# U.S. Girls Maturing Faster? Puberty at Seven?



## MA-Caver (Aug 9, 2010)

I saw/read this article and thought it was troubling on a sociological aspect. 
The early maturing of young girls in this country. 
Read on: http://health.yahoo.net/news/s/nm/us_puberty_earlier

These were the points that had me cringe a little. 


> Doctors are unsure of what could be causing girls to develop at a younger age, but rising obesity rates may be to blame, they say.
> In a study published today in Pediatrics, Biro's team examined about  1,200 girls aged 7 and 8 in Cincinnati, New York and San Francisco.  Researchers, as well as the girls' doctors and nurses, used a standard  measure of breast development to determine which girls had started  puberty.
> Compared to the 1997 findings from girls across the U.S., girls in  the current study - especially white girls - were more developed at a  younger age. As previous research has shown, there were also large  differences in development based on race.
> At age 7, approximately 10 percent of white girls and 23 percent of  black girls had started developing breasts - compared to 5 percent of  white girls and 15 percent of black girls in 1997, the authors write.
> Among 8-year-olds in the study, 18 percent of white girls and 43  percent of black girls had entered puberty - an increase from around 11  percent of white girls from 1997, but the same as black girls in that  year.


As a tour-guide in a very popular attraction, I see hundreds of people each day (*several* hundred), there are points along the attraction where two groups cannot pass easily and one group or the other has to usually stop and pull-aside to let the other group pass. As I do so (pulled over or passing) I make a habit of noticing as many people as possible, including the children. It's just my being observant and watchful (primarily for a safety issue but also because I like watching people). 
I've noticed young kids (boys and girls) who are a bit heavier than their usual peers. Among the girls their *ahem* physical developments are usually more pronounced. Now after reading the article I'm beginning to realize that probably half of _those_ girls are likely to be much younger than I would've guessed.





> Biro's team found that girls with a higher body mass index (BMI) - a ratio of weight and height - at age 7 and 8 were more likely to be developed than their thinner peers.


Reading further on the article: 





> Biro thinks that rising rates of obesity could be a major reason why  girls seem to be developing faster than they did even 13 years ago.  "We're on the opposite side of an increase in BMI that has been seen in  this country and in other countries," he told Reuters Health.
> Researchers know that heavier girls are more likely to enter  puberty early, Lee, of the University of Michigan, said. That could be  because overweight people have more of a hormone known to be linked to  development - but it could also be a matter of the actual nutrients that  girls get from their diet, she said.


In this fast food nation there are nutrients? <sarcasm> So the weight gain for kids shouldn't be surprising at all. Yet now effects are being seen. With consequences that could be detrimental to the overall society's health. 
Such as: 


> Lee and Biro said doctors are worried about both the psychological and physical health of girls who hit puberty at a young age.
> Studies have shown that girls who develop early are more at risk for  depression and often start having sex earlier than girls who develop  later.


 I can see younger drug/alcoholism problems, pregnancies, runaways, suicides and so forth. 

As well as social impacts between adults and kids... 


> "For the 11-year old that looks like she's 15 or 16, adults are going to  interact with her like she's 15 or 16, but so are her peers," Biro  said. Girls who develop early "look physically older," he said. "It  doesn't mean that they're psychologically or socially more mature."


This (to me anyway) can put them at a higher risk of being approached by a pedophile with an age preference of 15-16 and not realizing until too late that the girl was much younger. Not it makes any difference how old the girl is when they shouldn't be messing with them PERIOD but the effects (short and long term) on the child when she is abused or even groomed. 
Also with boys in the high-school age thinking the girl he's talking to in the cafeteria or basketball game is among his age group when she is actually still in grade school or jr. high. 
That early of an interaction involving mating rituals (dating, flirting, etc.) will have detrimental effects i.e. this scenario. 9th grade boy approaches a 6th or even 5th grade girl and starts flirting and all of that awkwardness that HIS age group goes through but (inadvertently) sending wrong messages to the girl who is flattered and not ready for such advances and when he finds out how old she really is, recants and stops paying attention (or breaks up) and she not emotionally mature enough (even at that age) to cope could spiral into a severe depth of depression that no amount of medication can help with. 

Then there's the other physical problems that could arise with maturing too soon... 





> In addition, women who spend more of their lives menstruating are at a higher risk for breast cancer - which, depending on when they hit menopause, could be a worry for girls who develop early.


