OH come on!!!
Moderators: Roguelet, hpkingjr, WaveMaster
Here is your answer, Inyureye:
(from this link:
http://www.illnessisoptional.com/absolu ... sp?a=6&z=6)
“There are certain facts that need to be discussed and fully understood before we can go further.
Fact number 1: Toxins cause cancer. Toxins get into our bodies from the food we eat, the water we drink, and the air we breathe. These come in the forms of pollutants from industry, pesticides, food additives, etc. These toxins have the ability to change the cellular structure such that cells begin to reproduce at an accelerated rate, never to die, and eventually sap the host (us) of nutrition and energy. We hear about "carcinogenic" chemicals all the time.
Fact number 2: Our bodies have a method to get rid of toxins. Our God-given ability towards health includes a complex set of chemical and physical mechanisms in which to expel these cancer-causing toxins. First and foremost, the liver is responsible for waging chemical warfare, breaking these toxins down into smaller parts for use or expulsion from the body. The lymph system plays a vital role in the removal of these parts.
Fact number 3: The lymph system is very sensitive to physical pressure. The lymph system is similar to the vascular system in that it circulates and permeates every tissue in the body. However, where the blood vessels have the force of the heart to pump blood around the body, the lymph system has no such "active" circulation method. The flow of lymph throughout the body is dependant on passive forms of propulsion… meaning that activity around the lymph vessels is responsible for lymph flow. Muscle contractions, physical massage, even the surging blood directly next to a lymph vessel all play a role in getting lymph to flow properly.
Fact number 4: Toxins tend to accumulate in fat tissue. If the body is unsuccessful in ridding itself of a particular toxin, then it will tend to store that toxin away from the vital organs. Fat cells serve to temporarily (hopefully) store toxins until the lymph system can remove them. However, this storage can be a contributing factor in the altering of cells, turning them into cancer.
Fact number 5: Breast tissue is mostly made up of fat tissue.
Taking all of these facts into account, can it be possible that the wearing of bras can be a contributing factor in breast cancer? According to Sydney Ross Singer, the author of Dressed To Kill, the link between breast cancer and bras, there is a direct link between the incidence of breast cancer and the amount of time that a woman wears her bra. He is an applied medical anthropologist that studied this theory in the Bra and Breast Cancer (BBC) study, the results of which are reported in his book. The numbers are daunting. A woman who wears a bra 24 hours a day is 125-fold more likely to develop breast cancer than a woman who does not wear a bra at all and a 113-fold increased likelihood than a woman who wears her bra less than 12 hours a day. It is interesting to note that this is anywhere from 4 to 12 times greater in significance than the connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer! If cigarettes must have labeling that warns the public, shouldn't bras require an even stronger warning?
Let's first explore why wearing a bra could be a causative factor, then we'll discuss why there is such societal resistance to this sort of information.
As mentioned earlier, lymph vessels are very sensitive to external pressure. In fact, there is reliance on some outside influence to cause the proper flow of the lymph fluid. But, even the slightest pressure can also block the flow, and thus the removal of toxins from a particular tissue. So, the question to ask is… can a bra infringe upon the drainage of lymph fluid from the breast? The answer is an unqualified yes! There are numerous lymph pathways, and lymph nodes (convergence points) in the armpits, under the breasts and in between the breasts. All of these areas can get cut off by a bra.”
(from this link:
http://www.illnessisoptional.com/absolu ... sp?a=6&z=6)
“There are certain facts that need to be discussed and fully understood before we can go further.
Fact number 1: Toxins cause cancer. Toxins get into our bodies from the food we eat, the water we drink, and the air we breathe. These come in the forms of pollutants from industry, pesticides, food additives, etc. These toxins have the ability to change the cellular structure such that cells begin to reproduce at an accelerated rate, never to die, and eventually sap the host (us) of nutrition and energy. We hear about "carcinogenic" chemicals all the time.
Fact number 2: Our bodies have a method to get rid of toxins. Our God-given ability towards health includes a complex set of chemical and physical mechanisms in which to expel these cancer-causing toxins. First and foremost, the liver is responsible for waging chemical warfare, breaking these toxins down into smaller parts for use or expulsion from the body. The lymph system plays a vital role in the removal of these parts.
Fact number 3: The lymph system is very sensitive to physical pressure. The lymph system is similar to the vascular system in that it circulates and permeates every tissue in the body. However, where the blood vessels have the force of the heart to pump blood around the body, the lymph system has no such "active" circulation method. The flow of lymph throughout the body is dependant on passive forms of propulsion… meaning that activity around the lymph vessels is responsible for lymph flow. Muscle contractions, physical massage, even the surging blood directly next to a lymph vessel all play a role in getting lymph to flow properly.
