Diet, preeclampsia

[carl jones]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> > The diet suggests that a pregnant woman gain 40-70 lbs I believe.
> This is
> > hard weight to lose.
>
> Women's bodies react differently to pregnancy and breastfeeding. Some
> women will find it hard to lose pregnancy weight, some women will be
> really hungry during pregnancy but not during breastfeeding or vice
> versa, some women will find it scarily easy to lose pregnancy weight.

Breastfeeding helps with weight loss to be sure. However, 60 lbs is going to
be hard to lose no matter how you slice it.
>
> Personally, I'm down about 25 pounds from my pre-pregnancy weight
> because of breastfeeding, and I wasn't overweight to begin with.
> There's at least one other poster to mkb (on hiatus right now) with a
> two year old who's also having trouble keeping her weight up enough to
> stay in the normal range for her height. So obviously we had no
> trouble losing our pregnancy gains.

Jan (my wife) gained all of 9lbs during her first pregnancy. The baby and
placenta weighed more than 9 lbs. So we were understandibly nervous about
having a healthy baby. But all worked out well. It was hard to believe,. She
could button her winter jacket and didn't even show in the 9th month. So you
right: women's bodies do react differently to pregnancy. And as far as
breastfeeding goes; our baby was exclusively breastfed until the 8th month
then breastfed on demand untl the third year (when he just laughed if Mom
offered the breast)

> >> Anecdotally, I was *on* the Brewer diet when I developed severe
> >> pre-eclampsia at 33 weeks. This is not exactly a ringing
> endorsement.
>
> > Not exactly a ringing endorsement indeed. I wonder if there are other
> > pregnant women with a similar tale
>
> Lots, including the founder of the Preeclampsia Foundation at
> www.preeclampsia.org.

Thants for this site. I found it fascinating.
>
> It seems to me that there are primarily two sorts of women who report
> success with the Brewer diet. One sort says, "I was on the diet, and I
> didn't get toxemia. This is proof that the diet works." This is
> hardly surprising, though, given that 95% of all pregnant women do not
> get pre-eclampsia. The other sort says, "I had pre-eclampsia in my
> first pregnancy, so I ate the diet with my second pregnancy and I
> didn't get it again. This is proof that the diet works." Again, this
> is hardly surprising, given that the vast majority of pre-eclampsia
> cases occur in first pregnancies.

Highly suspect anecdotal information. Tom Brewer, however, has had some
success treating, preventing pre-eclampsia.
>
> This is why scientifically controlled studies are necessary. Anecdotes
> generally come from a skewed sample.

Yes.

>
> There are controlled studies which report that increasing protein and
> energy intake as the Brewer diet recommends is not helpful in
> preventing pre-eclampsia, though protein supplementation alone does
> appear to raise risk of small-for-gestational-age babies. Here's a
> link to the Cochrane database update from 2003:
>
>
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14583907
>
Another good website.

>> (Pre-eclampsia occurs in higher primates. Do gorillas just not eat
> well because their care providers tell them they should try to keep
> their figures and cut back on their salt intake?)

> This is interesting. Most midwives associate toxemia with poor diet.
>
> This is very, very new research, and has not necessarily trickled down
> to all care providers yet. Here's yet another new study published in
> September of this year confirming this view that pre-eclampsia is tied
> to an immune system response:
>
Thanks for a fascinating and well-informed post. I thoroughly enjoyed it and
learned a lot!

Carl

[[email protected]]

>> It seems to me that there are primarily two sorts of women who
report
>> success with the Brewer diet. One sort says, "I was on the diet, and
I
>> didn't get toxemia. This is proof that the diet works." This is
>> hardly surprising, though, given that 95% of all pregnant women do
not
>> get pre-eclampsia. The other sort says, "I had pre-eclampsia in my
>> first pregnancy, so I ate the diet with my second pregnancy and I
>> didn't get it again. This is proof that the diet works." Again, this
>> is hardly surprising, given that the vast majority of pre-eclampsia
>> cases occur in first pregnancies.
>
> Highly suspect anecdotal information. Tom Brewer, however, has had
some
> success treating, preventing pre-eclampsia.

He says that he has. However, he has published no peer-reviewed
research in this area. It would be very nice to get some. I'm not
saying that I know that that diet doesn't work, because hey -- it might
work, for some people. Until it gets thoroughly tested in multiple
studies, we can't say very much about it at all. But the preliminary
studies which have been conducted on increasing energy and/or protein
intake during pregnancy are not encouraging. The same is true of the
statistic I mentioned about pre-eclampsia incidence worldwide
regardless of the available foodstuffs in any given country.
--
C, mama to two year old nursling

[Jenrose]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>>> It seems to me that there are primarily two sorts of women who
> report
>>> success with the Brewer diet. One sort says, "I was on the diet, and
> I
>>> didn't get toxemia. This is proof that the diet works." This is
>>> hardly surprising, though, given that 95% of all pregnant women do
> not
>>> get pre-eclampsia. The other sort says, "I had pre-eclampsia in my
>>> first pregnancy, so I ate the diet with my second pregnancy and I
>>> didn't get it again. This is proof that the diet works." Again, this
>>> is hardly surprising, given that the vast majority of pre-eclampsia
>>> cases occur in first pregnancies.
>>
>> Highly suspect anecdotal information. Tom Brewer, however, has had
> some
>> success treating, preventing pre-eclampsia.
>
> He says that he has. However, he has published no peer-reviewed
> research in this area. It would be very nice to get some. I'm not
> saying that I know that that diet doesn't work, because hey -- it might
> work, for some people. Until it gets thoroughly tested in multiple
> studies, we can't say very much about it at all. But the preliminary
> studies which have been conducted on increasing energy and/or protein
> intake during pregnancy are not encouraging. The same is true of the
> statistic I mentioned about pre-eclampsia incidence worldwide
> regardless of the available foodstuffs in any given country.

