[Nimrod]

Figure 2 is a detail of the same chart showing the much more common lower range 0-300 Bq
Again this shows the anticipated clusters in the 9% and 4% zones.

Note: the vertical axis is a logarithmic scale, doubling for each unit vertically.

Tag notes:
Body type tags such as AVG (average), CHB (chubby), BBW, SSBBW, THN (thin), BST (busty) were randomly collected to not only test the formula but also the tendency of these body types to cluster, which they did.

Special note:
Average Woman has an average weight, average height and average bust size for the USA.
An Average Woman with weight adjusted to BMI = 18 would rank higher than Pamela Anderson.
Jennifer Love Hewitt at 5.36% boob and Bq of 167 is actually in the chubby cluster.
Ms. Hewitt at Bq 167 has a similar score to Carmen Electra at Bq 168 and Kithara at Bq 170.

[Nimrod]

To test the results more I used a random collection of women that are listed by body type, BBW, Chubby, Thin, etc. and placed them into the chart. Figure 2 shows some of these results.

Again they clustered as expected.

The range of body type locations on the chart were given names, like a star chart as can be seen in Figure 3 and this also shows the typical transition through these sizes a woman can go.
It all depends on relative mass.

[Nimrod]

The more examples I ran through the formula the more the various individuals played into these clusters. You will either be in the normal range and smaller or grouped along and above the 8-10%. There are a few transitional but they were difficult to find and I had to search them out by first calculating what body proportions would yield say a 7% mass ratio and yet place you at say Bq of 200. There are very few women who have those proportions.

The upper left and lower right just do not exist in the real world.
Figure 4 shows these typical horizontal groupings

[Nimrod]

Another aspect that came out of running various body types through the formula is that our common labels do tend to cluster. Yes, my random selection of subjects did produce outlying hits, however visually these exceptions looked more like others around them on the chart and had more to do with mislabeling a person than an actual objective statement that they were say really chubby.

This aspect was the most satisfying as it did show that it takes very little to slip from normal to plump or thin or chubby or full or whatever. Often a few pounds with 1 cup shift is all it takes.

Figure 5 has some common adjectives associated with these clusters. (although not fixed as shown in Fig 2)

[Nimrod]

To test this even further I took 3 real life women and ran their figure changes through time.

I want to say that these are the only three people for whom I had actual numbers and that I could plug in to show how their figures changed over time. All three are natural and all look today like what their final points suggest; one BBW, one Mainline and one Curvy Busty.

One should note that all underwent a "fish hook" move which matches what we see in real life.
This corresponds to the rapid natural breast growth which often outpaces the rest of the body which in turn catches up as the women settles into her mature dimensions later on.

Figure 6 shows the progression over time of 3 individuals all starting and progressing at different rates. Note the similar nature of the curves.

[Nimrod]

What about Breast Expansion?

As Figure 6 shows women either cluster back into a range around 4% or jump up to a range around 9% or so.

To press this issue I created 2 mathematical example women and found 1 woman who documented her breast augmentation over time. She eventually took them out.

When I took the mathematical average woman and simply and unrealistically expanded her up through the cups it produced a smooth curve passing through the actual average woman spot. This is NOT BE as it is with magic boobs that add no weight.

When one adds the corresponding weight gain from growing breasts one cup at a time you create the normal "fish hook" curve. Notice how the points jump across the 5%-8% gap much faster only to want to settle into the 8%-9% upper group.

I should point out that women who are destined for the upper group almost never smoothly transition and spend little time in the transition zone. How many times do we hear the story of a C or D cup "suddenly" ballooning up to G or H cup?

The woman who logged her Breast Augmentation only to remove them some years later followed an expected curve. Interestingly she selected a size that again placed here around the 9% cluster. This speaks to the visually pleasing proportions this upper tier holds.

Figure 7 shows these 3 examples

[Nimrod]

What does this all look like?

Figure 8 is a collection of images for women who sit at about the same spot on the chart. (center of each image)

Remember, the further to the right the higher your Bq score.

The further up the chart the more of your mass is actual breast.
Even though these breasts are of various actual size they start to look the same as they all share a similar percentage of the actual body and their rank is how much beyond the typical that percentage is. One should note the distance between the breasts and the overall mass especially when reviewing in the horizontal.

[Nimrod]

In one final check I selected 40 random women, just to see if I could recreate the findings of one of the medical surveys. It resulted in the same expected spread. See Figures 9a and 9b

The majority of women cluster around the 3.3% range from the research report with a rare few jumping up to the 8-10% level. Their BMIs were all over the place with just a few statistical outlying results.

The corresponding Bq values were exactly as one would expect and matched well with the wide range of body types.

