• Join our community!

    Do you have questions about celiac disease or the gluten-free diet?

  • Ads by Google:
     




    Get email alerts Subscribe to Celiac.com's FREE weekly eNewsletter

    Ads by Google:



       Get email alertsSubscribe to Celiac.com's FREE weekly eNewsletter

  • Announcements

    • admin

      Frequently Asked Questions About Celiac Disease   09/30/2015

      This Celiac.com FAQ on celiac disease will guide you to all of the basic information you will need to know about the disease, its diagnosis, testing methods, a gluten-free diet, etc.   Subscribe to Celiac.com's FREE weekly eNewsletter   What are the major symptoms of celiac disease? Celiac Disease Symptoms What testing is available for celiac disease?  Celiac Disease Screening Interpretation of Celiac Disease Blood Test Results Can I be tested even though I am eating gluten free? How long must gluten be taken for the serological tests to be meaningful? The Gluten-Free Diet 101 - A Beginner's Guide to Going Gluten-Free Is celiac inherited? Should my children be tested? Ten Facts About Celiac Disease Genetic Testing Is there a link between celiac and other autoimmune diseases? Celiac Disease Research: Associated Diseases and Disorders Is there a list of gluten foods to avoid? Unsafe Gluten-Free Food List (Unsafe Ingredients) Is there a list of gluten free foods? Safe Gluten-Free Food List (Safe Ingredients) Gluten-Free Alcoholic Beverages Distilled Spirits (Grain Alcohols) and Vinegar: Are they Gluten-Free? Where does gluten hide? Additional Things to Beware of to Maintain a 100% Gluten-Free Diet What if my doctor won't listen to me? An Open Letter to Skeptical Health Care Practitioners Gluten-Free recipes: Gluten-Free Recipes
0
gfp

More Deaths For Caesarean Babies

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Well I'm putting this in chat since it affects so many different issues.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5322782.stm

More deaths for caesarean babies

Babies born by caesarean are nearly three times more likely to die in the first month than those born naturally, US research shows.

The findings, based on over 5.7 million births, are particularly important given the growing trend of women opting for caesareans, say the authors.

More than one in five of all British babies are now born by caesarean.

The Birth journal study included women with no obvious medical risks who had elected to have a caesarean.

Explanation

The researchers suggest that the process of labour helps prepare the baby for life outside of the womb.

As well as squeezing fluid out of the lungs, it may promote the release of hormones that encourage healthy lung function.

Dr MacDormac said: "Labour is an important part of the birthing process because it gets infants ready to breathe air and function outside the womb."

Professor James Walker, consultant obstetrician at St James's University Hospital in Leeds and spokesman for the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, said women should not be alarmed by the findings but should be informed.

"The absolute risk is still very small.

"But it should open people up to the fact that there are risks and benefits of everything. This is a relatively small risk but it is there and people need to know that."

Belinda Phipps of the National Childbirth Trust said: "I think that the study does need to be taken pretty seriously."

She said that earlier studies had already hinted that babies born by caesarean are more likely to experience breathing problems.

I'm sure this applies to lots of things from MSbP and cot death to celaics and childbirth.... so if a mod wants to move it fine, I just didn't know where to put it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ads by Google:
Ads by Google:


Good article, but old news. This information has been reported many times since I had my first (unnecessary) cesarean section in 1998...and the cesarean rate has been climbing since:

November 15, 2005

The CDC reports:

Cesarean rate for 2004 is 29.1%

The rate is up from 27.6% in 2003

U.S. cesareans have risen 40% since 1996

First-time cesareans are at an historical high of 20.6%

VBAC rate fell to 9.2%

Since 1996, the VBAC rate in the U.S. has plummeted 67%.

The cesarean seciton rate in North America is astronomically high, and women are being encouraged to choose a primary cesarean birth in absence of medical need. What many people fail to realize is that it is major surgery, with all the risks of surgery. Plus there are serious additional risks for the baby. Many women are not properly counselled on those risks...there is a serious issue with a lack of true informed consent.

There is a North America-based organization, ICAN (International Cesarean Awareness Network,) whose mandate is to lower the cesarean section rate through education, and to advocate for mothers in this regard. They also advocate VBAC (vaginal birth after cesarean) as a proven, safe choice over ERCS (elective repeat cesarean section). Unfortunately, the medical model of birth is based on fear...fewer and fewer practitioners are willing to properly support women in their desire for VBAC...and fewer and fewer practitioners are willing to support a woman through a safe, natural primary birth.

