Flashback Friday: Breasts don’t just bounce; they do figure-eights.

By Seriously Science | January 29, 2016 6:00 am

Photo: flickr/…love Maegan

For this week’s Flashback Friday, we’re revisiting a post from the old NCBI ROFL blog. Back in the day we were mostly writing for our fellow scientists, so we simply posted the abstract of the research article and let our readers make of it what they would. Although the result was was hit or miss with our lay readers (which is why we ended up writing a introductory blurb for our Seriously, Science? posts), we think this one is definitely a “hit”. But whether it should be read by most people… well, we’ll leave that to you to decide!

Breast displacement in three dimensions during the walking and running gait cycles.

“This study aimed to assess the trajectory of breast displacement in 3 dimensions during walking and running gait, as this may improve bra design and has yet to be reported. Fifteen D-cup participants had reflective markers attached to their nipples and trunk to monitor absolute and relative breast displacement during treadmill walking (5 kph) and running (10 kph). During the gait cycle, the breast followed a figure-of-eight pattern with four movement phases. Despite a time lag in resultant breast displacement compared with the trunk, similar values of breast displacement were identified across each of the four phases. Fifty-six percent of overall breast movement was vertical, suggesting that 3-D assessment and the elimination of trunk movement in 6 degrees of freedom are essential to accurately report breast displacement during the gait cycle.”

Related content:
Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: Putting suction cups on your boobs… for science!
Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: Practical do-it-yourself device for accurate volume measurement of breast.
Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: What the f**k is a “placebo bra”?

  • AG

    Japanese is famous for this kind of research into stuff that seems trivial.

    However, true scientists are intellectually curious beings. Many great inventors, artists, and polymaths have biographies which show them fitting in quite poorly with their peers and often taking to conventional instruction quite badly as well.

    This makes sense since scientists tend to be concerned with objective evidences than social approval (or social validation). It is against human nature to do so. Most people feel terrible and threaten when facing social disapprovals. Popularity is nice feeling for most people.

    You need to have unique personality to be some 0ne like Galileo who does not care about fitting in. Certainly introvert personality enjoying solitude is great for genius thinking process. Correlation between introversion and IQ also breeds genius. Newton and Einstein developed their theory in isolation. Einstein theory became truth not because of most people agree with him (most people hardly understand it), but due to objective evidences (data) collected from sky and labs confirming his theory. Newton even did not care to publish his discoveries which were hidden away for very long time.
    Truth seekers are scientist who are weird in eyes of common people.

    • OWilson

      I have made a lifetime study of female breasts. Unscientific, of course, as I prefer the “hands on” method :)

      But you are right, the social and cultural and religious environment has a lot to do with producing brilliant scientists.

      Avant garde, laissez faire societies gave us our great thinkers in the last century, Einstein, Bohr, Planck, Dirac, Shroedinger, Curie, Pavlov, Fermi, Maxwell, Faraday, Fleming, Born, Crick/Watson and Michelson/Morley.

      Today you have maybe Stephen Hawking?

      Today, words like reactionary, apostate, heretic, and denier, if not blasphemer, are used to silence anyone skeptical of the conventional wisdom, and tends to produce conventional clones.

      • http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm Uncle Al

        Youtube v=hCUy0Z6h7xY
        (NOT safe for bluenoses)

        A “proper” society requires deviants to survive. Reality is nonlinear (weight vs. weight-bearing), does not magnify into linearity (as calculus demands), need not have a Fourier basis (fractals), and can only be centrally managed with regret (economics). Folks who are willingly shoehorned into Mercury capsules then fired through a PERT chart are not necessarily a viable majority population. Consider a contrapositive’s consequences – 21st century Islam. During the European Dark Ages Islam was the shining star of mankind. Then, it cleaned up its act, now intolerant of deviation.

        • OWilson

          By the traditional definition our whole Western Society has become “deviant”.

          We just change Webster’s definitions of words to make it all “normal”.

          You won’t hear it acknowledged anywhere yet, but THAT is the prime recruiting factor behind Islamic Terrorist Recruitment.

          (and NOT, as the usual suspects on the left will insist, on a guy named Trump, and his supposed YouTube Video :)

          • Matt R

            Wilson, sorry but can you point to a history of this so-called “tradition” of Western Society that valued Gitmo? The traditional western thing would have been to just kill them on the battle field. The tradition you cite is a relatively new phenomena that is neither “traditional” nor western, where marriage was for the rich, woman were property, and slavery was based on the color of your skin. You are talking about those western values- right?

          • OWilson


            By letting high ranking terrorists in an ongoing war out of prison early, we have nothing to barter if say, ISIS managed to capture one or two of our Ambassadors. for example.

            The mostly shared community and traditional values that saw America emerge as the World leader in most things that matter to the human condition, in the middle part of the last century, included marriage, and did not as I recall, include slavery.

            The very fact that we do not share the same values is one reason why Americas is declining.

            It also explains the recent phenomena of crooks, proven sexual deviants and demonstrated liars being elevated to the highest offices in the land, (and allowed to stay there)

            Those are “third world” values.

            Just kick back and enjoy the gravy train, before the money, or I should say credit of the future generations, runs out!

            Welcome to you new Banana Republic. :)

          • Matt R

            You know, I won’t respond to you again but I’ll just throw this out: I am sorry you see the glass as half empty. We live in a wondrous time right now and people are finally starting to realize that not only do people control their destiny, they are realizing they play a role in making the world better. You want to go back to the ephemeral 1950s. I feel bad for people who look backwards into the darkness. Maybe looking forward we only get a candle for light, but I’ll take it because I can make the positive change instead of regret over the false myths of the past.

          • OWilson

            The glass was 85% full for a while, but like the Your Treasury, it has been drained and looted.

            The Democratic Candidate for your Presidential Office, who was “Dead Broke”, amassed a staggering $2,000,000,000.00 family slush fund in a mere couple years in politics.

            And she’s a hero. The New York Times, who once called her “a congenital liar” now insists she must be President :)

            Welcome to the New Normal :)

  • http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm Uncle Al

    Well-wrought backsides also pursue re-entrant trajectories. It is one of the delights of meiosis, as opposed to, say,budding. This in part sources bloody failures of monotheism.

  • Dave Witt

    so this is why I see cross-eyed afterwards – staring is bad for your eyes…


Seriously, Science?

Seriously, Science?, formerly known as NCBI ROFL, is the brainchild of two prone-to-distraction biologists. We highlight the funniest, oddest, and just plain craziest research from the PubMed research database and beyond. Because nobody said serious science couldn't be silly!
Follow us on Twitter: @srslyscience.
Send us paper suggestions: srslyscience[at]gmail.com.

See More


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Collapse bottom bar