Mothers-to-be know very well that smoking and drinking should be avoided at all costs while pregnant. It is also known that living a healthy lifestyle and eating healthful foods is extremely important during pregnancy, but how significant is diet and lifestyle after the baby is born? The significance of what mothers ingest while breastfeeding may be clearly revealed by breast feeding expert Dr. Ruth Lawrence, who says drinking caffeinated beverages may be the reason babies can’t sleep.

Substances Consumed by Mother Appear in Breast Milk

Mother’s milk contains small amounts of whatever is ingested by the mother. Drinking coffee, tea, soft drinks, or even chocolate increases the level of the stimulant in the blood. When babies drink the milk, they may become restless, awake, or irritable due to difficulties with breaking the chemical down and removing it from their bodies. Although the ‘safe’ amount of caffeine consumed is not necessarily agreed upon, Lawrence recommends no more than 300mg, or 3 cups, daily.

“Usually a mother, particularly if she is breastfeeding, is cautioned to limit her caffeine intake,” she told the Journal of Caffeine Research. “Unfortunately a lot of things about breastfeeding are based on opinion, and I do not know that the ‘safe’ amount of caffeine for daily use has been carefully measured.”

While passing down stimulants like caffeine in breast milk is an issue, unfortunately there are larger threats which should be recognized.

Found to be present in over a third of 55 popular brand-name food and beverage products, research has shown that those consuming processed foods and many beverages are also consuming mercury. Similarly, another heavy metal, arsenic, resides in many apple juice brands, grape juice, and products containing organic brown rice syrup. Breastfeeding mothers consuming these foods and beverages are risking their new-born also ingesting these toxic substances. The negative effects, however, are much greater.

It is important for mother’s to recognize that being health-conscious is important both during pregnancy and following pregnancy. By consuming processed foods, tap water, alcohol, or any other substance, new mothers are also risking these substances coming out in their breast milk.

Offspring of mothers with a higher pre-pregnancy body mass index (BMI) have been found to not only be fatter, but to have more fat deposits in the liver. The researchers from Imperial College London published their findings in September’s issue of the journalPediatric Research.

ScienceDaily reports:

The research team used magnetic resonance scanning to assess 105 babies born at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital. The babies were scanned while they were asleep to measure the amount of fat in their liver cells, the total amount of fat in their bodies and its distribution. They found that liver cell fat in the babies and total fat, particularly around the abdomen, increased across the entire range of BMI in their mothers.

Children of overweight and obese mothers are already known to have a higher risk of being overweight and obese themselves, and of experiencing associated metabolic health problems such as type-2 diabetes. The authors of this new study suggest that the changes they found in babies’ bodies might be signs of the first biological changes which, combined with an unhealthy lifestyle, might put babies of overweight mothers on a path to ill health in later life.

Professor Neena Modi, from the Department of Medicine at Imperial College London and a Consultant Neonatologist at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, who led the study, said: “This study demonstrates that a woman’s BMI, even in the normal range, affects the amount of fat in her baby at birth. Fatter women have fatter babies and there is more fat in the babies livers. If these effects persist through childhood and beyond, they could put the child at risk of lifelong metabolic health problems.

“There is growing evidence that a baby’s development before birth has a major impact on their health in later life. This means that the prevention of obesity needs to begin in the womb.

A new animal study shows that B vitamin supplementation1 during pregnancy programs gene signals to be resistant to colon cancer, offering long-term protection against such a problem. This study is yet another that highlights the importance of epigenetic programming that is going on in the womb and early life. It speaks to the power of good nutrition to do far more than simply protect against a blatant deficiency. It shows that nutritional adequacy during key formative times is vital to future health.

Scientists studied a mouse model that routinely develops colon cancer. B vitamins dramatically lowered the rate of colon cancer. “The strongest expression of tumor-suppressing genes in the Wnt pathway was in the offspring of supplemented mothers and the weakest was in the offspring of the mildly deficient mothers,” says first author Eric Ciappio, a PhD candidate at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts.  “We attribute these differences in gene expression to epigenetics, modifications of DNA which are sensitive to environmental factors such as diet,” Ciappio continues. “In this case, changing maternal B vitamin intake had lasting epigenetic effects in offspring and may explain the differences in tumor incidence and aggressiveness we observed.”

