People without Gene for Underarm Odor Still Wear Deodorant

Societal norms often dictate the products people use even if they don’t need them


TechMediaNetwork













About 75 percent of people without the "smelly underarm" gene wear deodorant daily, a new study finds. Image: everystockphoto

For most, putting on deodorant is a necessary ritual on par with brushing teeth or washing hands. But for people who produce no armpit stench, it is totally unnecessary.

Despite that, nearly three-quarters of those people still use deodorant daily, a new study finds.

The findings, published January 17 in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology, show just how much a person's daily life is dictated by what's considered normal.

"They're spending their money, exposing their skin to what may in a few instances not be good for their skin. It sort of suggests to me that there are a lot of conformists around," said study co-author Ian Day, a genetic epidemiologist at the University of Bristol. [10 Odd Facts About the Female Body]

Smelly genes

Several years ago ago, scientists discovered that a gene called ABCC11 determined whether people produced wet or dry earwax. Interestingly, people who produce the "dry" version of earwax also lack a chemical in their armpits that bacteria feed on to cause underarm odor.

"This key gene is basically the single determinant of whether you do produce underarm odor or not," Day said.

While only 2 percent of Europeans lack the genes for smelly armpits, most East Asians and almost all Koreans lack this gene, Day told LiveScience.

No one knows exactly why gene prevalence varies so much between populations, but its absence in East Asia suggests that being stinky was evolutionarily selected against there over the last several thousand years, he said.

Unnecessary routine

The new findings came as a surprising twist on a larger study investigating chemical exposures in 6,495 women and their babies in Britain. Researchers took blood samples (which contain genetic material) from the women and asked them what types of hygiene products they used daily. As a result, the researchers could investigate how genes related to product usage.

About 98 percent of the women had the gene for smell-producing armpits. Of those, 95 percent used deodorant on a regular basis.

But of the the 117 non-odor producing women, over three-quarters still used deodorant daily. That suggests the majority of women are using a product every day, when they have no need to, Day said.

Though the team didn't look at men, they think the results should generalize. (Other studies have found that men in general are slightly less fastidious in their deodorant use, Day said.)

Because the study didn't intend to look at deodorant use, the researchers can't tease out why smell-free women continue to slather on the odor-reducing product. But one possibility is that social pressure or conformity plays a large part in some of our most common hygiene routines, Day said.

Copyright 2013 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


TechMediaNetwork

Comments

Add Comment
Leave this field empty

Add a Comment

You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.
Click one of the buttons below to register using an existing Social Account.

More from Scientific American

See what we're tweeting about

Scientific American Editors

Free Newsletters


Get the best from Scientific American in your inbox

  SA Digital

Latest from SA Blog Network

  SA Digital

Science Jobs of the Week

Email this Article

People without Gene for Underarm Odor Still Wear Deodorant

X
Scientific American Magazine

Subscribe Today

Save 66% off the cover price and get a free gift!

Learn More >>

X

Please Log In

Forgot: Password

X

Account Linking

Welcome, . Do you have an existing ScientificAmerican.com account?

Yes, please link my existing account with for quick, secure access.



Forgot Password?

No, I would like to create a new account with my profile information.

Create Account
X

Report Abuse

Are you sure?

X

Institutional Access

It has been identified that the institution you are trying to access this article from has institutional site license access to Scientific American on nature.com. To access this article in its entirety through site license access, click below.

Site license access
X

Error

X

Share this Article

X