Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: ROBERT on 16/01/2006 10:14:29
-
I noticed this item on BBCi news today:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4607642.stm
So apparently scientists have been paid to watch hours of slow-motion video of womens bouncing breasts. [:I]
Surprisingly this research didn't take place at Bristol University.[:)]
-
Some 9.5 million British women could be irreversibly damaging their busts by exercising without a proper sports bra, the Portsmouth University team said.
They found breasts moved in a 3D figure of eight and that uncontrolled movement strained fragile tissues and ligaments.
The study suggested as a woman runs a mile, her breasts bounced 135m.
What is wrong with this statement?
what happens when you strain fragile ligaments and muscles? Yes you guessed correctly, the ligaments and muscles get stronger.
Now for the next question. What happens when you render these fragile ligaments and muscles redundant by wearing one of these sports bras? Yes, correct again, the fragile ligaments and muscles become flaccid and useless, much the same as your arm or foot does when it is plastered and rested up after a fracture in the bone.
My wife abandoned the bra several months ago, and I am pleased to announce that her boobs are getting firmer and firmer as the months roll by.
Andrew
"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
-
I knew this research would have its knockers.[:)]
-
I'm in the wrong feild!
Are YOUR mice nude? [;)]
-
Hmm, I am going to differ with you Andrew. I admit to being male, but I conceive of the female breast as some muscle, but mostly fatty tissue. To me it would make sense that sustained bouncing would cause such a structure to become more pendulous.
Now, it can be truly said that such changes are pretty much just cosmetic. Having pendulous breasts never killed anyone to my knowledge and it does seem absurd to me the amount of money spent in the United States to "correct" something that needs no correcting.
I do understand that many women refuse to breastfeed because of fears that it may cause their breasts to become more pendulous, resulting in their husbands kicking them out of the house. I do understand, correctly I hope, that breastfeeding is unrelated to this process, which is more due to the pregnancy itself. Millions of babies in the western world actually get poorer nutrition in their first year of life than they would get in the third world as a result of this misguided belief.
Breasts are basically for feeding babies, biologically speaking. The rest of their function is just a "bonus". As a male, I like that bonus alot. But as a student of science, I must admit that the bonus is trivial when compared to the main benefit.
chris wiegard
-
god bless portsmouth university but i never had any interesting studies like that when i was there :-(
Live long and Love life
Kevin Fisher
-
It certainly beats cutting up frogs! [:p]
-
I love running women.
Men are the same as women.... just inside out !!
-
quote:
Originally posted by neilep
I love running women.
Then you should love this version of Newton's cradle:-
www.prankplace.com/bangingboobies.htm
-
quote:
Originally posted by VAlibrarian
Breasts are basically for feeding babies, biologically speaking. The rest of their function is just a "bonus". As a male, I like that bonus alot. But as a student of science, I must admit that the bonus is trivial when compared to the main benefit.
While most of the rest of your post, I would go along with, I'm not so sure about this bit.
Many animals manage successful breast feeding without have such large external structures. That there needs to be a mammary gland to produce milk is self evident, that it needs to be surrounded by so much fat is less clear to me – but then maybe there is some necessity in human physiology that differs from our chimpanzee cousins in this respect?
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/images/breasts.htm
quote:
A casual answer to the question, Why do women have breasts? is to nurse babies. However, most breast tissue is merely fat, not milk-producing tissue. At puberty the human breasts enlarge through the development of both glandular tissue and fat. The human is the only primate whose mammary glands (breasts) are visibly enlarged in the absence of pregnancy or lactation (Neville,1983, 105). This paper is directed to why non-lactating women have conspicuous breasts. While the fat in their breasts supports nursing, so does fat elsewhere.
-
quote:
Many animals manage successful breast feeding without have such large external structures. That there needs to be a mammary gland to produce milk is self evident, that it needs to be surrounded by so much fat is less clear to me – but then maybe there is some necessity in human physiology that differs from our chimpanzee cousins in this respect?
I have heard it suggested that human breasts have become
"conspicuous" because they resemble buttocks. [:I]
They are certainly an advertisment of reproductive fitness.
If a woman displayed her - "I've got enough fat reserves to carry a child to term" - adipose tissue on her abdomen she would appear pregnant, which is not attractive as her reproductive resources would appear to be taken.
So this may be why fat is displayed in the form of conspicuous breasts.
-
quote:
Originally posted by ROBERT
I have heard it suggested that human breasts have become
"conspicuous" because they resemble buttocks. [:I]
They are certainly an advertisment of reproductive fitness.
If a woman displayed her - "I've got enough fat reserves to carry a child to term" - adipose tissue on her abdomen she would appear pregnant, which is not attractive as her reproductive resources would appear to be taken.
So this may be why fat is displayed in the form of conspicuous breasts.
All of this would sound reasonable, except it does not explain why this is is not common for other animals.
It may be that the human upright stance makes human breasts more visible than breasts on most four legged animals, which would be hanging under their bodies.
More probably, to my mind, it is as much a species identity marker as much as a display display of generic female functionality (i.e. it highlights that this is a prime human female, rather than a chimp female, or some other female of a different species – particularly as humans were first diverging from our related species, and may have had more superficial similarities to our ancestors).
George
-
whilst we are on this subject, and forgive me for asking this (if so just ignore!) but are there any men out there who are particularly 'boob men' as opposed to, say, 'leg men'?? or is such a distinction just silly, awkward and puerile [:)]
-
I wonder what part of men’s bodies are likely the sag from jogging?[:D][}:)][:D]
What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say.
-
quote:
Originally posted by ROBERT
If men's dangly bit do sag you can get it fixed..
www.psurg.com/scrotum.html [xx(]
Tell me more is this from personal experiences!
What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say.
-
Certainly NOT from personal experience:
I would never let anyone near my "family jewels" with a scalpel.
-
quote:
Originally posted by ROBERT
Certainly NOT from personal experience:
I would never let anyone near my "family jewels" with a scalpel.
Ah so can we surmise that you just let them sag then? [:D][}:)][:D]
What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say.
-
quote:
Originally posted by free4440273
whilst we are on this subject, and forgive me for asking this (if so just ignore!) but are there any men out there who are particularly 'boob men' as opposed to, say, 'leg men'?? or is such a distinction just silly, awkward and puerile [:)]
so you did just ignore!?[xx(]
-
quote:
Originally posted by free4440273
quote:
Originally posted by free4440273
whilst we are on this subject, and forgive me for asking this (if so just ignore!) but are there any men out there who are particularly 'boob men' as opposed to, say, 'leg men'?? or is such a distinction just silly, awkward and puerile [:)]
so you did just ignore!?[xx(]
We go through phases.[:)]
Michael
-
quote:
Originally posted by ROBERT
I noticed this item on BBCi news today:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4607642.stm
So apparently scientists have been paid to watch hours of slow-motion video of womens bouncing breasts. [:I]
Surprisingly this research didn't take place at Bristol University.[:)]
Sounds more like a Brainiac Science project!
Regarding Neilep's slogan, 'Men are the same as women.... just inside out !! .... does that mean men should wear inverted supports when they bounce about?