5 ms·

That statistic seems slightly off to me. If we assume that the breasts are the same density as water (which is probably too high, as they're mostly fat, which

That statistic seems slightly off to me. If we assume that the breasts are the same density as water (which is probably too high, as they're mostly fat, which is less dense than water), 23 pounds is about equal to a 12 inch by 7.5 inch by 7.5 inch block of pure flesh. Maybe it's just me, but I think that fails a simple sanity test. Edit: Wikipedia says "The average breast weighs about 0.5 kilograms (1.1 lb)" with some decent sources, and given that the average bust is a C-cup, I highly doubt that a D-cup weighs 5-10 times more than that.

scott_s 17y ago
"D-cup" also isn't enough information to gauge volume. A 36-D is larger than a 34-D. And remember that volume (and hence mass) increases as the cube of length, so two inches more in length will mean a lot more mass.
- DarkShikari 17y ago
  Of course. I assumed that "15-23" would mean "average", so since the average band size is around a 36, that would probably mean "32D-40D" or something of the sort for "15-23". Either way, the numbers seem absurd.
  - brisance 17y ago
    Volume of cone = pi * r^2 * h / 3. Plugging in r1 of 3 and r2 of 2.5, and h1 of 36 and h2 of 34. Constants cancel out, that's an increase of 2.38 times in volume. This is per cone ;)
    - aguynamedben 17y ago
      I love Madonna too!
    - arithmetic 17y ago
      Exactly the way I'd expect nerds to discuss breasts :)
- Mz 17y ago
  FWIW: Cup size is an increase in circumference, not length. And cup size is a relative measure. A "D" cup is supposed to mean that the fullest part of the breast is 4 inches more than the ribcage in circumference. So a 34D is going to be much less mass than a 44D (but, ironically, also a lot "fuller" looking relative to the rest of her figure). The last statistics I heard: The average American woman is about 5'4" tall and a size 16 dress size. More girth around the ribcage due to weight means "average" cup sizes that equal more mass because cup size is very much relative to that initial ribcage measurement. (I'm reminded that not long ago there was an article posted on HN apparently about women getting both shorter and fatter on average -- or so I gathered from the comments.)
  - scott_s 17y ago
    That's the same point I tried to make.

scott_s 17y ago

"D-cup" also isn't enough information to gauge volume. A 36-D is larger than a 34-D. And remember that volume (and hence mass) increases as the cube of length, so two inches more in length will mean a lot more mass.

DarkShikari 17y ago
Of course. I assumed that "15-23" would mean "average", so since the average band size is around a 36, that would probably mean "32D-40D" or something of the sort for "15-23". Either way, the numbers seem absurd.
- brisance 17y ago
  Volume of cone = pi * r^2 * h / 3. Plugging in r1 of 3 and r2 of 2.5, and h1 of 36 and h2 of 34. Constants cancel out, that's an increase of 2.38 times in volume. This is per cone ;)
  - aguynamedben 17y ago
    I love Madonna too!
  - arithmetic 17y ago
    Exactly the way I'd expect nerds to discuss breasts :)
Mz 17y ago
FWIW: Cup size is an increase in circumference, not length. And cup size is a relative measure. A "D" cup is supposed to mean that the fullest part of the breast is 4 inches more than the ribcage in circumference. So a 34D is going to be much less mass than a 44D (but, ironically, also a lot "fuller" looking relative to the rest of her figure). The last statistics I heard: The average American woman is about 5'4" tall and a size 16 dress size. More girth around the ribcage due to weight means "average" cup sizes that equal more mass because cup size is very much relative to that initial ribcage measurement. (I'm reminded that not long ago there was an article posted on HN apparently about women getting both shorter and fatter on average -- or so I gathered from the comments.)
- scott_s 17y ago
  That's the same point I tried to make.