Apparently we're becoming like bulldogs?

• 10-12-2009 12:06 PM

  In reply to

  Mom~of~Munchkins Joined on 09-14-2005 Posts 237

  Re: Apparently we're becoming like bulldogs? Reply Contact HA! I actually have a friend who said that her doctor told her (before she even went into labor with her first child) that she would never be able to give birth vaginally, because her pelvis was inverted. I'm sure somewhere down the line of her anscestors someone was able to give birth vaginally! LOL As for the big baby thing. I don't know. The catch for me is that only in recent years (like the last 300 or 400 years) have civilizations really begun to mingle on a massive level. Each ethnic group has particular traits such as smaller stature and pelvises or smaller heads. If a woman with a hereditary small stature and narrow pelvis marries a man with a hereditary large head, shoulder width, or stature, it is possible that CPD will occur. This may be occurring more and more. I look at this perspective through the theory of evolution. If reproduction guides changes in physical characteristics, then each civilization would show similar physical characteristics that may be adaptive for their environment. For example, Africans typically have larger, thicker bone structure (including skulls) that have been theorized to be adaptive to the desert environment of the continent. Also, a common trait in African American women are genetically larger hips. This may be passed on to facilitate the birth of the larger skull. If this is the case, then inter-ethnic reproduction may be counterproductive from evolutionary standards. I have hereditary large hips and my second child had a 14.5 inch head and chest circumference. I think my 4th child's was even bigger than that. There is also not just a size problem, but also a shape problem for some women. So, is there a trend growingn toward CPD or shoulder distocia? Not sure. My beef is that physicians don't even let moms try. With consistent fetal monitoring in the hospital, there is no reason why a mom couldn't be given a chance to labor vaginally before resorting to cesarean. Also, failure to progress does not mean baby was too big. So, if you failed to progress and you had a 9lb baby, don't automatically assume that the problem was the size of the baby. Premature labor, induction, malpositioning, lack of movement, or a weakened uterus (due to too much pitocin or other agents) can also cause failure to progress leading to cesarean section.

• 10-13-2009 7:57 AM

  In reply to

  Dave's Buttercup Joined on 06-19-2008 Victor Colby Born 100% Naturally 1/12/2009 Posts 105

  Re: Apparently we're becoming like bulldogs? Reply Contact I really like your response.  I'm a bio person, and I absolutely love evolutionary biology.  Let me attempt a response (it's been about 3 years since I had the course so I can't claim everything I say is right on the nose...) Mom~of~Munchkins: I'm sure somewhere down the line of her anscestors someone was able to give birth vaginally! What defines a species is the ability to create fertile offspring.  So without the ability to physically push out offspring, for whatever reason, the species would quickly die out, or the ones who could produce the offspring would prevail and eventually differentiate from those who have smaller offspring for their smaller pelvis.  I believe this could be a potential difference in various groups that prevailed in the beginning times of man, separated by regional differences--mountains, water, different continent... and it became very specific within our species, like was stated above.  Only in the past 100-300 years have humans on a large scale been intermixing their genese with different cultures of people that have markedly different body shapes as our means of transportation cross-continent and barriers has become easier to spread humans of all cultures around-- still the same species even with geographical boundaries, still able to reproduce because the differences in the female body shape still aren't great enough to create an evolutionary difference in time. Evolutionary change in a species takes thousands of years, I just don't think we are there yet.  If anything, the differences would be less and less as we continue to mingle our genes within our species, to the point of where we all will begin to look alike. (I read a newsweek article on this a few years back) In the times before surgeries, sadly, women who couldn't give birth to these babies either died or their babies died.  However, by our nature, humans had generally chosen to mate with a mate of similar stature and features.  It's some innate attraction, I've been told by my professor, and only recently (like I said maybe 100-300 years being recent) are humans choosing to mate otherwise.  I don't think the issue lies in the offspring's skull size, development of the embryo to fetus to baby is still the same as it ever was, rather the shape of the woman's pelvis as she matures.  With the rise of surgeries and medical "advancements" women who in primal times would have probably died during birth or had their baby died if they couldn't move the baby down, well their pelvis size/shape genes wouldn't be passed on to their offspring.  BUT our history as humans as a view of the whole species says otherwise.  Women have been bearing and delivering babies with all shapes of pelvises since the beginning of mankind's time.  So I just can't agree with the initial argument that my friend's boyfriend has made.  His standpoint comes from a pro-surgery background of information, and favors the idea that babies skulls are larger than they've ever been.  And we know that this just isn't a reason as to why women can't birth babies.   I think the best answer for the reason of so many c-sections is that the doctors don't give the mothers a true fighting chance before they jump the gun on induction.  You always have to remember, obstetricians are surgeons first...but the whole point of induction to prevent a "potential "issue (before a mother's body is ready for labor) is asking to end in a c-section, and this "research" is their excuse as to why things happened the way they did meaning induction leading to c-section of a 7.5 lbs baby at 39 weeks.  How can you make a general statement of research when the induction prevents you from making a conclusion with proper results?  It's skewed information on the grand scheme (and I'm not discounting that there are women who's pelvises aren't able to push SOME babies out, but that also doesn't mean every baby she will have can't make it's way through her birth canal as the body is different with each pregnancy), that's all that I can say.

