Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Cesarean delivery may lead to increased risk of obesity among offspring
Replies
-
Science! petting kittens kills!0
-
It is interesting, sometimes very valuable knowledge is discovered from what origionally seems a random correlation. I wasn't able to find the full article, for free at least, so am missing a good bit of the actual study (which is a complaints I have with scientific journalism, journalist interpretation are not always true to the science/scientists)
The biggest question I have is there any tracking of the cause for c sections in this study? One of the leading causes listed (found by googling) is gestational diabetes resulting in larger child which the mother cannot naturally birth. I could see where gestational diabetes could have a long term effect on weight of the child. Would be curious to see this broken down by reason for c- section.
Also this is an interesting theory:I believe (too lazy to look up) that formula fed babies are more likely to be obese then breastfed. So do C Section women tend to feed formula more because of their C-Section?
because I think (sorry no stats to back if up) that mothers who delivered via c section do have an increase occurrence of delayed or no milk production (compared to vaginal births), meaning they would have to depend on formula. So that could definitely be an additional factor.
Remember responders: saying c section children are more likely to be obese than their vaginally birthed counterparts is not the same as saying all C section children are obese.
1 -
Yeah, idk, I know it's anecdata but my brother was underweight for most of his life and I've always been fairly average. I agree that it's probably more about the mother and not the birth.0
-
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »How does the method someone is born affect how they eat after they are born in childhood? Makes no sense to me. FTR- None of my c-section children are overweight by any means.
Yeah, I'm not getting the connection. Sounds about as reliable as this:
No cause and effect relationship has been established yet. It might be that whatever prompted the C-section delivery is also making people more prone to becoming obese. Nobody really knows yet.
From everything we know today, this doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. But it does seem to be true. That's odd. If it turns out this really is true, we'll probably learn something new when we find out how it works.
I think more likely, obese mothers are more likely to have C-sections. The women, in turn, may continue their unhealthy lifestyle and raise children who emulate that lifestyle and become obese themselves.
But that doesn't mean that the C-section birth is what caused the child to be more prone to obesity. It's the lifestyle that that they were born into that is making them more likely to become obese. Obese women just happen to have more C-sections.
*Edit: clarification
They controlled for this in the study. 16 years worth of data, 22,000 kids studied. I heard a longer report on this on the radio. Even in families where some siblings were born by C-section and others vaginally (prior births or vbac), same mom and dad, the C-section babies were more likely to become obese. The researchers considered the age and BMI of the mom, and found that C-section birth was an independent risk for obesity.
I don't find this all that surprising. Babies pick up bacteria in the birth process, C-section babies are more likely to be premature, so maybe they are handled differently, C-section may make it harder to breastfeed, all sorts of possible mechanisms that aren't magic.3 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »How does the method someone is born affect how they eat after they are born in childhood? Makes no sense to me. FTR- None of my c-section children are overweight by any means.
Yeah, I'm not getting the connection. Sounds about as reliable as this:
No cause and effect relationship has been established yet. It might be that whatever prompted the C-section delivery is also making people more prone to becoming obese. Nobody really knows yet.
From everything we know today, this doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. But it does seem to be true. That's odd. If it turns out this really is true, we'll probably learn something new when we find out how it works.
I think more likely, obese mothers are more likely to have C-sections. The women, in turn, may continue their unhealthy lifestyle and raise children who emulate that lifestyle and become obese themselves.
But that doesn't mean that the C-section birth is what caused the child to be more prone to obesity. It's the lifestyle that that they were born into that is making them more likely to become obese. Obese women just happen to have more C-sections.
*Edit: clarification
They controlled for this in the study. 16 years worth of data, 22,000 kids studied. I heard a longer report on this on the radio. Even in families where some siblings were born by C-section and others vaginally (prior births or vbac), same mom and dad, the C-section babies were more likely to become obese. The researchers considered the age and BMI of the mom, and found that C-section birth was an independent risk for obesity.
I don't find this all that surprising. Babies pick up bacteria in the birth process, C-section babies are more likely to be premature, so maybe they are handled differently, C-section may make it harder to breastfeed, all sorts of possible mechanisms that aren't magic.
I think the bolded is more on the right track. I would attribute it more to a combination of things.
I posted upthread the other ways that a baby's gut flora can be established.
Maybe some moms who have C-sections and can't breastfeed end up formula feeding and over feeding, causing the baby to start out at a higher weight and gradually put on weight as time goes on. Combine that with unhealthy lifestyles at home or some of the other risk factors and it just puts the child on a fast track to becoming obese.
