Pregnancy plus pilates equals a smarter baby

Women who exercise while pregnant will produce children with higher IQ’s reports this article posted in The Australian.

Richard Nisbett, a psychologist and father of two, argues against the popular theory that ‘intelligence is 80 per cent inherited’ in his new book, Intelligence and How to Get It. It seems that mothers are the pivotal factor in their child’s brain development and “fathers, whether absent or doting, have relatively little influence over their offspring’s intelligence.”

“Children whose mother exercised 30 minutes a day score around eight points higher on standard IQ tests than children whose mothers were more sedentary,” he said. “Breastfeeding for up to nine months may increase IQ by as much as six points.”

Previous generations of mothers were encouraged to avoid doing much exercise after the first three months of pregnancy. The latest research suggests that using light weights, stretching and even running can be beneficial to some.

“Exercising large muscle groups increases the growth of neurons and adds to the blood supply of the brain,” he writes.

As Sydney mother-to-be Geaorgia Troy points out, “exercise is good for everything”. One could say that excercising in adulthood can increase a persons IQ aswell. Either way, Nisbett’s arguement for mothers to breasfeed and exercise should not to scorned at, and whether his argument is sufficiently backed up or not would most definitely benefit mother and baby both.

Is Australia scared of home delivery?

An article published in The Weekend Australian on 28 March has highlighted a decrease in recent years in the amount of babies being home delivered. As homebirth babies have a two to three-fold risk if death, the issue is controversial and many people shy away from the topic. Recent mother, Natalie Hemingway gave birth to her 10 month old son at home. For her, it seemed the obvious choice.

 

“That’s what I saw when I was growing up, so birthing at home was normal to me,” says Hemingway, 27, who lives on Sydney’s lower north shore.

Homebirth in developed countries was the norm up until the past 50 years or so. In Australia today, homebirth can seem a radical choice, and the women who chose it anything from brave and alternative to misguided andloopy.

The recent federal government review of maternity services has done little to help bring the practice into the mainstream. It has inflamed an already heated debate over homebirths by stating it does not support Medicare funding of independent midwives attending homebirths. Described in the review as a controversial and sensitive issue that polarises the professions, it seems that homebirths are just too hot for Australia to handle, at least for now.

It seems both advocates and opponents of homebirth now have evidence to support their claims. A study of 5000 women planning homebirth in the US in 2000 provides gives the best available evidence surrounding the homeborth dilemma.

The results, published in the BMJ in 2005, showed that the rate of babies dying during labour or within 28 days of birth (intra-partum and neonatal mortality rate) was 1.7 deaths for every 1000 uncomplicated intended homebirths. The study (2005;330:1416-1419) said this was similar to risks in other studies of uncomplicated home and hospital births in North America.

The highly regarded Cochrane database, which assesses the highest quality evidence available, concludes that “there is no strong evidence to favour either home or hospital birth for selected, low-risk pregnant women”. Australian research, however, is scant and debates rage over what little research there is. In Holland, homebirth is an accepted government policy and the midwives who conduct homebirths are considered part of the medical profession. Maybe Australians greater conservative influences then that of our European counterparts. Either way, it seems homebirth, like many controversial issues, will always gather differenences in opinion.

According to Natalie Hemingway, “The biggest thing was being able to choose. Homebirth is just another choice that should be available to all women is that’s what they want.”

Australian Babies – Big Not Always Best

The popular preconceived notion of ‘a big baby is a healthy baby’ has been misproven in this article published by The Australian. The article focuses on a study conducted in the 16 years leading upto 2005 by Dr Ruth Hadfield. It seems the highly publisised ‘obesity epidemic’ is now hitting the womb with an increase in weight of babies born in NSW – but why and how is this happening.

Reasons tipped by the article include a decline in smoking since 1990 and a rising number mothers with gestational diabetes, both resulting in heavier babies. The study, published in the Medical Journal of Austrlia, highlights the risk for the infant if born overweight.

“For example, there is evidence of a relationship between high birth weight and the increased future risk of asthma, type one diabetes and a number of cancers, including infant and childhood leukaemia, and breast, prostate and colon cancer,” said Dr Hadfield, who is postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Sydney at Royal North Shore Hospital.

“As well as the potential for lifelong health consequences, higher birth weights may also result in injury to the infant and the mother at the time of delivery.”   

However, the article does not comment on the seriousness of a baby being born underweight. In the long term, is it healthier for a baby to be born a little over or under the scales? Despite the reasoning behind Hadfield and her research team, she herself states that”a large portion of the increase remains unnamed by our data.” It leaves us to ponder – and maybe reflect – on the lifestyle change our society has taken. Are our fast paced lives just being matched by fast food joints? Concepts such as lifestyle changes including technology, diet and gender issues are not mentioned in the article, leaving a gap in the reasoning behind it. In my opinion, it seems quite probable that babies are gettting bigger along with the rest of us.