Boobs...Yuck! - Page 3 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#61 of 89 Old 10-20-2010, 12:50 PM
 
provocativa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,794
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
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.
provocativa is offline  
#62 of 89 Old 10-20-2010, 02:14 PM
 
~PurityLake~'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anchorage, Alaska, US
Posts: 6,148
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.

Katreena, peace.gif 39 year old Alaskan treehugger.gif Mama to 1 hearts.gif and 1 lady.gif gd.gif
 
 
 
 

~PurityLake~ is offline  
#63 of 89 Old 10-20-2010, 03:10 PM
 
EdnaMarie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,148
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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!

It's not that the stay-at-home-parent gets to stay home with the kids. The kids get to stay home with a parent. Lucky Mom to DD1 (4 y) and DD2 (18 mo), Wife to Mercenary Dad
EdnaMarie is offline  
#64 of 89 Old 10-20-2010, 07:49 PM
 
Linda on the move's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: basking in the sunshine
Posts: 10,643
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
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.

but everything has pros and cons  shrug.gif

Linda on the move is online now  
#65 of 89 Old 10-20-2010, 07:56 PM
 
E.V. Lowi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 2,959
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Here you go-

HOME MADE IMPLANTS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wFhSbJWWZM
E.V. Lowi is offline  
#66 of 89 Old 10-21-2010, 12:16 AM
 
~PurityLake~'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anchorage, Alaska, US
Posts: 6,148
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by E.V. Lowi View Post
Here you go-

HOME MADE IMPLANTS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wFhSbJWWZM

Katreena, peace.gif 39 year old Alaskan treehugger.gif Mama to 1 hearts.gif and 1 lady.gif gd.gif
 
 
 
 

~PurityLake~ is offline  
#67 of 89 Old 10-21-2010, 06:25 AM
 
EdnaMarie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,148
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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...

It's not that the stay-at-home-parent gets to stay home with the kids. The kids get to stay home with a parent. Lucky Mom to DD1 (4 y) and DD2 (18 mo), Wife to Mercenary Dad
EdnaMarie is offline  
#68 of 89 Old 10-21-2010, 03:05 PM
 
StrongBeliever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Southwest MO
Posts: 712
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
StrongBeliever is offline  
#69 of 89 Old 10-21-2010, 03:07 PM
 
Kivgaen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 429
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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
Kivgaen is offline  
#70 of 89 Old 10-21-2010, 03:08 PM
 
StrongBeliever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Southwest MO
Posts: 712
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
StrongBeliever is offline  
#71 of 89 Old 10-21-2010, 03:27 PM
 
E.V. Lowi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 2,959
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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
E.V. Lowi is offline  
#72 of 89 Old 10-21-2010, 03:42 PM
 
Kivgaen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 429
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
Kivgaen is offline  
#73 of 89 Old 10-21-2010, 03:54 PM
 
E.V. Lowi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 2,959
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
E.V. Lowi is offline  
#74 of 89 Old 10-21-2010, 04:05 PM
 
StrongBeliever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Southwest MO
Posts: 712
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
StrongBeliever is offline  
#75 of 89 Old 10-21-2010, 09:32 PM
 
Kivgaen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 429
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
Kivgaen is offline  
#76 of 89 Old 10-21-2010, 10:25 PM
 
mom2happy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 992
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Anyway
My boobs suck!
mom2happy is offline  
#77 of 89 Old 10-21-2010, 11:52 PM
 
Kivgaen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 429
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
Kivgaen is offline  
#78 of 89 Old 10-22-2010, 12:21 AM
 
mom2happy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 992
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
mom2happy is offline  
#79 of 89 Old 10-22-2010, 01:02 AM
 
Kivgaen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 429
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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!!!
Kivgaen is offline  
#80 of 89 Old 10-22-2010, 03:33 AM
 
mambera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,308
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
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

Me, DH, DD1 (5/2009) and DD2 (10/2011).
I'm not crunchy. I'm evidence-based.

Vaccines save lives.

mambera is offline  
#81 of 89 Old 10-22-2010, 05:23 AM
 
EdnaMarie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,148
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
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.

It's not that the stay-at-home-parent gets to stay home with the kids. The kids get to stay home with a parent. Lucky Mom to DD1 (4 y) and DD2 (18 mo), Wife to Mercenary Dad
EdnaMarie is offline  
#82 of 89 Old 10-22-2010, 07:24 AM
 
graceomalley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 814
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
absolutely.

However, didn't she say
Quote:
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.
graceomalley is offline  
#83 of 89 Old 10-22-2010, 09:35 AM
 
C-Charm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 12
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda on the move View Post
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.
C-Charm is offline  
#84 of 89 Old 10-22-2010, 11:25 AM
 
StrongBeliever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Southwest MO
Posts: 712
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by graceomalley View Post
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 is offline  
#85 of 89 Old 10-22-2010, 11:53 AM
 
StrongBeliever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Southwest MO
Posts: 712
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by C-Charm View Post
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.
StrongBeliever is offline  
#86 of 89 Old 10-22-2010, 12:22 PM
 
Linda on the move's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: basking in the sunshine
Posts: 10,643
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by C-Charm View Post
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.

but everything has pros and cons  shrug.gif

Linda on the move is online now  
#87 of 89 Old 10-22-2010, 02:05 PM
 
Kivgaen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 429
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by StrongBeliever View Post
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?
Quote:
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.
Kivgaen is offline  
#88 of 89 Old 10-22-2010, 03:43 PM
 
livingfree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 56
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by StrongBeliever View Post

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.

mariah...wife to j(11/13/04) and mama to anwyn (08/18/06), my little lost one (06/29/08), kaeden and jamison (09/20/09).
livingfree is offline  
#89 of 89 Old 10-25-2010, 07:34 PM
 
Smokering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8,610
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
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.

If decomposition persists please see your necromancer.

Smokering is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off