Page 1 of 5
1
2
3
... LastLast
  1. #1
    Banned Tennis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    You wish you lived here
    Posts
    11,771

    Exclamation Overweight women trying for a baby urged to slim down before conception

    Experts have urged overweight women trying to have a baby to slim down before sex.

    The call comes after new research showed a rising risk of serious birth defects as the body mass index (BMI) of mothers increased.

    Women of reproductive age should be encouraged to "adopt a healthy lifestyle and to obtain a normal body weight before conception," said the authors.

    It was already known that being obese heightens the chances of a woman giving birth to a child with malformations that can affect physical appearance or the functioning of nerves and organs.

    But the new study revealed a sliding scale of risk that went up as weight increased.

    Researchers analysed data on more than 1.2 million live singleton births in Sweden, recorded between 2001 and 2014.

    Among normal weight mothers with a BMI of 18.5 to 24, a total of 3.4% had children with birth defects.

    Overweight mothers with a BMI of 25 to 29 had a birth defect risk of 3.5%. The rate of birth defects went up to 3.8% for obese women with a BMI of 30 to 34, and rose to 4.2% and 4.7% for higher categories of obesity.

    BMI is a measurement obtained by dividing weight in kilograms by height in centimetres squared. It takes account of different stature when assessing weight.


    The scientists, led by Martina Persson, from Sweden's Karolinska Institute, wrote in the British Medical Journal: "Risks of any major congenital malformation and several subgroups of organ specific malformations progressively increased with maternal overweight and increasing severity of obesity.

    "For women who are planning pregnancy, efforts should be encouraged to reduce adiposity in those with a BMI above the normal range."
    http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news...urged-13187692

    The thing is, are these people even listening? Do they even care?
    It's a real problem when they put their unborn baby at risk.

    On the positive side if you're trying to encourage someone to lose weight, this is another bit of proof that can be used.

  2. #2

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Celista View Post
    So, a little over 1% increased risk, if you are super obese. Ok.
    Tennis can never pass up another chance to go overweight people.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Celista View Post
    So, a little over 1% increased risk, if you are super obese. Ok.
    hey, I've heard a story about this obese woman that didn't even know she was pregnant up to the point where she was on the crapper, her water broke, kid slipped out, and came into the world via swirly. that 1% is fucking dangerous yo.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Celista View Post
    So, a little over 1% increased risk, if you are super obese. Ok.
    That is only for 35+ which is a huge range. I also wouldn't call that super obese, but that is probably because I have heard stories about pregnant women with BMIs over 60. If you have a high BMI, it is also highly likely the sonographer won't even be able to see if your baby has issues because the machines can't see through the body mass.

    Also, if you look at it as 3.5 vs 4.5, that is about a 30% increased chance of birth defects which is pretty significant.

  6. #6
    The Patient Odobisean's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    I'm in your area
    Posts
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by atsawin26 View Post
    Tennis can never pass up another chance to go overweight people.
    We should always have a go at overweight people. They're on the same tier of self-destruction as hard drugs, smoking and alcoholism and are a burden on socialized health care and welfare programs.

  7. #7
    Immortal Zandalarian Paladin's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Saurfang is the True Horde.
    Posts
    7,936
    Quote Originally Posted by Celista View Post
    So, a little over 1% increased risk, if you are super obese. Ok.
    1% increased risk is actually huge. Seriously, take this in context. That's an additional women every 100. If you have 100 000 obese pregnant women, at least 4700 will have a child with serious birth defect, whereas someone with a more leaner approach falls down to 3500. That's enormous. 3500/4700 = ~75/100.

    This literally means that for each three birth defect in healthy women, four will happen in less healthy people.

    I know you try to use the overall data to minimize this, but again taken in context, the impact of this study is clear.

    Of course that doesn't mean fat shaming is acceptable.
    Google Diversity Memo
    Learn to use critical thinking: https://youtu.be/J5A5o9I7rnA

    Political left, right similarly motivated to avoid rival views
    [...] we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism)..

  8. #8
    Merely a Setback PACOX's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ██████
    Posts
    26,281
    Quote Originally Posted by Archmage BloodElf4Life View Post
    1% increased risk is actually huge. Seriously, take this in context. That's an additional women every 100. If you have 100 000 obese pregnant women, at least 4700 will have a child with serious birth defect, whereas someone with a more leaner approach falls down to 3500. That's enormous. 3500/4700 = ~75/100.

    This literally means that for each three birth defect in healthy women, four will happen in less healthy people.

    I know you try to use the overall data to minimize this, but again taken in context, the impact of this study is clear.

    Of course that doesn't mean fat shaming is acceptable.
    Thats really not statistically significant.

    Resident Cosplay Progressive

  9. #9
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Odobisean View Post
    We should always have a go at overweight people. They're on the same tier of self-destruction as hard drugs, smoking and alcoholism and are a burden on socialized health care and welfare programs.
    Problem is having a go at them is only make them circle the wagons even tighter.
    Technically you're right.
    Practically you're a cunt.

  10. #10
    The Patient Odobisean's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    I'm in your area
    Posts
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by Dzudzadzo View Post
    Problem is having a go at them is only make them circle the wagons even tighter.
    Technically you're right.
    Practically you're a cunt.
    Put them in weight correction camps or heavily tax them and every sugary, calorie dense food/drink. Do it for the good of the greater family of the country.