One thing to note is that most of the things that Dr. Brewer recommends
actually *do* have positive effects on the "root causes" of some
preeclampsia. Clotting for example... we know that people who clot more tend
to get preeclampsia more... and there's some indication that things that
reduce clotting *may* reduce preeclampsia. Most of the medical research has
been focused on aspirin and other drugs, but foods are *important* in the
clotting cascade. For those with certain clotting issues, getting more
b-vitamins and folic acid will reduce the tendency to clot... and Dr.
Brewer's diet is high in both. In general, magnesium is more "anticoagulant"
and calcium is more "coagulant" (very simplistically)... which is why eating
plenty of food, rich in magnesium, may be more helpful than just
supplementing calcium, which was not shown to be helpful at all. I take
magnesium every day. It helps reduce my swelling, helps reduce cramping, and
helps keep my blood a little thinner.

Then look at the anecdotal info on Vitamin E in pregnancy..that it promotes
placental implantation. And it is also a known blood thinner. There's some
new research questioning Vitamin E's safety as an "all the time" thing, but
I suspect that for pregnancy in women at higher risk, taking it is better
than not.

Fluids... staying adequately hydrated helps not only keep the blood volume
well-expanded and helps the kidneys process more effectively, but
dehydration causes clots.

Dr. Brewer's diet is high in protein, vitamins, fluids... but I think he
misses a few possible points that could "complete" the picture.
Unfortunately he's not open to discussion of the issue (and if you've ever
been on his personal snail mail list you will understand why) at all. But
yes, there are more explanations for why his diet may work very well for
some women...and those explanations may explain perfectly why the diet
doesn't work for everyone. Clearly nutrition isn't the "only" factor...but
dismissing nutritional cures is just plain foolish. There are more reasons
than Dr. Brewer's info to look into diet for preeclampsia.

I saw a *clear* reaction in my body when I had a few bad days diet-wise and
vitamin wise. And restoring the vitamins and sufficient nutritious food and
fluids has had a near instant effect. It did with my daughter's pregnancy,
too, at the same stage. I started swelling, hands and face even, and in that
case, it went on longer and my bp started to rise. In that case I *only*
increased protein, fluids and salt, and had a dramatic reversal. In that
case, it was maybe more dramatic because I was worse off to start with...but
it wasn't a complete reversal. This time, I acted fast and it was complete.
Does that mean it will work for everyone? Nope. But I'd be foolish to ignore
positive results for myself.

Incidentally, mentioning to the people who are doing the cooking (my dad and
my husband primarily) that making sure dinner included protien, complex
carbs, green and orange veggies, etc. would make me healthier resulted in a
week of really healthy meals. When I showed them the difference, it
reinforced the message.

At the minimum, I feel like my responsibility is to make sure that I am
eating sufficient nutritious food and sleeping enough. There are few other
things that have been so clearly shown to help positive outcomes.

Jenrose

[Donna Metler]

FWIW, the high risk center here suggested a whole foods-type diet. The
primary difference from Brewer was that they didn't insist on huge
quantities-it was eat as much as you want. I also did vitamin supplements.
The stated goal with both was to keep my body as healthy and stable as
possible, because while they haven't seen that this necessarily helps as to
whether or not you GET PE in subsequent pregnancies, diet does seem to make
a difference as to how severe it gets and how soon. Which makes a lot of
sense to me. And, given that I developed initial symptoms at exactly the
same point in both pregnancies, but made it to 35 weeks instead of to 22 in
the second one, SOMETHING worked. And a healthy diet didn't hurt me any.

Unfortunately, I still ended up with 15 lbs to lose out of the 60 lb weight
gain-and I didn't need the extra weight.

--
Donna DeVore Metler
Orff Music Specialist/Band/Choir
Mother to Angel Brian Anthony 1/1/2002, 22 weeks, severe PE/HELLP
And Allison Joy, 11/26/04 (35 weeks, PIH, Pre-term labor)

[Anne Rogers]

> FWIW, the high risk center here suggested a whole foods-type diet. The
> primary difference from Brewer was that they didn't insist on huge
> quantities-it was eat as much as you want. I also did vitamin supplements.
> The stated goal with both was to keep my body as healthy and stable as
> possible, because while they haven't seen that this necessarily helps as
> to
> whether or not you GET PE in subsequent pregnancies, diet does seem to
> make
> a difference as to how severe it gets and how soon. Which makes a lot of
> sense to me. And, given that I developed initial symptoms at exactly the
> same point in both pregnancies, but made it to 35 weeks instead of to 22
> in
> the second one, SOMETHING worked. And a healthy diet didn't hurt me any.

I think the having to eat huge quantities could be very useful for mums of
multiples, mums at risk of low birth weight babies and mums starting at very
low body weight. I didn't try as hard as a should have done to eat well in
the first trimester this time, but still harder than last time, only time
will tell whether I did enough to make a difference.
>
> Unfortunately, I still ended up with 15 lbs to lose out of the 60 lb
> weight
> gain-and I didn't need the extra weight.

which is a relatively normal amount to have to lose after pregnancy, you'll
probably lose it gradually over the next year without having to actually
conciously do anything about it

[Dagny]

"Donna Metler" > wrote in message
...

