Just saw this story about some doomsday Christian group predicting that the world will end on the baby's birthday-to-be, May 21.
In case anyone was wondering, as persuasive as their arguments for the upcoming Rapture are, I'm still planning to set up the nursery, figure out how to care for a newborn, etc. Also, the baby shower is still on. :-)
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Pregnancy + Furniture Assembly Marathon = Bad Idea
Hubby and I spent much of last weekend putting together furniture - we're still getting set up in our new place. That meant I spent many hours of the weekend hunched over partially-assembled Ikea bookshelves resting on the floor.
Bad. Idea.
I have a pretty strong back - I like to lift weights and was doing stiff-legged deadlifts as well as core exercises like the plank until recently, when I haven't had much workout time. Nonetheless, by Monday morning, my back was painfully objecting to me having spent so much time hunched over while hauling around almost 30 extra pounds of belly. It was pretty excruciating and rather comically disabling. I've just now recovered enough such that I can twist slightly to look over my shoulder while merging into traffic without my back muscles twinging violently. The takeaway tip from all of this, which is perhaps obvious to most sane people: don't take up furniture assembly as a hobby come third trimester. (Or if you must, at least make sure you don't have crappy furniture assembly posture like I did.) I'll definitely keep this in mind when some of our nursery furniture arrives this week!
Bad. Idea.
I have a pretty strong back - I like to lift weights and was doing stiff-legged deadlifts as well as core exercises like the plank until recently, when I haven't had much workout time. Nonetheless, by Monday morning, my back was painfully objecting to me having spent so much time hunched over while hauling around almost 30 extra pounds of belly. It was pretty excruciating and rather comically disabling. I've just now recovered enough such that I can twist slightly to look over my shoulder while merging into traffic without my back muscles twinging violently. The takeaway tip from all of this, which is perhaps obvious to most sane people: don't take up furniture assembly as a hobby come third trimester. (Or if you must, at least make sure you don't have crappy furniture assembly posture like I did.) I'll definitely keep this in mind when some of our nursery furniture arrives this week!
Friday, March 4, 2011
Who Knows How Big This Baby Is?
This week, hubby and I met with obstetrician #2, who thought I was measuring completely normal for this stage of the pregnancy - within a centimeter of normal. Obstetrician #1 had thought the baby seemed quite large - so large that she ordered an ultrasound to have a look at the baby - but this second doctor thought the baby was right on track and seemed normal-sized. This is weird, since both were measuring fundal height!
From what I've read, this kind of mixed message about a baby-to-be's size isn't unusual. Strangely, predicting the size of a baby before it's born is something the modern medical establishment can't yet do very accurately. According to Marjorie Greenfield, the obstetrician who wrote The Working Woman's Pregnancy Book, the most accurate way to predict the baby's size is for the mother to predict the size by comparison to her previous pregnancies. If she hasn't had any previous pregnancies, though, this method is obviously out. The next most accurate way is for an experienced medical practitioner to examine the woman, and the least accurate way is by ultrasound measurements. But none of these methods are particularly accurate. So...who knows how big this baby is?
I do know that he's pretty active, though - he's kicking and punching and moving around all the time lately, which is exciting! (I wish there was some way to communicate to him that he could stand to do a little less kicking of the underside of my diaphragm, though, since that seems to be a favorite activity of his lately.) I'm going to start keeping a kick count chart soon, since it's good to have a baseline record of his activity.
From what I've read, this kind of mixed message about a baby-to-be's size isn't unusual. Strangely, predicting the size of a baby before it's born is something the modern medical establishment can't yet do very accurately. According to Marjorie Greenfield, the obstetrician who wrote The Working Woman's Pregnancy Book, the most accurate way to predict the baby's size is for the mother to predict the size by comparison to her previous pregnancies. If she hasn't had any previous pregnancies, though, this method is obviously out. The next most accurate way is for an experienced medical practitioner to examine the woman, and the least accurate way is by ultrasound measurements. But none of these methods are particularly accurate. So...who knows how big this baby is?
