You so sadly have misinterpreted all that I said.
Perhaps, as you say my premise is off regardless of what conclusions I draw. As I realise now there are more exceptions than I realised at first, and now that we seem to have rid ourselves, I hope, that I am some sort of breast deviant, we can move on.
Yes I guess of course elite females wear bras. That comment was subjective.
Take a look however for instance the 100metres, to marathon at the last Olympics,
at track, and field, or swimming.
The point I make is despite a female athletes ability, it will be compromised by her ability to reduce or minimize breast size at elite level. Some of that will occur naturally with intensive exercise, but if it is not, she will rarely make it.
Of course there is Serena, but then she never had to run 100metres under 11 seconds, or 5000 mtrs in 15 minutes, or 100mtres in the pool under 60 seconds.
But she is an extraordinary athlete!
Elite swimmers don’t need incredibly low body fat levels, they often are much more shapely than you’d expect. Again, everyone agrees that if athletes have lower body fat they are likely to have smaller breasts. This isn’t rocket science. No one disagrees with that part of the discussion.
You raised the issue of evolution, or at least mentioned it. No one here has a clue as to what relevance that has to the column in question. You keep saying we don’t understand your point, but you haven’t really made an effort to present a point, so we’re left confused. Why don’t you try again to present your case about something that we don’t all already agree on?
Having no idea what you re tallking about all I can say is you are gregariously wrong
Checked and I think you sadly proved my point.
Here’s a hint: When you don’t know what someone is talking about, don’t bother responding. Especially if you’re just going to mix up the word “gregariously” with the word “egregiously”.
Powers &8^]
Are you saying that gymnasts don’t have tits? Gymnasts are 12 years old, or so. So yeah, not much boobage.
I’m guessing that once upon a time women would stop training if their breasts started to shrink. Likewise for losing other curves. It was considered to be deforming them. Possibly breaking them. Women were fragile, you know?
Now we have sports science pusing the envelope on what training a man or woman can profitably endure. And, possibly more important, the hard training can start younger. Lowering your body fat % has a larger effect if you’re doing it in puberty.
I can’t prove it, but I’d still guess that it’s the training, and being able to keep up with the training, that is the deciding factor, not whether a woman has a bit more wind resistance.
Are you kidding me? With the compression clothing they’re wearing, what you see in the video speaks to quite clearly having boobs. A man with limited pectoral fat looks quite different in the chest area when he runs.
Did I miss the post where he said they were equivalent? All the guy is arguing is that large breasts are now an instant disqualifier for certain types of athletics (something that has been rebutted in this thread.)
shrug
These statements seem to me to imply a stronger sense than just, “waah, female athletes aren’t sexy anymore.”
And there are those who wants curves on the bottom[1] but don’t like massive front ends,
[1] Better curves on the bottom means lower problems on birthing.
Topi
No, no it doesn’t.
Wrong thinking! The body knows no such thing. It is all decided before she becomes an olympic runner
Since we’ve already showed you many elite athletes who have breasts, you’re repeated confusing statements don’t add much to the conversations. You don’t seem to have a coherent theory and the facts aren’t on your side.
Lower body fat means smaller breasts, not absences of breasts. If you have any evidence of a genetic component to your theory you should probably present some citations rather than post the same unsupported statements over again.
It seems compression bras, and or, fat going to areas to other parts of the body that are active is the main reason you and others give why female athletes at the highest level look flat chested.
An absurd conclusion in my opinion. You are either naive, (because you have never witnessed at first hand a generation of atheletes) or you have issues beyond me.
Talk about unsupported, (excuse the pun) you have not shown the contrary. If you think showing a few examples in this wide world proves your conclusion I would ask bring me the “body of evidence”.
I’m sorry. I forgot to type the “E” Glad you are there for correction. What was it you were talking about?
OK, you have no evidence to support your theory, and you refuse to cite any research. I have good friends who are elite female athletes, so the evidence is pretty clear to me. We’ve posted photos and video in this thread that disprove your assertions. You don’t seem to have a case and if you’re not willing to engage in an actual discussion I guess we’ll just leave it at that.
No, the body doesn’t think to itself, Shit, she’s training for the Olympics, divert fat to legs and thighs, fuck boobs! If you run every day, you put strain and stress on your legs, thighs and core. Distressed cells release certain chemicals that alert the body to divert resources to repairing or replacing said cells. And since the body has finite resources, some other part of the body must sacrifice glucose to fund these repairs and the chest is a relatively safe place to take it from.