> Unfortunately, I still ended up with 15 lbs to lose out of the 60 lb
weight
> gain-and I didn't need the extra weight.

You're not far enough out postpartum to know if or how much weight you will
have to lose by trying instead of by doing nothing, right?

I have also heard, that some women "hold on to" 10 or so pounds during
lactation. I didn't do that, but I have heard it -- that right after
weaning, BAM, weight falls off.

Where are you located, Donna? I see the Bellsouth address ... assume in the
Southeast?

-- Dagny

[Jenrose]

>
> Unfortunately, I still ended up with 15 lbs to lose out of the 60 lb
> weight
> gain-and I didn't need the extra weight.
>
>
You totally are not far enough from giving birth to worry about it right
now. It took 8 months to put the weight on, if you still have it when your
kiddo is 8 months old or so, then you can bitch all you want. <g>

Seriously, it's really, really hard for me to watch the scale go up--so
mostly I don't let myself get on it, because I know what happens when I
don't eat. I'd much rather have more weight to lose later (I'm pretty good
at losing weight) and a healthy baby than gain not-enough and have problems.

Jenrose

[Donna Metler]

"Dagny" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Donna Metler" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Unfortunately, I still ended up with 15 lbs to lose out of the 60 lb
> weight
> > gain-and I didn't need the extra weight.
>
> You're not far enough out postpartum to know if or how much weight you
will
> have to lose by trying instead of by doing nothing, right?
>
> I have also heard, that some women "hold on to" 10 or so pounds during
> lactation. I didn't do that, but I have heard it -- that right after
> weaning, BAM, weight falls off.
>
> Where are you located, Donna? I see the Bellsouth address ... assume in
the
> Southeast?
I'm in Memphis, TN.
>
> -- Dagny
>
>

[[email protected]]

> One thing to note is that most of the things that Dr. Brewer
recommends
> actually *do* have positive effects on the "root causes" of some
> preeclampsia.

"Some" being the key word. Obviously a change in diet at the first
sign of preeclampsia symptoms in the third trimester will do nothing to
improve placental invasiveness in the first -- and there's pretty broad
consensus at this point that PE is the result of a failure of the
spiral arteries to appropriately remodel the placental interface in the
first trimester. (Caryn puts up a big *not a doctor* disclaimer here.)

> Clotting for example... we know that people who clot more tend
> to get preeclampsia more... and there's some indication that things
that
> reduce clotting *may* reduce preeclampsia. Most of the medical
research has
> been focused on aspirin and other drugs, but foods are *important* in
the
> clotting cascade. For those with certain clotting issues, getting
more
> b-vitamins and folic acid will reduce the tendency to clot... and Dr.

> Brewer's diet is high in both. In general, magnesium is more
"anticoagulant"
> and calcium is more "coagulant" (very simplistically)... which is why
eating
> plenty of food, rich in magnesium, may be more helpful than just
> supplementing calcium, which was not shown to be helpful at all.

IIRC, there are now eight large studies indicating a minimal to no
protective effect from aspirin. Magnesium's been shown not to be
helpful at all either, in several small studies. Women with PE have
low blood levels of both calcium and magnesium...

Now, granted, poor perfusion appears to be the Big Problem. But the
new study data we're getting makes it look like this is caused not so
much by an increased amount of clotting factors but a decreased amount
of angiogenic ones; the ratio is skewed on the other side. An
increased level of clotting factors might tip someone over the edge
diagnostically sooner though.

> Then look at the anecdotal info on Vitamin E in pregnancy..that it
promotes
> placental implantation. And it is also a known blood thinner. There's
some
> new research questioning Vitamin E's safety as an "all the time"
thing, but
> I suspect that for pregnancy in women at higher risk, taking it is
better
> than not.

The jury is still out here, with studies still underway. And, of
course, anecdotally, I was supplementing E, and C, and folic acid. :-)

> Clearly nutrition isn't the "only" factor...but
> dismissing nutritional cures is just plain foolish. There are more
reasons
> than Dr. Brewer's info to look into diet for preeclampsia.

On the other hand, I have a good deal of trouble turning up any studies
indicating that diet has anything to do with PE. Granted, it would be
nice to get some real studies, instead of just questionnaires given to
severely preeclamptic women about their diets. Then again, several of
those women, like me, have a whole pregnancy's worth of Bradley method
diet sheets to hand over...

> I saw a *clear* reaction in my body when I had a few bad days
diet-wise and
> vitamin wise. And restoring the vitamins and sufficient nutritious
food and
> fluids has had a near instant effect. It did with my daughter's
pregnancy,
> too, at the same stage. I started swelling, hands and face even, and
in that
> case, it went on longer and my bp started to rise.

You do realize that this could just be PIH, not PE, and that swelling
is not one of the diagnostic criteria because so many pregnant women
have edema. Edema can often be, as Brewer puts it IIRC, a sign of a
perfectly healthy pregnancy with a nice fluid buffer to prevent shock
at delivery.

I'm beginning to be convinced that some of the things people refer to
as PE aren't PE at all. My independent swelling happened *after* I
started spilling protein, which makes perfect sense if the swelling
happens because the kidneys are failing.

[[email protected]]

> The stated goal with both was to keep my body as healthy and stable
as
> possible, because while they haven't seen that this necessarily helps
as to
> whether or not you GET PE in subsequent pregnancies, diet does seem
to make
> a difference as to how severe it gets and how soon.

