rinku: I'm not a woman, but those of you who ar

Paul Eres (

rinku) wrote,
@ 2008-01-18 02:27:00

Entry tags:

health

I'm not a woman, but those of you who are might be interested in this -- apparently there was a study that showed that wearing bras leads to breast cancer.

* Women who wore their bras 24 hours per day had a 3 out of 4 chance of developing breast cancer (in their study, n=2056 for the cancer group and n=2674 for the standard group).
* Women who wore bras more than 12 hour per day but not to bed had a 1 out of 7 risk.
* Women who wore their bras less than 12 hours per day had a 1 out of 152 risk.
* Women who wore bras rarely or never had a 1 out of 168 chance of getting breast cancer. The overall difference between 24 hour wearing and not at all was a 125-fold difference.

(Post a new comment)

	nancylebov 2008-01-18 03:02 pm UTC (link)
	I read a book quite some years ago by a guy who thought that wearing ill-fitting bras (too tight interferes with lymph movement, so the immune system has less ability to get at early cancers) increased the risk of breast cancers. He didn't have money for real research, but he was hoping it would eventually get done. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	rinku 2008-01-18 08:17 pm UTC (link)
	The article mentions the lymph flow too -- but also postulates other explanations, such as increased temperature or the weakening of muscles nearby due to restriction of movement etc. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	cwoxviii 2008-01-18 03:08 pm UTC (link)
	It's not a very convincing study. Also, not all bras are created equal. Also, I've never known a single woman who wore her bra to bed. Also, many women don't really have a choice. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	rinku 2008-01-18 08:16 pm UTC (link)
	It doesn't matter whether it convinces you or not, what matters is whether it's true. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	cwoxviii 2008-01-18 08:23 pm UTC (link)
	oh har har Also, the rest of my comments remain true. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	rinku 2008-01-18 09:23 pm UTC (link)
	They are true but not really relevant. Most women do have a choice. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	zarex 2008-01-18 03:40 pm UTC (link)
	Correlation != causality (Reply to this)(Thread)

	moogle1 2008-01-18 04:52 pm UTC (link)
	I was going to mention this, but I'm glad someone already has. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	rinku 2008-01-18 08:16 pm UTC (link)
	See below. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	rinku 2008-01-18 08:15 pm UTC (link)
	Everyone knows that, but it's ridiculous to take a life and death chance like this on the chance that there is no causality. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	shaede 2008-01-18 08:46 pm UTC (link)
	I think it's ridiculous to expect women to stop wearing their bras just because there's a chance that it is one of the many probable causes of cancer. Women wear bras for comfort (when active) and to look good (and prevent sagging). It's certainly not comparable to the many other things thought to or proven to cause cancer. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	rinku 2008-01-18 09:22 pm UTC (link)
	That's just the propaganda line the bra corporations use to convince people they need bras. People also used to find it ridiculous to claim that smoking causes lung cancer. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

shaede
2008-01-18 09:53 pm UTC (link)

Um... I may not be a female, but I've been around a few in my life. They like wearing sports bras to prevent bouncing when active (I've never met a woman say otherwise). The bouncing is uncomfortable, I hear. Also, it really does prevent sagging. Have you never seen a National Geographic? Indigenous women pictured in those have some incredibly saggy breasts due to the fact that they simply do not wear bras. This is not propaganda. This is just how things are. You can plug your fingers in your ears and believe everything "all-natural.com" has to say, but you may find that their argument is a little one sided.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

rinku
2008-01-18 11:36 pm UTC (link)

Think of it this way: for most of history, almost 10,000 years, bras weren't used. Why suddenly did people decide they need them just for the last hundred? It *is* propaganda that causes that perceived need. In other words, I don't dispute that it causes the saggy breasts pictured in NG, just that it's propaganda which causes people to believe that that is aesthetically inferior to non-saggy breasts.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

shaede
2008-01-19 12:30 am UTC (link)

This argument is inherently fallacious and you know it. We've gone 10,000+ years without vitamin supplements, vehicles, the internet, birth control, abortion, civil rights, the abolition of slavery, etc etc...