I do know that he's pretty active, though - he's kicking and punching and moving around all the time lately, which is exciting! (I wish there was some way to communicate to him that he could stand to do a little less kicking of the underside of my diaphragm, though, since that seems to be a favorite activity of his lately.) I'm going to start keeping a kick count chart soon, since it's good to have a baseline record of his activity.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
End of the Second Trimester
Haven't updated in a while, as hubby and I recently made a cross-country move and we're just getting caught up from that. I'm now in the process of looking for a doctor or midwife here in my new town - I'm planning to meet with 3 or 4 before we decide - and of trying to make some kind of general plan for having this baby.
Met with obstetrician #1 today, and there's good news and bad news.
The good news: Baby's already in head-down position. The doc said he might move again, but he probably won't. I can't imagine there's room for all sorts of spinning or flipping maneuvers in there anymore.
The bad news: The baby (or rather, my uterus) is surprisingly big. Due to the fact that my first two trimesters of medical records are from Canada, where they put the month and day in random orders when they write out dates numerically, the doctor had to do a double-take to see if the first ultrasound was done on October 11 or November 10. When she realized it was the latter, and that I was a month less pregnant than she thought, she was very surprised by the fundal height measurement and she ordered up an ultrasound to check on fetal size. I've felt gigantic lately (and think I look much larger than a similarly pregnant friend), so I can't say that I'm surprised, but that's a bummer. I'm pretty sure about when the baby was conceived, so this definitely won't make birthing this kid any easier! The ultrasound is in two weeks, so I guess we'll find out then if it's a big baby and/or too much amniotic fluid or something like that. I'll also have a gestational diabetes test before then.
Met with obstetrician #1 today, and there's good news and bad news.
The good news: Baby's already in head-down position. The doc said he might move again, but he probably won't. I can't imagine there's room for all sorts of spinning or flipping maneuvers in there anymore.
The bad news: The baby (or rather, my uterus) is surprisingly big. Due to the fact that my first two trimesters of medical records are from Canada, where they put the month and day in random orders when they write out dates numerically, the doctor had to do a double-take to see if the first ultrasound was done on October 11 or November 10. When she realized it was the latter, and that I was a month less pregnant than she thought, she was very surprised by the fundal height measurement and she ordered up an ultrasound to check on fetal size. I've felt gigantic lately (and think I look much larger than a similarly pregnant friend), so I can't say that I'm surprised, but that's a bummer. I'm pretty sure about when the baby was conceived, so this definitely won't make birthing this kid any easier! The ultrasound is in two weeks, so I guess we'll find out then if it's a big baby and/or too much amniotic fluid or something like that. I'll also have a gestational diabetes test before then.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Maternity Pants That Stay Up!
As promised, I paid a visit to A Pea in the Pod while holiday shopping, and I am happy to report that Heidi Klum's line of maternity clothing is as practical as it is beautiful. I bought the black evening dress pictured in my last blog post, as well as a pair of denim leggings from her line. I have never worn skinny jeans before, but these are flattering and comfortable—the fabric is very stretchy. What's even better about the jeans is that unlike every single other pair of maternity jeans I own, they actually stay up! This is accomplished, I think, by three features: the stretchiness and fit of the leggings, the contour of the waistband, and the extra strip of carefully contoured elastic sewn onto the inside of the jeans. It's nice not to have to face the alternative of either hiking up my jeans every few minutes (even the "secret belly" pants require constant adjustments) or having a case of plumber's bum. These should be featured on History Channel's "Engineering Marvels" series, as far as I'm concerned! :-)
The only downside is that her clothing is a bit pricey, so you may want to check out the sale rack (where I found my leggings!), or see if you can find gently used pieces on eBay.
The only downside is that her clothing is a bit pricey, so you may want to check out the sale rack (where I found my leggings!), or see if you can find gently used pieces on eBay.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
New Breastfeeding Study: Start Introducing Solid Foods Earlier
A new study on breastfeeding suggests that giving infants only breast milk during their first 6 months may not be best for their health:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110114/ts_afp/healthchildrenresearchbritain
Ten years ago, based in part on studies done in developing countries, the World Health Organization recommended that babies be fed exclusively breast milk for the first 6 months. This practice was thought to give rise to fewer infections and growth problems. Apparently, however, what is best for baby's health depends to some extent on whether the baby is growing up in a developed country; when the baby lives somewhere with access to better quality food, it is better to start to introduce other foods sooner - doing so seems to make make anemia and the development of allergies less likely! Researchers in Sweden confirmed the link between allergies and late introduction of foods other than breast milk: they found that early onset celiac disease increased after a recommendation to delay introduction of gluten until age six months, "and it fell to previous levels after the recommendation reverted to four months". This makes sense in principle, too, given that the body seems to learn from what it is exposed to early in life what is foreign and what is not. (For this reason, children who grow up in a household with pets are less likely to have dander allergies, for example.)