Check out ICAN here: http://www.ican-online.org/.

Michelle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good article, but old news. This information has been reported many times since I had my first (unnecessary) cesarean section in 1998...and the cesarean rate has been climbing since:

November 15, 2005

The CDC reports:

Cesarean rate for 2004 is 29.1%

The rate is up from 27.6% in 2003

U.S. cesareans have risen 40% since 1996

First-time cesareans are at an historical high of 20.6%

VBAC rate fell to 9.2%

Since 1996, the VBAC rate in the U.S. has plummeted 67%.

The cesarean seciton rate in North America is astronomically high, and women are being encouraged to choose a primary cesarean birth in absence of medical need. What many people fail to realize is that it is major surgery, with all the risks of surgery. Plus there are serious additional risks for the baby. Many women are not properly counselled on those risks...there is a serious issue with a lack of true informed consent.

There is a North America-based organization, ICAN (International Cesarean Awareness Network,) whose mandate is to lower the cesarean section rate through education, and to advocate for mothers in this regard. They also advocate VBAC (vaginal birth after cesarean) as a proven, safe choice over ERCS (elective repeat cesarean section). Unfortunately, the medical model of birth is based on fear...fewer and fewer practitioners are willing to properly support women in their desire for VBAC...and fewer and fewer practitioners are willing to support a woman through a safe, natural primary birth.

Check out ICAN here: http://www.ican-online.org/.

Michelle

Of course, its babies to order... non of that inconveneice for the medical staff with the mother not making enough effort :ph34r: and deliberatly waiting till 2AM to have the baby just to spite them. With this they get the thing to order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course, its babies to order... non of that inconveneice for the medical staff with the mother not making enough effort :ph34r: and deliberatly waiting till 2AM to have the baby just to spite them. With this they get the thing to order.

:lol: When I had number 5, I had the epidural and it was the middle of the night. They called the doc, but he didn't show, called again, took forever. There was a resident there to deliver, but I didn't push. The nurse said she knew I wanted to push the baby out. I said that I really didn't care to till the doctor got there, that I had the epidural and I was waiting. I waited, he got there, finally. So, I guess I fall into the spiteful mom category! :lol: I figured the one making the money for the delivery should be present!!

I know the doctor lives close to the hospital ... when I had some complications a day later, it took him fewer than 10 minutes to show up at 10PM!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course, its babies to order... non of that inconveneice for the medical staff with the mother not making enough effort :ph34r: and deliberatly waiting till 2AM to have the baby just to spite them. With this they get the thing to order.

But they won't let the mother wait until 2am to have the baby! That's when they'll insist on an "emergency" cesarean (that you get prepped for an then wait forever to have.) Then there is the issue of cesarean section due to medical mismanagement of labour. There is a lack of informed consent when giving women epidurals too...many women do not realize that simply getting an epidural for labour increases their risk of ending up with a cesarean section.

I've got the experience of having medical mismanagement ending in cesarean section (x2.) Third time was a charm with having a homebirth VBAC. A wonderful experience supported by exceptional, experienced midwives. Wish all three of my births could have been like that. Best of all, recovery was a snap...unlike recovery from major abdominal surgery. :P

Michelle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ads by Google:


I concur . . . recovery from vaginal birth is MUCH easier than recovery from a C section. And recovery from a natural (no drugs) birth is much easier than recovery from birth with an epidural. I've had all 3, and would so much prefer to do it the "natural" way. Of course, I have fast, hard labors, so when I did it naturally, I was only dealing with things for about 2 hours.

On the other hand, I really wanted to have my twins vaginally, but Baby A (the one who was closest to the bottom) flipped around and stuck her feet down there at 38 weeks. And when your first twin is in a breech presentation, they won't let you do vaginal birth because the twins' jaws could lock (which would create quite a problem). But, all things considered, I'm glad for the C section, because Baby B had the cord wrapped around her neck 3 times, and with my labors being as hard as they usually are, she might have died by the time I'd gotten her sister out of the way and then got her out, too.

But I'm definitely intending to try VBAC, for myself as well as for my baby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mine were very prolonged labors ... the shortest was 24 hours. With that one I managed to go for 23 hours, but couldn't take it anymore!! Had I known it was only one more hour, who knows? As it ends up, it was heavily stained fluid and they were glad that I had the epidural so they could direct things more easily during delivery -- to suck the fluid out of the baby's lungs ...