That does not mean that we shouldn't benefit from these technologies and changes. I'm not going to get into the aesthetics of breasts; I think that's irrelevant. What I'm saying is that the benefits (even if they are based on societies standards) outweigh the potential (and not extremely credible) dangers.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

rinku
2008-01-19 12:39 am UTC (link)

Birth control is 10,000 years old, so are vitamin supplements and vehicles and abortion and rights. Slavery was never really dominant in most societies, and though there was no internet, there was always communication.

I think it's highly relevant: if you admit that you only believe bras should be worn because of society's standards, and you admit that society's standards are determined in large part by art, advertisements, and other forms of propaganda, then you are basically saying that we should always use the standards society gives us when making decisions, and that the benefits of keeping to those standards outweigh the potential harm that could come from following them.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	shaede 2008-01-19 02:47 am UTC (link)
	I used to consider you a bit of a philosopher, Rinku... (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	rinku 2008-01-19 04:35 am UTC (link)
	I'm not, but you shouldn't think too much about me. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	t_master 2008-01-20 07:12 am UTC (link)
	There's no study that corrolates not wearing a bra to saggy breasts. I find it ironic that you're willing to discount the study so quickly as unproven, when you so readily make unproven statements based on hearsay and what you've seen in a few issues of National Geographic. There are many actual causes of breast sagging, we need not add more unnecessarily. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	zarex 2008-01-18 09:06 pm UTC (link)
	But you said specifically that "there was a study that showed that wearing bras leads to breast cancer", which definitely is not true. Are you really advocating that women not wear bras so they can prevent breast cancer? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

rinku
2008-01-18 09:22 pm UTC (link)

Yes. Although correlation doesn't mean causation, you have to take that into context: what else would explain the correlation that would be as significant to incidence of breast cancer to explain a 125-fold difference? It's not like they were comparing bra-less tribeswomen in New Guinea to US women, it was two very large (4000+) groups within the same country where most other things about the two groups would be identical.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	zarex 2008-01-19 01:55 pm UTC (link)
	There are many possible factors that can (and should) be taken into account when trying to derive statistic conclusions - the author didn't even attempt to, and even said specifically it didn't control for other factors. Any why should we believe Reed? He's a post-doc in a totally separate field. He'll have to do much better than that to be taken seriously. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	t_master 2008-01-20 07:16 am UTC (link)
	For what it's worth, Reed didn't conduct the study. These are the study's authors: http://www.selfstudycenter.org/about.htm (Reply to this)(Parent)

	rinku 2008-01-20 10:30 am UTC (link)
	So now you're using ad hominems to discredit it? Why not think about the actual study? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	zarex 2008-01-20 02:51 pm UTC (link)
	It's not at all an ad-hominem. If he's not an expert in the field it makes his claims far less credible - especially when so dramatic - and raises the bar substantially of proof and validation. This seems to be a soapbox cause for him, and it's getting little attention from legitimate scientists. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	rinku 2008-01-21 05:33 am UTC (link)
	Perhaps. But I still think this has all the characteristics of the "dose response" -- where you can determine causality from correlation if less of it leads to less and more of it leads to more in a fairly regular pattern. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	rinku 2008-01-21 05:36 am UTC (link)
	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dose_response (Reply to this)(Parent)

rinku
2008-01-21 05:39 am UTC (link)

And a lot of things which are true receive little attention from establishment scientists (if by that you mean scientists who receive grants from corporations and the government): there is plenty of research into natural cures for different diseases, but establishment scientists rarely read that research or promote it if they have because there's no funding for it. There'd likewise be no funding for something like this. The profession of science tends to research what it has funding to research, not what it would like to if it could research whatever it wanted to.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

miyu_sakura
2008-01-20 07:24 am UTC (link)

Did you know that pirates are also responsible for global warming?

No woman in their right mind would listen to this idiot and his "omg so theoretically this could cause cancer!" Being alive causes cancer. It's caused by everything on the face of the planet. But since you're a guy and have never had to actually walk around with that bodily appendage, you can just blithely believe in this nonsense.

