and fully noted, but less complete records were made of a very much larger number, and these also have been collated. Among shop girls the findings would be less favorable. These figures of mine refute the contention of O'Followell that the modern corset is an "abdominal" corset, lifting the lower abdomen rather than driving it downward, as in the old hour-glass shape. I expected to confirm his view in making these records. But we found that in over two-thirds the pressure was greater in the umbilical region than below it; which means that definite downward pressure was exerted. In this regard one-sixth were
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e4/Toleration_of_the_corset1033fig15-16.png/300px-Toleration_of_the_corset1033fig15-16.png)
See also Figs. 4 and 6.
neutral, showing equal pressure at the level of the navel and above the pubes. Only one-fifteenth, and these for the most part costly, made-to-order corsets, showed conditions other than waist constriction, or with the lower zones showing the higher pressures. One-third of the patients showed a relatively low pressure throughout—nearly all of these being thin women. The spring of the corset in loosening the steels was three inches and over in about one-third of the cases.
The frequency of occurrence of high rib pressures was somewhat unexpected, as the modern corset claims to give fair play to costal respiration. The high umbilical pressures show that the tendency of the old hour-glass corset to force the suprapubic