• 10-14-2009 12:11 PM

  In reply to

  Mom~of~Munchkins Joined on 09-14-2005 Posts 237

  Re: Apparently we're becoming like bulldogs? Reply Contact That was actually the point I wanted to make to my friend. The doctor says she just hereditarily can't bear children, but the fact is that really that can't be true. If what she has is inherited, then someway, somehow, she CAN vaginally have children. Babies heads are born different sizes occasionally, and it is easy for some women to birth large heads and more difficult for others. My explanation using hereditary skull size vs. pelvis size is really in an effort to address why maybe there are more cases of CPD in obstetrics nowadays, or at least harder labors. I'm not totally convinced there are more cases of CPD due to nature. I've not read really any research on the subject. However, blending of ethnic groups and mix-matching skull heredity vs pelvic heredity seems like a likely contributor. I read an article several years ago that claimed there may be no more blondes in about 500 to 1000 years, due to hair color masking. I think the premise is that sexual selection suggests blondes are more attractive and, thus, are more often selected as mates. However, with hair color masking, anyone can be a blonde, facilitating the passing of genes of all darker hair colors. I think "blonde" is a recessive gene, so the less it is passed on, the less it will be projected in future generations.

• 10-19-2009 7:53 AM

  In reply to

  Dave's Buttercup Joined on 06-19-2008 Victor Colby Born 100% Naturally 1/12/2009 Posts 105

  Re: Apparently we're becoming like bulldogs? Reply Contact I'm not discounting the blend of ethnic groups posing a slight issue on the topic, but I feel the greatest issue of all is the "advancements" that have been made in obstetrics that are leading to an increase in intervention.  Like intervention leads to more intervention... I found a great article supporting this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christiane-northrup/c-section-or-natural-birt_b_323422.html I don't want to continue to beat this to a pulp, LOL, I'm just finding more and more arguments against the "increased head size" as a factor, and more siding with interventions getting in the way of a woman's natural way to birth a baby.  Mom~of~Munchkins: I read an article several years ago that claimed there may be no more blondes in about 500 to 1000 years I wanted to add that they are teaching this in classes!  That true blondes will be gone within 1000 years.  Crazy!!

• 10-19-2009 8:55 AM

  In reply to

  tiffanyg Joined on 10-14-2009 Posts 6	Re: Apparently we're becoming like bulldogs? Reply Contact is the blonde thing because most ethnic groups have darker hair colors and people are reproducing cross-ethnically more and more? just curious.