Usually by the age appropriate physical changes occur a woman is mentally and emotionally capable of dealing with them and understands them. How much is this going to affect the ones who have matured years before their peers? 

There is one good possible solution with it all it seems... 


> Biro said that there are things families can do to minimize the possible  risk of early puberty in young daughters, including eating more fruits  and vegetables and eating together as a family.   SOURCES: http://link.reuters.com/veh73n Pediatrics, online August 9,  2010.


Just wondering what you all think (particularly ladies here on MT)... 

I think it's a serious issue that needs to be addressed by parents and those who interact with children i.e. educators, physicians, coaches, instructors, et al.


----------



## CanuckMA (Aug 9, 2010)

It has also been theorized that those changes could be due to the large amount of various hormones finding their way to our food/water supply, from shots to animals to discarding of medication down the toilet.


----------



## MA-Caver (Aug 9, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> It has also been theorized that those changes could be due to the large amount of various hormones finding their way to our food/water supply, from shots to animals to discarding of medication down the toilet.


Well if that is so then why hasn't there been any (reported/studied) affect(s) on the boys? It would stand to reason... or are boys less noticeable in their hormonal changes?


----------



## Andrew Green (Aug 10, 2010)

MA-Caver said:


> Well if that is so then why hasn't there been any (reported/studied) affect(s) on the boys? It would stand to reason... or are boys less noticeable in their hormonal changes?



Could just be which chemicals are effecting things.  We take different chemicals then girls


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Aug 10, 2010)

MA-Caver said:


> Well if that is so then why hasn't there been any (reported/studied) affect(s) on the boys? It would stand to reason... or are boys less noticeable in their hormonal changes?


 
I wonder if it might be more difficult to study the physical maturity of boys.  After all, we don't tend to develop breasts, nor do we menstrate.  

I think an interesting corrolative study would be to see the types and rates of diet compared to the rate of maturity.  What, perhaps, would account for the differences between white and black girls?


----------



## K-man (Aug 10, 2010)

The Chinese girls are way ahead, sadly. An opportune post! This was in our paper this morning.
http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-...r-blamed-for-baby-breasts-20100809-11td1.html


----------



## chrispillertkd (Aug 10, 2010)

MA-Caver said:


> I saw/read this article and thought it was troubling on a sociological aspect.
> The early maturing of young girls in this country.
> Read on: http://health.yahoo.net/news/s/nm/us_puberty_earlier
> 
> ...


 
This is certainly interesting. One of the things suggested to combat this early onset is to basically spend time together as a family, specifically at the dinner table as the bolded section indicates.

It would appear, however, that the authors of this study aren't the only ones who think the problem is linked to family interactions (or the lack of same). Yet another study from 1999 made some interesting observations that dove tail nicely with some of the points from the article you posted:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/09/990927064822.htm

From this article:



> Girls who had close, positive relationships with their parents during the first five years of life tended to experience relatively late puberty, compared to girls who had more distant relationships with their parents. *More specifically, the researchers found that the quality of fathers' involvement with daughters was the most important feature of the early family environment in relation to the timing of the daughters' puberty.*


 
It seems like the best thing to do to address this problem would be to foster stable family relationships. Which means less acceptance of the increase in single parent households. This is yet another indication that two parent families are what is best for children.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 10, 2010)

It is astonishing to me how the emotional environment a child grows up in can have just as much an effect on them as their physical environment.  It's one of those things that makes me wonder just how much we still have to learn about biology, that interface where chemistry, physics and psychology combine.


----------



## MA-Caver (Aug 10, 2010)

Andrew Green said:


> Could just be which chemicals are effecting things.  We take different chemicals than girls


A side link from one of the other links provided by one of the other posters...  (huh??)... probably answers that question. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100503111750.htm  more aggressiveness.


----------



## teekin (Aug 10, 2010)

Please keep in mind that corralation does not = causation. The fact that young women who hand close relation with their fathers matured slower that the ones who did not may be due to the fact that they were more psychologically stable or that they had a 2 parent home and were able to have more home cooked meals. 
 I think the more fast food one is exposed to, and the more synthetic food one consumes the worse it is for the child's development. Allmost all animals raised for meat are factory produced now. They have been geneticlly modified to be born big, put on weight and mature very very rapidly and go to slaughter very quickly. The faster the turnover from birth to slaughter the higher the profit. The animals are injected with hormones, steroids and antibiotics on a fixed schedual to keep weights up and mortality down. And we eat this meat. Is it any wonder the kids are doing the same as the animals we consume???