Interesting. They told me that the primary effect of my diet would be
to make my recovery easier. I had a pretty easy recovery, although I
was as weak as a kitten for months afterwards. But I had minimal pain
and quick wound healing.

Then again, "quick wound healing" is probably a bad thing if you want
to avoid PE.
--
C, mama to two year old nursling

[Jenrose]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>> The stated goal with both was to keep my body as healthy and stable
> as
>> possible, because while they haven't seen that this necessarily helps
> as to
>> whether or not you GET PE in subsequent pregnancies, diet does seem
> to make
>> a difference as to how severe it gets and how soon.
>
> Interesting. They told me that the primary effect of my diet would be
> to make my recovery easier. I had a pretty easy recovery, although I
> was as weak as a kitten for months afterwards. But I had minimal pain
> and quick wound healing.
>
> Then again, "quick wound healing" is probably a bad thing if you want
> to avoid PE.

Not really. Wounds can heal without solid clots--they do it all the time.
The better you heal, the less likely you are to form clots in the wrong
place.

And the better nutrition, theoretically, the better your skin will be and
your tissues, and the less likely you'll be damaged and *need* to heal.

Jenrose

[Ericka Kammerer]

wrote:


> I'm beginning to be convinced that some of the things people refer to
> as PE aren't PE at all.

Absolutely. Given how poorly its etiology has been
understood, people were largely flying in the dark for diagnosis,
having only a constellation of symptoms that seemed to be
associated with PE. And, because of the potential severity
of the problem, people tend to err on the side of caution
just in case it *is* PE. I think lots of cases of PIH/TGH
have been diagnosed as PE (and probably other things as
well). That has probably led to quite a few unnecessary
interventions, but I suppose it's understandable given
the limited knowledge available. I think it will be a *huge*
advance in obstetrics when they can finally connect most
or all of the dots for PE, and wouldn't it be lovely if
that resulted in early detection, prevention, or even a
cure?!

Best wishes,
Ericka

[Jenrose]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>> One thing to note is that most of the things that Dr. Brewer
> recommends
>> actually *do* have positive effects on the "root causes" of some
>> preeclampsia.
>
> "Some" being the key word. Obviously a change in diet at the first
> sign of preeclampsia symptoms in the third trimester will do nothing to
> improve placental invasiveness in the first -- and there's pretty broad
> consensus at this point that PE is the result of a failure of the
> spiral arteries to appropriately remodel the placental interface in the
> first trimester. (Caryn puts up a big *not a doctor* disclaimer here.)
>

And I've been doing everything since long before I was pg... but skipping a
few days at 30 weeks was a Bad Idea.

>> Clotting for example... we know that people who clot more tend
>> to get preeclampsia more... and there's some indication that things
> that
>> reduce clotting *may* reduce preeclampsia. Most of the medical
> research has
>> been focused on aspirin and other drugs, but foods are *important* in
> the
>> clotting cascade. For those with certain clotting issues, getting
> more
>> b-vitamins and folic acid will reduce the tendency to clot... and Dr.
>
>> Brewer's diet is high in both. In general, magnesium is more
> "anticoagulant"
>> and calcium is more "coagulant" (very simplistically)... which is why
> eating
>> plenty of food, rich in magnesium, may be more helpful than just
>> supplementing calcium, which was not shown to be helpful at all.
>
> IIRC, there are now eight large studies indicating a minimal to no
> protective effect from aspirin. Magnesium's been shown not to be
> helpful at all either, in several small studies. Women with PE have
> low blood levels of both calcium and magnesium...
>

But the question is "when and how are they enrolling women" in those
studies? Low levels of magnesium in early pregnancy could just as easily
mess with the placenta as anything else... the trick is probably *when* to
supplement. That said, I've seen amazing things with mag supplmentation, and
there are things it can affect within hours. Full-blown PE? Probably not.
But as a preventative, it's easy and can't hurt.



> Now, granted, poor perfusion appears to be the Big Problem. But the
> new study data we're getting makes it look like this is caused not so
> much by an increased amount of clotting factors but a decreased amount
> of angiogenic ones; the ratio is skewed on the other side. An
> increased level of clotting factors might tip someone over the edge
> diagnostically sooner though.
>
>> Then look at the anecdotal info on Vitamin E in pregnancy..that it
> promotes
>> placental implantation. And it is also a known blood thinner. There's
> some
>> new research questioning Vitamin E's safety as an "all the time"
> thing, but
>> I suspect that for pregnancy in women at higher risk, taking it is
> better
>> than not.
>
> The jury is still out here, with studies still underway. And, of
> course, anecdotally, I was supplementing E, and C, and folic acid. :-)
>
>> Clearly nutrition isn't the "only" factor...but
>> dismissing nutritional cures is just plain foolish. There are more
> reasons
>> than Dr. Brewer's info to look into diet for preeclampsia.
>
> On the other hand, I have a good deal of trouble turning up any studies
> indicating that diet has anything to do with PE. Granted, it would be
> nice to get some real studies, instead of just questionnaires given to
> severely preeclamptic women about their diets. Then again, several of
> those women, like me, have a whole pregnancy's worth of Bradley method
> diet sheets to hand over...
>

And I'm not even pretending to follow the Brewer Diet per se. I don't do
dairy--it would make me horribly sick.


