OT : Study: Why Pregnant Women Don't Topple

Oddly, I never thought to ask this question .......

Some women did finally ask it, and found some interesting answers.

Next up for study might be men's beer bellies. Oddly, I used to wonder
about that.

========================= end comments =====================



Study: Why Pregnant Women Don't Topple

By SETH BORENSTEIN | AP Science Writer
8:37 PM CST, December 12, 2007
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news
/nationworld/sns-ap-pregnancy-balance,0,665082.story?coll=chi_tab01_layout


WASHINGTON - Scientists think they have figured out why pregnant women
don't lose their balance and topple over despite ever-growing weight up
front. Evolution provided them with slight differences from men in their
lower backs and hip joints, allowing them to adjust their center of
gravity, new research shows.

This elegant engineering is seen only in female humans and our immediate
ancestors who walked on two feet, but not in chimps and apes, according
to a study published in Thursday's journal Nature.

"That's a big load that's pulling you forward," said Liza Shapiro, an
anthropology professor at the University of Texas and the only one of
the study's three authors who has actually been pregnant. "You
experience discomfort. Maybe it would be a lot worse if (the design
changes) were not there."

Harvard anthropology researcher Katherine Whitcome found two physical
differences in male and female backs that until now had gone unnoticed:
One lower lumbar vertebra is wedged-shaped in women and more square in
men; and a key hip joint is 14 percent larger in women than men when
body size is taken into account.

The researchers did engineering tests that show how those slight changes
allow women to carry the additional and growing load without toppling
over -- and typically without disabling back pain.

"When you think about it, women make it look so very damn easy,"
Whitcomb said. "They are experiencing a pretty impressive challenge.
Evolution has tinkered ... to the point where they can deal with the
challenge.

"It's absolutely beautiful," she said. "A little bit of tinkering can
have a profound effect."

Walking on two feet separates humans from most other animals. And while
anthropologists still debate the evolutionary benefit of walking on two
feet, there are notable costs, such as pain for pregnant females.
Animals on all fours can better handle the extra belly weight.

The back changes appear to have evolved to overcome the cost of walking
on two feet, said Harvard anthropology professor Daniel Lieberman.

When the researchers looked back at fossil records of human ancestors,
including the oldest spines that go back 2 million years to our
predecessor, Australopithecus, they found a male without the lower-back
changes and a female with them.

But what about men with stomachs the size of babies or bigger? What
keeps them from toppling over?

Their back muscles are used to compensate, but that probably means more
back pain, theorized Shapiro, who added: "It would be a fun study to do
to look at men with beer bellies to see if they shift their loads."

* __

On the Net:

Natu http://www.nature.com/nature

I remember when my wife was pregnant with our son. Her bowling game hit new
high scores and returned to her normal bowling average after she delivered.
One of the female workers at the bowling alley said it was due to a shift in
posture due to the pregnancy.

Brian
222/185/175 Jan/07

"Jim" wrote in message
...
Oddly, I never thought to ask this question .......

Some women did finally ask it, and found some interesting answers.

Next up for study might be men's beer bellies. Oddly, I used to wonder
about that.

========================= end comments =====================



Study: Why Pregnant Women Don't Topple

By SETH BORENSTEIN | AP Science Writer
8:37 PM CST, December 12, 2007
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news
/nationworld/sns-ap-pregnancy-balance,0,665082.story?coll=chi_tab01_layout


WASHINGTON - Scientists think they have figured out why pregnant women
don't lose their balance and topple over despite ever-growing weight up
front. Evolution provided them with slight differences from men in their
lower backs and hip joints, allowing them to adjust their center of
gravity, new research shows.

This elegant engineering is seen only in female humans and our immediate
ancestors who walked on two feet, but not in chimps and apes, according to
a study published in Thursday's journal Nature.

"That's a big load that's pulling you forward," said Liza Shapiro, an
anthropology professor at the University of Texas and the only one of the
study's three authors who has actually been pregnant. "You experience
discomfort. Maybe it would be a lot worse if (the design changes) were not
there."

Harvard anthropology researcher Katherine Whitcome found two physical
differences in male and female backs that until now had gone unnoticed:
One lower lumbar vertebra is wedged-shaped in women and more square in
men; and a key hip joint is 14 percent larger in women than men when body
size is taken into account.

The researchers did engineering tests that show how those slight changes
allow women to carry the additional and growing load without toppling
over -- and typically without disabling back pain.

