Interesting

[travis]

Maternal Depression May Correlate With Daughter\'s Earlier Puberty
But Experts Say Other Factors Could Play a Part as Well
By Candace Hoffmann
WebMD Medical News

March 24, 2000 (Lake Worth, Fla.) -- A study from two researchers in New Zealand theorized that a mother\'s stress, mood disorders, or divorce may be related to their daughters\' earlier puberty. When they looked at 87 girls and their mothers, 67 of whom had mood disorders, their theory seemed sound

While the study, which appears in the March/April issue of the journal Child Development, shows a correlation between mothers with mood disorders and their daughters\' earlier puberty, Bruce J. Ellis, PhD, one of the researchers, says that a direct cause and effect relationship cannot be shown.
\"Both marital and family dysfunction and early pubertal timing in daughters may be caused by common underlying genetic factors,\" he tells WebMD. Ellis is a lecturer in psychology at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand.
The study only looked at maternal depression, family conflict, divorce and remarriage, and when puberty began. Other factors that are known to cause early puberty, such as genetics and nutrition, were not looked at.
Puberty is starting younger and younger with each generation, according to Hadine Joffe, MD, who is director of the Women\'s Center for Behavior Endocrinology at McLean Hospital at Harvard Medical School. Joffe, who reviewed the study for WebMD, says the findings are an interesting evolutionary hypothesis.
The nature or nurture issue came up in the study when the authors noticed the correlation between the age of the daughter when the father left the household, and the exposure to either a stepfather or the mother\'s boyfriend. The researchers theorized that the influence of unrelated males on puberty could be due to pheromones. Pheromones are hormones that are thought to stimulate, through smell, sexual reactions in animals.
The pheromone theory goes along with a lot of recent interest in the sense of smell and its influence on behavior, says Arnold Licht, MD. Of course, he says, one has to be careful not to make broad associations that could have wide-range implications. More research needs to be done on the senses before this conclusion is reached, he says.
Both Joffe and Licht say that the one aspect of the study that may have relevance is the issue of maternal depression. While Ellis himself says that this study is simply observational and no clinical conclusions can be drawn, Joffe and Licht think that the issue of a mother\'s or any family member\'s depression having an effect on family dysfunction can be a real message.
\"One shouldn\'t take home the message that depression in and of itself is going to cause huge disruption of this sort in their daughter, but I think that ideally the extent to which the child can be kept involved with the mother during her depression is important,\" Licht says. A therapist could act as a mediator to help the mother and daughter maintain a functional relationship.
\"Depression can be as severe an emotional withdrawal as physical death can be, and it can have its impact on the child,\" he says.
And whether maternal depression can cause early onset of puberty will remain debatable, Joffe says, but \"the fact that depression has effects on other family members is really important ... so it\'s a real argument for identifying [depression] and getting treatment.\"
Ellis says that the study\'s findings are not clinically applicable. \"Until the findings have been replicated on other samples, it would not be advisable to use these data as a basis for clinical decisions,\" he says.
Vital Information:
· New research has shown that a mother\'s mood disorder or new relationship following a divorce is associated with an earlier onset of puberty among daughters.
· One expert cautions that some other factor could be causing early puberty in these girls.
· Researchers hypothesize that the introduction of a new stepfather or boyfriend of the mother exposes the child to pheromones, and this could influence earlier onset of puberty.

[Whitehall]

I imagine that the text you copied and pasted into Bruce\'s forum is under copyright and what you have done is a violation of that copyright.

It is Ok if you provide a link but it is NOT OK to copy.

Interesting article though.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Remember the old 10% whitehall, you can copy up to 10% of the total article or publication without prior written consent. I guess the above would be less of the 10% rule which makes it fine to put up on the forum.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Thanks, Travis. That really is an interesting article.

[drchaos]

It is true that evolutionary explanations are often \"just-so\" stories, but here it makes alot of sense.

