Active Low-Carber Forums

Active Low-Carber Forums (http://forum.lowcarber.org/index.php)
-   LC Research/Media (http://forum.lowcarber.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   Caesarean babies have greater risk of obesity (http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=435605)

Demi Sun, Nov-20-11 02:51

Caesarean babies have greater risk of obesity
 
Quote:
From The Sunday Times
London, UK
20 November, 2011


Caesarean babies have greater risk of obesity

Medical testing has revealed that babies born by planned caesarean can have distorted metabolic development and are more likely to be obese


Babies born by planned caesarean section are more likely to become obese than those born naturally, medical testing on newborn infants has revealed.

Scans of babies in the first weeks of life show that those delivered by planned caesarean section have higher levels of fats in their livers compared with those born naturally.

A team of doctors and scientists from Imperial College London believe that the process of a natural labour and passing through the birth canal programmes infants to metabolise fats properly.

Professor Neena Modi, a consultant neonatologist, said: “We have preliminary data which suggests that key processes within the liver and with the handling of fats is distorted if you are a baby that has not been exposed to a normal labour. It triggers a metabolic process which allows [you] to handle fats.

“We are pursuing the hypothesis that if you are not exposed to normal labour then your normal metabolic development is distorted.”

Modi added: “There are a number of different processes that might be affected: the way in which your genes work in subsequent life may be affected, the way in which your enzymes work, the way in which your hormones may be released.”

Studies comparing young adults born by caesarean section with those born naturally have previously found the former were between 40% and 58% more likely to be chronically overweight than those who had experienced labour. While these studies raised the association between caesarean section and obesity, they did not establish the surgical birth as the cause.

However, the tests carried out by the Imperial College team are beginning to explain the link scientifically.

The researchers carried out scans on the livers of 62 babies born at the Chelsea and Westminster hospital in London. They compared fat levels in the livers of babies born by caesarean section with those of infants who were born naturally.

In the former, the weight of the mother had an impact on the amount of fat in the babies’ livers. The mother’s weight did not, however, affect babies born naturally or those who were born by an emergency caesarean section carried out once the mother was in labour.

Matthew Hyde, a member of the Imperial team, said: “In obese mothers, babies that were born by caesarean section were more likely to have increased fat in their liver than if they had been born by vaginal delivery.”

The findings are likely to be highlighted by natural birth advocates.

Tam Fry, chair of the Child Growth Foundation, said: “Professor Modi’s research should serve as a warning to any mother-to-be electing to have a caesarian.”

The findings come as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence is due to publish controversial guidance to the NHS stating, for the first time, that women who wish to give birth by caesarean section, but have no medical need, should be allowed to.
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto...ticle826047.ece

RawNut Sun, Nov-20-11 14:02

What leads up to planned c-cections? Larger babies and diabetic mothers are probably a significant reason for both. Large mothers can still have normal weight babies so perhaps that's why those who didn't need cesareans had healthier babies.

Didy Sun, Nov-20-11 15:41

Quote:
Originally Posted by RawNut
What leads up to planned c-cections? Larger babies and diabetic mothers are probably a significant reason for both. Large mothers can still have normal weight babies so perhaps that's why those who didn't need cesareans had healthier babies.


My daughter is tall and slender and she had to have 3 scheduled c-sections; not because of big babies or anything like that, but because of a condition that I had never even heard about until her first pregnancy: Complete placenta previa w/ her first, partial placenta previa w/ the 2nd, and a very scary time when they thought she might have vasa previa w/ her 3rd (fortunately, that was not the case and everything turned out fine in that 3rd pregnancy). If they had not caught the complete placenta previa early on and she had been allowed to go into labor, there is a very real possibility that she would have bled to death - terrifying condition! All of the kids are tall and wiry, as of now. She's a great mama and feeds them the healthy stuff. ;) :lol:

Love2Write Sun, Nov-20-11 16:13

PLANNED, but not emergency? Sounds like a bunch of hooey to me.

aj_cohn Sun, Nov-20-11 16:19

Quote:
Originally Posted by Love2Write
PLANNED, but not emergency? Sounds like a bunch of hooey to me.


Unscheduled births are so inconvenient. They tend to occur when the OB/GYN's asleep.

mfish Sun, Nov-20-11 17:57

Quote:
Originally Posted by Love2Write
PLANNED, but not emergency? Sounds like a bunch of hooey to me.

Most often scheduled C-sections are performed before the outset of labor. For many emergency C-sections, there has been a trial of labor or labor has at least already begun, exposing the infant to a complex cascade of hormonal sequences. Even with an emergency cesarean, allowing the baby to be exposed to labor hormones is a factor in the clearing of amniotic fluid from the baby's lungs, among other things.

Not saying I agree with the above study, but this may be a big variable the study is testing on.

sexym2 Sun, Nov-20-11 20:42

For the record, I believe there are way to many C-sections going on. My first was an emergency C-section, my last 2 were naturally born. I had to jump through hoops to get to a big enough hospital that was capable of handling a V-back (vacinal delivery after C-section). Many woman after having a c-section are simply not given a choice, because the hospital has to keep an anethesiologist on hand at all hours, and they don't want to spend the money. There is a very small chance of the uterus splitting during natural labor, that they don't even give women the option of doing a v-back and its automaticly planned, unless you go to a big enough hospital to have Dr. and anethesiologists on hand at all hours.