I still am not convinced, at all, that C-section babies are more prone to obesity by default.
And it still doesn't explain how we got to an obesity crisis in the first place, since C-sections haven't always been as mainstream as they are now.
And though I know anecdotes are not scientific, I was born vaginally and was breastfed and was overweight all through childhood. Not obese, but definitely overweight, until high school when I started to make some of my own food choices, became more active, etc.
Both of my children, on the other hand, were C-section babies, and though neither one of them were premature, I had trouble breastfeeding them, so they were basically formula fed (though they did get breast milk for the first 6 weeks or so, and had formula also). They are both active, and are healthy weights.
0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »How does the method someone is born affect how they eat after they are born in childhood? Makes no sense to me. FTR- None of my c-section children are overweight by any means.
Yeah, I'm not getting the connection. Sounds about as reliable as this:
No cause and effect relationship has been established yet. It might be that whatever prompted the C-section delivery is also making people more prone to becoming obese. Nobody really knows yet.
From everything we know today, this doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. But it does seem to be true. That's odd. If it turns out this really is true, we'll probably learn something new when we find out how it works.
I think more likely, obese mothers are more likely to have C-sections. The women, in turn, may continue their unhealthy lifestyle and raise children who emulate that lifestyle and become obese themselves.
But that doesn't mean that the C-section birth is what caused the child to be more prone to obesity. It's the lifestyle that that they were born into that is making them more likely to become obese. Obese women just happen to have more C-sections.
*Edit: clarification
They controlled for this in the study. 16 years worth of data, 22,000 kids studied. I heard a longer report on this on the radio. Even in families where some siblings were born by C-section and others vaginally (prior births or vbac), same mom and dad, the C-section babies were more likely to become obese. The researchers considered the age and BMI of the mom, and found that C-section birth was an independent risk for obesity.
I don't find this all that surprising. Babies pick up bacteria in the birth process, C-section babies are more likely to be premature, so maybe they are handled differently, C-section may make it harder to breastfeed, all sorts of possible mechanisms that aren't magic.
I think the bolded is more on the right track. I would attribute it more to a combination of things.
I posted upthread the other ways that a baby's gut flora can be established.
Maybe some moms who have C-sections and can't breastfeed end up formula feeding and over feeding, causing the baby to start out at a higher weight and gradually put on weight as time goes on. Combine that with unhealthy lifestyles at home or some of the other risk factors and it just puts the child on a fast track to becoming obese.
I still am not convinced, at all, that C-section babies are more prone to obesity by default.
And it still doesn't explain how we got to an obesity crisis in the first place, since C-sections haven't always been as mainstream as they are now.
And though I know anecdotes are not scientific, I was born vaginally and was breastfed and was overweight all through childhood. Not obese, but definitely overweight, until high school when I started to make some of my own food choices, became more active, etc.
Both of my children, on the other hand, were C-section babies, and though neither one of them were premature, I had trouble breastfeeding them, so they were basically formula fed (though they did get breast milk for the first 6 weeks or so, and had formula also). They are both active, and are healthy weights.
I was born from my moms vag (she has always been a healthy weight) and have I been overweight all my life. My twin sisters and brother were born via C-Section and were skinny kids and now healthy weight adults. I was overweight and preggo and had a c-section. My kid has always been a skinny minny (still is).
But anecdotes don't count, I know. Just wanted to weigh in that I don't believe the whole c-section fat kid thing, either.0 -
well crap...
life didn't give my son much hope though, he and mom would be dead without the procedure.3 -
Fast food and poor exercise is how children become obese, not the way they were delivered ...2
-
Fast food and poor exercise is how children become obese, not the way they were delivered ...
Eating too much of anything makes kids obese. Fast food is an easy target, but it is more an possible to eat fast food without getting fat. I have four kids, and while we don't eat fast food super often, we do eat it now and then. None of my children are overweight (three of them are right around the 50th percentile for weight and my oldest is in the 10th percentile - about as far from overweight as you can get).
0 -
Ten bucks says the study is bull. Any takers?0
-
(very) low birth weight is associated with metabolic syndrome and insulin resistance later in life. It might be, that among C-section babies, there is a higher number of babies with low birth weight.I think women have c-sections for many different reasons that don't all boil down to being obese. My 1st was an emergency c-section preemie. Then I had successful 2 vbacs. For my last baby, I couldn't find a doctor that would do another vbac for me & I was forced to have another c-section. It was ridiculous. I went into pre-term labor (of course), so they had to get me into an operating room to get the baby out before I delivered. All of my children were preemies & my pregnancies were high risk so even if I were comfortable with home birth (which I'm not), it wouldn't have been an option for me. I think it's pretty common for women to be forced into a c-section once they've had one, no matter what their weight or condition. At least here in my area of the US.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278913452_METABOLIC_SYNDROME_DEVELOPMENT_IN_RELATION_TO_LOW_BIRTH_WEIGHT0 -
Two children:
17 yo: natural delivery, forumal feed, not obese, he is more regular framed; smart
10 yo: C section, breastfeed 33 months, not obese at all; thin, at age 2 weight was lower than it should, had to bulk him up, smart.