The evolutionary issue is obvious----a new male who isn\'t the father has no investment in the daughter from a previous mating. A new male is more likely to want a child of his own and direct resources in that direction. Some primate males even murder the children of their mates from previous matings.

For the survival of the daughter an early sexual maturation is thus helpful if it gets attention and resources from other males who would feed and protect her.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I dunno. It\'s not at all unusual for a stepfather to molest his stepchild. There can be a certain sexual tension there. I\'m wondering if that\'s not what\'s bringing on the maturation process early.

[EXIT63]

I think it\'s because we eat more chicken.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

There was a article that genetic related siblings and parent children have certain repellent phero type compound that prevent any \"sexual\" type of relations. But with stepchildren that goes astray because there is no direct male to child DNA link that prevents anything happening and men being unable to control that sexual urge attempt to mate with thier offspring. A defect in the human genome but that is the primative biological explaination.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

ditto on the chicken. fried tenders rock!

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Because chicken is so hormone-infested? There\'s that theory, too. -- that we\'re over estrogenated because our food is altered.

Some have maturation is occurring earlier because nutrition is so improved as well.

It could have something to do with food.

[marv14yag]

That\'s just plain dumb. It\'s not because of outside hormones....

It\'s because of evolution...

Girl matures faster, has kids before she gets out of high school, screws other guys, has more kids.

Those kids mature quicker and so on....

Now, the \"non\" maturing type of girl doesn\'t have sex, ie, it\'s not passed down.

The stepfather idea is good ONLY to the girl that WAS molested...Not so much for more generations, because, I don\'t think that that can be passed down through the genetics...

Bart

[**DONOTDELETE**]

yeah, ok.

[xxxPantero]

i thought the reason that the 12 year old girls have big, round butts, yet underdeveloped breasts (well... normal for their age,but out of sync with the rest of their body) was because of the hormones in mcdonalds\' burgers. i mean, is it just me or does every 12-15 year old girl in miami have the same exact body type? a-b cup witha curvy butt, and they look like they\'re 17-18 except when they open their mouth - THEN they sound their age.

it\'s not evolution, or otherwise their minds would have evolved along with their bodies... something is changing the girls physically (except for breasts, which probably have the type of hormones that don\'t react with the other hormones from the one that causes butt and hip and waist growth), but not mentally, unfortunately.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Miami is a dangerous town. I\'ve met girls I thought were well over the 18 mark (breasts, makeup, and all) and they were still in highschool...oops. I have heard that a lot of it comes from hormones used in chicken, cows, and pigs to help increase production of meat, dairy products, and bacon...lots and lots of bacon, especially on top of a cheeseburger. mmm cheeseburgers.

[xxxPantero]

well the thing is just to never ask them their age, and don\'t give \'em your real name or home phone number /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

plus they\'re at that age where they want to explore sexuality, so if you wanna take advantage, now is the time to do it - of course, limit urself reasonably, if they are younger than you by 3 years and under 18, fuggedaboutit!

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Amazing what things in the foodchains do - now for genetic engineering and GM crops i wonder what they will come up with there.
The next 20 years might see things get interesting, the hormones would influence their mating and offspring earlier and therefore their offspring would be more likley with both evolution and the hormones changing society as we see it.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

what does this mean? in another 20 yrs we\'re gonna have 3rd grade girls running around with D-cups and junk in the trunk (big booty)??

[marv14yag]

I don\'t see how hormones would effect the hips and not the breasts...This may only be a cultural thing.

Here\'s how it is though: Hormones (if it can be proven) make the women bigger. However, this is how it works...Guys like the bigger girl, F*ck the girl who looks like 18 and is not..These girls f*ck so much they have the MOST kids...These kids pick up the traits (big women, look older than they are....) and it keeps going on and on and on.....Until pretty much EVERYONE you see is like that.

Now, even if hormones DO change the womeon, ULTIMATELY, it\'s what the man prefers that will more than likely influence it, evolution far outweights, because, if men didn\'t like the big girls, there would be more thin ones.....