That saying, there are real reasons to have a c-section, life and death reasons, medical conditions (my mother's pelvis is not large enough for birth, had to have all 4 of us c-section, my g-friend had pre-clampsia, was shutting down her organs and killing her) lots of really good reasons to have them. I hate the planned c-sections, I still remember my doctor saying, "Lets get her in there, I've got supper waiting on me in an hour." Thats the last I heard before I was put under, thats reasuring!

Now 2 out of 4 of us kids are over weight, me included, and I blame that on life style, not anything else. My oldest is tall and skinny, as are my younger two. I try to feed them healthier than I was growing up. Broke farmers, everything we ate had a potatoe, rice or pasta involved and meat was scares. We had cattle, hogs and sheep, but it was to expensive for us to eat. We had meat at supper, 1 lb of burger mixed in with pasta and sause for 5 people.

Thats why were over weight, not because we were born to lazy and incompatent dr.s. They shouldn't pass the buck, its mostly how we eat and in turn it how are bodies handle the food we eat.

Ok, Im done ranting now.

bcbeauty Sun, Nov-20-11 22:05

I had 3 c-sections. Yes I had to. And my children are all adults. 26, 24 and 22 years of age and not one of them is obese. As a matter of fact its hard t o see the boys when they are turned sideways.

howlovely Mon, Nov-21-11 01:54

Could not agree more with SexyM2. If you look at the data, you'll see most c-sections in the US occur in the early evening. You know, right around the time the doctor decides he/she has had a long enough day already and wants to go home for dinner. As far as I can tell, nothing will change anytime soon because the medical community has done an excellent job conning people that c-sections are normal and common-place. 1/3 of all babies in the US are born via c-section. That number should be closer to 10%. BTW, a vaginal delivery is not simply "removing" the baby from the mother. There is evidence that a vaginal delivery helps protect children against illness and disease. In other words, physically passing through the vagina is just another part of a baby's development process.

We need more birthing centers where women can take all the time they need to have a natural delivery. IMO, performing a c-section on someone who does not need it is an unnecessary, invasive procedure and is thus medical malpractice.

nifty55 Mon, Nov-21-11 03:41

Wonder if Victoria Beckham has read this study? Four c-sections (so far). Too posh to push?

sexym2 Mon, Nov-21-11 06:14

People tend to be shocked when they learn that I've had 1 c-section and then 2 natural deliveries. They seem to think its great that I automaticly get a c-section. I don't its awful, c-sections are painful, I remember not being able to take care of my son easily after he was born, for well over a week, because it hurt! Now, I stay with my local dr. till I'm about 7 months along and then demand to be sent to the other dr, in a hopital 1 1/2 hours away, so I can have them natural. I'm not a natural finatic, give me the pain drugs!!! But I tell you, when its over, I can walk shortly after, take care of my children and amaze the nurses because I have tons of energy.

I even talked my best friend into having a v=back and she said it was the best decision ever. Due to her pre-clampsia, she had to have labor started for her, and had to have him 2 weeks early. Defanitely beats a big cut in her belly though.

Merpig Mon, Nov-21-11 07:44

Quote:
Originally Posted by howlovely
the medical community has done an excellent job conning people that c-sections are normal and common-place. 1/3 of all babies in the US are born via c-section. That number should be closer to 10%.
Yeah. really weird. When my grandson was born 2 years ago he was one of 17 babies born in the hospital that day. And he was the *only* one of the 17 who was born vaginally! All the other 16 babies were Caesarian!!! There has to be something wrong with that.

Merpig Mon, Nov-21-11 07:46

Quote:
Originally Posted by sexym2
People tend to be shocked when they learn that I've had 1 c-section and then 2 natural deliveries. They seem to think its great that I automaticly get a c-section. I don't its awful, c-sections are painful
:lol: my sister had her first child vaginally, and her second by emergency C-section. She said later if she'd know ahead of time she would have demanded a C-section for her first one too, as she found the C-section so much less painful, less draining, less stress, and much faster recovery time!

walnut Mon, Nov-21-11 10:33

just watched 'the business of being born' last night and was really amazed that something like 46% of births in the US are c-sections. how crazy is that.

c-sections interfere with normal maternal hormone surges of oxytocin after birth which can cause poor bonding and attachment b/n mom and baby.

there's so much that we dont understand about how modern medicine interferes with natural processes.

anyways, it was a well-done documentary and worth watching.

sexym2 Mon, Nov-21-11 11:37

Quote:
c-sections interfere with normal maternal hormone surges of oxytocin after birth which can cause poor bonding and attachment b/n mom and baby.


I was thinking on that, and thought of my girlfriend and her bull dogs. The dogs cannot reproduce without human intervention. Have to Ai and most have to have C-section. After the females have there pups, c-section, she takes them home and has to do everything for the mom. She doesn't mind them in the pen with her, but she wont clean or incourage them to nurse. They have to hold her down for the first week or so to get her to nurse them, then she gets the drift and starts doing it herself. After a while, she tend sto start cleaning them, but never enough, she has to get help there too. All 3 of her bull dogs are that way with each litter. They just don't get the hormones and everything that is involved when they have a c-section. Us humans understand whats going on, but you cant explain it to a dog. I had problems "emotionally connecting" with my first child (c-section), the other 2 (natural) I didn't have those problems. Could be timing, age and learning, or it could be more, do to the lack of hormones.

I told my dr. with the last 2, that c-section was out of the question unless life and death situation. I do remember with my last, I had to get nasty to get an anathesiologist to get me drugged up. The hospital has 3 and all of them were in with c-sections. The guy was in and out in a hurry, but he still did a good job with me. I could still feel the contractions and push when time came, but the pain just wasn't as intense.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 17:25.

Copyright © 2000-2017 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.