“We saw, by far, the fewest intestinal tumors in the offspring of mothers consuming the supplemented diet,” says Jimmy Crott, PhD, senior author and a scientist in the Vitamins and Carcinogenesis Laboratory at the USDA HNRCA. “Aside from the known protective effect of maternal folate against neural tube defects such as spina bifida, our results suggest that mothers consuming supplemental quantities of these B vitamins may also be protecting her children against colorectal cancer.”

B vitamins are used up by stress. Pregnant and nursing mothers need enough B vitamins to help them feel energized and more above the fray of stress. Doing so may have some lasting health benefits to the way the genes work in their children.

Babies who are breastfed – especially those only fed breast milk, and not formula as well – are less likely to die of sudden infant death syndrome, or SIDS, suggests a new analysis of past studies.

While the findings can’t prove that breastfeeding causes the lower risk of SIDS, the authors write in Pediatrics that other explanations seem unlikely.

“Breastfeeding is the best method of feeding infants,” said Dr. Fern Hauck, the study’s lead author from the University of Virginia School of Medicine in Charlottesville.

SIDS, also known as “crib death,” is defined as a sudden and unexplained death – usually during sleep — in a baby less than one year old. It’s most common in infants between two and four months old, according to the National Institutes of Health, and kills about 2,500 infants in the U.S. each year.

Researchers aren’t sure what causes SIDS, but they known that African American and male babies are more likely to die from SIDS, and that parents can cut down on their baby’s risk by making sure infants sleep on their backs and don’t get too hot.

One theory for the cause of SIDS, said Hauck, is that it happens in babies sleeping with their faces down or heads covered who don’t turn their heads or cry like most babies would, and slowly suffocate.

Breastfeeding could be linked to SIDS because it protects infants against minor infections that have also been shown to make sudden death more likely, the authors note. The World Health Organization, among other medical groups, recommends that mothers breastfeed their babies for the first six months of life.

In the new review, Hauck and her colleagues combined data from 18 studies that asked mothers of infants who had or hadn’t died of SIDS about whether they breastfed the infants.

Combining the results, the researchers found that the rate of SIDS was 60 percent lower among infants who had any amount of breastfeeding compared to those who didn’t breastfeed, and more than 70 percent lower in infants that been breastfed exclusively – without any formula – for any period of time.

That led the authors to conclude that any breastfeeding helps protect a baby against sudden death.

They note, however, that more research is needed to see if the duration of breastfeeding affects the risk of SIDS – specifically, if babies who are breastfed for longer get more protection that those who are only breastfed for a short time after birth.

The analysis doesn’t definitively show that there’s a cause and effect relationship between breastfeeding and SIDS risk, but Hauck said she is “fairly confident” that’s the case.

“We found a protective effect even after controlling for factors that could explain the association,” Hauck said. For example, the link remained even when the authors took into account the fact that women who smoke cigarettes are less likely to breastfeed, and also may be more likely to have an infant die from SIDS.

Hauck added that along with breastfeeding, babies who sleep in the same room as their parents – but not in the parents’ bed – and those who use a pacifier while sleeping also have a smaller risk of sudden death.

The findings, the authors write, underscore the importance of promoting the positive effects of breastfeeding for both moms and babies.

The secret to mother-baby bonding might be breast milk, according to new research that determines that breast-feeding mothers are more likely than formula-feeding moms to bond with their infants in the months after they’re born. They also demonstrate stronger brain responses when they hear their baby cry, according to a study published in the May issue of the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry.

Researchers at the Child Study Center at Yale University divided moms into two groups — nine breast-feeders and eight formula-feeders — and performed functional MRIs (fMRI) on them about a month after their babies were born.

While participants lay in a scanner and listened to clips of their own baby and an unknown child crying, researchers tracked what areas of their brains lit up. All mothers’ brains were more active when listening to their own baby’s cry, but the changes in the breast-feeding mothers’ relevant brain regions were far more significant.

The results are far from the last word: the sample was admittedly small, meaning the results may not necessarily apply to larger groups. But researchers took care to match the women in both groups as closely as possible in terms of age and education and income levels since other studies have showed that formula-feeding moms may fall into a lower socioeconomic bracket. As a result, the women in the fMRI study were a fairly homogeneous bunch: white, middle- to upper-class women with at least a college degree.

