# Wierd Study of the Week **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 10, 2000, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wierd-study-of-the-week/28839 "2000-08-10T15:02:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![SwimmingRiddles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SwimmingRiddles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SwimmingRiddles)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2000, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wierd-study-of-the-week/28839/1 "2000-08-10T15:02:30Z")
Is it a debate? Nope. Is it a MPSIMS? I don’t know…feel free to throw this into another forum if need be, mods. Can be found [here.](http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000809/od/vegetarian_dc_1.html) Basically, it says that meat-eating moms are 20% more likely to give birth to boys then vegetarian moms. As a vegetarian who would potentially like some variety in the future potential LittleRiddles, this troubles me. The sperm determines the sex, so what would the mother’s dietary habits have to do with anything? Could it be that the same amount of boys are conceived, but the vegetarian mothers bring fewer boys to full term? Any vegetarian Dopers out there who care to share the gender of their children? Wierdness. ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2000, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wierd-study-of-the-week/28839/2 "2000-08-10T15:27:47Z")
While I can’t really comment on the study, I think a comment on the following line in your post might help allay some confusion: > [@](#): > > The sperm determines the sex, so what would the mother’s dietary habits have to do with anything? While the sperm does determine the sex, the utero environment plays quite a part as well, in at least two ways: 1. The level of acid in the vagina/uterus plays some level in determining which sperm survive and end up fertilizing the eggg. 2. Even after conception, while the X or Y chromosome from the sperm is a major factor in determining the child’s sex, this genetic predisposition can be overridden in early stages of fetal developpment by severe hormonal imbalances in the mother. I’d wager that the study refers to one of these factors, and, assuming I’m right, I’d go double-or-nothing that it’s the first (since XY women and XX men are extremely rare, though they do exist). ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2000, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wierd-study-of-the-week/28839/3 "2000-08-10T23:08:43Z")
Wa-ait a second. The study says: > [@](#): > > Nearly five percent were vegetarian, a total of more than 250 women. > > `The birth ratio in Britain is that for every 106 boys born there are 100 girls, that's pretty constant,'' said Hudson. `In our sample group of vegetarians there were 81.5 boys born for every 100 girls.’’ > > To further test their surprise findings – and increase the sample number to what scientists call a ``statistically significant’’ level – the pair extended their study for a further six months, looking just at the sex of babies. > > The results, covering around 150 more vegetarian women, were ‘‘just about exactly the same’’. So the sample size in this case—250 women—wasn’t considered big enough for “statistically significant” results, but a sample size of about 400 was? Hmmm. I’d like to see another order of magnitude or so in the sample size before I believe this unconditionally. Just off the top of my head, I note that there are over half a billion Hindus in India, and I’d guess that at least half of them are strictly vegetarian (though non-vegan). Are these Indian women generally having almost 5 girls for every 4 boys? Wouldn’t we have heard about this? I remain dubious. ---
**Author:** ![irish\_bill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ac91a4/32.png) [@irish\_bill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/irish_bill)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2000, 9:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wierd-study-of-the-week/28839/4 "2000-08-11T09:05:05Z")
Hi, i’m neither a vegetarian or a mother, but I’d like to contribute. Most studies are done to prove something, in this case the predisposition of vegetarian mothers to give birth to less males than females. While the study may point to ‘vegetarianism’ as being a contributing factor, it shouldn’t be taken as being the most important factor, if indeed there is one. I worked with a sociologist and statistician for a while. “You can infer anything you wish by playing with the numbers”. ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2000, 9:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wierd-study-of-the-week/28839/5 "2000-08-11T09:18:13Z")
Yes, and if it doesn’t work the first time, just change your alpha level so that you are now 92% sure instead of 95%. Man I hate that about statistics. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2000, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wierd-study-of-the-week/28839/6 "2000-08-11T14:06:39Z")
