[DrN]

Coqui, glad you seem to have enjoyed the book. I expect several people on this site found the source, its been mentioned a few times, I myself mentioned his CV, so by deduction, must have visited the website! if you would like to share the contents of this non-peer reviewed, not-available-in-a-scientific/medical-journal, piece of scientific literature I'm sure all of us who don't want to fork out for it ourselves (and wait for delivery) before being able to comment further in this thread (the last few posts ignored!) would be happy to hear from you.

I agree with David, support is the key with bra's, thats what they're designed for, nothing to do with binding (unless maybe you're aiming for that 20's 'boyish' look). its not pleasant doing sports without one.

[neilep]

quote:Originally posted by fishytails

its not pleasant doing sports without one.

I agree...but I have to take mine off when I'm on the gymnastic rings....it really chafes []

Men are the same as women.... just inside out !!

[neilep]

quote:Originally posted by ukmicky

Look its quite simple.

Ban the Bra.[8D]
 
There unhealthy, and completely remove the fun out of watching a woman run for a bus..[]



And yes I’m a male chauvinistic pig who deserves to die from the death of a thousand breasts torture. Nice way to go
.[:p]

Reminds me of the scene at the end of Monty Pythons, Meaning Of Life !!..[]

Men are the same as women.... just inside out !!

[coqui]

I do not agree that bras are for support.  There is nothing wrong with the female body that requires 20th Century lingerie for correction.  When girdles were in fashion, their manufacturers claimed that they, too, were essential for abdominal support.  In fact, however, the artificial support from the girdle resulted in weaker abdominal muscles, since the body comes to rely on the girdle instead of on its own muscular system for support.  The same goes for the bra.  They are only for fashion.  And they create weak, droopy breasts.  It is a myth, promoted by the bra industry, that bras prevent sagging or are necessary for breast support.

Interestingly, Singer and Grismaijer also did a study in Fiji to follow-up on their US study.  They found that about 50% of the female population there wore bras, and breast disease was limited to this bra-wearing group.  Comparing women from the same village, with the same diet and genetic background, those who developed breast cancer were those who had a history of wearing bras.  

And while some women in the west, who were raised on bras, claim that they need a bra for comfort and "support", Singer and Grismaijer found many large breasted Fijian woman claiming that they couldn't wear a bra because their breasts were "too big"!  

The problem is that women who have worn a bra since puberty have not developed their natural ligamental support system for their breasts.  The breasts become reliant on the bra for support.  It takes time for the body to relearn to support the breasts by itself once women go bra-free.  However, according to Singer and Grismaijer, many women who have never worn a bra have reported that their breasts are firm and free from cysts and pain, even into their 60's.  

I suppose wearing a bra during sports activities would be helpful, just as some men wear a jock strap.  However, if men wore jock straps for 18 hours daily, there would probably be more cases of testicular cancer.  (Tight underwear has already been shown to harm the testicles.) Also, keep in mind that one of the benefits of exercise is that it improves circulation.  Wearing a bra inhibits this circulation.  

As for breast massage, it would certainly help the breast lymphatics and help clear out some of the edema caused by chronic bra constriction.  Self-massage would be best.  But the problem is getting past the discomfort people have with the subject.  After all, we live in a breast-obsessed culture where a mature discussion of breast massage is difficult. It is even illegal in some states for a massage therapist to offer a client a breast massage.

Given the taboo nature of breasts and bras, is it any wonder that this bra-cancer connection has been ignored?

[esecallum (OP)]

quote:Originally posted by coqui

I do not agree that bras are for support.  There is nothing wrong with the female body that requires 20th Century lingerie for correction.  When girdles were in fashion, their manufacturers claimed that they, too, were essential for abdominal support.  In fact, however, the artificial support from the girdle resulted in weaker abdominal muscles, since the body comes to rely on the girdle instead of on its own muscular system for support.  The same goes for the bra.  They are only for fashion.  And they create weak, droopy breasts.  It is a myth, promoted by the bra industry, that bras prevent sagging or are necessary for breast support.

