Hidden Health Science

Posts Tagged ‘Pregnancy’

Editor’s Note: Inducing labor is not always a bad thing and there are some medical reasons for it, but as the author points out, much of the time, it is done more for convenience than it is for need.

by T.M. Hartle, NaturalNews

Pregnant mothers often anxiously await the arrival of their little one. Unfortunately, this anxious waiting has turned into an epidemic of labor induction. Scientific research has recently uncovered the reality that labor induction poses several risks to both mother and baby. In April 2011 Researchers from the Department of Psychiatry at Colorado State University published a study showing a strong relationship between pitocin induction and the incidence of ADHD. Labor induction has been linked in previous studies to increased risk of c-section, instrumental delivery, shoulder dystocia, NICU admission, and respiratory problems in the baby, among other complications. Elective induction of labor should be brought into question as research continues to increase indicating significant health risks without adequate benefit.

Researchers of the Colorado State University study concluded that there is a strong predictive relationship between pitocin in labor and subsequent ADHD development in childhood. The occurrence of ADHD in the pitocin group was 67.1% as opposed to 35.6% in the non-exposure group. The natural ebb and flow of nature is commonly overridden in our ever technology-reliant world, and often with risky results. As science continues to investigate invasive interventions in natural life events, such as childbirth, the dangers of intervening with nature are exposed.

There is a commonly held fear of birth in the medical community. Birth is a powerful, miraculous event that cannot be quantified or controlled. Induction is a seductive solution for both medical personnel and pregnant women. Doctors can induce women according to their own personal schedules and be home for dinner. Women can schedule the birth of their baby for their own convenience. Pregnant women praise modern technology and the ability to deliver early and be done with the discomforts of pregnancy. The question remains whether this is a wise option with respect to the health and wellbeing of the mother and baby.

Researchers of the pitocin study stated, ‘these findings suggest a pitocin-linked, interactive constellation of mechanisms initiates a neuro-developmental cascade that disrupts cognitive executive functioning, kindling ADHD.’ Researchers also mention concerns over deprivation of oxygen and prolonged exposure to hypertonic uterine contractions along with a combination of other factors in the development of ADHD in pitocin-exposed children. The risks of elective induction is known, and yet hospitals have failed to respond with policy changes restricting interventions for medical necessity only. Science is just beginning to understand the importance of the natural initiation of labor.

A study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences revealed that a protein released from the lungs of a developing fetus initiates the cascade of chemical events leading to the initiation of labor in the mother. Research has shown failure to allow the baby to signal readiness results in increased risk of NICU admission, resuscitation, jaundice and other complications for babies. Pregnant mothers should educate themselves about the risks of elective induction and avoid pressuring their healthcare provider to induce them for convenience.

It is critically important to recognize that we may not fully understand the lifelong implications of interfering with the natural flow of pregnancy, labor and birth. The International Cesarean Awareness Network advises pregnant women to work with their practitioners to avoid induction unless there is a medical condition requiring induction of labor. This natural synergy between the mother and baby is carefully orchestrated for the baby to be born when the baby is physiologically ready to meet the world.

source:
http://www.suite101.com/content/new…
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/…
http://www.chadd.org/Content/CHADD/…
http://stg.jfponline.com/Pages.asp?…
Boulvain M, Marcoux S, Bureau M, Fortier M, Fraser W. Risks of induction of labour in uncomplicated term pregnancies. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2001 Apr;15(2):131-8.

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/033259_pitocin_ADHD.html#ixzz1UbeTkJM3

A new research study, which included nearly 60,000 pregnant women in Denmark, found that those who drink artificially sweetened beverages (carbonated or not) were more likely to have a premature birth. The study was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.¹

The researchers found that one serving per day of artificially sweetened, carbonated drinks were 38% more likely to give birth before 37 weeks of gestation (1.38 AOR). Those who consumed four servings of these drinks were 78% more likely to have a premature delivery (1.78 AOR).

Dr. Shelly McGuire, a spokesman for the American Society of Nutrition, was quoted as saying “Certainly, until more experimental work is done, this study suggests that pregnant women should steer clear of artificially sweetened drinks.”²

Maybe the words “pregnant women” could be replaced with “everyone” in that statement?

According to a whole host of experts, it should be so. Soft drinks in general, in fact, should be avoided according to health practitioners and authors Michael Murray, Joseph Pizzorno, James Duke, Marion Nestle; to name a few.³

The abstract for this latest study by Dr. Thornallur Haldorsson, principal author, says that soft drinks in general are suspected of many adverse health effects:

“Sugar-sweetened soft drinks have been linked to a number of adverse health outcomes such as high weight gain. Therefore, artificially sweetened soft drinks are often promoted as an alternative. However, the safety of artificial sweeteners has been disputed, and consequences of high intakes of artificial sweeteners for pregnant women have been minimally addressed.”