"When you think about it, women make it look so very damn easy," Whitcomb
said. "They are experiencing a pretty impressive challenge. Evolution has
tinkered ... to the point where they can deal with the challenge.

"It's absolutely beautiful," she said. "A little bit of tinkering can have
a profound effect."

Walking on two feet separates humans from most other animals. And while
anthropologists still debate the evolutionary benefit of walking on two
feet, there are notable costs, such as pain for pregnant females. Animals
on all fours can better handle the extra belly weight.

The back changes appear to have evolved to overcome the cost of walking on
two feet, said Harvard anthropology professor Daniel Lieberman.

When the researchers looked back at fossil records of human ancestors,
including the oldest spines that go back 2 million years to our
predecessor, Australopithecus, they found a male without the lower-back
changes and a female with them.

But what about men with stomachs the size of babies or bigger? What keeps
them from toppling over?

Their back muscles are used to compensate, but that probably means more
back pain, theorized Shapiro, who added: "It would be a fun study to do to
look at men with beer bellies to see if they shift their loads."

* __

On the Net:

Natu http://www.nature.com/nature



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In addition to the baseball scandals of steroids and drugs to gain an
advantage on the playing field......

Now comes the potential scandal of women bowlers getting pregnant to win
big bowling tournaments.

How much of a handicap difference does the pregnancy weight shift give?

Thanks for this insight. :-)


amyotte wrote:
I remember when my wife was pregnant with our son. Her bowling game hit new
high scores and returned to her normal bowling average after she delivered.
One of the female workers at the bowling alley said it was due to a shift in
posture due to the pregnancy.

Brian
222/185/175 Jan/07

"Jim" wrote in message
...
Oddly, I never thought to ask this question .......

Some women did finally ask it, and found some interesting answers.

Next up for study might be men's beer bellies. Oddly, I used to wonder
about that.

========================= end comments =====================

"Jim" wrote in message
...
In addition to the baseball scandals of steroids and drugs to gain an
advantage on the playing field......

Now comes the potential scandal of women bowlers getting pregnant to win
big bowling tournaments.

How much of a handicap difference does the pregnancy weight shift give?

As I recall, pregnancy is like nine months of pms. The correct answer is,
"anything you want, dear, now please put down the gun."


Thanks for this insight. :-)

No problem.

"Jim" wrote

WASHINGTON - Scientists think they have figured out why pregnant women
don't lose their balance and topple over despite ever-growing weight up
front. Evolution provided them with slight differences from men in their
lower backs and hip joints, allowing them to adjust their center of
gravity, new research shows.
This elegant engineering is seen only in female humans and our immediate
ancestors who walked on two feet, but not in chimps and apes, according to
a study published in Thursday's journal Nature.

This has been known for a long time, hasn't it?

Try this:
Bet a man 10 bucks he can't pick up a 10 dollar bill placed at his feet in
front of him without falling over. When he agrees, stand him with his back
against a wall. (His heels must be touching the wall too.) Place the bill
just touching the leading edge of his feet. He will topple over before he
can pick up the money.

Don't try this with a woman though. She'll win every time.

This trick was making the rounds when I was in college back in the 60s as I
recall. Has it been forgotten?

--
Bob
http://www.kanyak.com

Opinicus wrote:
"Jim" wrote

WASHINGTON - Scientists think they have figured out why pregnant women
don't lose their balance and topple over despite ever-growing weight up
front. Evolution provided them with slight differences from men in their
lower backs and hip joints, allowing them to adjust their center of
gravity, new research shows.
This elegant engineering is seen only in female humans and our immediate
ancestors who walked on two feet, but not in chimps and apes, according to
a study published in Thursday's journal Nature.

This has been known for a long time, hasn't it?

Try this:
Bet a man 10 bucks he can't pick up a 10 dollar bill placed at his feet in
front of him without falling over. When he agrees, stand him with his back
against a wall. (His heels must be touching the wall too.) Place the bill
just touching the leading edge of his feet. He will topple over before he
can pick up the money.

Don't try this with a woman though. She'll win every time.

This trick was making the rounds when I was in college back in the 60s as I
recall. Has it been forgotten?



Sounds like something that nobody appeared to question for the purposes
of understanding.


Lots of things are "accepted" and not "understood".


For example, at one time, starchy vegetables and grain products were
accepted to be fattening.

Then they were rediscovered and were instead accepted as "heart healthy"
and "vital sources of energy".

I understand that they were most likely fattening, and that
understanding remains unchanged - at least for me.