Pregnancy

There are several articles below for pregnant women, beginning with:

Women in labor may feel less pain on hands, knees

By Eric Nagourney | New York Times News Service

October 23, 2007

Women who go onto their hands and knees while in labor may be able to reduce the pain of childbirth, researchers say.

Midwives often recommend the position in the belief it makes deliveries less painful and faster by encouraging the baby to shift into the best position.

The researchers, writing in the current issue of The Cochrane Library, said there was good evidence for the first proposition but not for the second.

The study also found no support for the recommendation that toward the end of pregnancy, women go onto their hands and knees for 10 minutes, twice a day, to help the baby get into position.

"This is not to suggest that women should not adopt this position if they find it comfortable," the researchers write.

The study is based on a review of earlier research into how the mother's position affects delivery. The researchers focused on three studies, two looking at women in labor and one looking at women late in pregnancy. In all, more than 2,700 women were involved in the studies.

The best position for a baby during delivery is head down, with the back of the head facing forward. When the back of the head is toward the mother's side or back, the delivery may be longer or more painful.

The study found that the women who went onto their hands and knees during delivery felt better. "The use of this position during labor was associated with a significant reduction in persistent back pain," the researchers wrote. "Women may therefore be encouraged to use this position for comfort in labor."

But while there was some evidence in one study that the position helped their babies shift into the right position, more research is needed, the researchers said.

My Comment: I read once that some American Indian women gave birth in a squatting position. It makes sense to me. The medical establishment considers giving birth a medical condition and doctors have liked their patients flat on their backs—it makes it easier for them and the hospital staff. We would like to hear from women who have some experience with this.

Low Cholesterol Tied to Preemie Births

By Serena Gordon
HealthDay Reporter

MONDAY, Oct. 1 (HealthDay News) -- New research suggests that very low cholesterol levels in pregnant women may harm the health of the fetus.

Expectant mothers whose total cholesterol levels were under 159 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL) gave birth -- on average -- to babies weighing about one-third of a pound less than babies born to mothers whose cholesterol levels exceeded 159 mg/dL, the researchers found.

Additionally, 12.7 percent of white women with low cholesterol levels gave birth prematurely, compared to just five percent of those with higher cholesterol levels. No such association was found in black women, however.

"To our surprise, we found that white women with very low cholesterol also have a significant risk of having babies born prematurely," said Dr. Max Muenke, chief of medical genetics at the U.S. National Human Genome Research Institute in Bethesda, Md.

Results of the study are in the October issue of Pediatrics.

"This study intuitively makes some sense," said Dr. Robert Welch, chair and program director for obstetrics and gynecology at St. John Health's Providence Hospital in Southfield, Mich. "Cholesterol is a building block for membranes, hormones and proteins, so it makes sense that if you have low cholesterol, your baby won't have the substrate it needs to grow."

In 1994, 11 percent of babies were born prematurely, and 7.3 percent were considered low birth weight. In 2004, those numbers were 12.5 percent and 8.1 percent, respectively. A preterm birth is one that occurs before 37 weeks, and a baby under five and a half pounds is considered to have a low birth weight.

According to Muenke, because previous studies have shown that high cholesterol levels -- over 300 mg/dL -- may lead to premature birth, the researchers wanted to know if very low levels could also have an effect.

The researchers recruited more than 1,000 women from prenatal clinics in South Carolina. The women were between 21 and 34 years old, didn't smoke, didn't have diabetes and were only pregnant with one baby. Cholesterol levels were measured at about the 17th or 18th week of pregnancy.

Overall, 118 of the women had low cholesterol levels mid-pregnancy and 940 women had levels higher than 159 mg/dL.

The study found that white women had five times higher odds of delivering prematurely if they had low cholesterol. There was no association between cholesterol levels and preterm delivery in black women, according to the study.

However, for both races, babies weighed an average of 150 grams less (about one-third of a pound) when born to mothers with low cholesterol. Additionally, babies born to mothers with low cholesterol levels were about twice as likely to have a small head circumference.

Muenke said the low cholesterol levels are likely caused by a combination of genetics and nutrition. According to the study authors, the low cholesterol levels may stem from poor diet and nutritional deficiencies. What isn't yet known is if raising cholesterol levels in these women would have a positive effect on the baby's health.

"What this study does suggest is that diet in pregnancy is important, and that not paying attention to nutrition could be harmful," said Welch.

My Comment: This is where the "low cholesterol is healthy" lie (or misunderstanding) becomes damaging to our racial eugenics. It is more than likely that these women were not consciously trying to keep a low cholesterol reading, but simply had poor diets. It is SO important for our white mothers-to-be to eat a healthy, varied diet and not worry about cholesterol or fat content. Healthy food has healthy fat; unhealthy food has unhealthy fats—that’s all you need to know. If you don’t know the difference between healthy and unhealthy food, it’s this: healthy food is whole food, real food in its natural state. Unhealthy food is processed, comes in boxes, packages and from fast-food restaurants and Asian take-outs. All in all, it's best not to eat out too much when you're pregnant. Sorry, but we have to think of Baby first.