**Swiddles,** you probably already know that their sample group was not only very small, but also they didn’t factor in smoking/non-smoking. They just barely mentioned in passing that “oh, most of the vegetarian women didn’t smoke”. They also didn’t mention overall health of all the women, any pre-existing conditions like diabetes or heart problems that could possibly affect their potassium/calcium levels. Also, the whole article was written to be as sensationalistic as possible, quoting one of the authors right at the beginning, “We were really surprised!” That’s “sound bite” journalism, not serious science. It’s also important to note that this was a press release written by the authors of the study themselves, not researched by Reuters and then posted. Reuters pretty much just checks to be sure that any articles submitted are written by real people (not hoaxes) and then they just post it. They don’t care about the science involved. So don’t get too worked up. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2000, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wierd-study-of-the-week/28839/7 "2000-08-11T14:11:25Z")
Also–they didn’t explain how they came by their definition of “vegetarian”. Look at all the threads we’ve had, arguing over vegan/vegetarian/lacto-ovo etc. If all they did was ask the women, “Are you a vegetarian?” and the women said yes, that wouldn’t really prove anything. Maybe some of the women who claimed to be vegetarians really ate meat “Oh, just once in a while,” or didn’t really understand what the researchers meant by “vegetarian”. Maybe one side of the table is meaning “strict vegan” and the other side of the table is interpreting the word to mean “fish, eggs, and dairy, but not red meat”. So the “study” doesn’t mean doodly. Just because it’s on a Web news service doesn’t make it gospel. ---
**Author:** ![FairyChatMom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fairychatmom/32/21906_2.png) [@FairyChatMom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FairyChatMom)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2000, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wierd-study-of-the-week/28839/8 "2000-08-11T14:16:24Z")
hmmmm… my mother is a meat eater - I’m the oldest of 5 (4 girls) My mother-in-law is also a meat eater - she has 3 sons. Personally, I don’t believe in statistics… or electronics… or a fair and impartial jury… can I go home now?? ---
**Author:** ![Luckie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dc4da7/32.png) [@Luckie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Luckie)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2000, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wierd-study-of-the-week/28839/9 "2000-08-12T05:33:58Z")
cmkeller said: " 2) Even after conception, while the X or Y chromosome from the sperm is a major factor in determining the child’s sex, this genetic predisposition can be overridden in early stages of fetal developpment by severe hormonal imbalances in the mother. " whoa, that is contrary to anything i have ever heard! Are you saying that there are some XY’s that become girls??!!. REAL girls and not hermaphrodite or some such? You may be entirely correct here (hell, what do i know about biology), but this seems to be an exceptional claim. While it’s posible that the X or Y differential could occur prior to conception, it seems unlikely. If the effect is real( and the numbers given, an ~12% difference in the probability of a boy over 400 samples, seems signifigent ), a difference in the probability of carrying to term is probably the explaination. The question would be whether vegitarian mothers have an Increased probability of spontaniously aborting boys (relative to thier carnivorous sisters) or a decreased chance of aborting the girls. That would be a much more difficult thing to determine. Oh well , i guess i didn’t have much to contribute, but that statement by cmkeller threw up a red flag… -luckie ---
**Author:** ![Gregor\_Samsa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a6a055/32.png) [@Gregor\_Samsa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gregor_Samsa)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2000, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wierd-study-of-the-week/28839/10 "2000-08-12T14:52:02Z")
My mother’s a vegetarian (lacto-ovo). She hasn’t eaten any animal flesh since the mid-1940’s or so. She had a total of 5 kids, 4 of whom were boys. ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2000, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wierd-study-of-the-week/28839/11 "2000-08-13T00:23:53Z")
[hijack] **Kimstu** : > [@](#): > > Just off the top of my head, I note that there are over half a billion Hindus in India, and I’d guess that at least half of them are strictly vegetarian (though non-vegan). Are these Indian women generally having almost 5 girls for every 4 boys? Wouldn’t we have heard about this? I remain dubious. Before examining that question, we’d have to factor in the fact that aborting female fetuses is something of a cottage industry in India. There was recently a “60 Minutes” report detailing the tragic fact that although much of India has no basic medical services, there is an ultrasound facility on nearly every block, so that women can find out beforehand if they have a female _in utero_ and abort it. Out of several thousand abortions performed in India last year, only 4 were male fetuses. [/hijack] ---