As an aside, we are currently fencing 40 acres in order to raise organic grass fed beef ( and maybe a few yummy goats, mmmmmmm curried goat)  as part of an Organic Co-op. Neat huh?

lori


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 10, 2010)

This didn't just happen 10 or 20 years ago.  This has been an ongoing trend for *centuries*.  The average age of puberty used to be in the teens a century or more ago.  Given that, it probably has more to do with the increasing availability of food and rich diets.  Many species regulate breeding behavior and maturity by food availability.


----------



## MA-Caver (Aug 10, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> This didn't just happen 10 or 20 years ago.  This has been an ongoing trend for *centuries*.  The average age of puberty used to be in the teens a century or more ago.  Given that, it probably has more to do with the increasing availability of food and rich diets.  Many species regulate breeding behavior and maturity by food availability.


Aye, any reading of the book "The Story Of B" by Daniel Quinn will support that.


----------



## cdunn (Aug 10, 2010)

The steroidal hormones are all chemcially synthesized from cholesterols. The presence of excess cholesterols frees up one of the strictures on the biochemical pathway from cholesterol to testosterone to estrodiol, the primary driver of mammalian female sexual development. 

The early onset puberty has been observed since 1840. This is, of course, the rough time of the industrial revolution, and the attached multiplication of the food supply deriving from steam powered transportation and artifically produced chemical fertilizers, and the first major pushes back against child labor. 

Only recently has the human body had access to effectively infinite nutrition. We have yet to adapt to it. It will be dozens of generations. Longer, with technology. It's only a shame we won't be around to see what our descendants become.


----------



## Steve (Aug 10, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> It has also been theorized that those changes could be due to the large amount of various hormones finding their way to our food/water supply, from shots to animals to discarding of medication down the toilet.


Trendy or not, helpful or not, when our kids were born, we decided it was important to buy only organic milk and dairy, and as much of our produce locally as possible.  We are also careful about what meat we buy.  My daughter is 13 and I honestly believe it's made a huge difference.


----------



## CanuckMA (Aug 10, 2010)

cdunn said:


> Only recently has the human body had access to effectively infinite nutrition. We have yet to adapt to it. It will be dozens of generations. Longer, with technology. It's only a shame we won't be around to see what our descendants become.


 

We don't adapt. Beneficial mutations win. It is quite likely that because of our mastery of our environment, we have, if not entirely stopped, then very severely slowed our evolution rate. Detrimental mutations don't breed themselves out of the gene pool anymore. As well, what could be a beneficial mutation does not appear so because there is no need for the survival of the fitest.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 10, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> It is quite likely that because of our mastery of our environment, we have, if not entirely stopped, then very severely slowed our evolution rate.



I don't think so.  I just think the selection pressures are very different than they used to be.  The mutation rate certainly hasn't gone down - if anything, with the mutagens we are exposed to, it must have gone up.  Look for adaptations then to our diet, and for an increasing social and sexual selection of newly more desirable traits - like intelligence and sociability, which weren't as necessary in a rougher past.  Just because the selection comes from other humans, doesn't mean "evolution" has stopped.  Dog breeding is evolution too, after all.


----------



## CanuckMA (Aug 10, 2010)

True, but it has slowed down considerably. 

I've seen people breeding where intelligence and.or socialibility was not really there. It will be a while before stupid people are bred out of the gene pool.


----------



## Steve (Aug 10, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> True, but it has slowed down considerably.
> 
> I've seen people breeding where intelligence and.or socialibility was not really there. It will be a while before stupid people are bred out of the gene pool.


LOL...  good thing, too, or some of us wouldn't have a chance!


----------



## crushing (Aug 10, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> True, but it has slowed down considerably.
> 
> I've seen people breeding where intelligence and.or socialibility was not really there. It will be a while before stupid people are bred out of the gene pool.



The movie Idiocracy comes to mind with this post.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/plotsummary


> Joe Bauers, an Army librarian, is judged to be absolutely average in every regard, has no relatives, has no future, so he's chosen to be one of the two test subjects in a top-secret hibernation program. He and hooker Rita were to awaken in one year, but things go wrong and they wake up instead in 2505. By this time, stupid people have outbred intelligent people; the world is (barely) run by morons--and Joe and Rita are the smartest people in America.