• 10-19-2009 10:22 AM

  In reply to

  scarlet_willow Joined on 12-14-2007 James 23 July '08, Henry 26 Oct '09 Posts 984

  Re: Apparently we're becoming like bulldogs? Reply Contact Mom~of~Munchkins: That was actually the point I wanted to make to my friend. The doctor says she just hereditarily can't bear children, but the fact is that really that can't be true. If what she has is inherited, then someway, somehow, she CAN vaginally have children. That is such a good point!  Some Drs must think we are real idiots haha  I'm sure there are some very legitimate reasons for inducing or just going straight into a c-section when the baby's size is a true concern.  I think I'd be more willing to err on the side of caution when protecting my baby's life (especially if I got more than 1 medical professional's opinion first).  I have a question that is somewhat related to this topic.  On another birth board I visit, the topic of whether to induce for fears of the baby's size came up.  One mother had a 10 lb baby and he had some bruising on the way out, plus had to actually spend time in NICU.  I can't remember exactly why he had to spend time in the NICU, but it seemed like a very legitimate reason, like he was having trouble breathing or something.  The mother attributed this to his size, and if she had just been induced a little earlier that her son wouldn't have had to suffer those problems.  I believed her and all, but I wanted to ask why a larger sized baby would have those types of problems (not the bruising, but the breathing trouble).  I had no clue just having a larger baby could be so bad for the baby?!  Is there actually something unsafe about having a 10 lb + baby even if you CAN push him/her out?  Or was it most likely that he had another problem unrelated to his size?

• 10-19-2009 12:00 PM

  In reply to

  Mom~of~Munchkins Joined on 09-14-2005 Posts 237

  Re: Apparently we're becoming like bulldogs? Reply Contact scarlet_willow: Mom~of~Munchkins: That was actually the point I wanted to make to my friend. The doctor says she just hereditarily can't bear children, but the fact is that really that can't be true. If what she has is inherited, then someway, somehow, she CAN vaginally have children. That is such a good point!  Some Drs must think we are real idiots haha  I'm sure there are some very legitimate reasons for inducing or just going straight into a c-section when the baby's size is a true concern.  I think I'd be more willing to err on the side of caution when protecting my baby's life (especially if I got more than 1 medical professional's opinion first).  I have a question that is somewhat related to this topic.  On another birth board I visit, the topic of whether to induce for fears of the baby's size came up.  One mother had a 10 lb baby and he had some bruising on the way out, plus had to actually spend time in NICU.  I can't remember exactly why he had to spend time in the NICU, but it seemed like a very legitimate reason, like he was having trouble breathing or something.  The mother attributed this to his size, and if she had just been induced a little earlier that her son wouldn't have had to suffer those problems.  I believed her and all, but I wanted to ask why a larger sized baby would have those types of problems (not the bruising, but the breathing trouble).  I had no clue just having a larger baby could be so bad for the baby?!  Is there actually something unsafe about having a 10 lb + baby even if you CAN push him/her out?  Or was it most likely that he had another problem unrelated to his size?   That likely isn't directly due to baby's size, to be honest. Gestational diabetes can lead to some problems in that department. What is likely the case is that she had a longer labor than her physicians wanted, as they expected her to have "too big a baby" to begin with. I bet they started pitocin to strengthen the contractions, which led to an epidural (if she didn't get the epi before the pitocin). Pit intensifies the contractions so much sometimes that the umbilical cord gets smashed, limiting oxygen to the baby. Also, pit contractions tend to be longer and closer together, limiting "recovery time" between the contractions for the baby. Also, they probably broke her water to speed up the labor, maybe before pit was administered. This leads to prolapse of the cord, as well, in some cases, especially those with a baby that is "high" before labor begins. Finally, epidurals are known to cause breathingn complications in the newborn. I experienced this, as well, with my first baby, who was only 7.5 lbs. He was high, we induced, broke the water, and I had an epi. He spent time on oxygen in the NICU, because of it. It certainly wasn't his size to blame.  Also, meconium aspiration can cause breathing complications as well. Excessively strong, prolonged contractions and early rupture of the membranes can facilitate meconium aspiration, which can cause pulmonary infection.   So, without knowing the exact nature of the birth itself, these are some of the common complications that lead to breathing complications in the newborn. Size of baby rarely leads to such complications on it's own.