>> I saw a *clear* reaction in my body when I had a few bad days
> diet-wise and
>> vitamin wise. And restoring the vitamins and sufficient nutritious
> food and
>> fluids has had a near instant effect. It did with my daughter's
> pregnancy,
>> too, at the same stage. I started swelling, hands and face even, and
> in that
>> case, it went on longer and my bp started to rise.
>
> You do realize that this could just be PIH, not PE, and that swelling
> is not one of the diagnostic criteria because so many pregnant women
> have edema. Edema can often be, as Brewer puts it IIRC, a sign of a
> perfectly healthy pregnancy with a nice fluid buffer to prevent shock
> at delivery.
>

Yeah, but for me, swelling isn't typical and does go away if I change my
diet/fluid intake. Even at 9 months, I had "skinny" ankles (they're still
the only skinny part of me...lol!) I don't claim that I had PE...but I *am*
at higher risk because of my clotting issues, distance between children,
etc. etc.



> I'm beginning to be convinced that some of the things people refer to
> as PE aren't PE at all. My independent swelling happened *after* I
> started spilling protein, which makes perfect sense if the swelling
> happens because the kidneys are failing.
>

I suspect there are a couple of different things that make it happen, that
the reason no one can find one specific effective treatment is because there
isn't one specific cause, but several. I had one client's bp shoot up like
crazy and her body started to head toward PE... our best guess was that her
liver was having a hard time managing her heartburn meds. Because there
wasn't a single other likely risk factor for her--she was healthy as a
horse, ate a fantastic diet that she mostly grew herself, great shape, etc.
etc. But she was on *serious* heartburn drugs that all detoxed in the liver.

Jenrose

[Donna Metler]

"Ericka Kammerer" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
>
> > I'm beginning to be convinced that some of the things people refer to
> > as PE aren't PE at all.
>
> Absolutely. Given how poorly its etiology has been
> understood, people were largely flying in the dark for diagnosis,
> having only a constellation of symptoms that seemed to be
> associated with PE. And, because of the potential severity
> of the problem, people tend to err on the side of caution
> just in case it *is* PE. I think lots of cases of PIH/TGH
> have been diagnosed as PE (and probably other things as
> well). That has probably led to quite a few unnecessary
> interventions, but I suppose it's understandable given
> the limited knowledge available. I think it will be a *huge*
> advance in obstetrics when they can finally connect most
> or all of the dots for PE, and wouldn't it be lovely if
> that resulted in early detection, prevention, or even a
> cure?!
>
I also suspect that insurance plays into this. I've known women on the PE
boards who were kept inpatient with a PE diagnosis and symptoms similar to
the ones where my insurance company insisted I be sent home since I "just"
had PIH.

I just hope they have the PE puzzle solved before my daughter is old enough
to have children, since there does seem to be some hereditary components.
And, of course, that assumes that HELLP is really a form of PE, instead of
another condition with similar symptoms and totally different causes.


> Best wishes,
> Ericka
>

[Donna Metler]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> > The stated goal with both was to keep my body as healthy and stable
> as
> > possible, because while they haven't seen that this necessarily helps
> as to
> > whether or not you GET PE in subsequent pregnancies, diet does seem
> to make
> > a difference as to how severe it gets and how soon.
>
> Interesting. They told me that the primary effect of my diet would be
> to make my recovery easier. I had a pretty easy recovery, although I
> was as weak as a kitten for months afterwards. But I had minimal pain
> and quick wound healing.
>
> Then again, "quick wound healing" is probably a bad thing if you want
> to avoid PE.
I wonder how much of the diet advice (and the vitamin supplementation) is
placebo effect, especially in subsequent pregnancies, to make you FEEL like
you're doing something positive to help the baby? Of course, I'm also not
sure if statistically I'm a success story or not, since I did have PE
symptoms from 22 weeks on, but never quite met the strict diagnostic
criteria for PE (although I suspect that had I not gone into labor, I would
have within the next few days, because my symptoms got so much worse).


> --
> C, mama to two year old nursling
>

[[email protected]]

Ericka Kammerer wrote:
> wrote:
>
>
> > I'm beginning to be convinced that some of the things people refer
to
> > as PE aren't PE at all.
>
> Absolutely. Given how poorly its etiology has been
> understood, people were largely flying in the dark for diagnosis,
> having only a constellation of symptoms that seemed to be
> associated with PE. And, because of the potential severity
> of the problem, people tend to err on the side of caution
> just in case it *is* PE. I think lots of cases of PIH/TGH
> have been diagnosed as PE (and probably other things as
> well). That has probably led to quite a few unnecessary
> interventions, but I suppose it's understandable given
> the limited knowledge available.

>From what I've been told, they now think that PIH is maybe what happens
when the placenta gets hypoxic and dumps sFlt1, but the arteries
*aren't* impaired -- and that it's incredibly normal for that to happen
at the end of pregnancies. Look at all the posters we have here with
edema and elevated bp towards the end of their pregnancies. Evidently
sFlt1 is present in all pregnancies, but only present early and in huge
amounts in PE ones. That makes a differential diagnosis particularly
difficult, of course.

> I think it will be a *huge*
> advance in obstetrics when they can finally connect most
> or all of the dots for PE, and wouldn't it be lovely if
> that resulted in early detection, prevention, or even a
> cure?!