Now, I don\'t KNOW if the homrones effect the way men LOOK at the women. I, personally, lifting weights like a mother F*cker, and taking 25 mg of dhea every day, and, everything else, not to meniton, I\'m 17...I don\'t really see a DIFFERENCE...i like the big hipped big breasted girls, then there\'s the tight tight tight, thin small boned girls, it\'s all good...I don\'t see a preference, but, it MAY be like I said, a CULTURAL thing ( there ARE a lot of Mexicans, actually, CUBANS, and that MIGHT be the cultural preference! Make any SENSE?! Because over here, we got all different people, and all different kinds of girls...

Bart

[CptKipling]

Evolution doesnt happen on that scale that fast.

[marv14yag]

Do not be so sure. Just in the last 25 years people are now bigger, faster, and their muslce structure is too big for their bone structure, ie, evolution. This is just in 25 YEARS!!!

There\'s differnet ranges of evolution...

Now, it takes a LONG time, to GROW an ENTIRE appendix, etc.

However, if it\'s the process of illimination, less than 50 years is needed, ESPECIALLY, when, the ones that are reproducing are produign faster, you give ALL these women, and than it\'s just a process of illimination, the ones that are good, stay, the other ones die, or don\'t die, however, there is a VERY higher increase in the ones that DO work, v.s. don\'t.

Bart

[CptKipling]

I wouldn\'t be so sure that this is evolution, rather prolonged environmental conditioning. Of course I could be wrong.

Think about it this way. It could happen this fast with moths (and did in the UK, to do with camoflage), but the time span for a generation is just too big in humans is just too big, 25 years is just one generation, if that.

[marv14yag]

Prolonged environmental conditioning.

Yes, it probably IS, that, but, that\'s what evolution is right, responding to stimulus of an environement, with, or without a new generation.

Either way, it\'s evolving, so to speak, no doubt....People are changing, the human body is the most adaptvie thing known, I do believe.


Bart

[CptKipling]

iirc evolution is classified as the success and prolification of individuals within a species who possess a genetic trate which gives them an advantage over others compeating in their environment.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

now we\'re onto environment - you are what you eat. never mind 25 years! body builders can take steroids and get \"big\" in weeks....what happens if these steroids are fed to you throughout your life (via meat, fish, dairy, etc...) we already know that cattle and poultry animals are being manipulated through drugs for a greater output of \"sellable products\"
What I want to know is why I don\'t have a big butt and a 14\" mamber of the anatomy!!! I eat plenty of cheeseburgers, chicken, and bacon....mmmm...bacon! Plus I eat and drink dairy. Where\'s my drastic \"improvement\"???

[CptKipling]

lol

Thats what I\'m saying, its more likely to be a result of hormones or steroids in food or drinks.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Because the theory is that meat and dairy are causing more estrogen. So the effect on women would be earlier maturation; the effect on men would be to be feminized - lower sperm count, lower fertility, lower masculinity.

When I get to work I\'ll post a link for you.

[Whitehall]

Usually evolutionary change takes a minimum of 10 generations.

As to humans, very little evolutionary change is taking place at this time. The reason is that evolution works on both ends - the weak die or are shunned before reproducing and/or the strong have disproportionately more offspring. Life has been so good for most of the planet for humans that infant mortality rates are waaaay down and average lifespan is way up. Hence, little selection during our population boom.

At least in the Western countries, the well-to-do (presumed better genes) don\'t have a lot of kids. The poor and marginalized have larger families - even with poor genes. Medical science allows more individuals with poor or mildly disfunctional genes to reproduce. In the third world countries, there may be more of a selection factor due to bigger families for the better endowed genetically but I doubt it.

So what is happening to the gene pool is LESS evolutionary pressure allowing a greater diversity in the gene pool. Add greater mixing across previously isolated populations and the bell curve is broadening but the median is not moving except maybe toward the weaker end (diseugenics).

Wait until the next ecological stress happens - then we\'ll see an evolutionary bottleneck where \"only the strong survive\" - strong being approriate for that limiting condition. Evolution works fast in tough times. With the population explosion, that\'s only three or four generations away.