  11. #11
    Legendary! The One Percent's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    ( ° ͜ʖ͡°)╭∩╮
    Posts
    6,437
    Some guys will fuck anything
    You're getting exactly what you deserve.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Odobisean View Post
    Put them in weight correction camps or heavily tax them and every sugary, calorie dense food/drink. Do it for the good of the greater family of the country.
    Careful man, your Fascism is showing.

    First they came for the fatties, and I said nothing.

  13. #13
    Immortal Zandalarian Paladin's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Saurfang is the True Horde.
    Posts
    7,936
    Quote Originally Posted by pacox View Post
    Thats really not statistically significant.
    But it is. Even more so with the humongous slice of population this study was based on.

    There's no point in denying the significance of this. 1.2 million child. If all women are obese, that's 56 400 children with birth defects. If they're all healthy, that's 42 000.

    14 400 children more. Apply this on the US as a whole, where obesity is on a rampage.

    Just like smoking, in any case, these statistics won't change anyone's habits.

    But to deny the facts and its significance is just absurd.
    Google Diversity Memo
    Learn to use critical thinking: https://youtu.be/J5A5o9I7rnA

    Political left, right similarly motivated to avoid rival views
    [...] we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism)..

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by IIBloodXLustII View Post
    Careful man, your Fascism is showing.

    First they came for the fatties, and I said nothing.
    The fun thing about fat people is that you can tell when they're actually being oppressed because they won't be fat anymore.

  15. #15
    Merely a Setback PACOX's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ██████
    Posts
    26,281
    Quote Originally Posted by Archmage BloodElf4Life View Post
    But it is. Even more so with the humongous slice of population this study was based on.

    There's no point in denying the significance of this. 1.2 million child. If all women are obese, that's 56 400 children with birth defects. If they're all healthy, that's 42 000.

    14 400 children more. Apply this on the US as a whole, where obesity is on a rampage.

    Just like smoking, in any case, these statistics won't change anyone's habits.

    But to deny the facts and its significance is just absurd.
    14k is a tiny portion of the US population, which is more than 300M. I think I get what you're talking about thought, its a stat that can be mitigated.

    Resident Cosplay Progressive

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Sky High View Post
    hey, I've heard a story about this obese woman that didn't even know she was pregnant up to the point where she was on the crapper, her water broke, kid slipped out, and came into the world via swirly. that 1% is fucking dangerous yo.
    My aunt did this, thought her baby was a bad 7-11 burrito and gave birth in a truck stop stall. Fortunately he's being raised by a different aunt and is doing pretty well now.
    He did end up with this problem though.
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-risk-in-kids/

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Odobisean View Post
    Put them in weight correction camps or heavily tax them and every sugary, calorie dense food/drink. Do it for the good of the greater family of the country.
    Don't tax food... I shouldn't have to pay extra because someone else has a problem with how much they consume or fails to exercise. Since like you said in your other post it is a burden on healthcare the practical thing would be to charge them more for healthcare. Just like how they charge certain people more for car insurance based on their risk.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by pacox View Post
    14k is a tiny portion of the US population, which is more than 300M. I think I get what you're talking about thought, its a stat that can be mitigated.
    Like the guy above me, there are other side effects for the children being born from obese mothers which weren't accounted for in this study.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Odobisean View Post
    We should always have a go at overweight people. They're on the same tier of self-destruction as hard drugs, smoking and alcoholism and are a burden on socialized health care and welfare programs.
    Pass. I don't need to be an asshole to others to feed my self-rightousness

  19. #19
    Banned Tennis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    You wish you lived here
    Posts
    11,771
    Quote Originally Posted by IIBloodXLustII View Post
    Careful man, your Fascism is showing.

    First they came for the fatties, and I said nothing.
    Ok let's play this game. First they came for the roundies. Then what? How is it a slippery slope from there?

  20. #20
    I am Murloc! Ravenblade's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Germany - Thuringia
    Posts
    5,056
    Quote Originally Posted by Odobisean View Post
    Put them in weight correction camps or heavily tax them and every sugary, calorie dense food/drink. Do it for the good of the greater family of the country.
    Boot camps for kids for government-ordered weight loss has actually been tried in the GDR back then. It had little sustaining effect as did the opposite for underweight kids put into camps, something I was placed in, it was a very traumatic experience which I still remember even if it was decades ago, effect lasted 4 weeks, yay! Honestly it is mostly a psychological issue which needs to be addressed and they vary from person to person so mass application has about zero effect because one-size-fits-all approach is what people thought in the '80s which would work. Once it is overcome the rest goes fairly easy, it automatically also grows an awareness they lacked before and also a sense of patience which they lacked because even today a lot "solutions" favour a quick and dirty approach. Most people grow disillusioned of these money-draining shortcuts doing nothing as they are caught in yet another yoyo cycle. Most people can be helped by telling them to watch their eating behaviour and not what they eat necessarily. This is why "fat bashing" is akin to trying to win a fight with a hedgehog by kicking it around.

    The problem is that contrary to say a century ago it is now an epidemic so ultimately you can count on lost generations already since you will never have the manpower to address it with lasting effect for the current generation. You will only have the industry keeping them fat and telling them that any diet can be done within 5 weeks.
    WoW: Crowcloak (Druid) & Neesheya (Paladin) @ Sylvanas EU (/ˈkaZHo͞oəl/) | GW2: Siqqa (Asura Engineer) @ Piken Square EU
    If builders built houses the way programmers built programs,the first woodpecker to come along would destroy civilization. - Weinberg's 2nd law

    He seeks them here, he seeks them there, he seeks those lupins everywhere!


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •