Jul 30, 2013 -- Breast shape ratios compilation » All bra adventures

Jul 30, 2013 -- Breast shape ratios compilation

I have finally managed to make a rough compilation of the data gathered in this ancient bra adventure http://www.bratabase.com/profile/353/adventures/302/ and I think there is some interesting stuff to be learned from the exercise. I'll briefly present some first observations, but by all means, do join in with the discussion and share your insights!

You can find the 'scattergram' that contains the data here: http://i.imgur.com/jvyib2C.jpg

First some quick notes as to what is visualised in the diagram as well as a reminder of the terminology used:

- this data represents about 35 participants, give or take a couple. Some have provided more than one result, which is why some names appear twice in the picture. Reasons for providing multiple results were (1) a significant difference between left and right breast, (2) a significant difference at different moments during the menstrual cycle, or (3) a significant difference between different ways of measuring underbust and breast perimeter.

- 'Breast root width ratio' (horizontal axis) indicates the amount of space the breast root takes up on the body, measured along the underbust line. 1,0 equals 50%, or from the centre of the sternum to the body's halfway point under the arm, the body's 'side seam' if you will. This point was chosen somewhat arbitrarily and in future renditions it may be shifted somewhat, but for now it seems a reasonably useful demarcation line between what I call 'narrow' ( 1,0) breast roots.

- 'Breast depth ratio' (vertical axis) indicates the relative amount of projection, with 1,0 equalling a 'perfect' hemisphere ('perfect' as in geometrical body, not as in ideal breast shape). This is chosen as demarcation line between what I call 'shallow' (<1,0) respectively 'deep' breasts. In words: a 'shallow' breast projects less than a hemisphere (its projecting radius is shorter than it's breast root radius), whereas a 'deep' breast projects more than a hemisphere (its projecting radius is longer than its breast root radius).

- above 'definitions' result in a division of the graph into four quadrants,: 'narrow shallow', 'narrow deep', 'wide deep', and 'wide shallow'. Of course, these terms are only indicative. In reality it is a gliding scale in all directions.

Now on to the preliminary results:

When I started gathering these data I was half and half (but not really) expecting to see some 'trends' or 'clusters' of similar shapes emerge that would 'back up' the different grading rule assumptions of the main bra-manufacturing companies. However, hardly surprising, reality shows no such order whatsoever: breast shapes are literally all over the place, albeit within certain apparent limits.

The first limit is what appears to be the minimum breast root width ratio. In this sample, nobody has reported a breast root ratio smaller than 0,8 or 40%, which is interesting as this really isn't terribly narrow, in the sense that it doesn't confine the breasts to the front of the body only. The biggest group of 'narrow rooters' is found in the 'narrow shallow' quadrant. Hardly surprising, this quadrant contains the smaller chested amongst us, many of which fall in the Busenfreundinnen category 'kleine Breitburst'. Maybe it's just me but I find this lightly ironic: no, our breasts are not wide -- breasts don't really come any narrower than this -- they are just shallow

The second limit is the minimum breast depth ratio. There's one measurement that dips below this imaginary line, but the 'sensible' minimum for this sample seems to be 0,7. Breasts don't really come much shallower than that, it appears.

The third limit is what appears to be a kind of 'diagonal ceiling' and perhaps the most interesting of all. No ratios have been reported that transgress the outermost diagonal line I drew in grey. This has led me to the following hypothesis: I'm thinking that these diagonals somehow correlate with cup size. I am guessing that people on the same diagonal roughly have the same cup size. Not in terms of absolute breast volume, but relative to their respective bodies, just how cup sizing works. It seems to work in the 'narrow shallow' quadrant and it appears to add up at the outer limit, so chances are it may work in between as well. I just have to figure out the exact spacing between the lines and who knows -- I may have found a new tool to determine cup size (with underbust as rough bandsize indicator, I gather). Anyway, the way I drew the diagonals in this diagram is purely indicative of this idea. The lines have not been 'trued' in terms of their spacing and as such they don't correspond to cup sizes YET but the notion is there.

Two caveats:

- the accuracy of the measurements underlying the results: no single method has been followed, so individual measurements may not be 100% comparable. However, as a rough sketch I believe the information in this 'scattergram' is interesting and informative enough. I do hope to rerun the experiment in a more systematic manner soon (maybe tie it up with @Vee's SIZEM calculator somehow?) and gather more as well as more precise and consistent data.

- the ratios calculated here only refer to the horizontal dimensions of the breasts. They don't say anything about vertical dimensions and as such ignore aspects like shortness or tallness of breast tissue. In an ideal world, maybe a third axis could be added to reflect these aspects as well, but for now this diagram already offers quite a lot of food for thought, so lets not run too much ahead of ourselves ...

Filed under Bra sizing and fit

Shared on Jul 30, 2013 Flag this