More U.S. girls starting puberty early

reply to post by sjrily


You need to read the methodolgy behind the studies themselves. The subjects were injected with phytoestrogens. This is a horrid method as they got more in their system than the average person who ever get in their life. Simply because you eat something doesn't mean you fully digest it. Nor are phytoestrogens digested in the same way other hormones are. It does not work that way. Most people just pee it out. Either way a few studies doesn't prove anything. You need more than a few.

GMO has it's own set of problems, but we still haven't even established if puberty is coming on earlier. Korg is right, two studies don't prove it. Nor does the methodology prove anything.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by antonia]

reply to post by antonia

With all due respect, I have no idea what you're talking about, and I'm not sure you understand what you're trying to present either. We don't "digest hormones" or process them like food.

Nevertheless, I simply pointed out what is written in the Wikipedia link you provided as back up from your statement "No, plant derived estrogens are not processed in the same way as those produced within the body." This is your link your dismissing, not mine. But whoever stated there have only been two studies most definitely doesn't know what he or she is talking about. That is absurd.

I appreciate the advice on how to evaluate sources and conduct research. If I might return the favor, critical thinking and earnest investigation go a long way too.

Originally posted by sjrily
reply to post by antonia

 

With all due respect, I have no idea what you're talking about, and I'm not sure you understand what you're trying to present either. We don't "digest hormones" or process them like food.

Then you defeated your own argument. In order for anything one eats to affect them it must digested. It must enter the bloodstream through one's intestines. Some amount of the material does. Nowhere the amount used in these studies though. Phytoestrogens are in many plants though including nuts, fennel and anise. I don't see people complaining about those.

And here's a tidbit: An epidemiological study of women in the United States found that the dietary intake of phytoestrogens in healthy post-menopausal Caucasian women is less than one milligram daily
en.wikipedia.org...

In other words, they are not be exposed to nearly the amount used in these studies. If breast cancer runs in your family you should stay away from all sources of phytoestrogens, but other than that the issue is severely hyped.

But whoever stated there have only been two studies most definitely doesn't know what he or she is talking about. That is absurd.

Then you need to show the evidence.

Originally posted by sjrily
But whoever stated there have only been two studies most definitely doesn't know what he or she is talking about. That is absurd.

That was me and I am a he thank you very much

This from the OP...

Girls in the United States are entering puberty at earlier ages than they have in the past, a new study reports.

More than 10 percent of white 7-year-old girls in the study, which was conducted in the mid-2000s, had reached a stage of breast development marking the start of puberty, compared to just 5 percent in a similar study conducted in the early 1990s.

Experts aren't sure what's behind the increase in earlier puberty

So we have conducted just two tests and have reported a 5% rise in results on the second test as compaired to the data produced from the first test.. But as demonstrated two sets of data do not lead to a trend.

Any assumptions given to the study at this moment would be exactly that... assumptions. And we all know the old saying about assumption being the mother of all (Snip)ups.

If when the next study comes along it also shows a rise in percentile there would be a case and ground for further studies to understand why thier is a rising trend, which we could then use to generate actions from.

Until that point you are jumping the gun.

Action without prior confirmation could lead to missunderstanding in the publics eyes and could cost millions upon millions.

More speed, less haste!

Korg.

[edit on 11-8-2010 by Korg Trinity]

I disagree I defeated my own argument. Hormones aren’t “digested” like food – they may be ingested and/or metabolized, but they aren’t digested.

Simply because you eat something doesn't mean you fully digest it. Nor are phytoestrogens digested in the same way other hormones are. …Most people just pee it out.

That statement didn’t make sense (to me) and I was trying to clarify what I understand the facts to be. Same goes for this one; I beleive its inaccurate and confuses the issue:

In order for anything one eats to affect them it must digested. It must enter the bloodstream through one's intestines. Some amount of the material does.

The way I understand the biology, digestion (aided by enzymes and hormones) breaks down foods into useable compounds, but that process is not required for something ingested to affect us. We swallow a penny and get sick from bacteria or toxins on it, but we don’t “digest” the penny or bacteria.

And substances, ingested or not, don’t have to enter the bloodstream through the small intestines. They can be absorbed from chewing (nicotine from chewing tobacco enters the bloodstream through the mouth), through stomach lining, skin, lungs, even eyes. Some inhaled chemicals skip the bloodstream entirely via the olfactory system.

I’m not trying to play semantics; just trying to be as accurate. Proposing (in summary) that the only way xenohormones affect us is if we eat and digest certain foods, then absorb (vs. expel), the molecules is misleading and untrue.

Phytoestrogens are in many plants though including nuts, fennel and anise. I don't see people complaining about those.