The study, which the researchers say is the first to link brain activity with maternal behavior, is likely to reinforce the convictions of breast-feeding mothers that they’re doing right by their babies and make formula-feeding moms squirm a little. But lead researcher Pilyoung Kim, a developmental psychologist at the National Institutes of Mental Health who worked at Yale when the research was conducted, cautions against feeling smug — or depressed.

“We want to suggest to people that a number of different factors may be related to breast-feeding mothers’ greater sensitivity to infant cries and infant cues, not just because they’re breast-feeding but because of hormonal levels or other personal experiences,” says Kim.

Hormonal levels, for example, vary between mothers who breast-feed and those who don’t. Oxytocin — the “love hormone” that helps nurture emotional bonding between infants and mothers and is involved in breast milk let-down — is higher in breast-feeding moms. But psychological aspects are also likely at play.

“Moms who decide to breast-feed might be reflecting a general tendency of mothers to be more empathetic to their infants or perhaps they were more able to bond easily with their fetus when they were making the decision about wanting to breast-feed,” says Kim.

Kim breast-fed, so she understands the unpleasantly competitive undertone that accompanies infant feeding choices. “I know how challenging this is,” she says. “We didn’t have a particular agenda in our minds when we decided to conduct this research.”

Scientists at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, at the University of Sherbrooke Hospital Centre in Quebec, have come across a startling discovery while testing the blood of pregnant women and their unborn babies. Toxic pesticides which are injected into genetically modified crops, have found their way into the bloodstream of most women tested. Exposure comes through the consumption of meat, milk, and eggs from livestock that have been fed genetically altered corn. The study examines the widespread dangers of genetic modification, and the effect on the unborn.

Traces of the toxic pesticide were found in 93% of pregnant mothers and 80% of the umbilical cords. Headed by Monsanto, the GM food industry has long asserted that these destructive pesticides would simply pass through the body without harm. The pesticides, now known to lurk in the bloodstream and affect unborn babies, have been linked to allergies, miscarriages, birth abnormalities and cancer.

One of the researchers told the scientific journal Reproductive Toxicology: “This is the first study to highlight the presence of pesticides associated with genetically modified foods in maternal, foetal and nonpregnant women’s blood.”

In an attempt to halt the birth rate of overweight babies being born in the United States, it seems society is taking the fight to the next level… in theory. It could also be considered a new low in terms of morality. As part of a three year study to measure the effectiveness of a drug called Metformin, mom’s-to-be will take an experimental drug in an attempt to reduce the biological food supply to their unborn babies. It seems that the bad eating habits American’s indulge in is leading to overweight babies. The drug is an attempt to combat the rising obesity rates of babies, which lead to painful pregnancies and an increase in caesarean sections.

Although this drug’s main purpose is to treat diabetics, the specific purpose for Metformin in this case is to reduce blood sugar levels — which leads to overweight babies once passed to the fetus. About 400 women will be involved in this trial study, with half of them actually taking the drug while the remaining portion of women will be given placebo pills. The study is set to start from 12 weeks gestation, with women consuming up to 3 pills per day.

What’s wrong with this?

Based on the desired outcome of this study and what it’s true goal is, it seems that society is making an attempt at another quick fix to an ongoing problem. Just so everyone understands what is being done here, I will state the problem very clearly.

People are overweight. Women who are overweight are giving birth to overweight babies, which is leading to an increase in C-sections.

Proposed Solution: Take a drug.

There is something terribly wrong with the way this problem is being tackled. Obesity is brought on many factors. From genetics to lifestyle, countless variables work together to configure one’s figure and weight. Popping pills will not fill the void of inadequate diet and exercise, and will instead lead to nasty side effects and short-term weight loss. Obesity is an ongoing problem, especially in the US, and something as simple as popping a pill will NOT fix it.

Overweight babies are being born because of overweight mothers. The baby is feeding off of all this excess food (and artificial ingredients hindering proper development), growing and growing before he/she even has the ability to make the decision of becoming overweight. The massive increase in overweight babies doesn’t have to do with genetics or lack of drugs being taken, but the lifestyle of the mother.