I was told about the higher risk for c-sections (had 5, no c-sestions). I never had a problem, right after delivery, I'd tell the nurse I wanted to get up to use the bathroom, and I'd do it on my own. I know others can have difficulty with that -- the nurses each time would tell me it was impossible. I'd basically say, "Watch me, it's not impossible!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had 3--shortest labor was 18 1/2 hours, longest was 30 hours. I was VERY VERY lucky in that my OBGYN was very cool about letting me stay home until the contractions were about 3-4 minutes apart and too strong to talk through(which was still a good 4 hours before the baby was actually born). With #1, I pushed for 3 1/2 hours--and as long as I was willing to push and the baby wasn't in distress, nobody even hinted at C-section.

I've seen so many labors on "A Baby Story" where the doc comes breezing in after only a few hours and tells the mom that she's not making sufficient progress (usually after an epidural was started very early in labor and the mom is basically chained to the bed flat on her back)and NEEDS a C-section.

What drove me nuts was when the baby was practically jumping out--but the nurses yelled atme not to push because the doctor wasn't there yet. I remember saying, "I'm not pushing, the BABY'S pushing!" They really expected me to hold it in there til the doctor came. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've had 3--shortest labor was 18 1/2 hours, longest was 30 hours. I was VERY VERY lucky in that my OBGYN was very cool about letting me stay home until the contractions were about 3-4 minutes apart and too strong to talk through(which was still a good 4 hours before the baby was actually born). With #1, I pushed for 3 1/2 hours--and as long as I was willing to push and the baby wasn't in distress, nobody even hinted at C-section.

I've seen so many labors on "A Baby Story" where the doc comes breezing in after only a few hours and tells the mom that she's not making sufficient progress (usually after an epidural was started very early in labor and the mom is basically chained to the bed flat on her back)and NEEDS a C-section.

What drove me nuts was when the baby was practically jumping out--but the nurses yelled atme not to push because the doctor wasn't there yet. I remember saying, "I'm not pushing, the BABY'S pushing!" They really expected me to hold it in there til the doctor came. :ph34r:

Me, too, 3 hours pushing for the first.

None of my epidurals were started early, even for the ones that were induced. I didn't want to impede progress! Starting the epidural early is a prescription for a c-section! I can't believe they do it! It seems that docs prefer everything to be cut and dry. I remember someone's doc telling them to express the breastmilk and feed the baby out of the bottle so that they would know how much the baby was eating! I don't believe there were any health problems with the baby ... sometimes docs don't want to just let nature be in control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Me, too, 3 hours pushing for the first.

None of my epidurals were started early, even for the ones that were induced. I didn't want to impede progress! Starting the epidural early is a prescription for a c-section! I can't believe they do it! It seems that docs prefer everything to be cut and dry. I remember someone's doc telling them to express the breastmilk and feed the baby out of the bottle so that they would know how much the baby was eating! I don't believe there were any health problems with the baby ... sometimes docs don't want to just let nature be in control.

Starting an epidural at all can be a prescription for a c/s!

For me, my first c/s was due to breech presentation 3 days post dates...I didn't even labour...and I had a spinal. Second I laboured for a long time before augmentation and epidural. Because I was stuck on my back, my son was unable to move into correct alignment for birth...we both ended up with epidural fevers and had a c/s. My third birth was a typical "first birth": 13 hours of active labour (24 hours of labour in total) with back labour, 2.5 hours of pushing and a compound presentation birth (daughter's hand on her cheek.) My midwives were great for helping me get my daughter turned during labour (lunges on the stairs, hands and knees position & hip squeeze, etc) and were tough when I needed them to be. It would have been very easy to give up and go to hospital for pain relief, but we all knew that it would end in another unnecessary c/s.

Michelle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Ads by Google:


I would love to have had a natural birth, but DS's head was far to big :o However, when I was pregnant my bump was so small that they did a growth scan at 31 weeks to check DS was growing. The scan showed he was very big, with a big head, but they insisted on a natural birth. I went through the whole of labour (induced), screamed and screamed till they gave me an epidural and ended up having a c-section. The first words to greet DS were 'what a whopper'. Size wise, he wasn't vast (9lb 6.5) but he did have an enourmous head (at 3, it's almost as big as mine in circumference!) and he was never going to come out naturally. They should have been able to tell that from the scan and offered an elective c-section. Having gone through labour and a c-section, I developed post-natal depression and coeliacs. I wonder sometimes whether things would have been different if I'd had an elective c-section. I'll never know.