• 10-19-2009 12:13 PM

  In reply to

  Mom~of~Munchkins Joined on 09-14-2005 Posts 237

  Re: Apparently we're becoming like bulldogs? Reply Contact Dave's Buttercup: I'm not discounting the blend of ethnic groups posing a slight issue on the topic, but I feel the greatest issue of all is the "advancements" that have been made in obstetrics that are leading to an increase in intervention.  Like intervention leads to more intervention... I found a great article supporting this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christiane-northrup/c-section-or-natural-birt_b_323422.html I don't want to continue to beat this to a pulp, LOL, I'm just finding more and more arguments against the "increased head size" as a factor, and more siding with interventions getting in the way of a woman's natural way to birth a baby.  Mom~of~Munchkins: I read an article several years ago that claimed there may be no more blondes in about 500 to 1000 years I wanted to add that they are teaching this in classes!  That true blondes will be gone within 1000 years.  Crazy!! I really don't think we're arguing different points. I'm just playing devil's advocate, here. You're right, though. If we're not screwing ourselves (as an individual) in the short term by doing so many interventions, we're definitely screwing ourselves (as a species) in the long-term. I hate interventions when unnecessary. They are almost never for the mom or the baby. If you're doctor tells you they are, he or she is either duped by the "medical bias" or is lying. Studies repeatedly show things like constant EFM are of no benefit to mother and baby and that intermittent monitoring is better. The reason constant EFM is so popular is because a labor and delivery RN in a major hospital who has 10 moms and babies to care for can't come into your room every half-hour for several minutes to do an intermitten auscult. No VBACs is a liability-based decision as well. Some interventions were introduced to save lives, but have become more a part of the litigative culture we're in.

• 10-20-2009 11:21 AM

  In reply to

  Dave's Buttercup Joined on 06-19-2008 Victor Colby Born 100% Naturally 1/12/2009 Posts 105

  Re: Apparently we're becoming like bulldogs? Reply Contact scarlet_willow: Mom~of~Munchkins: That was actually the point I wanted to make to my friend. The doctor says she just hereditarily can't bear children, but the fact is that really that can't be true. If what she has is inherited, then someway, somehow, she CAN vaginally have children. That is such a good point!  Some Drs must think we are real idiots haha  I'm sure there are some very legitimate reasons for inducing or just going straight into a c-section when the baby's size is a true concern.  I think I'd be more willing to err on the side of caution when protecting my baby's life (especially if I got more than 1 medical professional's opinion first).  I have a question that is somewhat related to this topic.  On another birth board I visit, the topic of whether to induce for fears of the baby's size came up.  One mother had a 10 lb baby and he had some bruising on the way out, plus had to actually spend time in NICU.  I can't remember exactly why he had to spend time in the NICU, but it seemed like a very legitimate reason, like he was having trouble breathing or something.  The mother attributed this to his size, and if she had just been induced a little earlier that her son wouldn't have had to suffer those problems.  I believed her and all, but I wanted to ask why a larger sized baby would have those types of problems (not the bruising, but th e breathing trouble).  I had no clue just having a larger baby could be so bad for the baby?!  Is there actually something unsafe about having a 10 lb + baby even if you CAN push him/her out?  Or was it most likely that he had another problem unrelated to his size?  It sounds to me that if he had a breathing issue at birth that inducing him prior to that could have led to even further breathing issues. Not all baby's lungs are fully developed right at 36 weeks. I highly doubt his birth weight had anything to do with it.