America is set on quick fixes. There is a pill available for almost anything, from growing eyelashes to losing weight. The truth is, there is no quick fix. Human’s have incredible capabilities beyond most people’s imaginations. The false premise that pills can be taken for any problem must be not only forgotten, but completely abolished.

The real solution

After living in such an environment for so long where unhealthy eating is promoted, the most difficult thing to change is your mind set. It isn’t easy to change your whole lifestyle in a single day, but it IS easy to improve it. By taking gradual steps such as eating healthier (eliminating toxic additives from your diet) and exercising more, not only will society see a plummet in the rates of overweight children being born, but we will also see positive changes in all aspects of our lives.

The solution to this problem, or any other problem for that matter, is not to take a drug. Take responsibility, and change your lifestyle not only for you, but for your soon-to-be child.

Sources:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8505630/Babies-given-anti-obesity-drugs-in-the-womb.html

We should get more vitamin D; no, we already get enough. A debate rages over how much vitamin D adults, children and pregnant women should consume for health benefits and disease prevention. Now research suggests that infants who are born with low levels of vitamin D may be at higher risk for lung infections caused by a common virus.

In the new study published online Monday in Pediatrics, researchers in the Netherlands assessed vitamin D levels in 156 babies at birth by measuring concentrations in their cord blood. After one year, 18 babies had developed a lower respiratory tract infection caused by a respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). These babies, researchers found, were more likely to have had lower levels of vitamin D.

The researchers acknowledge that the relatively small number of babies – again, 18 – who became ill certainly limits the strength of their conclusions. The newborns with lower levels of vitamin D could have developed lung infections for other reasons.

But the results do echo similar research from December. In that study, newborns with low amounts of vitamin D were more likely to wheeze and develop respiratory infections than those with higher levels.

Both studies seem to support the use of vitamin D supplementation by the mothers to be.

The authors of the current study write in the discussion of their paper:

“Especially during pregnancy, doses up to 4000 IU per day may be needed to maintain optimal maternal and neonatal health.”

For pregnant women and everyone else, the “right” amount of vitamin D is the subject of debate. The Institute of Medicine released a report last year stating 400 IU is enough for most people, but that 600 would be better. No one, it said, should top 4,000.

But parents, take caution. The FDA warned in June last year that giving babies too much vitamin D—more than 400 IU per day—could lead not only to unpleasant nausea, vomiting and frequent urination, but also kidney disease.

Expect to be hearing more about vitamin D as the research continues.

As for RSV, it’s the most common cause of bronchiolitis and pneumonia in children under 1 and, as the CDC notes, almost all children in the U.S. will contract it by the age of 2.

According to laboratory tests conducted by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), bisphenol A (BPA) has been found in 9 out of 10 unborn babies’ umbilical cords. BPA has never been detected before in the umbilical cords of babies, while the recent findings show higher BPA levels than ever expected.

BPA Found in 9 of 10 Babies’ Cord Blood

BPA is most commonly found in plastics and soup cans, but the chemical can actually be present in other lesser known locations. According to a study entitled On The Money: BPA on Dollar Bills and Receipts, the hormone-disrupting chemical BPA  has been found on 95% of United States dollar bills. The use of the chemical has been underway for around 50 years, according to the FDA. It was only within the last decade or so until the dangers of BPA started to become recognized.

It has been linked numerous health issues including cancer, neurological dysfunctions such as cognitive thinking impairment, behavior impairment, diabetes, asthma, cytotoxicity, and endocrine damage. Not only does it negatively affect the consumer, but it also proves as a threat to unborn babies, just as this study indicates. If BPA hinders the proper development of the brain in addition to everyday behavioral functions and previously listed conditions, then one can safely conclude that it is infinitely more damaging for a young child, infant, or fetus in particular. Even the FDA has finally come out to say that BPA is dangerous, based on the overwhelming evidence that has been produced.

In addition to the above BPA findings, up to 232 chemicals were also found in 100% of the newborns tested, painting a gloomy picture for the children of the near future. Unfortunately, until these chemicals along with BPA are no longer used, the chemical exposure before birth will continue to play a role in the adverse development from even before birth.

Sources:

http://www.ewg.org/minoritycordblood/home