Girls beginning puberty almost a year earlier than in 1970s

[stumbledin]

Not sure I understand what the article is saying, and wonder how far back records go ie has it gone back and forward over the centuries.

Anyway posting in case anyone is interested.

www.theguardian.com/society/2020/feb/10/girls-puberty-year-earlier

I was 11 when I started in 1984. Dd was also 11. I've read its body fat percentage that can prompt it to start rather than actual weight

the average age is 12.5 , 90% of girls have menarche by 13.5

I don't know if I'd think hormones in food so much as plastics etc. My understanding with BMI is that it's not so much whether it's better fed or overweight, either can contribute to earlier puberty.

But for individuals genetics also has a significant role.

I started late compared to class mates and was over weight.

I think what I was thinking about was more historical. It was relatively common for quite young girls to get married and be mothers before 16. But presumably in terms of diet would not have been anywhere near the weight of girls of today.

I think there was a similar thread to this some time ago, and one thing that came out was how often the starting age was similar across generations in the family, not sure if that would just be the maternal side.

Think male fertility is declining, and scientists don’t know why, theories include environmental factors, including foods/water supply.

At my DCs’ school they are doing SOME good things, eg early education on puberty, punishing boys for making sexist “jokes” about periods. But the toilets are disgusting and often damaged/broken. Sanitary waste bins overfull. Little privacy. Health issue!

Both DD and I (45) started our periods at 13.5 years.

DD is a completely different build to me, much more curvaceous. I think it's genetics and good nutrition, which we've both been lucky enough to have.

I was 10 when I started (1986) and no where near 7.5 stone. I was skinny and didn't reach that weight until I was 14. There were about half the class who had started although there was only 10 of us in the class. Dd1 is well under average weight but healthy and eats for England and not particularly tall but started age 12. I think my mum was 11. I think genetics plays a part.
Children are heavier now than they were and that will be a factor.

*Do they? I mean food is more readily available but alot is also utter shit. Mass produced, fatty, salty, or flavourless etc

They have access to more food but is it really as nutritionally rich as it used to be?

Plus alot of kids eat alot of junk. Even those who allear to be a healthy weight can be mal nourished*

Depends on the kids I guess. My kids eat much better food than I did in the 80's and my parents were well off and decently educated but we knew less then about nutrition. People are fatter now as we tend to eat too much but most people eat better quality food and more fruit and veg now.

Anecdote: I am older than most (if not all!) mumsnetters and found it interesting that my mother started at 16 (early 1920s), me at 14 (1950s) and my daughters both at 13 (1980s). Don't know how typical by generations that is though.

Always was, and still am, very skinny and started when I was about 12.

What's this about 7.5 stone being the golden number/minimum weight to sustain a pregnancy? I was unaware of that whilst carrying my baby conceived when I weighed about 6.5 stone.

I was 8 or 9 and underweight. I didn't develop any breast tissue until over a decade later, after DS1 was born.

Picklemypepper, I think the 48kg is the average weight of a woman when her periods start. I’m not sure where the data comes from though.
Interestingly ( to me!) I was about 7st 3lb when mine started. I remember comparing with a friend.

It's not actual weight but body fat percentage that affects it

Mine started when I had just turned 10 in 1976, I wasn’t overweight and quite short

Phonic - Oh I see! Thank you for explaining that, I'd never heard of it before!

As regards historical data:

jech.bmj.com/content/jech/20/1/9.full.pdf

Graph on 3rd page and table on 2nd page. The figures for 19th century are amazing, with 10% not started by 18.

Lack of disease, better nutrition -- and frankly our current food is probably bad compared, for example with what we ate during the war, but what the urban poor used to eat (carbohydrates and tea) was terrible.

They have access to more food but is it really as nutritionally rich as it used to be?

Food used to be terrible in terms of adulteration. Those in the countryside might have got fresh veg, milk etc, but in towns... Add in air pollution, contaminated water, childhood diseases, infant mortality, and what city-dwellers eat now is luxury in comparison. Just look at some of the food contamination issues in china (e.g., melamine in baby milk) to see what people will do to make a profit. Our food has never been so monitored as it currently is. Just look at the mortality figures, there must be some reason why we are living so much longer than we used to.

The food used to be adulterated to water it down and make more profit, and women were fed last.

Thanks SomeDyke - interesting to see the difference. I wonder if malnourishment did play a part.

I was told as a preteen that periods only start once you hit 7.5 stone

AKA 48kg, the magic number, the minimum weight needed to begin a pregnancy and sustain it to full term.

Maybe that is an average or something but definitely not a rule. I was 12 and nowhere near 7.5 stone in the late 80s. Prob didn't reach that weight until 17/18.

Dd is 13 in a few weeks and not started yet but she's only 33kg, I'mm sure hers will start well before 48kg. She is very skinny, but so was I.