Interesting article...I have my own data.
0 -
3 c-sections, 3 sons in their 20's--all fit.0
-
The labor process is vital to preparing the body of the infant for stress. I am deducing from the following excerpt (drawing my own conclusion) that this effects metabolism.
"Contractions of labor help to prepare the baby’s lungs for respiration at birth. In her article on the role of stress, pain, and catecholamines (produced by the body in response to stress), Penny Simkin explains that during each contraction of labor there is temporary reduction in the amount of oxygen that is available to the fetus. Contractions reduce the amount of oxygenated blood that is passed through to the placenta. This causes the baby’s heart rate to slow down.
To adapt to this level of stress the baby increases her production of catecholamines which shunts the blood going to her vital organs and preserves her energy stores. This adaptive response allows the baby to receive the same amount of oxygen as before labor contractions. This increased surge of catecholamines accumulated during labor also helps to prepare the baby’s lungs to breath on their own at birth by absorbing the liquid in her lungs. Babies born by a scheduled cesarean have lower levels of catecholamines than babies born vaginally. A scheduled cesarean (without labor) is more likely to make it more difficult for the baby to initially breathe on her own.
Babies born before term have a higher risk of persistent pulmonary hypertension, a potentially life-threatening condition. To facilitate the transition from the uterine environment to the outside world, the blood vessels in the baby’s lungs relax and allow blood to flow through them with the first breaths after birth. This function allows the blood to exchange carbon dioxide for oxygen. When this adaptation fails the blood vessels do not relax and pulmonary high blood pressure (hypertension) prevails. Newborns who experience persistent pulmonary hypertension and low blood oxygen levels can suffer from damage to vital organs and the brain. Persistent pulmonary hypertension is four times higher for babies born by elective cesarean than for babies born vaginally."
Source: http://www.vbac.com/how-does-a-cesarean-affect-the-baby/1 -
debradavmom wrote: »The labor process is vital to preparing the body of the infant for stress. I am deducing from the following excerpt (drawing my own conclusion) that this effects metabolism.
"Contractions of labor help to prepare the baby’s lungs for respiration at birth. In her article on the role of stress, pain, and catecholamines (produced by the body in response to stress), Penny Simkin explains that during each contraction of labor there is temporary reduction in the amount of oxygen that is available to the fetus. Contractions reduce the amount of oxygenated blood that is passed through to the placenta. This causes the baby’s heart rate to slow down.
To adapt to this level of stress the baby increases her production of catecholamines which shunts the blood going to her vital organs and preserves her energy stores. This adaptive response allows the baby to receive the same amount of oxygen as before labor contractions. This increased surge of catecholamines accumulated during labor also helps to prepare the baby’s lungs to breath on their own at birth by absorbing the liquid in her lungs. Babies born by a scheduled cesarean have lower levels of catecholamines than babies born vaginally. A scheduled cesarean (without labor) is more likely to make it more difficult for the baby to initially breathe on her own.
Babies born before term have a higher risk of persistent pulmonary hypertension, a potentially life-threatening condition. To facilitate the transition from the uterine environment to the outside world, the blood vessels in the baby’s lungs relax and allow blood to flow through them with the first breaths after birth. This function allows the blood to exchange carbon dioxide for oxygen. When this adaptation fails the blood vessels do not relax and pulmonary high blood pressure (hypertension) prevails. Newborns who experience persistent pulmonary hypertension and low blood oxygen levels can suffer from damage to vital organs and the brain. Persistent pulmonary hypertension is four times higher for babies born by elective cesarean than for babies born vaginally."
Source: http://www.vbac.com/how-does-a-cesarean-affect-the-baby/
I rather prefer my daughter be born alive than with a broken neck. She was already suffocating from being stuck in the birth canal. A Caesaren saved her life.0 -
As our microbiomes are key to our immune system, and if the mother's system is challenged then in normal/regular births there can be an insufficient transfer of the appropriate microbes etc. Unfortunately children who need to be born by C-section may fair worse. Mothers who are able to nurse, when their children born are near term can overcome the deficit if their own tracts are working effectively. Lactation is there to feed the child and make efficient transfers of enyzmes and other essential elements for a healthy life if the mother has these things herself.