++++++++

Just found this: A story that is about more than the false correlation of fats and disease; it tells what tragedy can result from blindly following consensus thinking.

Diet and Fat: A Case of Mistaken Consensus

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/science/09tier.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&partner=rssuserland

=====================

"Fish now safe for pregnant women to eat"

My Comment: The following news item is an excellent example of why women should not listen to the advice, in the form of warnings and recommendations, put out by the United States Food and Drug Administration. This agency is so compromised by the food and pharmaceutical industries to direct its advice in ways that will not harm either, that it chooses to harm U.S. citizens instead. And it does so literally with impunity, since neither the agency, nor any of its employees, is ever taken to task for its "mistakes."

It remains for white pregnant women to be knowledgeable about the foods they eat and to practice discipline in sticking to a healthy, balanced diet. There are many reliable sources of information for this, especially on the Internet.

This article not only shows the confusion of the FDA, but also presents pregnant women with the choice of either ingesting "some" mercury with the fish they eat, or depriving their fetus of necessary Omega-3 fatty acids. Some choice! The danger of mercury, which is real, is now downgraded to fit the new advice. It allows only one throwaway sentence to tell you that you can use "fish oil supplements as a good alternative," when in fact, fish or flax oil supplements should be in every pregnant woman’s diet – and should be given to your child after birth (see Your Children's Health - ADHD).

Why are supplements not recommended, except grudgingly? Because the medical-pharmaceutical establishment (including the non-profit [tax-free] groups and NGO's [non-governmental organizations] mentioned in the article) all work together to keep consumers on the straight and narrow prescription-drug-and-chemically-loaded-processed-food pathway, in order to better extract from them a large percentage of their wages for these industries. If people actually got healthy and stayed that way, what would happen to their profits?

The four types of fish mentioned - salmon, tuna, sardines, mackerel (although King Mackerel is on the short list of fish to avoid) - are highest in Omega-3 oil, but are most familiar to the majority of us in cans or tins. They are fine in this form, as long as you purchase the best quality brands. This is not the place to go cheap or try to save money. Honey Boy brand wild Alaska red salmon and King Oscar Brisling Sardines in Olive Oil are two that I use regularly. Fresh salmon should be wild Alaskan, not the farm-raised variety.

Please don't think that other types of fish are just as good or almost just as good. They aren't. Many don't have sufficient Omega-3 to justify the mercury risk. And, certainly, the most popular of all - catfish - has nothing to recommend it, except that it's inexpensive and tasty (especially when deep-fried, eh? Ugh). Pregnant women should stay away from catfish.

Omega-3 supplements should be highest-quality, which means not off-the-shelf at WalMart. Krill Oil is the very best, but expensive. However, if you can afford it, use it! Purified fish oils, including salmon oil, are next. Flax Oil (a seed product) is also excellent, except that it doesn't contain DHA. If you eat high omega-3 fish two or three times a week, though, supplementing with Flax Oil should do you quite well.

Here is the article.

Fish Safe for Pregnant Women to Eat

By Steven Reinberg
HealthDay Reporter

FRIDAY, Oct. 5 (HealthDay News) -- Since 2001, when U.S. health officials warned pregnant women to eat no more than 12 ounces of fish a week because of potential mercury contamination, many women have been confused, and fish consumption has dropped.

Now, a group of experts says that that warning by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was misguided. The potential problems caused by mercury pale in comparison with the harm caused to developing fetuses from a lack of omega-3 fatty acids, which are found in many fish and are essential for brain development. Women should eat at least 12 ounces of fish a week, the group recommends.

"We found that the FDA/EPA advisory was scaring a large number of women away from eating any fish," said Dr. Ashley S. Roman, an assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at New York University Medical Center and a member of the National Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies Coalition. "Fish is an important part of a well-balanced diet during pregnancy."

The new recommendations were presented Thursday during a press conference at the National Press Club, in Washington, D.C.

The coalition is a nonprofit group whose members include the American Academy of Pediatrics and the March of Dimes, as well as federal agencies such as the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

"There is scientific evidence that fish leads to better outcomes in babies," Roman said. "It leads to better brain development, improved cognitive and motor skills, and some evidence suggests that it might reduce the risk of premature delivery and postpartum depression. Studies have shown that if you eat 12 ounces or more fish per week, you are doing better for your baby than if you eat less than that amount or no fish at all."

Not getting enough omega-3 fatty acids results in health risks to mothers and their children, Roman said. Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, which shows that 90 percent of women are eating less than the FDA-recommended amount of fish, confirm the women aren't getting enough omega-3 fatty acids, she added.