Yes yes yes. I'd like to have another child someday, and a 40% chance
of getting that again is way freaking high. :-)
--
C, mama to two year old nursling

[Anne Rogers]

> I wonder how much of the diet advice (and the vitamin supplementation) is
> placebo effect, especially in subsequent pregnancies, to make you FEEL
> like
> you're doing something positive to help the baby? Of course, I'm also not
> sure if statistically I'm a success story or not, since I did have PE
> symptoms from 22 weeks on, but never quite met the strict diagnostic
> criteria for PE (although I suspect that had I not gone into labor, I
> would
> have within the next few days, because my symptoms got so much worse).

aren't our bodies great? when I read your birth story, I was thinking, cool,
Donna's body decided to get the baby out before she got really sick. It
doesn't always work like that but loads of times it does, particularly in
2nd or later pregnancies.

[carl jones]

"Anne Rogers" > wrote in message
news:1104718268.b47a264e5f7d3f710b07abf50ad12739@t eranews...
>
> I think the having to eat huge quantities could be very useful for mums of
> multiples, mums at risk of low birth weight babies and mums starting at
very
> low body weight. I didn't try as hard as a should have done to eat well in
> the first trimester this time, but still harder than last time, only time
> will tell whether I did enough to make a difference.

I think you are right. Moms with multiples or at risk of having low birth
weight babies should be encourage to eat well. This still doesn't justify
Gail Brewer's diet - she suggest a weight gain of upward of 60 lbs which is
unecessary, in my opinions

Carl

[Chookie]

In article >,
"carl jones" > wrote:

> > It seems to me that there are primarily two sorts of women who report
> > success with the Brewer diet. One sort says, "I was on the diet, and I
> > didn't get toxemia. This is proof that the diet works." This is
> > hardly surprising, though, given that 95% of all pregnant women do not
> > get pre-eclampsia. The other sort says, "I had pre-eclampsia in my
> > first pregnancy, so I ate the diet with my second pregnancy and I
> > didn't get it again. This is proof that the diet works." Again, this
> > is hardly surprising, given that the vast majority of pre-eclampsia
> > cases occur in first pregnancies.
>
> Highly suspect anecdotal information. Tom Brewer, however, has had some
> success treating, preventing pre-eclampsia.

No; he CLAIMS that he has. Trying to find any proof of his claim is another
matter!

> >> (Pre-eclampsia occurs in higher primates. Do gorillas just not eat
> > well because their care providers tell them they should try to keep
> > their figures and cut back on their salt intake?)
>
> > This is interesting. Most midwives associate toxemia with poor diet.

That would be the ill-informed ones. Any pre-eclampsia association can tell
you the latest state of research on this, and "poor diet" is not it. Here are
risk factors for Australian women, for example:

http://www.preeclampsia.org.au/expert/risk.htm

It is true that malnutrition is associated with higher rates of PE, but that
is *malnutrition*, not just "poor diet". There is a difference between "being
in the Siege of Leningrad" and "having too many meals at Macdonald's".

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Life is like a cigarette -- smoke it to the butt." -- Harvie Krumpet

[[email protected]]

Jenrose wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...

> > Then again, "quick wound healing" is probably a bad thing if you
want
> > to avoid PE.
>
> Not really. Wounds can heal without solid clots--they do it all the
time.
> The better you heal, the less likely you are to form clots in the
wrong
> place.

I wasn't thinking of clotting per se. I was thinking mostly about the
strong association between PE and autoimmune issues, and the
inflammatory activation of STAT proteins, and the similarity between
placentas and tumors. The immune system response that keeps the
placenta from implanting properly in the first trimester looks a whole
lot like the wound healing response in some respects; the placenta
might not be able to erode the uterine wall effectively purely because
the cells of the maternal immune system keep repairing it. (We have a
good idea now that the placentas of PE pregnancies do not invade
properly during the first trimester. You can spot that with a Doppler
pretty readily.)

But that's only one possible mechanism by which the immune system could
be working here, and is still speculative.
--
C, mama to two year old nursling

[Jenrose]

"carl jones" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Anne Rogers" > wrote in message
> news:1104718268.b47a264e5f7d3f710b07abf50ad12739@t eranews...
>>
>> I think the having to eat huge quantities could be very useful for mums
>> of
>> multiples, mums at risk of low birth weight babies and mums starting at
> very
>> low body weight. I didn't try as hard as a should have done to eat well
>> in
>> the first trimester this time, but still harder than last time, only time
>> will tell whether I did enough to make a difference.
>
> I think you are right. Moms with multiples or at risk of having low birth
> weight babies should be encourage to eat well. This still doesn't justify
> Gail Brewer's diet - she suggest a weight gain of upward of 60 lbs which
> is
> unecessary, in my opinions
>

I think making recommendations one way or another about weight gain is
really missing the point entirely. I eat when I'm hungry. I try to focus on
healthier foods, but when I was nauseated just ate whatever actually sounded
like it wouldn't make me toss my cookies. I'm eating healthier now in late
pregnancy than I did in early pregnancy, just because I'm not nauseated all
the time. And I rarely step on the scale, and I'm not keeping close track.

I tend to put on between 45 and 50 pounds in a pregnancy. My family tends to
grow 7 pounds 11 ounce babies or thereabouts. I produce a *ton* of milk, and
lose the weight reasonably quickly.

My best friend's family doesn't tend to put on much weight at all in
pregnancy. Her sister has popped out 9 pounders with a 17 pound *loss*. My
best friend had a smaller baby--but she also had high blood pressure and
didn't eat as well. She ended up smaller after her pregnancy than before,
but may be putting it back on during a time in which I'd be losing.

I wish they'd just *ban* scales from Dr. offices, etc. Because it puts the
focus not on nutrition but on the silly numbers. And the
recommendations--don't take into account at *all* that the same things that
made me heavy in the first place make me put on weight *really* easily
during pregnancy. I'd literally have to starve myself to stay within the
"recommended" 15 pounds--and would end up with all manner of problems. When
just eating well and breastfeeding will have me growing a healthy baby and
the weight will come off later.