So, I\'m with the environmental steriod and the better/different diet schools.

The book to read is \"Sociobiology\" by E.O. Wilson.

[camusflage]

Evolution isn\'t just natural choice--it\'s sexual choice as well, and now, sexual choice is coming to the fore beacus of the reasons you outlined.

I see it as simply the next step in human evolution. We\'ve evolved to the point we control our environment, we\'re now \"pissing in the gene pool\", so to speak. Our next step is going to be driven by sexual choice. That, I don\'t even want to begin trying to imagine what we\'ll come up with. /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[**DONOTDELETE**]

The over-estrogenation thing has actually been pretty thoroughly studied. The main guy is Dr. John Lee. Here\'s a place to start your reading.

http://www.progestnet.com/documents/estrogen.html (www.progestnet.com/documents/estrogen.html)

also this, which has an article about DHEA as well

http://www.hormoneprofile.com/Answers.htm (\"http://www.hormoneprofile.com/Answers.htm\")

[Whitehall]

The basics of sexual choice have not changed - we\'re still using primitive and universal criteria in our choice of mates and are hardwired in most of our choices. Kohl may think we\'re conditioned but we\'ve agreed to disagree on the relative importance of conditioning vs. hardwiring.

Note that we do see an expansion of non-reproductive sex but it is the ovulation time sex that really counts towards evolution since that\'s when babies are made.

[belgareth]

In part Kohl may be right about conditioning. Look at the female sexual images from 1/2 a million years ago. they are mostly big breasted and wide hips. Makes sense because in an environment where you do not have a guaranteed meal every day, a women with more fat reserves would be more likely to ovulate and carry offspring to term. Many underweight women have a problem with fertility for that reason.

Today, our sexual standards are mostly slim to skinny women. We have been conditioned, against natural choice, to consider women of less girth to be the better partner. In the future you forecast, that may well work against us for the same reasons that early humans preferred heavier women.


Belgareth

[**DONOTDELETE**]

It\'s funny about the slim/not slim thing. Some men really honestly do prefer slim women. But being a bigger woman myself, I hear a lot of men prefer a woman with some meat on her bones. A discussion with a 27 year old law student sticks in my mind -- that he was HOT for a girl in high school who was bigger (size 14-ish), but ashamed of himself for wanting her and not one of the more model skinny girls -- then felt a real fool when later on he found out that he was not the only one secretely lusting after her. He said he vowed then to follow his natural preference whether anyone else seemed to approve or not, once he realized that natural instinct was going against the hype.

Seems to create a real dichotomy in the minds of young guys who are hungry for social approval and so want to date a girl who their friends will agree is \"hot,\" but are actually more attracted to a woman with big curves than to the fashion model skinny stereotype.

[belgareth]

I see what you mean. Esthetically, I prefer to look at slender women (no offense intended) who have a few curves. At the same time, there are a couple of well rounded women I know that are incredibly attractive without being especially good looking. I had assumed it was pheromones but maybe not.

Belgareth

[Whitehall]

The conflict is essentially between men\'s persceptions of young and fertile vs mature and fertile. These are two sets of conflicting visual cues to finding a fertile woman.

Women usually take a few years to put on some weight. A young woman can be skinny yet her youth cues us to think she is fertile in either case. An older woman can be curvier to show she is well feed and fertile. A skinny older woman just looks old. Personally, a plump, curvy young one is the best of both worlds. Plump implies good estrogens.

The book to read is Thorstein Velben\'s \"The Theory of the Leisure Class\" - he was a trouble-making economist during the time of the Robber Barons but he did a great chapter on the changing tastes in women and explicitly discussed this issue from a social viewpoint. It\'s probably not biologically correct but it is a great read.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I think it IS pheromones. The rounder women emit more pheromones. That\'s why they\'re sometimes desired although it goes against societal conditioning as to what\'s attractive, at least in this society. (European and South American men have not got on that \"skinny\" bandwagon.)