Another study found that the FDA/EPA warning caused 56 percent of pregnant women to limit their fish consumption to levels below beneficial amounts, out of fear that fish may harm their developing baby.

Roman said that women who want to become pregnant, are pregnant or are breast-feeding should eat a minimum of 12 ounces per week of fish such as salmon, tuna, sardines and mackerel, without fear. For women who can't eat fish, the researchers recommended fish oil supplements as a good alternative.

Eating fish is the best way to get the long-chain omega-3 fatty acids docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA). Roman noted that selenium, a mineral found in some ocean fish, appears to protect against the harmful effects of mercury. "You have to look at fish as a whole, not at just one element in fish," she said.

One expert thinks that not getting enough omega-3 fatty acids is more dangerous for an infant's health than the danger posed by trace amounts of mercury in some fish.

"There is a direct difference between these recommendations and the current FDA/EPA recommendations," said Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, an assistant professor of medicine and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health. "This is a dramatic difference."

"Based on the data, I would agree with these recommendations," said Mozaffarian, who co-authored a 2006 study that endorsed fish consumption. "The evidence for the benefits of omega-3 fatty acids in neuron development is at least as strong as the evidence for harm from mercury. Not getting enough omega-3 fatty acids is dangerous in itself."

Another expert also agreed with the new recommendations.

"I think these researchers follow the science," said Dr. Gary J. Myers, a professor of neurology and pediatrics at the University of Rochester Medical Center, in New York.

The only time mercury in fish has been shown to be harmful has been in industrial pollution in Japan, Myers said. "There has never been another case reported anywhere else in the world related to fish consumption," he said.

My Comment: The importance of a good night’s sleep to the body’s optimal functioning is even more apparent when our body is undergoing abnormal stresses, as in pregnancy. At the same time, these stresses interfere with sleep, which is why the quality of sleep becomes a topic of primary concern.

Passive Smoking Increases Sleep Disturbance Among Pregnant Women

September 1, 2007

Science Daily - Pregnant women exposed to passive smoking are more likely to have sleep disturbances such as subjective insufficient sleep, difficulty in initiating sleep, short sleep duration, and snoring loudly or breathing uncomfortably, according to a new study.

The study, authored by Takashi Ohida, MD, of Nihon University in Tokyo, Japan, focused on the responses of 16,396 and 19,386 pregnant women in Japan to two cross-sectional questionnaire surveys in 2002 and 2006, respectively.

The results also showed that pregnant women who smoke had the same sleep disturbances, and also experienced excessive daytime sleepiness and early morning awakening.

Dr. Ohida noted that in the surveys, the spouse was the source of the environmental tobacco smoke for 80 percent or more of pregnant women. The prevalence of smoking among Japanese men was 53 percent, which is higher than that among men in the United States (26 percent) or in the United Kingdom (27 percent). With this in mind, it is important to study the issue of passive smoking among Japanese women and their health, added Dr. Ohida.

"The relationship between passive smoking exposure and some negative health outcomes in pregnant women could be mediated (affected) by the ability of passive smoke to disrupt sleep," said Dr. Ohida. "Educational programs that point out the adverse effects of passive smoking during pregnancy could help improve sleep hygiene in this group of individuals and help prevent other negative health outcomes associated with disturbed sleep."

A woman's body goes through drastic changes during and after pregnancy. These changes can be physical, hormonal and emotional. In addition to smoking or being exposed to second-hand smoke, all of these changes can also affect a woman's sleep.

Most pregnant women experience daytime fatigue even though they may get more sleep. This is because the quality of their sleep tends to be worse. Physical discomfort and awakenings are common. The third trimester tends to be the time when it is hardest to sleep well.

Studies show that snoring often increases during pregnancy. Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) also may develop as the pregnancy progresses. Warning signs for OSA may become more evident. These include gasping, choking sounds and pauses in breathing. OSA is more likely to develop if a woman had a high body mass index prior to the pregnancy.

Two other sleep disorders that are more common during pregnancy are restless legs syndrome (RLS) and sleep related leg cramps. RLS affects nearly 25 percent of pregnant women. RLS may be related to low iron. So women who must take iron supplements during pregnancy may have a lower risk of RLS. Leg cramps occur in about 40 percent of pregnant women. (Edit: Leg cramps may be caused by low calcium.) They tend to go away after delivery.

Experts recommend that pregnant women, and other adults, get 7-8 hours of sleep each night for good health and optimum performance.

Those who suspect that they might be suffering from a sleep disorder are encouraged to discuss their problem with their primary care physician or a sleep specialist.

The article, entitled "Is Passive Smoking Associated With Sleep Disturbance Among Pregnant Women?" was published in the September 1 issue of the journal Sleep.

Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by American Academy of Sleep Medicine.