1
I'm still trying to understand shallowness and projection
(I apologise in advance if this post is confusing or unclear...)
I've heard shallow breasts described in two ways:
- They have a large breast root or base relative to their depth/projection (on Busenfreundinnen, the term "kleine Breitbrust" - small broad breast - is used to describe what English speakers call shallow breasts).
- They don't have much depth/projection relative to the size of the root.
My question is, if shallow breasts are defined by the relationship between depth/projection and root size, is it actually possible to have shallow breasts with a narrow and short root?
I just tried measuring my root height, from the level of the inframammary fold up to the level where my breast tissue ends, and it's only 14cm. My root width, measured around the underbust line, is also 14cm. Using the Braboratory calculator (linked in this post: http://www.bratabase.com/profile/353/adventures/302/ ), I get a depth ratio of 0.77 and a width ratio of 0.84. MilkAndHoney recently posted her analysis of the data from that calculator (here: http://www.bratabase.com/profile/3rx/adventures/2059/ ), including a scattergram showing where each person lay on the depth and width spectrum, and I'm way down there in the narrow/shallow corner. I played with the calculator and found that I would need a 22cm breast perimeter (approx. 28F) to reach the "deep" mark without changing my root width or underbust measurements. This made me wonder if my size automatically means a certain degree of shallowness, even though I'm probably one of the less shallow people in the 28D range. I have the shape Galactica described as "skinny breasts" and I look fairly projected for my size.
Back to root height. It makes sense to me that shallow + narrow would look more projected than shallow + wide at the same size. It also makes sense that a short root (less vertical space on the torso) would mean more projection than a tall root at the same size. So, whilst my root width and perimeter measurements suggest shallow breasts, I have more vertical projection simply because there's less space for the breast tissue to project from. Does that sound right?
For what it's worth, I don't mind how my shape is described, but it would be easier to help others looking for bra recommendations if I could say "I have [insert shape here] and Bra X fit me", that kind of thing...
Filed under Boob and body issues
34 comments
In my opinion there's actually a third breast shape that acts shallow, even though it doesn't have reduced projection: conical breasts. Conical breasts simply lack 'roundness' and therefore volume, but they project 'normally'. Shallow bra cups do work for conical breasts, but they tend to 'squash' the nipples and can sometimes be uncomfortable for that reason.
Oh, I forgot: if your breast root measures 14cm wide x 14cm tall, then you have perfectly round breast roots. Not short, not tall, just round :)
I've wondered if my breasts could be conical, though there was a recent discussion on /r/ABraThatFits that left me slightly confused about the difference between conical and tubular/tuberous breasts (which I definitely don't have). One or two people said that the leaning bust measurement can overestimate cup size for conical breasts, and that makes sense for me; I always feel like I'm including a lot of empty space when I take that measurement, and calculating from my leaning bust gives me about two cup sizes larger than I need.
Now that I think about it, my root is pretty much round. :) I don't know what kind of value would be considered tall or short here, or if it's all relative to the person's frame.
This thread has 34 comments. Log in to read them