Blogs and Stories
How Mom's Hip Size Predicts Her Daughter's Risk
Why does maternal hip width predispose to cancer in babies born to that mother? Hip growth during puberty is related to a girl’s estrogen levels which, in turn, are related to her pubertal nutrition. Thus, the estrogen level that determines pelvic growth in a young woman’s body is the same level that imparts risk to her daughter within the first few weeks following conception. It is likely that maternal estrogen exposes the cells in her embryonic daughter that will become breast tissue in later development. This estrogen exposure causes either genetic instability or silences genes that restrain growth of breast tissue. Breast tissue that is exposed to estrogen in the embryo is very vulnerable and more easily transformed into cancer tissue in later life. Further, estrogen or carcinogen exposure over a lifetime leads to the development of cancer. A similar picture can be painted for ovarian cancer.
Thus, we now know that cancer has its roots in prenatal life. In addition, we may find that girls who eat energy-dense foods (ie. foods high in calories per gram, like french fries, burgers, and milkshakes) and put on weight before puberty will have higher estrogen levels at the time when their pelvic bones depend on estrogen signals to regulate their growth and shape. These girls will have wider, rounder hips and will have high estrogen levels for life. High levels could damage sensitive cells in the placenta and breast tissue with life-long consequences for the offspring. The role of genes in causing a predisposition for cancer during this time of life is unknown and warrants intensive research.
Kent L. Thornburg, Ph.D., is a medical scientist who is internationally known for his work on the roots of adult-onset diseases. He is the founding director of the Heart Research Center at the Oregon Health and Science University.
For more of The Daily Beast, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.
What Are We About to Pass?
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
10 Power Food Combos
Divya Gugnani is the CEO and founder of BehindtheBurner.com, an emerging culinary media brand that creates expert-based content about food, wine, mixology, and nutrition.
How Barack Beat Bibi
Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. His new book, The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris, will be published by HarperCollins in June. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook.
thinkR
I have no idea what he's talking about - the width of the pelvic ridge?? Couldn't someone have edited this into English, or put up a handy graphic?
grrrlfriend
It's really quite clear if you can visualize the naked female form. Lying on her back, a woman's hipbones protrude upward. The distance between those protrusions is the primary measurements Dr. Thornburg is describing. A graphic would have been really helpful, though.
slmpirate
I dont know that a graphic was needed grrrlfriend, your description gave me a pretty good visual..:-)
lesherb
It sounds like nonsense to me, too. My mother is very small in all her dimensions yet I was a ½ ounce shy of 9 pounds when I was born. Do you suppose those two factors cancel each other out? ;-)
Granite
Sorry mom, I wish I had x-rayed you before we had you cremated.
disfasia
haha!
lbadams
completely flawed argument. One of the greatest risk factors for breast cancer is obesity, and one of reasons being fat is a problem is because fat cells generate estrogen. Estrogen receptor positive cancer will be "fed" by the estrogen that fat produces. Fat kids will go through puberty and develop wider hips, perhaps a different shape. Just because this guy has come up with some neat correlations really doesn't help us along... this is probably as good as saying "if we look at overweight pregnant moms, we can predict their children have a greater chance of having breast cancer." This would already be true even without all of the mumbo jumbo he throws in here to "support" his case and make it sound good.
slmpirate
I bet if they did further investigation into the social habits of these women I bet they would have found that 65% of them drove Volvos!
adreaadams
Gee,
I'm kind of tired of all of the debate,(saucy comments about Volvos) new studies, etc. My mother and her sister died from breast cancer. I can't measure their pelvises or anything else.
My mother died at 54. I'm 53 and waiting to see if I grow older than she and her sister. All I do is hope and pray that a cure is provided soon. Every October I just become sad and discouraged. I, however, am very appreciative of all strides in medicine.
laDivaG
Do you really think that there were lots of obese or even overweight women in Finland during the 30's and 40's?
I'll give you some help: Finland had just emerged from a civil war in 1918 and was dependent on US aid for avoiding starvation during much of the 20's, there was an economic depression going on all over Europe during the1930's and then WWII started.
The study may be flawed, but that isn't it.
Xntrk1
Quote: But it was the Helsinki Birth Cohort of 1934-1944 that allowed more than 6,000 Finnish women to be studied.
Marionetta
I think he's trying to say that big boned women who have kids well those kids have a higher percentage of....never mind.
All sounds like baloney to me.
Cymatic
Most new discoveries in science sound like baloney because they challenge the conventional thinking on the issue. These correlations are far too great to be a result of accident. A followup study by another credible source should confirm these findings. I'd put money on it.
