You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] 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.