**Author:** ![LazarusLong42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@LazarusLong42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LazarusLong42)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2000, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wierd-study-of-the-week/28839/12 "2000-08-13T02:44:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Luckie \* > that is contrary to anything i have ever heard! Are you saying that there are some XY’s that become girls??!!. REAL girls and not hermaphrodite or some such? > You may be entirely correct here (hell, what do i know about biology), but this seems to be an exceptional claim. **Luckie** , I know a person who is now a woman, who was a man. She is genetically XX, but her body developed incorrectly _in utero_ and she came out male. The very interesting thing was that, because she was genetically female, the insurance company paid for the sex-change operation to make her anatomically female. Lucky her 🙂 I have no idea how often this happens. Anyone out there who can quote statistics? LL ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2000, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wierd-study-of-the-week/28839/13 "2000-08-13T03:42:26Z")
> [@](#): > > whoa, > that is contrary to anything i have ever heard! Are you saying that there are some XY’s that become girls??!!. REAL girls and not hermaphrodite or some such? > You may be entirely correct here (hell, what do i know about biology), but this seems to be an exceptional claim. The testosterone produced by the fetus, triggered by the Y chromosome creates the male baby. If the fetus does not correctly produce the testosterone, it will be female. There will be a vagina, but no uterus. And the testes will not have fallen out of the body, so there will be two non developed testies inside the baby. Jamie Lee Curtis (I think that is the right name) has this syndrome. She has an XY karyotype. Sorry I forget what it is called and I do not have stats. ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2000, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wierd-study-of-the-week/28839/14 "2000-08-13T03:51:42Z")
> [@](#): > > When you look at genetic diseases overall, about 5% of all live births are going to have a genetic disorder. They account for 30% of pediatric inpatients, and about 50% of childhood deaths have some sort of genetic component to it. About 0.5 % of all live births are going to have a chromosomal abnormality. Sixty percent of all first trimester losses are going to be due to a chromosome problem. So if a woman miscarries fairly early, it’s a good idea to get chromosome results. About 6% of stillbirths will have a chromosome abnormality, about 1% of pediatric admissions, and 3% of childhood deaths. > [@](#): > > X and Y: does that determine sex? No. You all started out as fetuses, and you were all female. It is the presence of a gene on the chromosome on the Y chromosome, called the SRY gene (sex region on the Y) that determines sex. It is not the chromosome, just the gene. An XY can look like a perfectly normal female. Her Y chromosome that she got from her father was missing the SRY gene (example Jamie Lee Curtis and some supermodels). They tend to be taller, more muscular, not fertile. You can get a male who is an XX male (won’t be fertile) because he has an SRY gene on his X that happened with dad. > [@](#): > > Don’t do Barr bodies to determine sex. You can scrape the inside of the cheek and smear it to look for these dark staining Barr bodies. That’s the inactivated X. It doesn’t hold up. Women can vary according to their monthly cycle as to whether they will appear normal. Your normal male is XY, female XX. X0 is Turner’s syndrome – missing an X. For the most part, these girls are fine mentally. They do seem to have a little bit of problems as far as dealing with math. XXX – these women, you would not pick up as being anything wrong, though there have been reports that they tend to have psychological problems. An XXX female is sometimes referred to as superfemale. She is fertile and does not have children with Turner’s or Klinefelter’s or anything. Whatever has happened to them seems to correct itself when producing gametes. Klinefelter’s is XXY. In this range, we will tell the parents that the children in general might have an IG about 10-15 points lower than their sibs. It does not mean they’re mentally retarded (same for Turner’s). Klinefelter males are sterile. XYY is fertile. There was a time when the presence of an extra Y chromosome was thought to be related to criminality, but it is not. Yes, XYY males tend to be a little bigger and stronger, but criminality is the same as the general population. You go beyond an extra or missing chromosome, XXXX or any combination, then you are talking mental retardation. > > (Don’t have to know incidences) Klinefelter’s is about 1 in 1000. Turner’s is about 1 in 10,000 females. There are other abnormalities that can occur. There are also sorts of variants. A child with more than two X chromosomes will look just like Downs syndrome. You can get mosaics, with multiple cell lines present, and structural abnormalities. So we see more of these because we tolerate chromosome abnormalities in X and Y better than anything else. There you all Go!!! [http://mero.lib.wfubmc.edu/med01pub/notes/gen031908.html](http://mero.lib.wfubmc.edu/med01pub/notes/gen031908.html)