Fact number 4: Toxins tend to accumulate in fat tissue. If the body is unsuccessful in ridding itself of a particular toxin, then it will tend to store that toxin away from the vital organs. Fat cells serve to temporarily (hopefully) store toxins until the lymph system can remove them. However, this storage can be a contributing factor in the altering of cells, turning them into cancer.
Fact number 5: Breast tissue is mostly made up of fat tissue.
Taking all of these facts into account, can it be possible that the wearing of bras can be a contributing factor in breast cancer? According to Sydney Ross Singer, the author of Dressed To Kill, the link between breast cancer and bras, there is a direct link between the incidence of breast cancer and the amount of time that a woman wears her bra. He is an applied medical anthropologist that studied this theory in the Bra and Breast Cancer (BBC) study, the results of which are reported in his book. The numbers are daunting. A woman who wears a bra 24 hours a day is 125-fold more likely to develop breast cancer than a woman who does not wear a bra at all and a 113-fold increased likelihood than a woman who wears her bra less than 12 hours a day. It is interesting to note that this is anywhere from 4 to 12 times greater in significance than the connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer! If cigarettes must have labeling that warns the public, shouldn't bras require an even stronger warning?
Let's first explore why wearing a bra could be a causative factor, then we'll discuss why there is such societal resistance to this sort of information.
As mentioned earlier, lymph vessels are very sensitive to external pressure. In fact, there is reliance on some outside influence to cause the proper flow of the lymph fluid. But, even the slightest pressure can also block the flow, and thus the removal of toxins from a particular tissue. So, the question to ask is… can a bra infringe upon the drainage of lymph fluid from the breast? The answer is an unqualified yes! There are numerous lymph pathways, and lymph nodes (convergence points) in the armpits, under the breasts and in between the breasts. All of these areas can get cut off by a bra.”
Pan Zareta wrote:hurleynyc wrote: The connection is more statistically significant than cigarettes and smoking.
Can you point me to a published source or sources for that, please?Also, remember, you don't have to go braless, to make use of the research. Just, don't wear it as long or as tight fitting, if you can help it. As someone pointed out, riding at the seated trot can make a sports bra an absolute necessity! LOL. But then you should change out of it, when you can.
Seems to me that a bra which fits so tightly as to impede the lymphatics would probably also impair the c/v system to such an extent as to provoke gangrene or other symptoms of poor circulation. Imho, sports bras are hot and uncomfortable. There are 'regular' bras (for example, Chantelle's 'fete' model) that actually give better support and are less obtrusive.
This is indeed a goofy thread, but I want to respond in all seriousness to Pan and Inyureye.
Pan,
In my first post, I gave you two links - did you take a look at them?
There is a 1991 Harvard study which found that women who do not wear bras have a 60% lower rate of breast cancer. (Hsieh, C.C. and D. Trichopoulos, D. Eur. J. Cancer 27:131-5, 1991 "Breast size, handedness and breast cancer risk")
The Harvard study foreshadowed the 1995? work by Syd Singer and Soma Grismaijer of the Institute for the Study
of Culturogenic Disease published their book, "Dressed to Kill: The Link
Between Breast Cancer and Bras," (Avery Press). “Their study included
almost 4600 women, half of whom had breast cancer and half of whom did
not. They found that the more hours per day that a bra is worn, the
higher the rate of breast cancer and that women who do not wear bras have
a dramatically reduced rate of breast cancer.”
I think the 1995 study broke the statistics down into increased risk viz. hours of bra wearing per day. And for women who wore bras all day every day, the increased risk was much higher than the increased risk of lung cancer associated with cigarette smoking.
There were also studies done in England, Wales and Japan which corroborated some of these findings. I believe they were published in medical journals.
I don’t know if any study has been peer-reviewed in the U.S. (as in the New England Journal of Medicine). I tend to doubt it. I doubt a fully controlled study that meets the satisfaction of the U.S. medical community will ever be done. There is no money in it (no pharm companies to sponsor it), and if the increased risk is proven, it would make the medical community look like idiots for having missed this, and also bras are routinely prescribed for mastectomy patients, etc.). What group of doctors wants to think that they’ve actually been increasing the risk of breast cancer? Plus, the notion inspires hilarity!! (So did the theory that cigarette smoking might cause lung cancer, apparently, when it was first advanced). Tough to announce to your peers that you’re trying to prove it’s better for women to be bra-free (and to get paid grant money for this!) JMH thoughts.
The hippies of the sixties, who burned their bra's (along with the draft card's) now have Cooper's Droop! Their nipples are now eye to eye with their belly button's. They're normally an A cup, but because those sister's are so stretched out, they have to be reeled in to a double D cup!
I'll wait until my gynecologist tell's me there's a connection between breast cancer and bra's. I'm more concerned about the damage the machine does when having a mammogram. I KNOW some man invented it. There has to be a better way than mashing them flatter than pancake's.
I'll wait until my gynecologist tell's me there's a connection between breast cancer and bra's. I'm more concerned about the damage the machine does when having a mammogram. I KNOW some man invented it. There has to be a better way than mashing them flatter than pancake's.
Laissez les bon temps rouller!
-
wilf
- Breeder's Cup Contender
- Posts: 1882
- Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2004 10:50 am
- Location: Ocala, Florida.
Well I cannot believe that I have missed the opportunity to contribute to this stimulating " Racing" topic. I actually agree with everything that everyone has said and for the record I am a " fried-egg" fan myself. This preference comes from the fact that my first ever large size girlfriend lay on her back and her face disappeared , pity as she was quite cute until then. O.K. Now then, how is that new track coming along in Hobbs and are they going to build one in Tucumcari???
hurleynyc wrote:
Pan,
In my first post, I gave you two links - did you take a look at them?
There is a 1991 Harvard study which found that women who do not wear bras have a 60% lower rate of breast cancer. (Hsieh, C.C. and D. Trichopoulos, D. Eur. J. Cancer 27:131-5, 1991 "Breast size, handedness and breast cancer risk")
The Harvard study foreshadowed the 1995? work by Syd Singer and Soma Grismaijer of the Institute for the Study
of Culturogenic Disease published their book, "Dressed to Kill: The Link
Between Breast Cancer and Bras," (Avery Press). “Their study included
almost 4600 women, half of whom had breast cancer and half of whom did
not. They found that the more hours per day that a bra is worn, the
higher the rate of breast cancer and that women who do not wear bras have
a dramatically reduced rate of breast cancer.”
I think the 1995 study broke the statistics down into increased risk viz. hours of bra wearing per day. And for women who wore bras all day every day, the increased risk was much higher than the increased risk of lung cancer associated with cigarette smoking. JMH thoughts.
Unfortunately, I don't have time to read the above study. But, the first thoughts that come to my mind are:
1. More than likely, the women wearing bras for longer periods of time are the ones UNDER THE MOST STRESS, working long(er) hours in high-stress jobs, which would be a source of constant attack on one's immune system, via the spine/nervous system cutting off normal oxygen flow to crucial parts of the body, including the brain. Stress kills at a higher and faster rate than tight bras, jock straps, or whatever. High stress greatly affects circulation and even placement of the C1 vertabra, right at the base of the skull/brain stem, which controls normal function in so many crucial parts of the body.
2. An even greater determining factor in risk for cancer is HEREDITY; then it would be age, diet, living environment, etc.
A study was done years ago about underwire bras and breast cancer. As I recall, it was determined there was no causal connection. If there was, underwire bras would be outlawed and/or manufacturers of them would be required to have a WARNING LABEL on them. Also, there would be THOUSANDS of attorneys making their daily bread off of every woman who'd ever worn an underwire bra or other tight/restricting bra.
Yes, common sense tells us that we must allow ALL PARTS of the body to have decent circulation and wearing any article of clothing or engaging in any activity regularly that doesn't allow for good circulation, for ANY length of time, is asking for trouble, but not necessarily cancer. One would have to have an already toxic, out of balance immune system to develop cancer in the first place. Either that, or they would have to have D cup breasts and wear a B cup sports bra 24 hours a day, for quite a long period of time, to develop cancer from a truly healthy immune system.
Harvard is not the intellectual trailblazer it was decades ago, IMO, so, I'm not personally impressed by much of what they do, when viewed in light of other studies and other common sense and proven factors such as heredity, stress, age, diet, long-term medication use, etc. If the test group was not screened for these factors, then it means nothing at all to me.
Last edited by BJ on Thu Jul 14, 2005 3:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
StayOutFront
- Maiden Special Weight
- Posts: 186
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 10:29 pm
My my, doesn't this subject keep bouncing around. For now, I'll believe the American Cancer Society:
www.cancer.org/docroot/MED/content/MED_ ... tearea=MED
The weirdest thing about the study, to me, was that nearly 20% of women wear bras 24 hours a day.
www.cancer.org/docroot/MED/content/MED_ ... tearea=MED
The weirdest thing about the study, to me, was that nearly 20% of women wear bras 24 hours a day.
-
Tucumcari
- Chef de Race: Brilliant
- Posts: 3754
- Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 11:51 am
- Location: Here and there
I personally don't know anyone who wears a bra so tight that circulation could be impaired. Maybe if a bra fits like an overgirth the women in question should seek some fitting advice and quit trying to fit into the same size they wore when they were in high school... But I personally don't know anyone with that type of misguided style... It seems a bit far fetched to me...