Results in the study were cross-referenced with women who consumed sugar-sweetened soft drinks. It was found that the possible causative was clearly the artificial sweeteners, rather than the soda or other ingredients. Both carbonated and non-carbonated drinks were included as well with the same result.

The actual physical change that causes the rise in premature birth rates is not known, according to the study’s authors. Artificial sweeteners have been connected to a host of adverse health effects, so it’s likely that doctors could just take their pick here.⁴ The study did point out that most of the premature births were due to medical induction rather than spontaneous delivery and removing data from women diagnosed with preeclampsia also had little effect on the odds for premature delivery and sweetener intake. With all of the other things eliminated as suspects by the authors, it’s clear that the artificial sweeteners are changing a fundamental aspect of pregnancy that is usually not measured.

This could include hormone production, muscular or cellular function, or another chemical interaction. Aspartame, for instance, breaks down into three major chemicals: aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol. Methanol oxidizes into formaldehyde and then formic acid, both of which are toxic. These can accumulate in the body and have been linked to premature birth in primate studies.

So, from kidney function loss to cancer to premature birth, these sweeteners sure do have a lot going for them.

Resources:
1 – Intake of artificially sweetened soft drinks and risk of preterm delivery: a prospective cohort study in 59,334 Danish pregnant women by Thorhallur I Halldorsson, et al, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, September 2010

2 – Pregnant women should avoid ‘diet’ soft drinks: researchers by Rebecca Smith, The Telegraph, August 19, 2010

3 – The health effects of drinking soda – quotes from the experts by Mike Adams, NaturalNews

4 – Artificial Sweeteners are Continually Found to be Unsafe and Toxic by Ethan Huff, NaturalNews

Published 08/30/10: http://www.naturalnews.com/029601_diet_soda_premature_birth.html

As if anyone needed another reason to eat chocolate.. New research published in the August 2010 issue of the Annals of Epidemiology suggests that chocolate may be good for both gestational hypertension (GH) and for preeclampsia.¹

This, of course, goes hand-in-hand with a lot of other research regarding chocolate, most of which has been featured here on NaturalNews in the past. Gestational hypertension is physiologically related to some forms of generalized high blood pressure and heart disease symptoms, which have been shown to be lowered beneficially through chocolate consumption (especially chocolates based on real cacao).²

This latest study was conducted by researchers from the Department of Epidemiology at the University of Iowa College of Public Health and from the Center for Perinatal, Pediatric, and Environmental Epidemiology at Yale University through grants from the National Institutes of Health. Subjects from 13 prenatal care practices in Connecticut were recruited and interviews were conducted within the first sixteen weeks of gestation.

A total of 2,567 women were included in the study, with most of their pregnancies (2,351) being normal without problems. 158 of the women were diagnosed as GH and 58 were preeclampsia. Preeclampsia is a condition in which high blood pressure and protein in the urine develop after the 20th week of pregnancy. It can lead to serious problems for mother and baby, but instances of death and serious complication are rare in the U.S. as women are routinely monitored for this problem during pregnancy.³

In the study, chocolate was more commonly eaten by the normtive mothers during pregnancy than the others (80.7% or 5-15% higher). A control group of women who ate less than 1 serving of chocolate per week was used for comparison.

First trimester intake of chocolate was associated with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 0.65 (an aOR is a number between 0 and 1, the higher the better). This indicates a likely correlation.

Third trimester intake was associated with reduced odds of preeclampsia, but not conclusively (aOR 0.55) and the study’s authors call for more research.

“These findings provide additional evidence of the benefits of chocolate,” the study concludes.

This study wasn’t the first to examine the positive effects of eating chocolate duirng pregnancy. One of the study’s authors, Dr. Elizabeth W. Triche (PhD) of Yale University conducted a similar study in 2008 focused on preeclampsia.⁴

It’s known from other studies (which these studies cite) that the chemical theobromine in found in cacao-based chocolate. This chemical has many beneficial effects on the heart muscle and blood vessels. In fact, this latest research adds to the evidence already in hand for chocolate’s benefits during pregnancy.

This is good news for women everywhere and more evidence of the mounting tsunami of proof that chocolate is good for more than just an occasional treat.

Resources:
1 – Does Chocolate Intake During Pregnancy Reduce the Risks of Preeclampsia and Gestational Hypertension? by Audrey F. Safftlas, PhD, MPH, et al, Annals of Epidemiology, August 2010

2 – Chocolate lowers blood pressure and slashes risk of heart disease by S.L. Baker, NaturalNews.com

3 – Preeclampsia, Google Health

4 – Chocolate may reduce pregnancy complication risk Reuters, April 28, 2008

Published on NaturalNews 08/10/10: http://www.naturalnews.com/029418_chocolate_pregnancy.html