As interesting as this study is, almost equally interesting is the response to it: one breastfeeding advocate challenged the findings not on any kind of scientific grounds, but because it "plays into the hands of the baby food industry". Whether or not it does, what does this matter if exclusively breastfeeding longer really does contribute to nutrition deficiencies and the development of allergies in the child? (As my husband commented, this is akin to opposing the development of an AIDS vaccine because it would benefit the pharmaceutical industry.)
On this issue, as with many issues having to do with birth and with child care, too often the question is which answer is consistent with one's uncritically accepted broader ideals, not which answer is actually right (let alone whether one's broader ideals are). A person's views on birth, child care and parenting, are almost always tied to his or her most fundamental ideas - about what it is to be human, what parenting requires, what raising a baby to be a healthy well-adjusted person means and requires, gender roles, and even about the value of modern medicine and technology more generally. For this reason, it's harder to get people like the breastfeeding advocate quoted above (or the doctors who treat pregnancy as a medical problem) to really consider the facts in their full context and reevaluate their judgments accordingly. In this case, it would mean considering introducing solid foods before 6 months. One thing that remains uncontroversial, however, is the health benefit, in terms of boosting the baby's immune system, of breastfeeding for newborns; the results of this study do not speak against the established health benefits of breastfeeding, just in favor of also introducing foods other than breast milk a little earlier in the baby's life.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110114/ts_afp/healthchildrenresearchbritain
Ten years ago, based in part on studies done in developing countries, the World Health Organization recommended that babies be fed exclusively breast milk for the first 6 months. This practice was thought to give rise to fewer infections and growth problems. Apparently, however, what is best for baby's health depends to some extent on whether the baby is growing up in a developed country; when the baby lives somewhere with access to better quality food, it is better to start to introduce other foods sooner - doing so seems to make make anemia and the development of allergies less likely! Researchers in Sweden confirmed the link between allergies and late introduction of foods other than breast milk: they found that early onset celiac disease increased after a recommendation to delay introduction of gluten until age six months, "and it fell to previous levels after the recommendation reverted to four months". This makes sense in principle, too, given that the body seems to learn from what it is exposed to early in life what is foreign and what is not. (For this reason, children who grow up in a household with pets are less likely to have dander allergies, for example.)
As interesting as this study is, almost equally interesting is the response to it: one breastfeeding advocate challenged the findings not on any kind of scientific grounds, but because it "plays into the hands of the baby food industry". Whether or not it does, what does this matter if exclusively breastfeeding longer really does contribute to nutrition deficiencies and the development of allergies in the child? (As my husband commented, this is akin to opposing the development of an AIDS vaccine because it would benefit the pharmaceutical industry.)
On this issue, as with many issues having to do with birth and with child care, too often the question is which answer is consistent with one's uncritically accepted broader ideals, not which answer is actually right (let alone whether one's broader ideals are). A person's views on birth, child care and parenting, are almost always tied to his or her most fundamental ideas - about what it is to be human, what parenting requires, what raising a baby to be a healthy well-adjusted person means and requires, gender roles, and even about the value of modern medicine and technology more generally. For this reason, it's harder to get people like the breastfeeding advocate quoted above (or the doctors who treat pregnancy as a medical problem) to really consider the facts in their full context and reevaluate their judgments accordingly. In this case, it would mean considering introducing solid foods before 6 months. One thing that remains uncontroversial, however, is the health benefit, in terms of boosting the baby's immune system, of breastfeeding for newborns; the results of this study do not speak against the established health benefits of breastfeeding, just in favor of also introducing foods other than breast milk a little earlier in the baby's life.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Should you worry about that New Year's Eve sip of bubbly?