So...just wanted to look at it from another angle - my midwifery team were determined I should have a natural delivery but I ended up having to have a c-section. In fact, large heads run in the family and without a c-section, I wouldn't be here today myself.

If there's any indication at all that my next baby has a big head, I will want an elective section. However, my DH's family (all medical) are of the view 'once a section, always a section.' So I know I'll be under pressure to have a section come what may :angry:

Hmm...I'm rambling on :rolleyes: If no 2's head is smaller (assuming there is another Baby!) I will want a VBAC.

Just wanted to add...when mum had me by c-section, they put me in the special care baby unit and didn't let mum see me for 3 days, and expected her to express milk for me without even seeing me :o

Anyways, big heads aren't all bad...I heard about some research saying that if £ could be put into growing babies with bigger heads, the NHS's costs would be cut hugely as big heads are better all round from a health and development point of view :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to send you into an unnecessary panic, but I have read studies linking large head circumference with autism. Given your celiac history, you might want to be on the lookout for any signs of mild autism, such as lackof eye contact, lining things up over and over, not pointing or being able to follow your finger pointing, etc.

Hopefully, I'm being totally alarmist, and everything is just fine, especially 9if he is not eating gluten!

Oh--you might want to be careful about vaccines, too--definite link there, too, no matter wahat the pharmaceutical industry insists!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't want to send you into an unnecessary panic, but I have read studies linking large head circumference with autism. Given your celiac history, you might want to be on the lookout for any signs of mild autism, such as lackof eye contact, lining things up over and over, not pointing or being able to follow your finger pointing, etc.

Hopefully, I'm being totally alarmist, and everything is just fine, especially 9if he is not eating gluten!

Oh--you might want to be careful about vaccines, too--definite link there, too, no matter wahat the pharmaceutical industry insists!

but Tony Blair say's they are safe! He wouldn't lie would he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but Tony Blair say's they are safe! He wouldn't lie would he?

Good old Tone never lies <_<

Thanks for your concern, Fiddle-faddle, but DS shows no signs of autism, and big heads do run in both sides of the family. he is eating gluten though, and that I am not so sure about, but that's a whole other post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My children had good sized noggins as well, but that had no bearing on whether I had c/s's or not. The surgeon for my second birth said that my son was simply too big to come out (CPD)...which was bull$!&#. I went on to prove him wrong with an even bigger baby the third time 'round. My daughter's head was large, she was 9lbs 12oz, and with a fist on her cheek the head circumference was at least 0.5-1 inch bigger. No problems with her coming out, and virtually no problems for me...I needed no stitches.

Because heads are designed to mold, there is rarely a time when c/s is needed due to head circumference. A big factor in being able to birth the babies head safely is position. The lithotomy position (on the back) is the most ineffecient, and most dangerous in terms of damage to mom. Squatting or hands and knees (which is also a good positions rare cases of shoulder dystocia) can make delivering any size head easier.

Essentially, the human body won't grow a baby that's too big, and given the right birth position, the birth canal is designed to birth big babies. :) Furthermore, ultrasound during the last weeks of pregnancy is notoriously inaccurate for measurements (can be out +/- 3 pounds!) and cannot predict how well a head can mold. Regardless, VBAC is safer for both baby and mom in most cases. However I believe the mother needs to be comfortable with her choice of birth, and a mom that is not interested in the work needed to achieve VBAC (I had to work really hard on so many issues to finally achieve a VBAC!) or is fearful about trying should be able to select an ERCS.

BTW, both of my boys still have good-sized noggins (my eight year old wears the same size hat as me!) and have no signs of autism. My daughter was born big, but it's looking like she'll be petite like me (5'3".)

Michelle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My third birth was a typical "first birth": 13 hours of active labour (24 hours of labour in total) with back labour, 2.5 hours of pushing and a compound presentation birth (daughter's hand on her cheek.) My midwives were great for helping me get my daughter turned during labour (lunges on the stairs, hands and knees position & hip squeeze, etc) and were tough when I needed them to be. It would have been very easy to give up and go to hospital for pain relief, but we all knew that it would end in another unnecessary c/s.

Michelle

It surprises me that you had midwives that were willing to do VBAC after 2 c-sections. Here (in Utah) they won't let you do VBAC after 2 c sections because of the increased risk of tearing your uterus. Midwives won't touch you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and then there is the other side of the story - I have 2 friends where c-section was put off...for too long. In each case baby was born by emerg section - after the heartbeat had stopped. Both babies resucitated but have severe CP.

My own birth with first daughter was almost a tragedy - resident insisting everything was fine...but an alert nurse kept her eye on the fetal HR and was watching the decelerations increase with each push. Against the residents's wishes, she called the OB who had just come out of O.R and he pushed the resident away, did immediate episiotomy and forceps delvery - even with that she was only 4 on the Apgar and was rushed to ICU. An earlier intervention (either C-section of forcep) would have saved some heartache.

I read somehwere that C-sections went up for a number of reasons, one was the woman electing to have it and others where doctors afraid of lawsuits would rather do a c-sections early than wait til it becomes urgent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then there is the other side of the story - I have 2 friends where c-section was put off...for too long. In each case baby was born by emerg section - after the heartbeat had stopped. Both babies resucitated but have severe CP.

My own birth with first daughter was almost a tragedy - resident insisting everything was fine...but an alert nurse kept her eye on the fetal HR and was watching the decelerations increase with each push. Against the residents's wishes, she called the OB who had just come out of O.R and he pushed the resident away, did immediate episiotomy and forceps delvery - even with that she was only 4 on the Apgar and was rushed to ICU. An earlier intervention (either C-section of forcep) would have saved some heartache.

I read somehwere that C-sections went up for a number of reasons, one was the woman electing to have it and others where doctors afraid of lawsuits would rather do a c-sections early than wait til it becomes urgent.

The new study is apparently the numbers reworked for elective C-section not medically advised and excluding other factors that skew it.

In the light of recent threads i thought it somewhat ironic that MSbP is somewhat defined by for instance cot deaths and it seems your at higher risk of cot death with a C-section!

Certainly it looks like of you have a history of respitory problems it might be something to take into account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essentially, the human body won't grow a baby that's too big, and given the right birth position, the birth canal is designed to birth big babies. :)

Unfortunately it does happen, but not nearly as often as we are led to think.

When I was pregnant 24 years ago, I read studies about this same thing, and naysayers were raising questions about the ballooning CS rate even back then.

I had a natural birth with no anesthetic, just a little novocaine to sew up a small tear. I was very hard case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It surprises me that you had midwives that were willing to do VBAC after 2 c-sections. Here (in Utah) they won't let you do VBAC after 2 c sections because of the increased risk of tearing your uterus. Midwives won't touch you.

Unfortunately, the medical establishment has too much control over midwives, and in turn, too much control over a woman's choice over how and where to birth.

I live in Alberta, and there were no medical reasons to force me into a hospital. I had textbook recoveries from both my cesareans and had healthy pregnancies each time. The risk of uterine rupture is extremely small, and there are signs to watch for in terms of scar separation long before a rupture occurs. An undrugged mother will experience signs of pain during labour (and probably before labour) that would indicate a need to transfer to hospital. Note that induction with prostaglandins increases the risk of rupture, and should never be used during VBAC. Induction is never used in a homebirth. A VBAC is still a safer birth for both mother and baby than a repeat cesarean section.

Here is a fact sheet about c/s: http://www.ican-online.org/resources/white...csfactsheet.pdf Here is a fact sheet about VBAC: http://www.ican-online.org/resources/white...p_vbac-fact.pdf And an article about the risks of VBAC and risks of CS: http://www.ican-online.org/resources/white...wp_vbaclash.pdf

Michelle

Unfortunately it does happen, but not nearly as often as we are led to think.

When I was pregnant 24 years ago, I read studies about this same thing, and naysayers were raising questions about the ballooning CS rate even back then.

I had a natural birth with no anesthetic, just a little novocaine to sew up a small tear. I was very hard case.

Yes, it can happen, but it's usually due to other medical issues such as gestational diabetes. Even then, I know of mothers who had 11 pound babies vaginally.

Michelle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Ads by Google:


and big heads do run in both sides of the family.

My husband has a big head, he can never find a hat that fits. I joke with my daughters that they already have the big head gene, on the second date with a guy, they need to give him a hat ... if it's too small, it's the last date!! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in Ontario, where pretty much across the province our healthcare system is now deeply flawed. Our rate of C sections is also up considerably (I was lucky enough to have two great, uncomplicated natural deliveries) and the very worst part about this is the fact that because there's no money in our system, patients are being pushed out of the hospital FAR too early, often at great risk to their health. My girlfriend had a complicated C section last winter and was sent home 48 hours later. She ended up back in ER a week later...no surprise. This is a terrible state of affairs, and with C sections costing the government a whole lot more than a natural birth, it amazes me that our rate is so high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm in Ontario, where pretty much across the province our healthcare system is now deeply flawed. Our rate of C sections is also up considerably (I was lucky enough to have two great, uncomplicated natural deliveries) and the very worst part about this is the fact that because there's no money in our system, patients are being pushed out of the hospital FAR too early, often at great risk to their health. My girlfriend had a complicated C section last winter and was sent home 48 hours later. She ended up back in ER a week later...no surprise. This is a terrible state of affairs, and with C sections costing the government a whole lot more than a natural birth, it amazes me that our rate is so high.

I think that healthcare is flawed in most provinces. Alberta won't fund midwives, although the studies show they can save the healthcare system a lot of money. OTOH, when a woman hires a midwife here, her money works well for her, since the government has less say in what the midwife can and can't do. I had a less than positive midwife experience when I lived in BC...attempted a homebirth VBAC for my second birth, but the midwives weren't really acting in my best interest and were eager to move me to hospital when I found I wasn't comfortable staying at home. Then the cascade of inventions started. :( I believe the fact that they're gov't funded, and I had to agree to be a part of the homebirth study that the protocols they followed weren't truly favourable for VBAC.

In terms of recovering from c/s, the decision of when to go home should be looked at in a case-by-case manner. 48 hours may be too little time for returning home after a primary c/s, but 4 days felt like an eternity with my secondary c/s and I probably would have done better emotionally if I could have left after 2 days.

Michelle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

Yes, it can happen, but it's usually due to other medical issues such as gestational diabetes. Even then, I know of mothers who had 11 pound babies vaginally.

Michelle

My sister couldn't deliver vag. She's 5'2'', with a narrow pelvis. She had two 11lb babies, and never even went into labor with either of them, because they couldn't drop far enough. She never even dialated. She did not have gestational diabetes, we just have huge babies in the family. My grandfather was over 11lbs, and my brother's twins were 6lbs EACH (they were vag).

My sister did have one baby that was "normal" sized at 9 lbs, and even went into labor! She opted for the c-section, though. She wasn't supposed to get pregnant again, because the first two took such a toll on her body. The second one nearly broke her hip, and the third one gave her a hernia. She's just too little to have such giants. I'm not looking forward to pregnancy, I'm 4 inches taller than her! :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My sister couldn't deliver vag. She's 5'2'', with a narrow pelvis. She had two 11lb babies, and never even went into labor with either of them, because they couldn't drop far enough. She never even dialated. She did not have gestational diabetes, we just have huge babies in the family. My grandfather was over 11lbs, and my brother's twins were 6lbs EACH (they were vag).

My sister did have one baby that was "normal" sized at 9 lbs, and even went into labor! She opted for the c-section, though. She wasn't supposed to get pregnant again, because the first two took such a toll on her body. The second one nearly broke her hip, and the third one gave her a hernia. She's just too little to have such giants. I'm not looking forward to pregnancy, I'm 4 inches taller than her! :blink:

It's a shame that your sister's experiences would make you worried about pregnancy. Every person and pregnancy is different. A narrow pelvis is also not an indicator of a body's ability to birth, because ligaments loosen and are designed to stretch...I'm only 5'3" and have a narrow pelvis too, and had an almost 10 pounder with little trouble. The bigger issue for me was since I'm so short, I don't have a lot of room to carry big babies, and tend to have malpresentations (breech, asynclitic, compound presentations)...plus I get as big as a house during pregnancy. :)

Michelle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

0

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      108,911
    • Total Posts
      943,461
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      67,060
    • Most Online
      3,093