Not only does the Bq result in a believable score regardless of general build but it also allows for the proper clustering of breast type to those builds. The natural clustering that occurs is as anticipated and clumps breasts of similar nature together regardless of the subjects "type". The random tests follow and result in believable placement on the overall range of breasts.

The fact that it is based only on 3 factors, height, weight and bra size is great in that these numbers are easy to come by.

Because even augmented breasts result in believable ranking and placement the Bq score also reinforces the results. Also, the clustering of breast types in more in keeping with what we see in the real world, whether real or fake, makes the final score more encompassing.

[Nimrod]

Bq=Bp/(SubBMI/AvgBMI)

Bq ranges
000 - 050 = Small or Fat breasts
050 - 075 = Medium or Plump breasts
075 - 125 = Average (Avg US woman = 117)
125 - 150 = Large or Full breasts
150 - 200 = Very Large or Abundant breasts
200 - 300 = Massive
300 +

This points to the hidden strength of the single Bq score. One can have a very large actual bra size yet have a lower than average Bq score if one is obese. Conversely, one can have a rather modest bust line but have an above average Bq if one is slight yet top heavy. This is precisely what we want from a Bq score and due to the intrinsic shifts that happen at either end of the BMI calculations the BMI ratio adjusts to handle athletic or tall and short or stocky builds.

Only bosoms of exceptional relative size get a higher Bq score regardless of any real-world build.
Yes, it is possible to mathematically generate values outside the expected ranges but typical humans are not shaped like that.

Bp ranges (breast weight / body weight)
0% - 2% = Flat
2% - 3% = Small
3% - 5% = Average (Avg US woman = 3.87%)
5% - 8% = Large
8% - 12% = Very Large
12% - 17% = Massive
17% +

BMI average
World = 23
USA (2015) = 28.5
USA (2000) = 26.5

Note: using a BMI from America will result in a different rank than that shown in the examples. The world average was used as the subjects were international.

[rtpoe]

Impressive research! Thank you!

[Nimrod]

Thanks. It was mostly motivated by the research articles and abstracts that got me thinking if the results would hold if applied to just anybody.

A great many interesting consistencies came out of all this number-crunching but in the end it simply reaffirmed what I had automatically felt - that there are clumps of body shapes that vary over a distinct range of actual real-world sizes. There are reasons a particular size looks the way it does and why there is a surprising consistency to those sizes (even if they are implants).

One last "test" I wanted to run was to take the general range of bra sizes and look to see if there was any predictive power to it. Essentially, is a woman destined to end up in a particular clump? What I found is that this review "backs" into what the bra size bell curve is already showing us.

I took the middle group (those from 25th to 75th percentile) of women and calculated the average bra size changes over time - stopping at age 50 in four year intervals.
I did the same for those women in the top and bottom 10% of the bra size distribution ranges.

Note: This approach still ignores about 30% of all women - those from 10th to 25th and 75th to 90th percentiles. We would expect these to range between the low, middle, and high tracts in some manner. See Figure 5 for the distribution of possible tracts

Because of the fact that there is a set number of women who target the upper "super-busty" cluster those in the 90th percentile (actually the average of the upper 10%) end up being super-busty and zaftig.
The lower 10% also stay in the flat underweight region. The average women tend toward the stereotype slightly overweight and average busted woman. These all have believable maximum and ultimate Bq scores too.

This all produces sort of a "well obviously" result, but these are supported by actual numbers in the real world.

Again I was pleased at how nicely the results followed what the scientists found and how the flat, average, and busty followed exactly the anticipated tracts.

Yes - the bra size bell curve does have a small tick-up in the upper sizes. This result has been repeated in several surveys and medical studies. Regardless of the measuring method, there is a sub-peak in bra sizes about 5 cups above the main peak. In EU measurements those would be peaks at C/D and J/K cups (mainline and super-busty groups respectively)

[rtpoe]

This is something that should be properly written up for a scientific journal. Seriously.

[Demon]

This is something that should be properly written up for a scientific journal. Seriously.

so I take it you are letting excel just calculate the raw number. For those of us that do not want to enter in the equation( or understand all of your abbreviations ) can we get some PEMDAS style equation for this.
I am used to just doing (([volume in milliLiters]*12*12*12*3)/(28316*4*3.1415926))^(1/3) =radius of a sphere of volume x. ( For example).
Also not quite understanding what your abbreviations mean.

[gonZo]

Board full of great boobs AND YOU GUYS ARE DOING MATH?
 

[solvegas]

Board full of great boobs AND YOU GUYS ARE DOING MATH?
 

Yea, this place is full of weirdos !