Baby girls weight/length linked to breast cancer when they are older - WTF

[mppaw]

Saw this yesterday in the paper and on the news. I am absolutely mortified by this stat. A babies weight and length is totally out of your control, and now they reckon there is a 7% increased chance of them getting breast cancer when older!!
Just another thing to add to the list of things to worry about when you have DC.

Should I be pleased I know this stat ? Really do not see the point of it TBH.

So angry

Yes, I know what you mean. I saw this on the news as well.
Just another thing to try and worry us about!

I was 9lb when I was born - blimey!!!!

I think I will just try and forget about it.

Tis probably a load of bolleaux.

Obv students with nowt better to do.

They will find out the opposite next week

Well my DD was 8lb 8oz and 59cms....so not looking good for her !!!

TBH not alot of things get to me, but this really has made me riled.....

And calm....breath...breath......

mppaw - worry not my darling.

It is probably a research paper done by some studes with white coats, a petri dish and too much time on their hands. They also probably studies an extremely small cross section of the population

I can't understand why you are taking this so personally to be honest. Nobody is blaming mothers here, as far as I can see.

There is all sorts of emerging evidence about how health factors can be be affected by genes/ or the uterine environment during pregnancy. And babies weight/height at birth can be affected by maternal behaviours, such as food consumption, or being already overweight (This is not judgemental - I was at risk of gestational diabetes myself, but didn't develop it).

This research is important because:

1. It might tell us which people are at greater risk of developing breast cancer, and therefore can target screening/prevention advice at them so that they stand a better chance of not developing it/ cathcing it early

1. it provides useful information about what might cause some cases of breast cancer, bringing us closer to developing a cure

These are good things aren't they?

And it was quite a big piece of research - a metanalysis covering some 600,000 women, so I'm afraid that it is actually likely to be pretty robust.

It's here if anyone wants to read it.

Smoking is not linked to breast cancer, surprisingly.

I wouldn't worry its a percentage, so (i think I've got this right), if 10 of lowest birth length out of every 100 get it by age 80 that compares to 11.5 out of every 100 of longest birth length developing it by age 80. which doesn't appear such a big jump when put that way, not to mention all other contributing factors others have mentioned.

As firepile says its relevant to further research etc but as usual media have jumped on it and reported it out of context.

If you want to be angry get angry at the way the media misrepresents medical research and denies the majority of people the opportunity to have an informed opinion as a result

Thanks for that clarification SGM - it's safe to say that the epidemiological jury is still out on the interaction of genotypes, smoking and susceptibility to breast cancer, because the evidence is very complex and conflicting (also epidemiologists tend to be very cautious). There is certainly research that supports what you are saying.

There is a really good summary of the evidence on smoking and breast cancer in the 2004 Surgeon General's report - here but you'll have to scroll through to page 305 to get it. Obviously it lags a little beind the newest research, though.