Honestly. Junk science is the refuge of those who want to make LJ entries for +++ comments.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	rinku 2008-01-20 10:29 am UTC (link)
	I didn't say I believed it. I said it's worth considering. What do you think explains the difference? It could be a lot of things, but I want to know what you think. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

miyu_sakura
2008-01-20 10:42 am UTC (link)

This guy has no actual data on his page so there's nothing to debate. The rather stilted writing style doesn't suggest academia to me at all. It looks more like a Geoshitties page than anything else.

But here are two possible explanation:

1) The simplest is that women who wear bras/undergarments that are in line with the Western mode of dress also live in places which are more industrialized, therefore are exposed to substances which would increase cancer risk. It's the same as saying that all guys who wear ties are more likely to get high blood pressure. It's not because the tie squeezes their neck, it's that a tie is usually part of formal business-wear. Lots of corporate types get high blood pressure from being stressed out, eating out too much, partying/networking too much, and etc.

2) He didn't bother to take into account a huge reason why a woman wears a bra. The fact is that women who don't wear bras often don't need them because they have small breasts. Therefore they have less tissue and that decreases the risk of breast cancer. There is actual published/verified data in controlled experiments done by actual scientists which suggests that pre-pregnancy breast mass correlates positively to cancer risk. In other words, women with naturally larger breasts are somewhat more predisposed.

But that whole circulation and blah blah lymph thing was so stupid I just kept laughing. A bra, correctly fitted, is quite comfortable. And even one which is not a correct fit, is not going to affect the body that badly.

Not to mention you're being a total wacko above with your conspiracy theory about bras. Women have ALWAYS worn supportive garments. In ancient Rome women wore breast bands to support their chest. It's not about aesthetics. It's the fact that if you have breasts above A size, walking around with a bra is slightly painful.

I don't know who's head I want to knock in more at this point...

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

rinku
2008-01-20 10:55 am UTC (link)

The breast size thing might be one explanation, I didn't think of that. But that doesn't explain the difference between women who wear bras to sleep getting more cancer than women who don't. Nor does the tie causing blood pressure thing explain that difference, because people who wear bras to sleep aren't any more likely to be more industrialized areas than people who don't. So I still think there should be more studies on this to learn more about it, instead of just dismissing it as impossible.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	andrearice 2008-01-21 03:39 am UTC (link)
	Why thank you for sharing! I knew there was more than comfort to letting the girls out! (Reply to this)

nanamihero
2008-01-23 07:16 pm UTC (link)

mad arguments.

anyway, i am a girl and i wanted you to know that some girls do wear bras to bed. sometimes they do it on purpose. sometimes too lazy to take it off, or just fall asleep in their clothes without changing into bed clothes.

i wear my bra close to 24 hours a day. and i've seen those saggy breasted people who wear no bras. and i do not want that :[

i dont wear it all the time to prevent that. nor do i think i'm really preventing much at all because i dont have the breast size of the average woman and therefore they wont sag the same way.

my point is, most women wear ill-fitting bras. and also, larger breasts make it harder to detect breast cancer. and larger breasted women are also the ones who tend to wear their bras more, since they feel they need them for "support". maybe thats the real connection.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

rinku
2008-01-25 12:33 am UTC (link)

That might be true, it could be that the correlation is purely a measurement of breast size (with larger leading to more cancer), but still, 75% chance of cancer for those who wear a bra to sleep and nearly 0% chance to those who don't wear it at all is worth more investigation, a study could and should test this theory only in people with a particular breast size, so that size won't be a factor.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	nanamihero 2008-01-30 06:34 am UTC (link)
	i agree. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	newedition 2008-01-25 12:21 am UTC (link)
	I heard about this on Coast to Coast over the summer! The guest (unfortunately I don't remember his name) was talking about how culture affects health, and one of the things that negatively affected health, in terms of causing cancer, was wearing a bra. It makes sense because the constraint either disrupts or increases blood flow to that area. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	rinku 2008-01-25 12:32 am UTC (link)
	Does that mean you don't wear one? :D (Reply to this)(Parent)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs