|
Post by Caitshidhe on Mar 17, 2009 12:21:55 GMT -5
Yeah, it makes sense. The last I heard, which was some years ago, the hormones-in-food explanation was the most often-accepted opinion on the matter. You can attribute SOME of the lowered age of the onset of puberty to improved nutrition, though, because the age of first menstruation started going down before the excess hormones were used in meat, but after there were more programs in place to help people--children especially--get better food and more adequate nutrition.
Still, I've no idea if hormones in food was responsible for my mom's early maturation and the Brazilian girl's pregnancy. My mom was nine years old in the sixties and I have no idea what food is like where the little girl is from.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Mar 17, 2009 13:42:25 GMT -5
I still say that precocious puberty is a sign of disease and/or defect, because puberty isn't SUPPOSED to start before age 12 (or maybe late-11). What we need right now isn't a Wiki reference, but an actual, you know, doctor to straighten this out. (Or a published mainstream medical journal...) I has this. It's from the American Academy of Pediatrics. While it is rare, there are girls who start puberty when their age is still in the single digits. Also, the study ( link) states that the age at which girls undergo puberty has not changed recently. Now then, will everybody stop just stating their opinions and possible misconceptions as facts? Citations dammit! From everybody.
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Mar 17, 2009 14:07:34 GMT -5
Vene -- thank you for proving my point. (And no, I'm not a doctor, I just spend way too much time around them.)
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 17, 2009 14:43:39 GMT -5
It hasn't changed since 1973 according to that study. Haven't we been using estrogen in livestock since the early 40s, though?
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Mar 17, 2009 14:48:30 GMT -5
It hasn't changed since 1973 according to that study. Haven't we been using estrogen in livestock since the early 40s, though? The bigger question is, does it show up in the meat? Is it showing up in the milk? Are hormones used on livestock showing up in our food supply? Caitsidhe -- "And you don't have to have even had a period yet to get pregnant, either. To get mildly medical, ovulation occurs BEFORE the uterine lining is shed, so it's entirely possible for a girl to be pregnant before she even has her first period, and it DOES happen. It has nothing to do with precocious puberty." Er, no. You don't necessarily have to ovulate to have your period. Hello, The Pill? It prevents ovulation, but you STILL FUCKING BLEED...
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Mar 17, 2009 14:56:16 GMT -5
It hasn't changed since 1973 according to that study. Haven't we been using estrogen in livestock since the early 40s, though? The bigger question is, does it show up in the meat? Is it showing up in the milk? Are hormones used on livestock showing up in our food supply? A better question is what happens to the hormone during digestion? If it is destroyed, there is no way it can influence anything except as a source of metabolic energy. Most everything we eat is converted to something else that is needed. For example, roughly half of the amino acids can be converted into glucose and glucose can be converted into any other sugar needed. Plus, glucose can be broken down into acetyl CoA which is essential for the synthesis of fats.
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Mar 17, 2009 15:05:31 GMT -5
The bigger question is, does it show up in the meat? Is it showing up in the milk? Are hormones used on livestock showing up in our food supply? A better question is what happens to the hormone during digestion? If it is destroyed, there is no way it can influence anything except as a source of metabolic energy. Most everything we eat is converted to something else that is needed. For example, roughly half of the amino acids can be converted into glucose and glucose can be converted into any other sugar needed. Plus, glucose can be broken down into acetyl CoA which is essential for the synthesis of fats. And I'm still sitting here, going "Hormones? In MY food?" I'm assuming that estrogen, etc, aren't broken down/destroyed in the digestive process (otherwise The Pill wouldn't work). This is leading to some really disturbing thoughts about our food supply.
|
|
|
Post by Sandafluffoid on Mar 17, 2009 15:13:57 GMT -5
It hasn't changed since 1973 according to that study. Haven't we been using estrogen in livestock since the early 40s, though? And you don't have to have even had a period yet to get pregnant, either. To get mildly medical, ovulation occurs BEFORE the uterine lining is shed, so it's entirely possible for a girl to be pregnant before she even has her first period, and it DOES happen. It has nothing to do with precocious puberty. Er, no. You don't necessarily have to ovulate to have your period. Hello, The Pill? It prevents ovulation, but you STILL FUCKING BLEED... Well I'm no expert, but I think the process of ovulation and mensturation are naturally triggered by the same chemical conditions or whatnot, yet whilst the pill stops ovulation it does not stop mensturation. However very few nine year olds are on the pill, so they would still be in a nautral state where ovulation and mensturation coincide. Again though I am by no means an expert on anyhting so this is just wild conjecture based on half-remembered sex-ed lessons.