That’s because they’re in their natural form. As I stated earlier, modern “processing” and genetic modifications have changed a lot about our foods. I’m sure someone will want “proof” of that as well, but at this point, I’m not going to dig up and post a bunch of links nobody’s really interested in anyway. I’m not trying to be sarcastic, just realistic - if someone really is interested in the content for the content’s sake, I’d be happy to take time to compile references.

That said, I’m not really sure what it is you want me to “prove,” anyway. My entire point has been that xenohormones, specifically xenoestrogens are plentiful in our environment; that they enter our bodies through a variety of different products and a variety of ways; and that research has shown (and research continues to confirm) that these chemicals are causing a number of serious health problems. I’ve posted sources relative to that, and those sources provide further sources. If people don’t want look into matters for themselves, or have already made up their minds, then no amount of discussion or clickable links will make any difference.

I’m not still “arguing” this to “prove” I’m right (this shouldn’t be about proving anything, anyway; it should be about openly considering - rather than dismissing - the collective peer-reviewed knowledge available), but I continued to post because I have a fair amount of time invested in this and related topics and I think it’s an important issue (my opinion, of course). To say it’s all hype because you choose not to believe it is your right, of course, but I sincerely hope anyone reading this thread will investigate these issues on their own, rather simply concluding that so-and-so was right (or they won) and so-and-so was wrong (or they lost).

I apologize I’ve gone on and on, but I’m really frustrated at how difficult it is to discuss topics in any online venue. The intent should be to expand on and explore things, but it seems nearly every topic ends up being a “you’re wrong; now prove you’re right” discussion (or worse). There’s nothing enlightening, engaging or mutual in exchanges where parties are constantly having to defend credibility. The actual ideas become irrelevant; THAT is indeed a bummer.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


"He" duly noted

We should keep in mind that what the OP posted is a short article ABOUT a research paper – not the research paper itself – I’m sure we'de all agree there's a big difference.

I did initially read the entire article (which also discusses some of the same points I’ve tried to make) and I just read it again - Nowhere in the article does it state there have only been two studies ever conducted on early puberty. Nowhere

What is DOES state is that the researchers conducted their own study, then compared it to a study done in the early 1990s. It’s very likely they based their study on the earlier one and used the same methodology, matrixes, etc. so they were comparing apples and apples. In other words, they repeated the earlier study. This is my assumption - I don’t know this for fact – but this is not at all an uncommon practice.

I would hate to think anyone would consider their research meaningless or invalid because they didn’t analyze statistical data from all studies.

Nevertheless, here's a study from 1997:
psychweb.psych.duke.edu...

Another from 2003:
edrv.endojournals.org...

Another one from 2004:
pediatrics.aappublications.org...

from 2006:
www.eje-online.org...

Please note that just becuase the title isn't "Study about Changes in Early Puberty in Girls," doesn't mean those factors aren't measured or addressed.

There are plenty of studies out there; I’ll dig more up if you’re truly interested in the topic, but please don’t ask me to dig through journals for the sake of argument.

You know most the girls I knew growing up didnt have their first training bra till they were 10, I got mine when I was 9. And all the girls I knew started their cycles around 11/12.... One friend of mine started when she was 8 the poor baby... she had d's by the time she was 10!! All the kids made fun of her at school. I feel bad for these poor girls starting so young. They dont even have a chance at being kids!! Its ridiculious! I will just FREAK OUT if my baby girl started puberty at 7!!! Doesnt hitting puberty mean thats when your sexual curiousity kicks in? ............ Thats not even right ..... PARENTS LOCK UP THE GIRLS LOL

In both health and psychology classes puberty was linked to weight. Normally a girl doesn't hit a certain weight until say 12 or so but these little chubs today hit that weight mark far earlier...I'm sure there are exceptions but it does make sense to me

Starrgazer25 I agree! *LOL*Having raised two girls and three boys (almost - the twin boys are still home procrastinating college and adulthood), I can say wish certain that the girls keep you FAR busier than the boys.

I became mom to the girls when they were 10 and 16. For a number of years prior to that I was a single mom of three very "ADHD" boys Once the youngest girl hit puberty, I stated, and continue to state it was easier raising 3 boys alone than it was raising 1 girl with a husband.

Didn't mean to scare you; I'm sure mine was an extreme case

AnonymousMoose Yes, that certainly seems related too. A lot of researchers believe it's a number of inter-related factors though, and not as simple as fix the weight, then fix the early puberty. There are at least 10 different things I can think of right off the top that influence at least 10 other things and it just keeps going and going.

I think the last paper (or the third) I linked to in the previous post has several key sections on weight, insulin, and hormones as they relate to puberty.