In recent years pt's have been used for different medical reason because microbes can be vital in some conditions. It has been found that the health condition of the donation can hide unforeseen, at that time, issues, (2/3 years ago). The principal case is that of a daughter/mother transfer. The mother usually slim gained to be similar to her daughter after the medically organised transfer. Since then, I hope greater attention has been paid to the donation.
Our scientific community is bringing us better information on which we should act.0 -
Even if it is true it really sucks. New moms go through enough stress and self-doubt and worry and a million other emotions and now we have to stress out if our baby has to be born via cesarean because we are dooming them to a life of obesity?!
1 -
I read something similar a while back. The theory is that unborn babies are basically "sterile" - they have no microbes in their gut. They pick up microbes during vaginal births - presumably they literally swallow them! Babies born by c section don't go through this process and so have fewer or no microbes. Since gut microbes are the building blocks of our immune system,the studies conclude this *could * lead to various problems,obesity being just one. I have no idea how that correlation is made. Don't shoot the messenger!0
-
All you people who had c/s need to chill.
No one thinks you should let you baby DIE instead of being a fatty.
No one (with a brain) thinks this study means your c/s baby is definitely going to be fat.
For chrissakes, it's a correlation, done on tens of thousands of births, and your anecdote is meaningless and detracting from the actual science.
Now then.
I find this super interesting. We really have had no clue until very recently about this microbiome stuff (or at least it hasn't been disseminated to the general public until recently). The poop transplant for people with c. Diff, infants getting colonized from Mom's vag, tooth health is linked to the parent you exchanged the most spit with. I can't wait to see what else we learn.
2 -
All you people who had c/s need to chill.
No one thinks you should let you baby DIE instead of being a fatty.
No one (with a brain) thinks this study means your c/s baby is definitely going to be fat.
For chrissakes, it's a correlation, done on tens of thousands of births, and your anecdote is meaningless and detracting from the actual science.
Now then.
I find this super interesting. We really have had no clue until very recently about this microbiome stuff (or at least it hasn't been disseminated to the general public until recently). The poop transplant for people with c. Diff, infants getting colonized from Mom's vag, tooth health is linked to the parent you exchanged the most spit with. I can't wait to see what else we learn.
The study I read did say there are ways you can increase gut microbes and no,no one is saying hey mothers,it's all your fault your kids are fat/sick!
Apparently some beers can increase your gut microbes,to which yay!0 -
comptonelizabeth wrote: »I read something similar a while back. The theory is that unborn babies are basically "sterile" - they have no microbes in their gut. They pick up microbes during vaginal births - presumably they literally swallow them! Babies born by c section don't go through this process and so have fewer or no microbes. Since gut microbes are the building blocks of our immune system,the studies conclude this *could * lead to various problems,obesity being just one. I have no idea how that correlation is made. Don't shoot the messenger!
No, it is not that there are fewer to no microbes. They are colonized by different microbes, such as those on the skin.0 -
LawOfFives wrote: »chunky_pinup wrote: »But like...what? I mean, is there like, skinny juice in the vag canal? How does this even work?
There is a theory that states that the reason a woman tends to involuntarily move her bowels during a vaginal birth is in order to help the newborn to colonize their gut bacteria, and we know that gut bacteria has a significant impact on hunger obesity, etc.
This made me laugh harder than it should.
The reason women tend to involuntarily move their bowels while giving birth is because they're trying to squeeze a watermelon out of an orifice more suited to a banana, using the same muscles that are used to poop with.
More of a design flaw, methinks, than an intentional action designed to prevent future obesity in newborns. 0 -
French_Peasant wrote: »MeganMoroz89 wrote: »LawOfFives wrote: »chunky_pinup wrote: »But like...what? I mean, is there like, skinny juice in the vag canal? How does this even work?
There is a theory that states that the reason a woman tends to involuntarily move her bowels during a vaginal birth is in order to help the newborn to colonize their gut bacteria, and we know that gut bacteria has a significant impact on hunger obesity, etc.
I've never heard that. I've always just assumed that because you're pushing so hard and that there's been so much cramping of the muscles that that's what makes you take a *kitten* when you're giving birth (which is just a great idea, so glad that that might happen to me when I have a kid. I've always wanted to do that in front of strangers).