|
|
|
Post by Caitshidhe on Mar 17, 2009 15:46:27 GMT -5
Yes, the pill stops ovulation, but the point I was trying to make was that it was medically possible for a girl to a) begin puberty and b) get pregnant at nine years old and NOT have precocious puberty involved. While you can have a period without ovulation and ovulation without having a period, the two usually coincide--if they didn't, women wouldn't be using their cycles to time conception.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Mar 17, 2009 16:25:43 GMT -5
*starts looking at pubmed for articles concerning precocious puberty* Well, now this is interesting. Apparently hair products with estrogen can actually cause premature development in girls. This case report shows that at the least a tumor can be a cause. It also looks like it can result from over activity of the hypothalamus and pituitary glands ( link). Also, if anybody can find the text for this I would really appreciate it. I've done some digging, but all I know is that there is a study concerning the ingestion of estrogen and its influence on puberty.
|
|
|
Post by Death on Mar 17, 2009 16:36:49 GMT -5
It hasn't changed since 1973 according to that study. Haven't we been using estrogen in livestock since the early 40s, though? The bigger question is, does it show up in the meat? Is it showing up in the milk? Are hormones used on livestock showing up in our food supply? Caitsidhe -- "And you don't have to have even had a period yet to get pregnant, either. To get mildly medical, ovulation occurs BEFORE the uterine lining is shed, so it's entirely possible for a girl to be pregnant before she even has her first period, and it DOES happen. It has nothing to do with precocious puberty." Er, no. You don't necessarily have to ovulate to have your period. Hello, The Pill? It prevents ovulation, but you STILL FUCKING BLEED... only because the manufacturers formulated the pill to mimic a mentrual cycle. They did this for two reasons, one to shut the catholic church up and two to reassure women that they aren't pregnant. But medically there is no reason there should be any menses while on the pill. Vene, That chart is for teh USA, Brazil might be different.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Mar 17, 2009 16:49:54 GMT -5
Vene, That chart is for teh USA, Brazil might be different. Yeah, I know. It's the best information I could find. At least, given the amount of work I'm willing to put into a forum discussion. I'd say that the data from the Mexican American girls is probably the closest to age of puberty in Brazil. Not simply because of race, but social-economic status.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 18, 2009 8:20:37 GMT -5
And I'm still sitting here, going "Hormones? In MY food?" I'm assuming that estrogen, etc, aren't broken down/destroyed in the digestive process (otherwise The Pill wouldn't work). This is leading to some really disturbing thoughts about our food supply. It's worth noting that they put the estrogen into the feed, initially. It wasn't originally broken down, for sure, or it would make for a piss-poor delivery system.
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Mar 18, 2009 12:12:40 GMT -5
Another question about the hormones in livestock is the specific type. Not all hormones are the same, and hormones that work for animals (like horses for example), while some will work in humans not all of them do (which is part of the problem with premarin, equestrian oestrogen isn't really that great in a human's endocrine system). Further they do break down, especially in the liver, and a lot of hormone supplements have to have a high amount in order to get enough that doesn't break down into the bloodstream. Not saying that hormones in food isn't a problem, just not as much of a problem as some people think (and meat will still have some of the animals naturally produced hormones in it, if you want to get really nitpicky; especially the liver if I recall things right).
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Mar 21, 2009 18:44:50 GMT -5
Another question about the hormones in livestock is the specific type. Not all hormones are the same, and hormones that work for animals (like horses for example), while some will work in humans not all of them do (which is part of the problem with premarin, equestrian oestrogen isn't really that great in a human's endocrine system). Further they do break down, especially in the liver, and a lot of hormone supplements have to have a high amount in order to get enough that doesn't break down into the bloodstream. Not saying that hormones in food isn't a problem, just not as much of a problem as some people think (and meat will still have some of the animals naturally produced hormones in it, if you want to get really nitpicky; especially the liver if I recall things right).Lucky for me, I never liked liver... ::gags::
|
|