Firstly, I realise this will elicit quite a few “views” but I’ve got to say up front - no photos, sorry!
This is an observation (no pun intended) that was reinforced by comments from both of my children that there are few, if any, elite athletes in swimming (their sport) with them. My cursory observation is that this applies in other sports as well. Not all (lingerie NFL comes to mind) but certainly many triathlon related sport and those directly related (swim, bike , run) as well as athletics in terms of track events. I realise that “big boobs” are an obvious impediment to many of these sports but it’s hard to fathom that the impediment is so great.
I raise this not as some sick old man or sexist pig, but as a dad with a reasonably talented daughter swimmer who has raised this herself (and her brother agrees) as being “unfair”. My wife seems not to be the genetic culprit so it looks like my side if the family is to blame.
Son just smiles as he has no such impediment (me again!)
Is it really a big mystery? Breasts are essentially fat tissue. Elite triathletes/swimmers/runners, etc have extremely low body fat. As you lose fat body your breast size will decrease.
Ath - I don’t think you’re absolutely correct there. There’s a genetic correlation and whilst there may be some reduction, it’s not like losing weight from your gut, hips etc. you need to do some reading
Genetics may determine your potential, but a lifetime worth of endurance activity, especially through the adolescent years when a child does the majority of their development is certainly going to have a large impact on that.
Not to be insensitive, but you don’t see too many anorexic girls with big breasts either…
A girl on my high school swim team had big boobs and was also crazy fast. Don’t let it get to you/her. It’s like height in swimming - it might affect her getting a gold medal in the olympics, but it shouldn’t stop her from what really matters; getting a college scholarship.
Ath - I don’t think you’re absolutely correct there. There’s a genetic correlation and whilst there may be some reduction, it’s not like losing weight from your gut, hips etc. you need to do some reading
Olympian (2x) Joelle Franzmann is an outlier - when I watched the world cups, I was always surprised that the commentators never mentioned her ‘big boobs’ from a performance perspective - the extra weight, potential back problems - I also suspect she may have had a breast reduction…it seemed that they were slightly smaller, but still way bigger than her competitors, her last few years as a pro.
Ath - I don’t think you’re absolutely correct there. There’s a genetic correlation and whilst there may be some reduction, it’s not like losing weight from your gut, hips etc. you need to do some reading
Ath - I don’t think you’re absolutely correct there. There’s a genetic correlation and whilst there may be some reduction, it’s not like losing weight from your gut, hips etc. you need to do some reading
No, gut and hips is fat and muscle. Breasts are fat, muscle and “glands.” You can’t lose glands without surgery. Some women have more gland tissue than others, and thus can never have small breasts.
No, gut and hips is fat and muscle. Breasts are fat, muscle and “glands.” You can’t lose glands without surgery. Some women have more gland tissue than others, and thus can never have small breasts.
No where did I disagree with any of that but sure keep trying to make it look like I did.
The ‘unfair’ part that guns is referring to is mostly fat, not the gland in this case. While the gland is different on various women fat is a huge factor and cannot be ignored (well apparently it can be in this thread).
There has been a direct correlation between body fat and breast size of everyone I have ever dated.
Lose fat on your hips gut or breasts and they will get smaller regardless of any other tissue in the area.
As for losing glands surgery is not always required, heck it even says so in your link, but why would you actually read what you post?.. hormones can and do affect breast size including that of the glands. Hormones of a young athlete are going to be different from that of one who isn’t and can play a roll.
Still they are probably mostly noticing a difference in fat not gland.
This is corrct about the glands not shrinking despite weight lose. The size of the glands is affected by hormone levels which may also be why athletes that are very fit (low body fat levels) have small breasts. The lack of body fat lowers hormone levels causing many changes such as loss of menstruation and would prevent the breast glands from growing, essentially leaving the woman with a pre-pubescent body if they began the high level athletic endeavor before going through puberty. If the athlete began to work out harder after the breasts have already developed, then getting to low body fat will cause them to shrink somewhat from loss of fat but the glands probably wouldn’t shrink unless her weight loss was severe and sustained (thus causing major hormonal changes).
You disagree with a post, suggest someone should read more and then pull out your evidence of past girlfriends. Well played…
Just so we are clear boobs, which are partially made up of fat, cannot change size when body fat levels change?
And for the record the OP actually was the one who told someone else to go read:
you need to do some reading
I simply provided some reading that contradicted what he was claiming.
Then tkos says that glands can only change size with surgery, but then tells the next person (After me) to bring up hormones that is what he actually meant.