The best part is when the roaming packs of medical students and your coworker's husband come barging into the room to see the exciting parts, among other indignities. You lose all sense of shame. It's part of what makes you a mother, LOL.
Been there, done that.
At that point in the process, they could have brought in a whole troupe of Boy Scouts, too, because I was beyond caring.
0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »How does the method someone is born affect how they eat after they are born in childhood? Makes no sense to me. FTR- None of my c-section children are overweight by any means.
Yeah, I'm not getting the connection. Sounds about as reliable as this:
No cause and effect relationship has been established yet. It might be that whatever prompted the C-section delivery is also making people more prone to becoming obese. Nobody really knows yet.
From everything we know today, this doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. But it does seem to be true. That's odd. If it turns out this really is true, we'll probably learn something new when we find out how it works.
I think more likely, obese mothers are more likely to have C-sections. The women, in turn, may continue their unhealthy lifestyle and raise children who emulate that lifestyle and become obese themselves.
But that doesn't mean that the C-section birth is what caused the child to be more prone to obesity. It's the lifestyle that that they were born into that is making them more likely to become obese. Obese women just happen to have more C-sections.
*Edit: clarification
Totally agree. If there *is* a valid correlation, logic dictates that this could very well be the cause.0 -
As a microbiologist I support that the establishment of "skinny" microbiota is aided during the birthing process and is key to differences seen in individual weight based on C-section or vaginal births. There are a number of scientific journals that indicate bacterial diversity is associated with "healthier" weight individuals. A microbiologist studying tribal people who eat mostly raw food also has noted a lack of obese members in the society. The fecal bacterial diversity was noted to be higher in these individuals as well. Not only is it diversity but the distribution of each type of bacteria. Currently C-section infants are being inoculated with birth fluids to reconcile some of the differences in the gut microbiota observed by the different birthing methods. It is not just what bacteria you have, but the amounts of that bacteria. Establishment of your gut flora happens at birth via vaginal fluids, food (breast milk and formula have different bacteria), human touch (nurses and doctors carry MRSA at a higher rate than the general population), and the environment (vaginal births can be at home, C-sections must be done at medial facility and usually wind up in a longer hospital stay). There was a comment above about obese moms being likely to have C-sections. I am not sure that is a justified comment as many women I know had C-sections because they were too small and the babies too large (personal observation not scientific). Woman who are healthy also have C-sections because the child did not properly turn. Some women have C-sections by choice.2
-
cbendorf13 wrote: »As a microbiologist I support that the establishment of "skinny" microbiota is aided during the birthing process and is key to differences seen in individual weight based on C-section or vaginal births. There are a number of scientific journals that indicate bacterial diversity is associated with "healthier" weight individuals. A microbiologist studying tribal people who eat mostly raw food also has noted a lack of obese members in the society. The fecal bacterial diversity was noted to be higher in these individuals as well. Not only is it diversity but the distribution of each type of bacteria. Currently C-section infants are being inoculated with birth fluids to reconcile some of the differences in the gut microbiota observed by the different birthing methods. It is not just what bacteria you have, but the amounts of that bacteria. Establishment of your gut flora happens at birth via vaginal fluids, food (breast milk and formula have different bacteria), human touch (nurses and doctors carry MRSA at a higher rate than the general population), and the environment (vaginal births can be at home, C-sections must be done at medial facility and usually wind up in a longer hospital stay). There was a comment above about obese moms being likely to have C-sections. I am not sure that is a justified comment as many women I know had C-sections because they were too small and the babies too large (personal observation not scientific). Woman who are healthy also have C-sections because the child did not properly turn. Some women have C-sections by choice.
I don't see where anyone was disputing that. I think the point was that more obese women have C-sections (for whatever reason) than non-obese women do (for whatever reason.) There are many valid medical issues and personal preferences that would lead women of *any* size to end up having c-sections as opposed to vaginal births. But since it appears that more obese women also have them due to reasons directly related to their obesity, it would stand to reason that this statistic would then skew in favour of these children ending up being obese as well, with method of delivery having no measurable impact in and of itself.0 -
comptonelizabeth wrote: »I read something similar a while back. The theory is that unborn babies are basically "sterile" - they have no microbes in their gut. They pick up microbes during vaginal births - presumably they literally swallow them! Babies born by c section don't go through this process and so have fewer or no microbes. Since gut microbes are the building blocks of our immune system,the studies conclude this *could * lead to various problems,obesity being just one. I have no idea how that correlation is made. Don't shoot the messenger!
No, it is not that there are fewer to no microbes. They are colonized by different microbes, such as those on the skin.
Ah,ok, I see!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions