many women today is utterly laughable. And very, VERY different to pre-agricultural homo sapiens.

We have a very clear knowledge about the diet and lifestyles of people living in poverty a 'couple hundred years ago'. It was harrowing. We know this because surveys and photographs were taken. And their "jahoobies" (is that what she called them?) didn't look great. They certainly weren't perky.

Conditions in impoverished societies during that time were dirty, overcrowded and extremely unsanitary. You can not state that the diets of people living in these conditions were superior to the majority of American women today. Impoverished people a few hundred years ago didn't have enough money to buy food, let alone nourishing food - in London they entered workhouses, which were notorious for their poor food. The working class at this time in history lived on bread, butter, bacon and and potatoes. Families living in poverty survived on bread, gruel and broth (and the parents would have often gone without food in order to stop their surviving children from starving).

It's a very different picture to the Neolithic era, where the pre-agricultural diet of hunter gatherers is vastly superior to the diets of most people today, regardless of their socio economic status.

[C-Charm]

Originally Posted by Linda on the move

I'm curious if you are at a good weight for you and if you work out at all.

My breasts look best when I'm at my best weight and lifting weights a couple of times a week.

Building muscle strength and tone doesn't improve skin elasticity. Those are different issues.

[StrongBeliever]

Originally Posted by graceomalley

absolutely.

However, didn't she say

The diet of an impoverished 'gal' (who is probably feeding 7 kids and has undergone 15 pregnancies - maybe back to back - if we're going with the idea that the life expectancy is 40 because of the rate of children dying before their 5th birthday) has a better diet than many women today is utterly laughable. And very, VERY different to pre-agricultural homo sapiens.

We have a very clear knowledge about the diet and lifestyles of people living in poverty a 'couple hundred years ago'. It was harrowing. We know this because surveys and photographs were taken. And their "jahoobies" (is that what she called them?) didn't look great. They certainly weren't perky.

Conditions in impoverished societies during that time were dirty, overcrowded and extremely unsanitary. You can not state that the diets of people living in these conditions were superior to the majority of American women today. Impoverished people a few hundred years ago didn't have enough money to buy food, let alone nourishing food - in London they entered workhouses, which were notorious for their poor food. The working class at this time in history lived on bread, butter, bacon and and potatoes. Families living in poverty survived on bread, gruel and broth (and the parents would have often gone without food in order to stop their surviving children from starving).

It's a very different picture to the Neolithic era, where the pre-agricultural diet of hunter gatherers is vastly superior to the diets of most people today, regardless of their socio economic status.

I agree with what you are saying. I admit I wasn't terribly specific in the post you quoted as to which portion of the populace from the vague area I mentioned I was talking about. In a later post I clarified, stating that I was referring to the more rural isolated peoples found outside the reach of the Industrial Revolution(and yes, I was also nodding to being off on my dates!). If you take a woman from the group I was talking about from that time period who may be considered impoverished by today's standards(which maybe I didn't specify clearly, but meant) and compare her diet to that of the standard American diet, I think the first woman would come out ahead. When a stunning 30% calories is from junk food in the US? Compare that to the diet you stated eaten by the "working class" family... Pastured pork(couldn't afford to feed the pig grain), organic bread which was probably whole grain(couldn't afford to buy fancy white flour), grass-fed butter, and organic potatoes. Now I am assuming the grains and potatoes were organic, based on them not having access to GMO seeds and modern agricultural methods. And I bet they ate more veggies than the typical American, even though you didn't put that in your example of the working class diet. Those also were very likely organic and grown on soil that hadn't been depleted of nutrients from modern agriculture. What do we consider impoverished today? Subsisting on bacon, bread, butter, potatoes? Factory farmed, full of pesticides and hormones, hydrogenated, refined adding to that 30 percent of the calories coming from junk food like soda, candy and pop tarts with only ten percent getting the daily recommended fruit and veggies? THERE'S my comparison.

Of course the people who were impoverished by the standards of that day were going to be terribly unhealthy(hence the pictures of non-perky boobs? who knows?).

As for the iffy science behind the iffy study those guys did on bra wearing being connected to cancer... It's enough for me, based on everything else I know about bras and the known contributers to breast cancer. Are there studies that prove without a doubt that bras DO NOT contribute to breast cancer? I'd love to see them. And who's to say those studies are valid either? Aren't there studies saying vegetarianism is the perfect diet for everyone? Aren't there studies that say other equally false things? I am going first and foremost with what seems to me like common sense. Bras restrict circulation and lymphatic flow, which seems to me might be something that could contribute to breast cancer.

[StrongBeliever]

Originally Posted by C-Charm

Building muscle strength and tone doesn't improve skin elasticity. Those are different issues.

I think it is more about building up the pectoral muscle underneath the breast, making it bigger which makes the breast appear higher and/or larger. I think it's a very valid suggestion.

[Linda on the move]

Originally Posted by C-Charm

Building muscle strength and tone doesn't improve skin elasticity. Those are different issues.

no, but muscle strength around the breasts help hold the breasts in place.

Most women lose muscles mass as they age, and most women are carrying around more weight than they should. The combination isn't good for how our breasts look.

I lost weight and got in shape for other reasons (ironically, to decrease my chances of breast cancer), and having nicer boobs was just a side benefit.

My mother is a breast cancer survivor. I find the idea that if you want to reduce your chances of breast cancer, you should quit wearing a bra quite funny. The real things to do are:

1. maintain a healthy weight
2. Eat more fruits and vegetables -- 5-9 servings a day
3. exercise -- at least 30 minutes at a time, several times a week

If you don't want to wear and bra and feel that it will help, good for you. But these things have solid science behind them and should ALSO be done.

Monthly self exams are the key to early detection for most woman, and yearly mammograms once women are old enough (the exact age varies with the source you consult). These things raise the life expectancy for women who do end up with cancer. It's one thing to fight breast cancer, it's another thing to loose.

Anyway, I believe that we have the potential to eat healthier than any other generation before us because of access to a variety of produce year round. In past generations, people were very limited to what they grew, what could be stored, what the could afford, etc.

My DH grew up in Ireland and the year around produce he had has a child was limited to potatoes, parsnips, turnips & carrots -- because they grow in Ireland and are cheap. He also had apples when they were in season. He's from a large family without much money, and they couldn't afford imported produce, so if he doesn't grow in Ireland, he never ate it as a child. I can't help but this this would have been normal for most of humanity for most of history. (The exact foods varying from place to place, but the same kind of repetition and limits).

We can do soooo much better. It's really a choice at this point, and sadly many people chose to eat poptarts instead of blueberries.

[Kivgaen]

Originally Posted by StrongBeliever

Bras restrict circulation and lymphatic flow, which seems to me might be something that could contribute to breast cancer.

I guess I have a basic problem with the validity of your original premise (quoted above). That is a very blanket statement that applies to ALL bras, and I hold that the above premise, as written, is not true.

This is your basic argument:
1) Bras restrict movement of breasts.
2) Restricted movement of breasts reduces circulation and lymphatic flow
3) Restricted lymphatic flow and circulation creates a build-up of toxins
4) Excess or built-up of toxins is a contributing risk factor for Breast Cancer.
THEREFORE:
wearing bras is a contributing risk factor for Breast Cancer.

If all of the above 4 premises are true, then your conclusion would be valid.

Premise #4, as written above, is extremely simplified. But in general terms, I believe it to be factual.
Premise #1 is obviously true, but of course there are varying degrees of movement that is restricted by bras, so we enter into a grey area that is not just black or white. How much movement is restricted will depend on a number of factors, including: the type of bra, the cup-size of the bra, the tightness/style, whether the bra was an appropriate fit, etc.
Premise #3 sounds logical to me and might possibly be true, but I don't know enough about the subject. My Doctor friend always tells me that almost everything in excess is bad for you, (even water, believe it or not -- google "Water intoxication" if you don't believe me!), and most things in moderation aren't harmful. I also want to know "what happens to the toxins when they build up?" If I wear a "perky" bra, then my DH is more likely to move my breasts for me when he gets frisky. Does that massage and movement balance out the movement that was restricted by my wearing of the bra? If I didn't wear a bra, how much movement would I lose out on because DH isn't as "frisky"? If I get a regular massage, does that release the toxins that built up? there are too many questions here that are left unanswered!

I have a real problem with premise #2, because it's very vague, non-specific, and non-scientific. How much movement restriction is relevant? I have not seen significant data that proves to me to what degree that restricted movement of the breast reduces circulation and lymphatic flow to the breast. There are varying degrees of restricted movement. How much of the movement do you need to restrict before circulation and lymphatic flow is reduced?