Interestingly, Singer and Grismaijer also did a study in Fiji to follow-up on their US study.  They found that about 50% of the female population there wore bras, and breast disease was limited to this bra-wearing group.  Comparing women from the same village, with the same diet and genetic background, those who developed breast cancer were those who had a history of wearing bras.  

And while some women in the west, who were raised on bras, claim that they need a bra for comfort and "support", Singer and Grismaijer found many large breasted Fijian woman claiming that they couldn't wear a bra because their breasts were "too big"!  

The problem is that women who have worn a bra since puberty have not developed their natural ligamental support system for their breasts.  The breasts become reliant on the bra for support.  It takes time for the body to relearn to support the breasts by itself once women go bra-free.  However, according to Singer and Grismaijer, many women who have never worn a bra have reported that their breasts are firm and free from cysts and pain, even into their 60's.  

I suppose wearing a bra during sports activities would be helpful, just as some men wear a jock strap.  However, if men wore jock straps for 18 hours daily, there would probably be more cases of testicular cancer.  (Tight underwear has already been shown to harm the testicles.) Also, keep in mind that one of the benefits of exercise is that it improves circulation.  Wearing a bra inhibits this circulation.  

As for breast massage, it would certainly help the breast lymphatics and help clear out some of the edema caused by chronic bra constriction.  Self-massage would be best.  But the problem is getting past the discomfort people have with the subject.  After all, we live in a breast-obsessed culture where a mature discussion of breast massage is difficult. It is even illegal in some states for a massage therapist to offer a client a breast massage.

Given the taboo nature of breasts and bras, is it any wonder that this bra-cancer connection has been ignored?

Coqui you are so right in what you say.

Many people dont want to see a connection between bra's and breast cancer coause of the media brain washing and their media conditioned responses similar to Pavlov's dogs.

"Bob the new hunky executive in marketing wont find Sharon the new secretary as attractive cos her boobs are not sticking out cos she is not wearing a bra".

"Sharon is afraid Bob the new hunk in marketing wont find her as attractive cos her boobs are not sticking out cos she is not wearing a bra".

[Andrew K Fletcher]

Good News

Jude has abandoned the Bra and looks terrific without it and feels more comfortable.

Thanks guys, have been trying to convince her about this for years

"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"

[neilep]

quote:Originally posted by Andrew K Fletcher

Good News

Jude has abandoned the Bra and looks terrific without it and feels more comfortable.

Thanks guys, have been trying to convince her about this for years

"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"

You're just saying that....lets SEE the evidence please []

Men are the same as women.... just inside out !!

[GBSB]

I think that this topic BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%)
deserve more attention. I am sure it will save a few people from misery.

The more publicity this topic gains the more people will be saved from breast cancer misery.

[Simulated]

People just wanna see their breast move more..ha

[GBSB]

Wearing bra has for purpose to artificially enhance appearance of the breasts and to make them more attractive and desirable…. By the way I am not interesting to discus about moral or religion but just about facts.

It is striking parallel between wearing the bra and feet binding in old China only after this research is published by Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer, the custom of wearing the bra seems far more insane than the custom of feet binding in Old China.

[MayoFlyFarmer]

If there was a true 12500% increase in the incidence of cancer from ANYTHING much less something as simple as bra-wearing; it would be such an easy career-making topic of research for any young scientist, it would have been jumped on years ago. 

The claim that this non-peer-reviewed study should be veiwed as reputable is pure ignorance; and to presume that the only reason that the scientific community hasn't taken intrest in the topic has to do with the taboo nature of breasts, or some sort of brain-washing by the media is completely juvenile.

I reccomend that the moderators of the forum move this thread to the "that can't be true" forum where it belongs.

[GBSB]

It is very likely that the only problem is that this study isn’t conduced on the rats but on the humans.

It seems that many people don’t trust in the facts and common sense anymore but they believe only in the rats’ science.

[Andrew K Fletcher]

MayoFlyFarmer, shame on you for trying to remove this thread to That Can't Be True.

The truth of the matter is that more studies will not end up in the ultimate Unique Selling Point that so mant drug trials arrive at. No one is going to get rich by advising people that their bra will probably kill them. This is the reason that many up and coming PHD Students have not jumped on the bra research waggon. In order to do a study one needs to find a vested interest in order to gain funding. While the Health Services around the globe should be looking into the long term problems of wearing a bra in order to reduce the risk of surgery and often useles procedures, it would be far more prudent to address a suspected cause. Better to avoid a condition than to treat one!

[MayoFlyFarmer]

 

It is very likely that the only problem is that this study isn’t conduced on the rats but on the humans.

It seems that many people don’t trust in the facts and common sense anymore but they believe only in the rats’ science.

actually, those of us who work with model organisms such as mice or rats have to go to great lengths to convince people that our research is relevant to humans.

[MayoFlyFarmer]

MayoFlyFarmer, shame on you for trying to remove this thread to That Can't Be True.

The truth of the matter is that more studies will not end up in the ultimate Unique Selling Point that so mant drug trials arrive at. No one is going to get rich by advising people that their bra will probably kill them. This is the reason that many up and coming PHD Students have not jumped on the bra research waggon. In order to do a study one needs to find a vested interest in order to gain funding. While the Health Services around the globe should be looking into the long term problems of wearing a bra in order to reduce the risk of surgery and often useles procedures, it would be far more prudent to address a suspected cause. Better to avoid a condition than to treat one!

those of us who work in publicly funded labs aren't looking for things that are going to make anyone rich.  you could use that arguement for a private pharmecutical company, but public institutions are simply interested in the science regardless of its financial prospects.  The only way we have to even come CLOSE to striking it "rich" is to come up with a discovery big and important enough that we become a prestigious name in our feild and are highly sought after by universities.  ANY DISCOVERY THAT A COMMON PRACTICE BY MOST WOMEN CAUSES A 12500% INCREASE IN THE INCIDENCE OF CANCER WOULD BE THIS TYPE OF CAREER MAKING DISCOVERY FOR EVEN AN ESTABLISHED SCIENTIST MUCH LESS A GRADUATE STUDENT!!!!  Also, funding agencies would LOVE to fund research that would be so cheap and easy to conduct and showed potential for such a break-through discovery.

if there was any promise in this feild of study it would have been jumped on by so many people by now, AND IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED IN A PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL TO BEGIN WITH!!!!

[Andrew K Fletcher]

Hmm the thought of bra-less women being jumped on raises an eyebrow

[Bored chemist]

Research into any plausible mechanism for this - say the toxins not getting cleared by the lymphatic system- would proably lead to spinoffs that could be sold.

If this were plausible it would be exploited to the hilt by big pharma.

They have a lot of money to spend on R and D- so much that they can afford to toss away a few tens of thousands verifying or refuting a study like this. Why not? the money get's written off against tax anyway so it barely costs them a bean. If there were even the slightest payoff it would be worth it. Also the prestige of being the company that published the result would be astounding.

[another_someone]

I would have thought the simplest correlation (and as usual, one should never mistake correlation with causality, whether either exist in this case) is that maybe there is a greater propensity for larger breasted women to be more likely to wear bras, and to develop breast cancer.

[NobodySavedMe]

I work in cancer research at a wolrd class institution.   lengths to convince people that our research is relevant to humans.

So where is the cancer cure?

$300 hundred million or more given by the public year after year and you have zilch to show for it.

Admit it that cancer research is just self perpetuating money making institutions who don't want a cure as there would be no need for them then.

Research funding is determined by various panels and the members of such panels are employed by various vested interests and thus keep research away from anything that might damage their interests.

[rosy]

Thing is, see, that cancer ain't "a disease", it's a whole series of things that can go wrong with cells all over the body all of which result in the formation of tumours. The thing is, finding a cure for one type of cancer, whilst it will make life immeasurably better for anyone suffering from that particular form of cancer, won't do a thing for a whole lot of other people.
Whilst that's all desperately depressing on one level it does at least mean that we can be confident NobodySavedMe has been seduced by a groundless antiestablishment fantasy rather than actually having spotted a genuine conspiracy in action.