Derida
New Study- Mother who hops on one foot wearing size 6 slipper with high instep before delivery has greater chance of passing on a gene that 5.5% of the time contributes to cancer in a female who lives within 500 mile radius of Helsinki. 12 year study costing millions.
slmpirate
LOL....Thanks Derida..You saved me from typing up a similar response..
flyoverland
Crap. Another pre-existing condition to worry about.
Ray-FL
This is an interesting distinction between coorelation and causality. Highly correlated but maybe the real cause is something else like increased weight. How does one get a look at the data?
maddymappo
garbage
yerffac
And with that useless piece of mis-information, we are to do what? If our pelvises are the wrong width, not have children? or abbort out female fetuses? Have our duaghters' breasts removed? Assinine. I had breast cancer 23 years ago. One of the "studies" I read about at the time found that women with more liquid wax in their ears were more likely to get breast cancer than women whose wax was solid. Codswallop! Money wasted when we need real research, real answers.
Tigerlily1225
I believe he's talking about the size of the pelvic bones; not necessarily the hip measurement. There's a difference and it doesn't mean the women measured were obese, just had wide pelvises. That's why some thin women deliver without a problem and some hefty women need C-sections.
DelawareGal
What a crock. I've had breast cancer 3x and my Mom just passed away from it. I am petite, small boned, 5'2" and 97 lbs., tiny pelvic area, no hips to speak of, and I take after my Mom who was also petite. Maybe women in that part of the world are built bigger in general, but to say an illness is based on the size of any body part is stupid. Trying to even pin it on genes doesn't work, not everyone who gets cancer carries the high risk genes, and not everyone who gets it has similar body traits...just go sit in any chemo room and watch the patients come and go, they are all shapes, sizes, ethnic origins and even genders, yes men get it, too. Cancer is mainly due to toxins which have built up in our bodies through ingesting or exposure to our wonderful "better living through chemistry" way of life; from our environment, poisons in our processed, pesticide sprayed food (yes, food we ate 20 years ago, probably laced with DDT), produce we thought was good but was grown in mineral depleted and chemically treated soil, breathing polluted air and drinking treated water. Right now, today, everyone either has or knows someone with cancer. 50 years ago it was not a common disease, and 100 years ago it was very rare. Common sense people!! Our so called modern way of life is killing us. Only regions so far removed from the effects of toxins and pollutions (rare places now) do not have cancer, or suffer from other diseases. Check out true statistics of small populations living at high elevations, remote villages, where the water is pure, air is clean and food is grown fresh and picked daily from rich soil. Yes they may seem like they are living in an old era, the places time forgot, no technology at all, but they are healthy as can be, often living productive lives into their 100's, these places you see in National Geographic once in awhile with the photo of the 99 year old man plowing a field like he's 25. The answers are so plain to see, it's simple, WE ARE WHAT WE EAT, AND WHAT WE DRINK, BREATHE AND PUT ON OUR SKIN, AND HOW STRESSED WE ARE. Our bodies are a direct reflection of how and where we live. Why do they waste time and money on bullshit?
bannister
Finland I believe has a higher rate of many cancers because it is located further from the sun and the people there are probably more defficient in vitamin D. The larger hip size may indicate less active healthy women who are not spending time outside, getting activity and sunshine. I believe they are also more prone to not only cancer, but diabetes, osteoporosis, and other auto immune disorders. Alaska, Seattle, and Boston are said to be simlilar in deficiencies.
aanaart1
Bravo! To all the comments. As a physician I am impressed and happy that all the comments go to the heart of the matter. First, this is a "retrospective" study. That means that a bias is unavoidably built in because the population studied is already preselected by some criteria to put each patient into the group. Thus, it is already NOT representative of the general population.
Second, as is written above, "correlation" is not "causation". Third, the hip width may itself be related to a relevant but unrecognized factor (such as obesity, as noted in the comments).
A tip about all "medical research": scientifically rigorous research is published in "referred" (reviewed by experts in that subject). If you can't get your paper published in those journals, it isn't scientifically valid.
Or, in the words of several: "garbage"; "crap"; "assinine (sic)";"codswallop"; "nonsense". It appears that the readers are far more sophisticated than whoever allowed this blog to be published at all.
MOZART
http://sickforprofit.com/
Netting $2.5 billion in profits last year wasn't enough for WellPoint, the nation's largest insurance company.
Now, WellPoint's affiliate, Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, is suing the state of Maine for refusing to guarantee it a profit margin in the midst of a painful recession.
nothing you don't already know.. however,
do you know anyone in Maine to forward this video to?
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.