Many women entirely abstain from alcohol during pregnancy and worry about the possible fetal effects of any alcohol they consumed before they knew they were pregnant. Their caution and concern may seem well-placed; studies that show that excess alcohol consumption during pregnancy can cause low birth weight, cognitive impairment, behavioral problems, or even full-blown fetal alcohol syndrome. The effects of heavy drinking during pregnancy are uncontroversial and are very serious to the health of the developing fetus, not to mention that anyone with binge drinking tendencies or a bottle-of-Jack-per-week habit is obviously ill-suited to be a parent for other reasons.
If heavy drinking causes serious effects, doesn't it make sense to assume that even light drinking has some detrimental effects? In short, no. Obviously, the fact that excessive ingestion of any substance can have serious consequences doesn't necessarily mean that there are any risks to occasional, moderate ingestion of the same substance. For example, although cyanide is lethal in sufficient doses, no one swears off eating apples because their seeds contain trace amounts of cynaide - the amount found in the seeds is so insignificant that accidentally swallowing the seeds has absolutely no detrimental effect.
Thus, it is perhaps not surprising that new medical research shows that light drinking during pregnancy - i.e. having 1 or 2 drinks per week - has no discernible affects on your developing baby. Researchers followed the children of women with different drinking habits (those who abstained entirely during pregnancy, those who had 1-2 drinks per week and those who were heavier drinkers) until the children were 5 years old, and found that light drinking during pregnancy had absolutely no detrimental effect on children's cognitive abilities or behavioral tendencies. (Light drinking by the mothers at first actually seemed to have beneficial cognitive and behavioral effects on their children, until researchers controlled for the income and education levels of the mothers.)
For a decent layperson's summary of the study, click here. To read the abstract and access a link to the full text of the study, in all its technical detail, click here. (Note: the full text of the study can only be accessed through a university library or with some other kind of subscription to the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.)
In short, the problem with studies of the fetal effects of the consumption of just about anything during pregnancy is that they tend to focus on pregnant women who ingest a lot of the substance. This makes it difficult for pregnant women to know what commonly ingested foods and medicines may be entirely safe in moderation. This kind of study, with its focus on moderate alcohol consumption, is thus a valuable find (even if it is, unfortunately, retrospective regarding pregnant women's alcohol consumption). It finds no evidence that light alcohol consumption during pregnancy causes any harm to the developing fetus, so have a glass of wine on date night if you'd like, and don't sweat that New Year's Eve toast!
If heavy drinking causes serious effects, doesn't it make sense to assume that even light drinking has some detrimental effects? In short, no. Obviously, the fact that excessive ingestion of any substance can have serious consequences doesn't necessarily mean that there are any risks to occasional, moderate ingestion of the same substance. For example, although cyanide is lethal in sufficient doses, no one swears off eating apples because their seeds contain trace amounts of cynaide - the amount found in the seeds is so insignificant that accidentally swallowing the seeds has absolutely no detrimental effect.
Thus, it is perhaps not surprising that new medical research shows that light drinking during pregnancy - i.e. having 1 or 2 drinks per week - has no discernible affects on your developing baby. Researchers followed the children of women with different drinking habits (those who abstained entirely during pregnancy, those who had 1-2 drinks per week and those who were heavier drinkers) until the children were 5 years old, and found that light drinking during pregnancy had absolutely no detrimental effect on children's cognitive abilities or behavioral tendencies. (Light drinking by the mothers at first actually seemed to have beneficial cognitive and behavioral effects on their children, until researchers controlled for the income and education levels of the mothers.)
For a decent layperson's summary of the study, click here. To read the abstract and access a link to the full text of the study, in all its technical detail, click here. (Note: the full text of the study can only be accessed through a university library or with some other kind of subscription to the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.)
In short, the problem with studies of the fetal effects of the consumption of just about anything during pregnancy is that they tend to focus on pregnant women who ingest a lot of the substance. This makes it difficult for pregnant women to know what commonly ingested foods and medicines may be entirely safe in moderation. This kind of study, with its focus on moderate alcohol consumption, is thus a valuable find (even if it is, unfortunately, retrospective regarding pregnant women's alcohol consumption). It finds no evidence that light alcohol consumption during pregnancy causes any harm to the developing fetus, so have a glass of wine on date night if you'd like, and don't sweat that New Year's Eve toast!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)