US Babies Get Smaller, Puzzling Scientists-- Sorry if this has already been posted!

[mmaramba]

From the AP:

WASHINGTON (Jan. 21) - U.S. newborns are arriving a little smaller, says puzzling new Harvard research that can't explain why.

Fatter mothers tend to produce heavier babies, and obesity is soaring. Yet the study of nearly 37 million births shows newborns were a bit lighter in 2005 than in 1990, ending a half-century of rising birth weights.

[MFuglei]

I JUST posted this to my facebook page.

If we are routinely giving c-sections to what, 30% of the population, inducing women *AT* 40 weeks or earlier, and having more and more high risk pregnancies, I really, really, really fail to see why the Harvard researchers can't suss out the truth here. Could it be because we are *possibly* not allowing babies to develop to their full birth weight before wrenching them out of their mothers?

I mean, I really REALLY don't understand how this article(or the researchers for that matter) doesn't see that a significant decrease in pregnancies carried to term (40-42 weeks) correlates with the lowering birth weight. I *really* don't understand how this is news.

[mmaramba]

The only thing that "puzzles" me about this article is how dense "scientists" are.

[MFuglei]

Originally Posted by mmaramba

The only thing that "puzzles" me about this article is how dense "scientists" are.

Exactly.

Another thing - has the testing and diagnosis of gestational diabetes (not to mention treatment options) gotten better between 1990 and 2005? Because that's another arena that might affect the outcome.

But finally: Um. Yeah. Duh. DUHDUHDUH.

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by MFuglei

I JUST posted this to my facebook page.

If we are routinely giving c-sections to what, 30% of the population, inducing women *AT* 40 weeks or earlier, and having more and more high risk pregnancies, I really, really, really fail to see why the Harvard researchers can't suss out the truth here.

That's easy. They're confusing their data with reality. It's not uncommon. She says inductions and c-sections aren't to blame...but she doesn't have the data she needs to reach that conclusion. If she's using birth certificates, and the certificates don't show induction, then she's most likely assuming that she has data that she doesn't (ie. nothing says "induced", therefore inductions isn't involved).

What I found really weird was this part:

babies' length at birth suggests even full-term pregnancies are 2.5 days shorter than they used to be

What does that even mean? Is there actually a measurable difference in average baby length over 2.5 days at term?

[rachelsmama]

Aren't there a lot of women whose doctors change the "due date" late in pregnancy based on size estimated by ultrasound? If there's been an increase in how often that happens couldn't that explain the results?

[thefreckledmama]

Originally Posted by mmaramba

The only thing that "puzzles" me about this article is how dense "scientists" are.

Yep!


Maybe because they're using technological means to date pregnancies, rather than actual dates reported by women. Or maybe it's because they're taking babies earlier because of ultrasound showing babies being "too big", when they're really not?

I think the only factor in anything regarding lower birth weights is obstetricians.

ETA: Right after I posted my husband walked in, and I had him read the article. Now, his knowledge of pregnancy is mostly how to begin it, and what happens at the end of it. His immediate response was, "Oh, well maybe if doctors weren't inducing women early because they were tired of being pregnant, or saying babies are bigger than they really are and taking them early, there wouldn't be a difference in birth weights."

See, even the pregnancy ignorant chef knows what's up.

[nia82]

Ob boy, that further erodes my respect for science. Sorry. The method used (birth certificates, changed due dates or whatever) doesn't indicate gestational length. And obviously, there are csections all the time (scheduled before 40 weeks, preferably at 38), early inductions and the maniac-due-date-changers (yup had it happen too).
Maybe we should conduct a study to see what happens if you eat 10,000 calories per day. No, that couldn't have caused the weight gain in the subjects. Must be the water they drank. Same kind of conclusion

[mmaramba]

Originally Posted by nia82

Ob boy, that further erodes my respect for science. Sorry. The method used (birth certificates, changed due dates or whatever) doesn't indicate gestational length. And obviously, there are csections all the time (scheduled before 40 weeks, preferably at 38), early inductions and the maniac-due-date-changers (yup had it happen too).
Maybe we should conduct a study to see what happens if you eat 10,000 calories per day. No, that couldn't have caused the weight gain in the subjects. Must be the water they drank. Same kind of conclusion

Oh, I have loads of faith in SCIENCE. Just not in clueless/biased "scientists" who aren't using it.

I guess I was just spoiled by an MD mom who was big into, you know-- *evidence*-based care. She supports my HB plans. Based on science.

[AustinMom]

What they need to do is compare babies born by midwives to babies born to OBs. I'm sure she will see the Midwifery model has larger, healthier, babies, and moms who are healthier and with less complications,......and she will find her answer that the more OBs, the more inductions and cs and babies born sooner, therefore, that is what is causing this "unknown" drop in birth weight.

[mamabadger]

Originally Posted by AustinMom

What they need to do is compare babies born by midwives to babies born to OBs.

Good idea, but we would probably end up with a report on how babies delivered on a birth stool are mysteriously 1% larger, or something.

[TiredX2]

Originally Posted by mmaramba

Yes, there are more scheduled cesarean sections or induced labors now, but her analysis concluded that wasn't to blame.

But that's not clear as induction often isn't listed on birth certificates, and the study found a drop in babies born at 40 or 41 weeks gestation, noted Dr. Joann Petrini, an adviser to the March of Dimes.

Wow, this must be a case of fast evolution! Doctors started inducing, so now in just years the average length of pregnancy has gone down. I'm *sure* they are not related

Don't babies close to full gestational age gain, on average, 1/2 pound a week? So, removing 2 days, on average, would, once again--- on average--- take the average weight down about 2 ounces. Seems very simple to me.