----------



## Steve (Aug 11, 2010)

crushing said:


> The movie Idiocracy comes to mind with this post.
> 
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/plotsummary


I give my jalapeno plant gatorade every day, because that's what plants crave!


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 11, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> I give my jalapeno plant gatorade every day, because that's what plants crave!



It's got electrolytes!


----------



## Carol (Aug 11, 2010)

What are electrolytes?


----------



## crushing (Aug 11, 2010)

Carol said:


> What are electrolytes?


 
It's one of those there things that water, like from the toilet, don't have.


----------



## CanuckMA (Aug 11, 2010)

Carol said:


> What are electrolytes?


 

It's negative electrical particles, but on a diet.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 11, 2010)

Carol said:


> What are electrolytes?



That which plants crave.


----------



## Nomad (Aug 11, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> True, but it has slowed down considerably.
> 
> I've seen people breeding where intelligence and.or socialibility was not really there. It will be a while before stupid people are bred out of the gene pool.



Hmmmm... what makes you think that stupidity is a trait that can be "bred out" of the gene pool?  Or that intelligence and/or sociability are dominate traits that would be selected for by evolution, and not just rare aberrations?

Ma_Caver - one reason that girls would be feeling the effects of environmental hormones more than boys is that most of the hormones that we're pumping out via bovine growth hormones and so on are closely related to estrogen, and have been shown to disrupt the normal endocrine pathways in animal studies.  Here's an interesting related link


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 11, 2010)

Nomad said:


> Hmmmm... what makes you think that stupidity is a trait that can be "bred out" of the gene pool?  Or that intelligence and/or sociability are dominate traits that would be selected for by evolution, and not just rare aberrations?



Because we select and breed for those traits in animals.  Take dog breeds.  Some breeds are far more sociable or intelligent than others, and the entire breed will share that characteristic (more or less).  Our traits can be selected like any other organism.


----------



## Nomad (Aug 12, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Because we select and breed for those traits in animals.  Take dog breeds.  Some breeds are far more sociable or intelligent than others, and the entire breed will share that characteristic (more or less).  Our traits can be selected like any other organism.



Sure, we _can_.  But with dogs, we have selective breeding programs that are (arguably) successful.  But for a number of reasons (including some ethical), we don't really see the same thing with people.  In fact, it can be argued that the opposite is true... those with less education and opportunity in the world tend to breed earlier and more prolifically than those who are highly successful, affluent, or extremely well educated (most people getting doctorate or medical degrees for example will "put off" having kids until later in life, thus reducing their procreative years).


----------



## CanuckMA (Aug 12, 2010)

Nomad said:


> Hmmmm... what makes you think that stupidity is a trait that can be "bred out" of the gene pool? Or that intelligence and/or sociability are dominate traits that would be selected for by evolution, and not just rare aberrations?
> 
> Ma_Caver - one reason that girls would be feeling the effects of environmental hormones more than boys is that most of the hormones that we're pumping out via bovine growth hormones and so on are closely related to estrogen, and have been shown to disrupt the normal endocrine pathways in animal studies. Here's an interesting related link


 

Because in a society where intelligence would lead to survival, stupidity would eventually lose out. Never going to happen in human society because we tend to care for are weaker/less capable members.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 12, 2010)

Nomad said:


> Sure, we _can_.  But with dogs, we have selective breeding programs that are (arguably) successful.  But for a number of reasons (including some ethical), we don't really see the same thing with people.  In fact, it can be argued that the opposite is true... those with less education and opportunity in the world tend to breed earlier and more prolifically than those who are highly successful, affluent, or extremely well educated (most people getting doctorate or medical degrees for example will "put off" having kids until later in life, thus reducing their procreative years).



You questioned whether intelligence or sociability were traits that could be selected for by evolution.  The fact that they are is not the same as saying they will be.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 12, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> Because in a society where intelligence would lead to survival, stupidity would eventually lose out. Never going to happen in human society because we tend to care for are weaker/less capable members.



Not "survival", "reproduction."  The main way that would happen in our society is sexual selection - people would select more intelligent (or whatever) mates because those were seen as desirable traits.  That's the entire reason peacock tails and other bright plumage in birds even exists, they certainly don't help animals survive.  

Sexual selection is also probably the reason that males are larger in advanced species.  In all lower species, like insects and such, the females are larger.  Only makes sense, they have to lay the eggs/bear the young.


----------

