She suffers from dyscalculia?
'the body is going to want to augment the legs".
Actually from a layman point of view I think you make misguided assumptions. I would have thought it more credible to assume the opposite. That is female fat is stored in breasts for good reason.
For what reason?
Because God loves us?
Not with fat, no. Fat is merely how your body stores glucose long-term. Once the energy requirements of a part of the body require more glucose than is readily available in that area it begins to pull glucose from other areas. If the breasts are not being prepared for nursing or currently nursing, there isn’t really any force acting against the pull to other areas. The glucose becomes energy and is used to repair cells or grow new cells, strengthening the muscles and increasing their size.
So what is enough? You make little mention of that except a plethora of misguided rhetoric. Perhaps you can " assume"?
Enough is consuming less calories than you burn. This isn’t rocket science, the results are pretty clearly obvious to everyone with a scale. I lost 60 lbs in a year by increasing the amount of exercise and decreasing the amount of food. You can calculate weight loss by caloric deficit easily.
Here are some quick calculators -
http://caloriecount.about.com/cc/calories-goal.php
They typically don’t go into detail about exercise; if you track your exercise more carefully you can get a more accurate calorie count.
You’ll also have to do body fat measurements if you want to track fat loss as well as weight loss since they are two different things. Women will lose fat from different places first depending on their genetics.
I’m unsure what you are looking for from this discussion. The details behind losing weight, losing body fat, and the resulting loss of breast tissue in athletes is fairly well understood. Most people never drop their body fat percentage down to the levels where this is an issue, and many sports don’t really require body fat to be down to that level for even elite athletes. For some endurance sports (long distance running, cross country skiing, stage bicycling) low body fat is a natural results of the amount of exercise necessary to train and the demands of the sport. For many other sports it’s not nearly as much of a factor. I don’t think there’s a huge amount of controversy involved here.
You are quite correct in my opinion in your first paragraph, but I think you overestimate the power of sports bras, and I say this from many years experience as a display artist in a department store where I had the dubious honour of fitting bras of all types to (mannequins) for display purposes. I got to know them quite well, (the bras I mean) and I can tell you there is not much difference that you would observe.
I think if you take another look at elite female athletes you would agree that at least 95% of them are less than C-cup, with or without sports bras.
You realize that a C cup is actually pretty chesty, right? Especially on a woman with very little body fat.
You also realize that mannequin breasts and human breasts don’t have much in common? Because, um… yeah, the shaping and compressing qualities of a bra tend to be lost on mannequin tits.
The *average *bra size before the nation went crazy with breast implants (and obesity) was 34B. Not sure what it is today.
I’ma gonna buy me a mannequin!
Indeed. Even a well-formed A can give you a “fully figured” shape on a thin body. People think I’m larger than I really am all the time.
C-cup on a distance runner: sounds mighty tasty to me. A B-cup on a distance runner is one well-put together woman, in fact.
You realize that this is nearly a complete backtrack from your initial statements, and it still doesn’t address the issue of lower body fat levels in athletes.
Yes I did obviously use the wrong word “evolution”. I see that now. One can not use that word in ANY WAY in even a non scientific discussion. I recant that reference, and should have chosen another.
But really, does it matter? Even though I believe in the original theory, (mostly) I thought it had broader applications of meaning now.
Honestly, my “claim as you say” was not brilliant or self seeking, nor as scientific fact, but I did wish a response because I had found so little previously on the subject, and in that regard it worked. You and several others have caused me to re-evaluate my thinking a little. I am outflanked by intellects greater than mine, but you, as most in the end go into hopeless assumptions.
Yes I’m human!
No it’s not, and I am still pondering a respectful reply to you without having to study for the next 4 years for a university degree!
They aren’t hopeless assumptions; posters are working with what you gave us. Your initial posts read like a declaration rather than conversation, which yields different results.
I can give you the data point that counters your daughter’s apparent limitations. While training for distance in high school and my twenties, I was extremely lean and often skipped periods. I was a skinny C cup that I smashed flat with two compression garments: an expensive Jogbra over a compression tank. I wanted them to be still. After my back was broken and I could no longer run, the breasts I inherited appeared. I’m still on the lowest end of BMI, but with far less aerobic training and weaker muscles, and I’m quite a bit larger than a C cup. So my natural state is chesty, but heavy exercise cut my measurements by half. No reason to believe your daughter’s athletic ability will be hampered in any way by breasts. At worst they will be a nuisance , but certainly not a handicap.
I think the relevant point you make is as a promising athlete " you were extremely lean into your twenties", and that you were “smashed flat” by compression garments.
I don’t understand your understanding?
The point is that breasts and other fatty tissue decrease under intense training and that large breasted women can, in fact, successfully compete against flat cheated women. I may have appeared to have an A or B cup because of my clothing but was quite a bit larger.
Mind translating your last sentence?