Originally Posted by mamabadger

Good idea, but we would probably end up with a report on how babies delivered on a birth stool are mysteriously 1% larger, or something.

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by mamabadger

Good idea, but we would probably end up with a report on how babies delivered on a birth stool are mysteriously 1% larger, or something.

[nia82]

Originally Posted by mmaramba

Oh, I have loads of faith in SCIENCE. Just not in clueless/biased "scientists" who aren't using it.

I guess I was just spoiled by an MD mom who was big into, you know-- *evidence*-based care. She supports my HB plans. Based on science.

Being a social scientist myself, I have just seen too much crappy science. 99% of scientists I know manipulate the statistics in their favor. It is always biased and you can always present/calculate the data in the way you want to. I would assume that physics or chemistry is a little different, as long as there is no vested interest...
It's great that your mom is like that! My very own PhD MD sister is not like that, unfortunately.

[tygrss]

Originally Posted by mamabadger

Good idea, but we would probably end up with a report on how babies delivered on a birth stool are mysteriously 1% larger, or something.

[ledzepplon]

Originally Posted by mmaramba

The only thing that "puzzles" me about this article is how dense "scientists" are.

Totally.

[MiaMama]

Hello, I would like to play the devil's advocate here. I don't doubt that some of the drop in birthweights is due to interventions based on weight estimates and "postdates" BS. However, I think there may also be something else going on, maybe environmental. I have heard many reports of endocrine disrupters in the water, I don't buy that the miscarriage rate has always been this high, just women didn't know they were pregnant so early, and I think something serious is going on with our reproductive health in this country.

This part stood out to me

Originally Posted by mmaramba

That's particularly true for women at lowest risk for too-small babies: White, well-educated, married non-smokers who got early prenatal care. Still, their babies, on average, weighed 2.8 ounces less over the study period.

This describes me. My baby was full term, 4 lbs, 13 oz. I was cared for by midwives. No one was ever able to figure out what went wrong. While the average birthweight was a tiny bit lower, huge babies have been getting huger... and tiny babies have been getting smaller. These researchers may be dense, but I still think this trend deserves to be looked into more.

I have noticed HUGE regional differences. By regional, I am talking 60 miles away. At the LLL meetings where I lived, all the nursing toddlers were small like mine. At my friend's meetings in the next major city over, all the nursing toddlers were 10+ pounds heavier. I have joked that there is something in the water. I fear there really might be.

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by MiaMama

I don't buy that the miscarriage rate has always been this high, just women didn't know they were pregnant so early,

Why not? I think, looking back, that I may have had a miscarriage in my teens. I hadn't done a pregnancy test (because I'd only had sex once, and I just never thought of it back then. If it was a miscarriage, not a late period, it happened at about 7-8 weeks. I had a 7-8 week miscarriage at age 29, as well. That time, I knew it, because I was actively ttc, and had tested a day after my period was due. My mom believes she may have had a "missed" miscarriage over 40 years ago. I just can't see that there's any reason not to buy that the miscarriage rate is at least reasonably steady.

and I think something serious is going on with our reproductive health in this country.

I think there are all kinds of things going on with reproductive health on this continent, quite honestly.

This describes me. My baby was full term, 4 lbs, 13 oz. I was cared for by midwives. No one was ever able to figure out what went wrong.

I'm sorry that happened to you. I'm sure having such a tiny baby must be scary.

However, the piece you quoted (about white, well-educated, married non-smokers who got early prenatal care) is exactly what I'd expect. Women who get early prenatal care are also, very frequently, the women who do exactly what their doctors tell them, consider their pregnancies to be a medical condition, in need of treatment, and will end up being induced, sectioned, etc.

I also think the issue of ultrasound dating needs to be looked at a lot more seriously. With ds2, the ultrasound placed me a week farther along than I was (I'm about 99% sure I knew the exact date of conception, and I definitely knew it within 3 days). If that had been six days, they'd have accepted my dates, in lieu of the ultrasound dates. Had it been eight days, they'd have accepted the ultrasound dates, in lieu of my dates. As it was, I had a GP who was using the ultrasound dates, and an OB who was using my dates (as a "favour" HAHAHAHAHA). DS2 arrived at 41w, 5d. I wonder what gestational age was in my records...

[emnic77]

Originally Posted by MFuglei

I JUST posted this to my facebook page.

If we are routinely giving c-sections to what, 30% of the population, inducing women *AT* 40 weeks or earlier, and having more and more high risk pregnancies, I really, really, really fail to see why the Harvard researchers can't suss out the truth here. Could it be because we are *possibly* not allowing babies to develop to their full birth weight before wrenching them out of their mothers?

I mean, I really REALLY don't understand how this article(or the researchers for that matter) doesn't see that a significant decrease in pregnancies carried to term (40-42 weeks) correlates with the lowering birth weight. I *really* don't understand how this is news.

Exactly...I am failing to see how they are not putting these two glaringly obvious things together.

[Equuskia]

My mother gave vaginal birth to four children, all of us were over 8 lbs. This was between 1980 and 1991. Last year I gave birth, at 40 wk 5 days, to an 8 lb 3 oz child. This is apparently VERY uncommon here, as I hear parents all the time saying how their children were between 5 and 7 lbs in weight. Of course, many are also induced early (at 37 weeks) or sectioned. I know, because my first pregnancy was induced at 37 weeks. Baby weighed 6 lb 7 oz. Had she been born 3 weeks later, I bet she would have been over 8 lbs as well.