It's much easier to lose weight than it is to deal with a low-birthweight
baby. I think erring on the side of more food is probably safer than not
enough.

Jenrose

[Anne Rogers]

> It is true that malnutrition is associated with higher rates of PE, but
> that
> is *malnutrition*, not just "poor diet". There is a difference between
> "being
> in the Siege of Leningrad" and "having too many meals at Macdonald's".

LOL, we live above Burger King, it's just sooooo tempting, it's also dirt
cheap too

[Chookie]

In article <1104671817.10809ed9858d1cc2fed03c54a4bf5fd4@terane ws>,
"Jenrose" > wrote:

> One thing to note is that most of the things that Dr. Brewer recommends
> actually *do* have positive effects on the "root causes" of some
> preeclampsia. Clotting for example... we know that people who clot more tend
> to get preeclampsia more...

Um, no -- we know that people with blood clotting disorders and some
autoimmune disorders (especially lupus) are more prone to PE.

<snip stuff that Caryn has already covered>

> Dr. Brewer's diet is high in protein, vitamins, fluids... but I think he
> misses a few possible points that could "complete" the picture.
> Unfortunately he's not open to discussion of the issue (and if you've ever
> been on his personal snail mail list you will understand why) at all. But

Do tell!

<snip>

> I saw a *clear* reaction in my body when I had a few bad days diet-wise and
> vitamin wise. And restoring the vitamins and sufficient nutritious food and
> fluids has had a near instant effect. It did with my daughter's pregnancy,
> too, at the same stage. I started swelling, hands and face even, and in that
> case, it went on longer and my bp started to rise. In that case I *only*
> increased protein, fluids and salt, and had a dramatic reversal. In that
> case, it was maybe more dramatic because I was worse off to start with...but
> it wasn't a complete reversal. This time, I acted fast and it was complete.
> Does that mean it will work for everyone? Nope. But I'd be foolish to ignore
> positive results for myself.
>
> Incidentally, mentioning to the people who are doing the cooking (my dad and
> my husband primarily) that making sure dinner included protien, complex
> carbs, green and orange veggies, etc. would make me healthier resulted in a
> week of really healthy meals. When I showed them the difference, it
> reinforced the message.

Well, if I were being given meals that were low in protein, complex
carbohydrates and green and orange vegies (what does that leave, spuds?), I'd
expect to feel crook. What on earth were they feeding you? Mind you, I would
be complaining about the cooking even before I started complaining about
symptoms...

I am not sure why you felt the need to increase the salt in your diet. Most
of us get more than enough sodium (particularly when we *know* we're eating
poorly -- junk food has a lot of it). It has been known for some time that
hypertension in pregnancy is unaffected by sodium intake, but that is no
reason to increase your sodium.

In Australia, we do not use oedema as a diagnostic criterion for PE at all.
Here, you need high blood pressure, plus one or more of these: protein in the
urine (or related kidney problems), liver pain (or other liver problems),
headache (or other neurological symptoms), blood abnormalities or a baby small
for gestational age.

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Life is like a cigarette -- smoke it to the butt." -- Harvie Krumpet

[Jenrose]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Jenrose wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>
>> > Then again, "quick wound healing" is probably a bad thing if you
> want
>> > to avoid PE.
>>
>> Not really. Wounds can heal without solid clots--they do it all the
> time.
>> The better you heal, the less likely you are to form clots in the
> wrong
>> place.
>
> I wasn't thinking of clotting per se. I was thinking mostly about the
> strong association between PE and autoimmune issues, and the
> inflammatory activation of STAT proteins, and the similarity between
> placentas and tumors. The immune system response that keeps the
> placenta from implanting properly in the first trimester looks a whole
> lot like the wound healing response in some respects; the placenta
> might not be able to erode the uterine wall effectively purely because
> the cells of the maternal immune system keep repairing it. (We have a
> good idea now that the placentas of PE pregnancies do not invade
> properly during the first trimester. You can spot that with a Doppler
> pretty readily.)

Gotcha. But still, thinners help, because part of the "active wound healing"
process is clotting, and thinners reduce that, making it easier for the
placenta to implant deeply. Or so the theory says. When I miscarried, it was
brutally difficult--and when we examined the placenta we could see how
deeply and well it had implanted--the chorionic villi were clear. It had
clearly taken some work for my body to actually get the placenta off to pass
it--and felt like that, too. It was actually reassuring, seeing no clots on
the placenta, to know that I'd managed to thin myself out enough that it was
unlikely that clot issues were the cause of the miscarriage.

Jenrose

[Jenrose]

"Chookie" > wrote in message
...
> In article <1104671817.10809ed9858d1cc2fed03c54a4bf5fd4@terane ws>,
> "Jenrose" > wrote:
>
>> One thing to note is that most of the things that Dr. Brewer recommends
>> actually *do* have positive effects on the "root causes" of some
>> preeclampsia. Clotting for example... we know that people who clot more
>> tend
>> to get preeclampsia more...
>
> Um, no -- we know that people with blood clotting disorders and some
> autoimmune disorders (especially lupus) are more prone to PE.
>

Isn't that what I just said?