    Newest Member
    Jwsteffeter
    Joined
  • Popular Now

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Lex_ I agree with Ennis_Tx. You need to take some Magnesium.  It works best as a Magnesium Citrate or Magnesium Glycinate. Magnesium Citrate are easiest to find. Take it 2/day for the first couple weeks to see how much more energy you have. Then you can take it with each meal or 2/day and one hour before bedtime if it is not convenient to take it at work. If it is working you (right form of as a Magnesium Citrate or Glycinate) you will will experience vivid dreams. And wake up with enough energy to take on the day. **** this is not medical advice but it really helped my chronic fatigue symptom's. It is good for leg cramps too also known as charley horse's. posterboy,
    • I am sorry that I was not clear.    I only mentioned  your diagnostic background, not to discredit you, but because without any lab results (other than a positive gene test), how can you be sure that gluten (shampoo containing wheat protein) was the actual culprit (not a guess) of your symptoms?  It is common for celiacs to receive follow-up antibodies to monitor their dietary compliance.  This is not perfect, but it is the only tool in the toolbox for now.   My husband has been gluten free 12 years prior to my diagnosis.  He went gluten free per the poor advice of his GP and my allergist.  So, I am not trying to discount your diagnosis at all.  I am just trying to see if other lab tests (e.g. liver tests that were elevated previously for you when you were still consuming gluten) were measured after your shampoo exposure.   I am curious because I have had issues over the last year.  I was glutened last January, had the flu, a tooth infection, a cold and a tooth extraction, three rounds of antibiotics (verified to be gluten free) within a month or so.  Like, you, I am very careful.  I have no idea as to how I was exposed.   The last time I ate out was a year ago and even then it was at at 100% gluten free restaurant.   My hubby did not have any symptoms at this time.  He is like my canary.    I went to my GI and my DGP IgA was off the charts even some three months later.   My celiac-related symptoms diminished in three months, but I struggled with autoimmune hives for six.  My GI offered to do an endoscopy in the summer.  Instead I chose to follow the Fasano diet.  I still was not feeling well.  In December, my antibodies were 80.  They were either on a decline or they were increasing again.  I opted for the endoscopy.  My biopsies revealed a healed small intestine (you could see the villi on the scope too).  But I was diagnosed with chronic gastritis and had a polyp removed.   So, all this time I thought my celiac disease was active, but it was NOT the source of my current gut issues.   Again, my apologies.  I just wanted to know how you know for SURE that hydrologized wheat protein from someone else’s shampoo and conditioner could reach your small intestine to trigger an autoimmune reaction.  Maybe, like me, Gluten was not the actual culprit.    
    • The reason I think it was the shampoo? Process of elimination. Our house is almost entirely gluten free (except for this shampoo which slipped through the cracks until I read the ingredient label). My husband has bread that he eats at lunch, but he practices something that resembles aseptic technique from the lab when he's making his sandwiches. He's been doing this for years now and I've never been glutened from within my home. The previous week I hadn't eaten out, I cooked all my food, I don't eat processed food and I never eat something from a shared facility.  Usually if I get glutened it's a single dose sort of thing and it follows a very predictable course, to the point where I can estimate when I got glutened within 24 hours of when it happened. However, this time, I was feeling achy and arthritic and moody for about a week before it got bad enough for me to recognize it as the result of gluten exposure, at which point we went searching and found the shampoo (and conditioner, which does leave more of a residue than shampoo), which he immediately stopped using. Within three days I was feeling back to normal (which is the usual course for me).  Sure, it could have been something else, but I know how sensitive I am, and, as silly as it sounds, it was the only thing that made sense. The other thing you said: You're correct, mine was not a rock solid celiac diagnosis, but I have no doubt that gluten is the problem. I was SICK. I went through two different gluten challenges in an effort to get a more straightforward diagnosis during which I was a barely functioning human being. Consuming gluten may not have given me blunted villi or elevated antibodies, but it did inflame my gut, and actually started to damage my liver. If you look at my diagnosis thread, I had elevated liver enzymes, which have been correlated with celiac disease in the past. There was no alternative explanation for the liver enzymes, he checked EVERYTHING.  I too am a scientist and I have spent a lot of time with the literature trying to make sense of my condition.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26150087 I also have no doubt that gluten was damaging my intestines in some way, as any prolonged gluten exposure in the past has inevitably been followed by a severe FODMAP intolerance that goes away once I've eliminated the gluten and given myself a month or so to heal.  I also had a very fast diagnosis following the onset of symptoms (~1 year) so it's possible that the disease never had a chance to manifest as full celiac. I wasn't willing to eat gluten long enough to find out. As a result of my diagnosis, hazy as it was, I am *meticulously* gluten free. It is not a fad for me. I don't occasionally cheat. It is my life, for better or worse. All of that being said, I'm not sure what my diagnosis has to do with your question. You say you're not trying to be rude, but when you bring up my diagnosis in a thread that has nothing to do with diagnostics, it seems like you're trying to undermine the validity of my disease or the validity of my input in this forum. If I'm being hypersensitive, I apologize, but that's how you came across on my end. I'll admit that the fact that my diagnosis wasn't more straight forward does make me a bit defensive, but I promise that even if I didn't have a solid diagnosis, I interact with the world as though I did, and I'm not out there giving people the wrong idea about celiac disease by not taking it seriously. If there was a connection between your question and my diagnostics that I missed I would appreciate you giving me the chance to better understand what you were asking. 
    • I am just curious.  As a scientist (and I am not trying to be rude), how can you determine if hydrologized wheat protein from your husband’s shampoo was actually the culprit?  If I recall at your diagnosis, you were seronegative, Marsh Stage I, gene positive,  but your doctor still  suspected celiac disease.  You improved on a gluten diet.  Other than observation, how do you really know?  Could it not be something else that triggered your symptoms?   I firmly believe that even trace amounts of gluten (under 20 ppm), can impact sensitive celiacs.  But traces of a protein within a shampoo from someone else’s hair that was rinsed?    
    • I also can't have dairy but through a series of experiments and a lot of research I think I've pinpointed my problem. It may or may not be the same for you, but I thought I'd share.  There are two kinds of beta-casein protein A1 and A2. We'll call A1 "bad casein" and A2 "good casein". The two proteins differ only in a single amino acid, but this is enough to make it so that they are processed differently in your guy. Bad casein is actually broken down into a casomorphin, which is an opioid peptide. That does not mean that milk gets you high, or is as addictive as heroin, or anything like that, it just means that it can interact with opioid receptors (which the gut has a bunch of). It's worth noting that opioids cause constipation due to their interaction with the opioid receptors in the gut, and that a lot of people feel like cheese and dairy slow things down, but any connection between the two is pure speculation on my part at this point.  Now here's where things get weird. The vast majority of milk cows in the western world are derived from Holstein-like breeds, meaning black and white cows. In a few select places, you'll see farms that use Jersey-type cows, or brown cows (Jersey cows produce less milk than Holsteins, but many connoisseurs feel it's a higher quality milk, particularly for cheese).  Holstein-like cows have A1 and A2 casein (bad and good), however, Jersey-type cows only have A2 (good casein), unless their genetic line involved a Holstein somewhere in the past, which does happen.  A company in New Zealand figured out how to test their cows for these two genes, and selected their herd down to cows that specifically produce ONLY A2 (good) casein. You might have seen it in the store, it's called A2 milk. Some people have had a lot of luck with this milk, though it still doesn't solve the problem of cheese.  I have suspected, due to trial and error and a few accidental exposures, that I have a problem with A1 casein, but not A2. In line with this: I am able to eat sheep and goat dairy without any difficulty, so at least I can still enjoy those cheeses! I am also fortunate because I'm apparently not too sensitive, as I can still eat cow-milk butter. The process of making butter removes *most* (read: enough for me) of the casein.  However, if I eat cow cheese or a baked good with milk, I get really sick. It's a much faster reaction than if I get glutened. Within minutes I'm dizzy and tired and my limbs are heavy. I have to sleep for a couple of hours, and then, over the next couple of days, I'm vulnerable to moodiness and muscles spasms and stomach upset just as though I'd been glutened (though the brain fog isn't as bad). I actually haven't tried A2 milk yet, mostly due to lack of availability (and motivation, I don't miss milk, I miss CHEESE). However, last year, when I was getting ready to go on a trip to Italy, I had a thought. Once, in the recent past, when I'd been testing dairy, I'd had a slice of parmesan cheese. Miracle of miracles, I was fine. I didn't feel a thing! I was so excited that I ran out and got some brie to eat as a snack. That did not go so well... Turns out parmigiano reggiano is made from the milk of the Reggiana variety of cow which is, you guessed it, a brown cow (they say red). I did a little more research and found that dairies in Italy predominantly use brown cows. So I decided to try something. As some of you may know, Italy is something of a haven for celiacs. It's one of the most gluten-free friendly places I've ever been. You can say "senza glutine" in the smallest little town and they don't even bat their eyelashes. You can buy gluten free foods in the pharmacy because they're considered a MEDICAL NECESSITY. If travelling-while-celiac freaks you out, go to Italy. Check out the website for the AIC (Italy's Celiac society), find some accredited restaurants, and GO NUTS. While I was there, I decided to see if I could eat the dairy. I could.  Friends, I ate gelato Every. Single. Night. after that. It was amazing. Between the dairy being safe for me and the preponderance of gluten free options, it was almost like I didn't have dietary restrictions. It was heaven. I want to go back and never leave.  So that's my story. Almost too crazy to believe.  TL;DR: Black and white cows make me sick, brown cows are my friends.
  • Upcoming Events