Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Navydoc
ParticipantThe high percentage of thrifty phenotypes is thought to relate to poor prenatal care, with associated drug, tobacco and alcohol use. In addition, preeclampsia, which comes from an inherently abnormal placenta, affects up to 10% of pregnancies in some populations. I agree, it’s certainly not calorie restriction, but these other factors certainly contribute. Cocaine use is particularly damaging to placental function, and is associated with total separation of the placenta, a condition known as abruption, which will kill the fetus if it occurs outside a hospital setting.
As far as your comment about other ethnic groups and their increase in obesity (and diabetes), it is unquestionably true.
ParticipantThe high percentage of thrifty phenotypes is thought to relate to poor prenatal care, with associated drug, tobacco and alcohol use. In addition, preeclampsia, which comes from an inherently abnormal placenta, affects up to 10% of pregnancies in some populations. I agree, it’s certainly not calorie restriction, but these other factors certainly contribute. Cocaine use is particularly damaging to placental function, and is associated with total separation of the placenta, a condition known as abruption, which will kill the fetus if it occurs outside a hospital setting.
As far as your comment about other ethnic groups and their increase in obesity (and diabetes), it is unquestionably true.
ParticipantThe high percentage of thrifty phenotypes is thought to relate to poor prenatal care, with associated drug, tobacco and alcohol use. In addition, preeclampsia, which comes from an inherently abnormal placenta, affects up to 10% of pregnancies in some populations. I agree, it’s certainly not calorie restriction, but these other factors certainly contribute. Cocaine use is particularly damaging to placental function, and is associated with total separation of the placenta, a condition known as abruption, which will kill the fetus if it occurs outside a hospital setting.
As far as your comment about other ethnic groups and their increase in obesity (and diabetes), it is unquestionably true.
ParticipantThere is an enormous ammount of research going on related to this concept you describe about how one child can eat the same as another and gain weight while the other loses. The concept is called fetal programming, and is based on something called the Barker Hypothesis. The theory goes that if a fetus is deprived of nutrition in any way, be it by caloric restriction/weight loss of the mother, or through an abnormal placenta, the fetus develops a “thrifty phenotype” in which it has a slower metabolism and is thought to have a survival advantage in low-calorie environments. Said thrifty person would survive a crisis much better than a “fast metabolizer”. In regions of the world where calorie restriction is the norm the thrifty phenotype individual looks normal, but in our high sugar/high fat environment this type of metabolism can be a disaster.
The Barker Hypothesis dates back to the 70’s, but it germinated from studies of the Dutch Hunger Winter of 1944-45, when a German blockade of supplies into Holland in response to Operation Market Garden resulted in the population surviving on 400 calories a day. Those fetuses were born growth restricted, but once food became available again it was noted that those children were more susceptible to obesity and diabetes. In the US today it is theorized that poor prenatal care (I’m not insinuating anything about your pregnancies-please don’t be offended) relates to poor fetal nutrition and growth, which is reversed once the babies are born. Very often a pregnancy in an otherwise healthy woman has an abnormal placenta, either through a separation, or leading to preeclampsia, in which case the placenta is unable to meet the nutritional needs of the fetus, leading to the same problem.
I did my fellowship at Harbor UCLA, which is a major center for fetal programming research, and is why I know so much about this.
ParticipantThere is an enormous ammount of research going on related to this concept you describe about how one child can eat the same as another and gain weight while the other loses. The concept is called fetal programming, and is based on something called the Barker Hypothesis. The theory goes that if a fetus is deprived of nutrition in any way, be it by caloric restriction/weight loss of the mother, or through an abnormal placenta, the fetus develops a “thrifty phenotype” in which it has a slower metabolism and is thought to have a survival advantage in low-calorie environments. Said thrifty person would survive a crisis much better than a “fast metabolizer”. In regions of the world where calorie restriction is the norm the thrifty phenotype individual looks normal, but in our high sugar/high fat environment this type of metabolism can be a disaster.
The Barker Hypothesis dates back to the 70’s, but it germinated from studies of the Dutch Hunger Winter of 1944-45, when a German blockade of supplies into Holland in response to Operation Market Garden resulted in the population surviving on 400 calories a day. Those fetuses were born growth restricted, but once food became available again it was noted that those children were more susceptible to obesity and diabetes. In the US today it is theorized that poor prenatal care (I’m not insinuating anything about your pregnancies-please don’t be offended) relates to poor fetal nutrition and growth, which is reversed once the babies are born. Very often a pregnancy in an otherwise healthy woman has an abnormal placenta, either through a separation, or leading to preeclampsia, in which case the placenta is unable to meet the nutritional needs of the fetus, leading to the same problem.
I did my fellowship at Harbor UCLA, which is a major center for fetal programming research, and is why I know so much about this.
ParticipantThere is an enormous ammount of research going on related to this concept you describe about how one child can eat the same as another and gain weight while the other loses. The concept is called fetal programming, and is based on something called the Barker Hypothesis. The theory goes that if a fetus is deprived of nutrition in any way, be it by caloric restriction/weight loss of the mother, or through an abnormal placenta, the fetus develops a “thrifty phenotype” in which it has a slower metabolism and is thought to have a survival advantage in low-calorie environments. Said thrifty person would survive a crisis much better than a “fast metabolizer”. In regions of the world where calorie restriction is the norm the thrifty phenotype individual looks normal, but in our high sugar/high fat environment this type of metabolism can be a disaster.