And by the way -- if I have a sedantary lifestyle, then my movements are restricted already. How is wearing a bra or not wearing a bra going to increase or decrease my risk of breast cancer any more so than what I have already done to myself by sitting on my ass all day in front of a computer?

While we are on the subject of breast cancer, did you hear the exciting news about the new breakthrough in breast cancer research in Canada recently?

BC Cancer Agency scientists have decoded all of the three billion letters in the DNA sequence of a metastatic lobular breast cancer tumoura type of breast cancer which accounts for about 10 per cent of all breast cancers, and have found all of the mutations, or "spelling" mistakes that caused the cancer to spread.

you can read the full article here:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...-63694862.html

It's very exciting news!

When preventative DNA testing enters the main stream of medicine, I'll be sure to go regularly for my annual screening tests.

By the way -- did you know that some people believe that the screening test to catch breast cancer early, the mammogram, is also a risk factor for developing the very disease that it was built to diagnose? I know some people choose not to have mammograms for that reason. Their argument, on the surface, also seems very logical:

1) X-Rays Cause Cancer
2) The Mammogram is an X-Ray that is applied to the breast
3) The Mammogram squishes and damages breast tissue
4) Squished and damaged tissue is more susceptible to the effects of X-Rays
Therefore:
The Mammogram causes Breast Cancer.

Of course, even if the above argument IS true, I would still choose to get a mammogram. Because, while the risk of developing breast cancer from the mammogram may be really, really tiny, the risk of death from not catching my breast cancer from a much more likely cause (like a DNA gene known to have a high risk for a breast cancer mutation) is much greater than the potential risk from the X-Ray Mammogram.

Anyway. I think I've argued this point to death.

[livingfree]

Originally Posted by StrongBeliever

As for the iffy science behind the iffy study those guys did on bra wearing being connected to cancer... It's enough for me, based on everything else I know about bras and the known contributers to breast cancer. Are there studies that prove without a doubt that bras DO NOT contribute to breast cancer? I'd love to see them. And who's to say those studies are valid either? Aren't there studies saying vegetarianism is the perfect diet for everyone? Aren't there studies that say other equally false things? I am going first and foremost with what seems to me like common sense. Bras restrict circulation and lymphatic flow, which seems to me might be something that could contribute to breast cancer.

you can't prove a negative.

i used to go bra-free, before i had my dd. in fact, i was bra-free all during my pregnancy with her. i don't even remember what size i was then, maybe a 34DD? anyways, 3 kids later, 4 years of breastfeeding under my belt (and still going strong), i am a 34J and can't imagine going bra-free. sure, my bra sucks and is totally uncomfortable, but without it, my boobs are very pendulous and i would look ridiculous in my clothes. and be very hot and sweaty under my boobs, lol.

but i do take my bra off at home and wear it way less than the 12 hours talked about in the study.

[Smokering]

I think Weston A Price's research is being vastly misinterpreted in this thread.

WAP searched a number of preindustrial, isolated societies - those with strong, continuous food traditions, uninfluenced by modern Western foods such as vegetable oils and refined sugars. Among these societies he found several with excellent health, as defined by a number of criteria - low incidence of dental caries, well-formed dental arches and bone structure, homogenity of bone structure according to genetics, longevity, absence of degenerative diseases, etc. He also found many societies which did not meet these criteria. Studying those that did meet the criteria, he noticed certain commonalities: such as food preservation techniques that increased nutrient density (such as fermentation), liberal use of animal fats, and special preconception nutrition for men and women, along with child spacing to ensure the mother's nutrient levels remained high for each pregnancy. WAPF principles are based on these observations, as well as other research, and a number of quite different diets count as "Traditional Foods" according to the Foundation.

In other words, WAP NEVER claimed that EVERY pre-industrial society was healthy and ate well. Obviously there are some food issues which pre-industrial societies as a whole didn't have to deal with, such as soil depleted by chemical fertilisers and beef fed on chicken feathers and soybeans... but many societies had other problems we don't have today, as well. Many of the veggies we happily consume today were toxic, uncultivated, inedible wild plants back then, for instance - so a medieval peasant couldn't get lycopene from tomatoes. And in societies where birth control was frowned on, very close child spacing meant that even well-nourished people produced offspring that were hampered by maternal (and paternal) deficits.

So the average life expectancy 400 years ago is irrelevant to WAP's research. The life expectancy and disease rates of the ethnic groups whose nutrition he considered excellent are relevant.

And I have no idea how any of this relates to breast perkiness.