I must apologise that you and many others have taken affront for my original statement. It was satirical, exaggerated, but nevertheless honest in its intention.
It was a question I guess asking how a parent understands even before she does, that a daughter will not make it to the highest athletic level no matter how exceptional, if she does not possess the genes that inhibit large breasts.
Now you may all take exception to that, and discredit it in various ways, as you have, and prove the exception as though it is normal.
Compression bras! My 18 year old athlete daughter says there is no such thing,
only sports bras. Who am I to argue?
You haven’t shown any such genetic connection; pretty much all female athletes lose breast size when they lose body fat. And sports bras have a compression component, your daughter may not be up on all the latest technology.
You’re the one who brought genes into the discussion. Care to back up that assertion with some evidence?
You don’t. You don’t *know *what sort of genes she possesses, you can only guess. And even if you look at all the other women in her family, you can still only guess, and sometimes you’re going to be wrong.
I know I shared that story earlier about my grandmother (large breasted) and it did turn out that I am large breasted, but that wasn’t a certainty. My mother, the daughter of that large breasted woman and mother of this large breasted woman, has very very small breasts. If someone had tried to discourage her from dancing ballet because of what her mother’s breasts looked like, they’d have been dead wrong. My mother *does *have a body for ballet.
And all that’s even besides the point that, if they are exceptional, they can be runners no matter how large their breasts get, if they have the wind and legs for it.
I’m starting to wonder if the real problem here is a language barrier. Are you a native English speaker? Is your daughter? Because I assure you, compression bras are a real thing.
Forgive me, do you want my family tree? If you want to get that technical I don’t think it would be of much help. I can see now how the mention of genes etc will stir rightheous indignation. Sorry about that.
Whatever happened to evaluation by personal memory? Or is that entirely irrelevant?
A family tree won’t establish genetic connections. There’s nothing wrong with positing genetic linkages or mechanisms as long as you have reason to believe that genes are a valid explanation for whatever phenomenon that you are observing.
I am not sure what evaluation by personal memory means. Are there people with impersonal memories?
Here, I’ll do it. The OP makes a declaration that is unsupported by facts, evidence, or science. A simple observation by one individual is not sufficient evidence to support the claim that women with large breasts cannot be “elite athletes”.
Readers of the thread can mine the internet for photos of large breasted elite athletes in order to counter your claims, but there is something unsavory about such a search. Also, you can do it yourself if you really want to test your original claim. But you do not appear to wish to test your claim; it appears you want credit for a brilliant hypothesis which is neither brilliant nor hypothesis.
You haven’t touched a nerve with the reference to evolution, you simply chose the wrong word. You touched a nerve by making the claim that your large breasted daughter will never be an elite athlete, which could dash her dreams and incentive and also has zero basis in fact. If you had said “Gee, I bet my daughter will inherit large breasts, I wonder if that will negatively impact her chances as a winning runner”, you might have received replies ranging from links to good support/compression bras, bios of busty athletes, discussions of BMI for people who exercise vigorously, and more helpful, useful discussion.
English as a second language isn’t the barrier; the OP presenting a simple, random observation as scientific fact is the barrier to logical, constructive discourse. Want to start over?
rustyrunner, if your point is that olympic level athletics selects against big breasts, then that is true, but the selection works by multiple vectors. First, it is hard to run a marathon with a 10 lb bowling ball strapped to your chest, let alone 2. But second, exercise reshapes the body, especially endurance running or hard workout regimes. Runners tend to have lower body fat overall because they are using it up, and breasts are a mix of gland tissue and fat. If the body is burning fat, then it will burn the fat in the breasts, too.
That said, there are plenty of female athletes that do have some breasts. Not all olympic athletes, even runners, are flat-chested. A C-cup is not flat chested. But sports bras contribute to women athletes appearing flat chested, because the whole purpose of that device is to take floppy bits and hold them from flopping, and the best way to do that is press them snug against the torso. Since breasts tend to be soft and squishy, squishing them to the torso has the effect of making them appear flat.
I will take your word for that, but I think a generalization can be made, (with exceptions).
I would never inhibit or dismiss my daughter’s chances in athletics because her Mother, or her Mother had large breasts. Actually, as an all round athlete, (running, jumping, throwing) she has got to a very high level, but now it has dawned on her that perhaps it is better to concentrate on one discipline, (which means abandoning those she is probably not physically suited for). Fact of life!
Thank you, and yes English is our native language. Sorry if you presumed otherwise.
Yes I understand that.
This was not why I brought the subject up, but a generalisation from personal experience, which I guess is proving to be floored judging by the hostile comments. I’m not sure however, most of those are backed up by actual experience.
A generalization should a statement based on * several* unrelated,random observations. Your personal experience is one data point, which is insufficient evidence to draw any conclusion from. All it takes is one large breasted elite athlete to discount your claim.
Experience is very useful and has wide ranging applications, but science requires data, evidence, and testable hypotheses. And as such: anyone presenting scientific evidence ought to expect others to test it. That is how we prove things to be facts instead of guesses.
I must bow to your obvious technical knowledge on the subject. It may try to explain some, but not all. In that I mean you are going to have to go further, and explain the observable.
I have a sister in law (average weight) who has run countless marathons but still wears the same size bra. I ran 100 ks a week(male) in my 40’s at sub 3.30k for 16k race time, but 20years later my weight remains the same as it was at the time, even though, still running, I do no where near the exercise I did then.
If your supposition is correct, my sister inlaw should be quite flat chested, and I guess I should at least have lost a few kilos along the way.
Only if you take in fewer calories than you are burning. If your body fat percentage doesn’t dip below a certain level there is plenty around for all your needs. I’ve run a marathon but I still have plenty of body fat because my food intake is still sufficient to support it. Those athletes train much more than you or I, and they monitor their eating much closer.
Your Sister-in-Law isn’t running enough to lower her body fat level, or she’s eating enough to keep it high. That’s not a problem for most people, ultra-low body fat isn’t really desirable or achievable with great effort. Running marathons by itself isn’t enough.