The Barker Hypothesis dates back to the 70’s, but it germinated from studies of the Dutch Hunger Winter of 1944-45, when a German blockade of supplies into Holland in response to Operation Market Garden resulted in the population surviving on 400 calories a day. Those fetuses were born growth restricted, but once food became available again it was noted that those children were more susceptible to obesity and diabetes. In the US today it is theorized that poor prenatal care (I’m not insinuating anything about your pregnancies-please don’t be offended) relates to poor fetal nutrition and growth, which is reversed once the babies are born. Very often a pregnancy in an otherwise healthy woman has an abnormal placenta, either through a separation, or leading to preeclampsia, in which case the placenta is unable to meet the nutritional needs of the fetus, leading to the same problem.
I did my fellowship at Harbor UCLA, which is a major center for fetal programming research, and is why I know so much about this.
ParticipantThere is an enormous ammount of research going on related to this concept you describe about how one child can eat the same as another and gain weight while the other loses. The concept is called fetal programming, and is based on something called the Barker Hypothesis. The theory goes that if a fetus is deprived of nutrition in any way, be it by caloric restriction/weight loss of the mother, or through an abnormal placenta, the fetus develops a “thrifty phenotype” in which it has a slower metabolism and is thought to have a survival advantage in low-calorie environments. Said thrifty person would survive a crisis much better than a “fast metabolizer”. In regions of the world where calorie restriction is the norm the thrifty phenotype individual looks normal, but in our high sugar/high fat environment this type of metabolism can be a disaster.
The Barker Hypothesis dates back to the 70’s, but it germinated from studies of the Dutch Hunger Winter of 1944-45, when a German blockade of supplies into Holland in response to Operation Market Garden resulted in the population surviving on 400 calories a day. Those fetuses were born growth restricted, but once food became available again it was noted that those children were more susceptible to obesity and diabetes. In the US today it is theorized that poor prenatal care (I’m not insinuating anything about your pregnancies-please don’t be offended) relates to poor fetal nutrition and growth, which is reversed once the babies are born. Very often a pregnancy in an otherwise healthy woman has an abnormal placenta, either through a separation, or leading to preeclampsia, in which case the placenta is unable to meet the nutritional needs of the fetus, leading to the same problem.
I did my fellowship at Harbor UCLA, which is a major center for fetal programming research, and is why I know so much about this.
ParticipantThere is an enormous ammount of research going on related to this concept you describe about how one child can eat the same as another and gain weight while the other loses. The concept is called fetal programming, and is based on something called the Barker Hypothesis. The theory goes that if a fetus is deprived of nutrition in any way, be it by caloric restriction/weight loss of the mother, or through an abnormal placenta, the fetus develops a “thrifty phenotype” in which it has a slower metabolism and is thought to have a survival advantage in low-calorie environments. Said thrifty person would survive a crisis much better than a “fast metabolizer”. In regions of the world where calorie restriction is the norm the thrifty phenotype individual looks normal, but in our high sugar/high fat environment this type of metabolism can be a disaster.
The Barker Hypothesis dates back to the 70’s, but it germinated from studies of the Dutch Hunger Winter of 1944-45, when a German blockade of supplies into Holland in response to Operation Market Garden resulted in the population surviving on 400 calories a day. Those fetuses were born growth restricted, but once food became available again it was noted that those children were more susceptible to obesity and diabetes. In the US today it is theorized that poor prenatal care (I’m not insinuating anything about your pregnancies-please don’t be offended) relates to poor fetal nutrition and growth, which is reversed once the babies are born. Very often a pregnancy in an otherwise healthy woman has an abnormal placenta, either through a separation, or leading to preeclampsia, in which case the placenta is unable to meet the nutritional needs of the fetus, leading to the same problem.
I did my fellowship at Harbor UCLA, which is a major center for fetal programming research, and is why I know so much about this.
ParticipantJp I love how you keep trying to steer this discussion back on topic from the abortion threadjack.
ParticipantJp I love how you keep trying to steer this discussion back on topic from the abortion threadjack.
ParticipantJp I love how you keep trying to steer this discussion back on topic from the abortion threadjack.
ParticipantJp I love how you keep trying to steer this discussion back on topic from the abortion threadjack.
ParticipantJp I love how you keep trying to steer this discussion back on topic from the abortion threadjack.
Participant[quote=AN]My questions to Navydoc is, how many tomb stones can you point to of mothers that died because they didn’t have an abortion vs how many tomb stones you can point to of babies who were aborted who would have grown up to be healthy adults?
I always find it funny that those who are pro choice tend to be anti death penalty and those who are pro life tend to be pro death penalty.[/quote]
I think you missed the point of my response. I was reacting to the Ron Paul statement that he never saw an abortion that was necessary to save the mother’s life. They absolutely do happen. You may not know this, but I’m a high risk pregnancy subspecialist, and maintaining healthy pregnancies in women with medical conditions is actually my job. Unfortunately there are times when aborting a healthy fetus IS necessary to protect the mother’s life. Don’t misunderstand me, I detest the concept of abortion, and some of the procedures I’ve performed have left me personally scarred, but the procedure MUST remain legal. I have no interest in placing my professional future at the whim of a court because I perfomed an illegal procedure. What you said about Planned Parenthood is absolutely correct, and the pre-procedure counseling those patients receive can be extremely suspect, especially considering it’s fee for service care.
And there are some people out there who are pro-choice and pro-death penalty. I consider the two concepts completely unrelated.
-
AuthorPosts
