[–] shrink 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I want to point out here that the methodology of this study is very unreliable. The data collected for both daughters and mothers are simply asking them to recount things. Aside from human memory being a fickle thing, self-reporting is a notoriously poor method of data collection in science (fun fact, the "black dicks are big" myth came from the first study done on that subject, and it was done by asking Africans how large their members were; self reporting is bad), and I want to remind people that many of those daughters queried may have rated themselves as more masculine in their traits and activities than an obvserver would actually rate them, because remember the social environment we're dealing with: girls want to buck tradition and cast off femininity like it's a plague (Gen Z somewhat excepted), so the self reporting from these girls who likely wish to project themselves as "strong independent females" is also very unreliable.

This stuff is spurious at best.

That being said, it is possible that maternal activity increases testosterone levels in a fetus for adaptation reasons. Pregnant females are, generally, not required nor inclined to exercise, and it may be a poor decision to do so. However, it may be that the genes in the human DNA might be coded to determine "this woman is pregnant and exercising, which is something she should not need to do, therefore the environment may require strength higher than average to survive, therefore the fetus will be given increased levels of testosterone."

Granted, that's a hypothetical and I'm anthropomorphizing it a bit, but it's possible that if this relationship IS causative, that may be the mechanism.

[–] chirogonemd 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I'd also consider the fact that if her exercise is increasing her own endogenous testosterone production (temporarily), even increases in narrow ranges could possibly effect fetal development epigenetically, given the increase in cell signalling we'd expect from the fetus' exposure to circulating hormone levels. I'm totally speculating.

But overall this study is shit. This methodology is so poor I really can't even take it seriously. I'm just considering interesting possibilities.

[–] hardshaft 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Or just that more activity in the mother induces more activity in the fetus, so baby gets to do some good squats before kicking its way out. There could be plenty of ways it could work, if it is even real.

[–] fluhthreeex 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

One study does not make conclusive science even if it is a meta analysis of hundreds of studies. Methodology always has to be taken into consideration. If someone were to just headline scan pubmed they'd want to do a LOT of searching and a LOT of scanning before walking away with "ok, from my admittedly half-assed poking around it looks like x probably does y".

[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)


[–] QTard 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

Those damn fat women ruin everything for their skinny families. Should have married the trophy. Then kids won't be so ugly.

[–] Yuke 1 points 9 points (+10|-1) ago  (edited ago)

So, if your missus is pregnant and you know it's a girl, don't let your missus exercise cause she'll turn your little baby girl into a big butch lesbo. But if she's pregnant with a boy, strap weights to her face and you'll get a fucking giant brick shithouse of a son!

[–] FatsDrinkTheirTears 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

More like fat wives who get less coitus make children who get less coitus

[–] juicedidwtc 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Exactly, and considering that this study has no control group to establish causation over correlation, i think you are right on the money.

[–] QTard 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

All pregnant women are fat and have less sex

[–] viperguy 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Maybe society wants the daughter to have a big fat clit.

[–] a_fucking_dude 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

This is just not enough to draw these conclusions. As is commonly stated, "correlation != causation." This could just as easily be interpreted to mean that horny, athletic pregnant women tend to have more masculine children. To reach the sort of conclusions implied by the authors, much more attention needs to be paid to isolating variables and controlling for other factors. For example, how "masculine" were the athletic, horny moms in the first place?

[–] belphegorsprime 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Came here to say this, but didn't feel like posting it. Reloaded my tab to find your comment, glad you posted it. It's better worded than what I would have wrote.

[–] [deleted] 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 


[–] a_fucking_dude 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Not sure where you're going with your reply, but, for clarity, if the moms were "horny and masculine", and the daughters were "masculine," then the activity during pregnancy is likely spurious correlation, and the "masculine" traits are just genetically hereditary, not due to mom's behavior during pregnancy.

edit: and that kind of rational, critical analysis is what's missing in so much of the "science" we see nowadays. Thoroughgoing experimental design and cautious formulation of conclusions. There are still millions of people in the world who think that eggs raise serum cholesterol and that salt hardens arteries, precisely because of scientists preaching sloppy conclusions from sloppy science in the 1960s and 1970s.

[–] 1Iron_Curtain 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Lamarckian principles at work. I don't think this is rocket science. Babies are effected when the mother is drinking alcohol and effected positively when listening to good music.

[–] worthlesshope 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

There are a few famous fit mom's on instagram, who were and exercised while pregnant, I'm curious on how her kid will turn out when he grows up.

[–] b0utch 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

No brainer...

[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 


[–] VoatsNewfag 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

In a good or in a bad way?

[–] viperguy 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Maternal ABSOLUTE SITTING INACTIVITY well proven to dramatically increase sill born

They studied AT&T Telephone switchboard operators in the 1940s and correlated to other long duration sitting jobs of various mental stresses.

So an important question become HOW MUCH activity is good before it creates fetal brain damage or other unwanted effects?

load more comments ▼ (4 remaining)