So… I’ve herd this story about how there exists a correlation between average bra sizes in the US and the percentage of cattle who receive hormones. That is, over time, as more cattle receive hormones for growth or mil-making, the average bra size in the US has increased. Supposedly, there exists a study done on this phenominon that shows it is a solid correlation. However, I have never seen said study, have no idea how accurate this putative study is, and have no actual evidence that such study even exists.
The questions:
[ol]
[li]Are there any studies that have been done to test whether there is a relationship between cattle getting hormones and human growth?[/li][li]How well have these studies isolated the variables? (e.g are things like the weight of the average American female and the frequency of augmentation surgeries taken into account?)[/li][li]Does the correlation exist?[/li][/ol]
Serious answers only. No bull, please.
Probably more to do with the general average increase in weight overall in america rather than hormones. Little quick for us to have selectively bred for larger breasts AFAIK.
Two possible explanations. America is fatter than ever; obesity is directly linked with larger breasts. Two, approximately 140,000 American women last year had breast augmentation surgery. That’s about 1.5 million women per decade.
I read a report similar to this. Can’t remember where, but it did attribute it to the increase in weight among americans. I believe it was an article in Men Fitness or something a month or so back.
How many American women had breast reduction surgery last year? That ought to offset the breast augmentation factor considerably. I know that breast reduction surgery has the highest satisfaction rate of any elective surgery in the US.
Any chance at all of seeing some evidence for this claim? The article you linked to states explicitely that “the fish gene-switching appears to come from compounds created by the breakdown of detergents and by plasticizers”, and hence has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with “medicines we and our cattle ingest… becoming a serious”.
I am extremely skeptical of any claim that the medicine people or cattle ingest could have any effect of the kind you claim. As others have noted, the quantities used are tiny, in the order of micrograms. Added to that these are all biological compounds and 100% biodegradable. I find it incredible that such tiny quantities were able to be detected much less have any effect even after hours or days of suspension in the bacterial broth that we call the sewage system.
To add to my extreme skecpticism the natural world is full of hormone, especially oestogen analogues. If the amount from “the remains from the medicines we and our cattle ingest” is creating serious problems then the amount created from forests must have been playing havok for eons, being orders of magnitude higher. Makes me wonder why these species never evolved any defence.
Consider me extreeeemely skeptical and awaiting evidence with eagerness.
Blake, I don’t know about the USA, but, as I said, it is a problem in the Netherlands. People at my work have to deal with it.
I’ ve googled a bit. An official Dutch government site lists the problematic substances as steroïdhormones and alkylfenolethoxylates. It said in 2003 that ecological effects were proven in brooks, rivers etc. The sources are household and industrial waste, manure, and deposit by air.
Maastricht since this is GQ it is customary to provide some actual evidence for extraoridinary claims. “People I work with says it happens” and single words quoted from nameless web pages don’t constitute evidence. Since your initial idea seems to have stemmed form misundertsanding of an article that explicietly states that ingested medicines are in no way to blame I am not inclined to place great faith in your interpreteaions of private converstations with workmates or web pages.
As I said, there are all sorts of reasons why this claim is extraordinary and difficult to believe. I am now requesting some evidence to support it.
Blake, it’s not that " people at work say it". I read the professional magazines in my profession and they have articles about it, presenting research from renowned universities and research institutes. But they’re all in Dutch. So linking to them didn’t seem to be much use in my first post. Hereare a few of such websites. See?
However, I was wrong in assuming this was especially a Dutch problem. It appears to be an English and American problem as well. A little googling yielded these results in English: Here’s an article in the New York Times.
Sizes have changed over the years. A ‘C’ now was probably a ‘B’ then.
This is just anecdotal evidence from my aunt who worked in the garment industry. She likes to pull out old pants of my grandfather and show me how tiny a 34 was 40 years ago. I have a pair of Polo 32" waist that are more like a 35-36 in 1960.
Philster, the way bras are (and have been) measured are:
Measure under the breasts. Round to the closest whole number if you get a fraction. Add 5" if the measurement is under 33, or 3" if it’s over 33. If you get an odd number, add 1 to get the next even number - this is the band size. (That’s the “36” in bra size “36B”).
Now, measure the largest point of the bust. Subtract the band-size measurement (not the band-size itself) from the bust-measurement.
If the difference is zero, the cup size is AA.
Difference of 1: cup size A.
D2 = B cup
D3 = C cup
and so on.
AFAIK, it’s always been that way.
I’m also rather curious as to how a 32-inch waist now is larger than a 32-inch waist several years ago. Shrinkage of the fabric, perhaps? 32" is 32". When DogDad and I go to buy pants for him, the pants size is entirely based on waist measurement - a “32” is a pair of pants that will fit someone with a 32-inch waist measurement.
No, the fastfood industry has successfully bullied the National Institutes of Standards and Technology into making fractionary increases in the official size of the U.S. inch, explaining why today a 32-inch waist can comfortably slip into 27-inch waisted pants.
So, I guess the answer is that there does not seem to be a good paper/study reviewing any possible changes. I guess that, since there are some folks here who seem to believe in said increase, but the evidence does not seem to indicate an actual increase, the questions should be “do people believe this?” and “why do people believe this?” But those are questions for different forums.
Blake, unfortunately, these effects have been observed pretty much everywhere people have looked for them in industrialized areas. Whole effluent testing usually shows a greater response than single contaminant toxicity testing due to the synergism of the various Endocrine Disrupting Compounds (EDCs) present. One of the most common ways this effect is measured is to test for feminization of male fish by seeing if they express the gene for vitellogenin, an egg protein normally only found in female fish. Endocrine disruption effects have been observed both in laboratory and in situ studies with many different species of fish including white suckers, carp, rainbow trout, and every toxicologist’s favorite fish, the fathead minnow.
Bovine somatotropin, the hormone that cattle receive to increase milk production, is a naturally occuring protein hormone in the meat and milk of cows. It’s always present, even in untreated animals, and being a protein, it’s digested by the stomach. Milk produced by cows that are injected with BST is chemically indistinguishable from milk produced by cows that are not.
