Are kids going through puberty sooner?

Something I've been observing for a while - Kids seem to me to be going through puberty sooner than when I was in high school. Thinking back 45 years - I can't think of any kid in high school with facial hair - you know - beards, mustaches, chest hair, that kind of stuff. When I look at the high school kids today, many of them have dark shadows or beards or mustaches.

And how about chicks - have you seen the racks on some of the chicks in high school?!! If I was 16 and saw chicks with shapes and bodies like the ones I see in high schools today, I wouldn't have been able to get out of my desk for an hour after class was over - and then I would head for the stall to releave the pressure.

Is my memory just clouded or what?? :ack2:

 

Even I've noticed this happening. 12 year old girls runnin around with C cups.....just not right.

It's all the growth hormones they're putting in the food nowadays. My Nephew is 10, and is already developing body hair....

 

Yea, it's been scientifically accounted for, I believe. Something to do with the hormones in food, or something...

 

I think its the growth hormones that they pump into milking cows...thats my opinion

 

Actually I saw a talkshow on tv about 15 years ago on this subject back then they were only fucussing on young girls. The reason they gave was an increas of Soy in diets. Soy Isoflavones are nearly identical in structure to estrogen. This is why they advertise soy dietary supplements for menopausal women. I've had this arguement with Militant Vegitarians who tell me I'm full of shit. I'm of the opinion that too much of anything is bad for you.

Peace Out,
Rev J

 

My clubbing has been curved because of these younger girls. 15 year old girls looking 22, no thanks, I don't fancy a prison sentence.

 

For real. I know in some movies from the old days girls who were 12 were flat chested. Me and some girls started developing in as early as fourth and fifth grade. We were like 10 and 11.

 

It's crazy, girls are starting their periods at 9 or 10 now while my generation went through it at 12 or 13.

 

Wiki:

The average age at which the onset of puberty occurs has dropped significantly since the 1840s. Researchers refer to this drop as the 'secular trend'. In every decade from 1840 to 1950 there was a drop of four months in the average age of menarche (first menstrual cycle) among Western European females. In Norway, girls born in 1840 had their menarche at an average age of 17 years. In France the average in 1840 was 15.3 years. In England the average in 1840 was 16.5 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puberty#Historical_shiftonths per decade.

 

Here's what else I forgot in my last post. Beyond just Soy Isoflavones probably is also Growth Hormones in meat. One of the amazing things about the human body is that it has a tendancy to want to balance itself. For example both men and women produce Testoserone and Estrogen just in different proportions. If you put to much of one into the system the system will produce more of the other to mantain that balance. So for example if you load your body with Soy your body will detect a rise in Estrogen and will start to produce more Testosterone to make up the difference. But the wierd part is the body will produce less Estrogen because it has been tricked by this outside source. So the end result is this weird hormone imbalance that results in earlier puberty.

Peace Out,
Rev J

 

The other sad part of this trend is girls lying about their age. I've had friends bring home a girl where in the morning she says, "Do you remember last night when I told you I was 18."

"Yeah."

"Well I'm only 14."

Ouch!

Peace Out,
Rev J

 

there has to be a way to stop this. its ridiculous. more and more perverted guys are developing. saying "well they are fully mature" yeah right.

if i ever have kids, im double checking in what i buy because i dont want any of that for them

 

If the food criminals (ADM, Monsanto, etc..) have their way there will be no way of telling. I just wonder what sneaking GM corn, soy, sugar beets, into processed foods will precipitate in the next couple decades.

Let's not lose sight of the FACT that through various means, including transplanting a Monsanto bigwig to the FDA then back in order to engineer the "findings" that GM foods were safe, that the federal government has aided and abetted the slow poisoning. Cause and effect... so many unnatural things added to food indirectly contributes to the booming pharmaceutical industry as well.

True freedom in my mind must include a general ability for each person to cultivate and maintain their own food supply and stop relying on the corporate structure to feed the population- and its children. If we somehow were able to subtract all that is added for little more than enhancing profitability we'd likely see a corresponding drop in all manner of disorder and disease whose rise so "mystifies" the medical establishment and the government. We'd inject less insulin, pop fewer statins, need less chemotherapy, feel less joint pain, and not sprout hair and boobies before we're biologically programmed to.

 

Nice idea, like hell we'd see it happen though

Plus other than being fed literally, the planet has been metaphorically spoon fed to such an extent the human race wouldn't be able to actually cultivate each of their food supplies equally.

We'll be feeding children drugs to counteract the surplus of growth hormone they have taken in years to come. I can't believe that some of the stuff they put in our general food items are actually peddled to children. Fucked.

 

Yup- very true.

I suspect- with some measure of dread, that through cross pollination and other means of infiltrating the ecosystem, GM foods could wreak some incredible havoc on the planet's sustainability... a bit analogous to fallout from a nuclear attack- but far more subtle... and long lasting

 

It's weird how this thread has turned into an anti Monsanto/GM food thread.
It's likely both have no real baring on this issue at all.
If they do, I'd like to see some evidence.

Lets not forget these trends where starting in the 19th century.
I don't think either Monsanto or GM were around then.

 

Proof isn't going to be easy to come by. Who is going to fund the studies?

Granted GM foods, growth hormones and industrial/agricultural pesticides were not a factor when the trends were first noted in the 19th century but that doesn't "prove" that they are not a factor now. Smugly "demanding" proof when you know fully they are not studying these things only furthers the misconception that manipulating the food supply has no impact on public health... whether that impact is in the form of resetting biological clocks and causing early onset of puberty or inducing all manner of illness- including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune disorder, cancer, etc.

Whether the lack of proof is because studies are not being funded or results are being suppressed makes no difference to me. All manner of medical condition that is happening to what should be healthy adults isn't happening magically. My assertion is that it's largely the result of dietary choices people make- enabled by the readily available CRAP that is sold as food.

 

While I have no doubt that you'll shoot down the source but here is something for you to mull over. I have to say the manner in which you worded your disagreement seems to be intended to provoke.

 

British Society for Neuroendocrinology - 18. Puberty: mind and body
http://www.nationalchildrensstudy.gov/Pages/default.aspx

Perhaps.

It's likely there have been studies already.

I'll dig around when I have more time.

Yes, I know.

I have a good idea they are...somebody is.
It's an obvious scientific avenue to persue.

We're not talking about that, though.

Well it should make a difference to you.
It's not invalid to base opinions on something, anything.
Atleast prefix you assertions with "imho" "I think"...
...you give the impression your assertions are based on something solid.
...apparently they re not.

I'm not disputing the fact that it is likely that is one possible source of "contamination".

It was.
Not in a rude manner I hasten to add.
If it came across that way...sorry.

 

I very much appreciate this response on many levels, thank you.

Simply put- most haven't the time nor inclination to research... not that it's an excuse because information is power. Perhaps the tone you set was intended to get people to read and I agree that people indeed do need to arm themselves with facts- because their opinions will otherwise be dismissed and anything they (we) say will not be taken seriously.

We may not be talking about other conditions like diabetes, cancer, etc but it is my position that the issues are most likely related and dismissing them as not on topic to me is a little bit like dismissing a major mechanical issue with a car as a diversion from the topic of the check engine light going on.

It is something people really ought to be doing their own research on- though my sense is that once the market as a whole begins to make more informed decisions that labeling laws will be changed to conceal the information in the interest of keeping the industry profitable. That last bit is pure speculation though.