> <snip stuff that Caryn has already covered>
>
>> Dr. Brewer's diet is high in protein, vitamins, fluids... but I think he
>> misses a few possible points that could "complete" the picture.
>> Unfortunately he's not open to discussion of the issue (and if you've
>> ever
>> been on his personal snail mail list you will understand why) at all. But
>
> Do tell!
>
He tends to send a lot of newspaper clippings with stuff scrawled all over
it, the same things over and over again, and if you ever try to send him a
note saying, "Hey, look at this bit of research" he runs off on the same
rant over and over again. Not conducive to having a rational conversation.

> <snip>
>
>> I saw a *clear* reaction in my body when I had a few bad days diet-wise
>> and
>> vitamin wise. And restoring the vitamins and sufficient nutritious food
>> and
>> fluids has had a near instant effect. It did with my daughter's
>> pregnancy,
>> too, at the same stage. I started swelling, hands and face even, and in
>> that
>> case, it went on longer and my bp started to rise. In that case I *only*
>> increased protein, fluids and salt, and had a dramatic reversal. In that
>> case, it was maybe more dramatic because I was worse off to start
>> with...but
>> it wasn't a complete reversal. This time, I acted fast and it was
>> complete.
>> Does that mean it will work for everyone? Nope. But I'd be foolish to
>> ignore
>> positive results for myself.
>>
>> Incidentally, mentioning to the people who are doing the cooking (my dad
>> and
>> my husband primarily) that making sure dinner included protien, complex
>> carbs, green and orange veggies, etc. would make me healthier resulted in
>> a
>> week of really healthy meals. When I showed them the difference, it
>> reinforced the message.
>
> Well, if I were being given meals that were low in protein, complex
> carbohydrates and green and orange vegies (what does that leave, spuds?),
> I'd
> expect to feel crook. What on earth were they feeding you? Mind you, I
> would
> be complaining about the cooking even before I started complaining about
> symptoms...
>
Oh, I'd get 2 of the above... but a lot of times it would focus on refined
starches and protein without enough veggies. So I nudged 'em to get more
whole grains in there and upped the protein a bit. Also it's a lousy time of
year for fresh fruits and veggies here.

> I am not sure why you felt the need to increase the salt in your diet.
> Most
> of us get more than enough sodium (particularly when we *know* we're
> eating
> poorly -- junk food has a lot of it). It has been known for some time
> that
> hypertension in pregnancy is unaffected by sodium intake, but that is no
> reason to increase your sodium.
>

Just salting to taste while increasing fluids.

Jenrose

[[email protected]]

>> Magnesium's been shown not to be
>> helpful at all either, in several small studies.
>
> But the question is "when and how are they enrolling women" in those
> studies? Low levels of magnesium in early pregnancy could just as
easily
> mess with the placenta as anything else... the trick is probably
*when* to
> supplement. That said, I've seen amazing things with mag
supplmentation, and
> there are things it can affect within hours. Full-blown PE? Probably
not.
> But as a preventative, it's easy and can't hurt.

The Cochrane review says it probably can't help either;
http://www.update-software.com/Abstracts/AB000937.htm

Here's a quote:

"Main Results: Seven trials involving 2689 women were included. Six of
these trials randomly allocated women to either an oral magnesium
supplement or a control group, whist the largest trial with 985 women
had a cluster design where randomisation was according to study centre.
The analysis was conducted with and without the cluster trial.In the
analysis of all trials, oral magnesium treatment from before the 25th
week of gestation was associated with a lower frequency of preterm
birth, (relative risk (RR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to
0.94), a lower frequency of low birth weight (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.46 to
0.96) and fewer small for gestational age infants (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.53
to 0.93) compared with placebo. In addition, magnesium treated women
had less hospitalisations during pregnancy (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.49 to
0.89) and fewer cases of antepartum haemorrhage (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.16
to 0.90) than placebo treated women.In the analysis excluding the
cluster randomised trial, the effects of magnesium treatment on the
frequencies of preterm birth, low birth weight and small for
gestational age were not different from placebo.Of the seven trials
included in the review, only one was judged to be of high quality. Poor
quality trials are likely to have resulted in a bias favouring
magnesium supplementation."

Note that even in these trials biased in favor of mag supplementation,
there was no effect on pre-eclampsia rates.

> Yeah, but for me, swelling isn't typical and does go away if I change
my
> diet/fluid intake.

Yeah, but for me, swelling isn't typical and doesn't go away if I
change my diet/fluid intake. :-)

Anecdotal evidence.

I can find virtually *no* studies which find an association between
diet and PE rates. I can find one... from 1936 IIRC... which Brewer
cites. The better-designed newer studies have consistently found no
correlation whatsoever. The closest I can get is a strong correlation
between BMI and PE, but this is likely an indictment of metabolic
syndrome (kidney, liver, PCOS.)

> I suspect there are a couple of different things that make it happen,
that
> the reason no one can find one specific effective treatment is
because there
> isn't one specific cause, but several.

I suspect that the newer research wrt sFlt-1 and the failure of the
invading cells to convert to an endothelial type will result in one
specific, effective treatment Real Soon here. (Maybe not soon enough
for me, but hey.) There's strong preliminary research support for the
idea that the placenta just doesn't grow right in PE women, because
placental growth factor levels are too low, and that the removal of
free VEGF from the bloodstream by sFlt-1 leads to the downstream
characteristics of PE.

That mechanism is especially intriguing given that hypoxia upregulates
expression of sFlt-1, though which comes first in the cascade is still
maddeningly unclear. There's allllll sorts of ways to get hypoxic
though, so some people with properly implanted placentas might well
experience some PE symptoms if their bodies aren't, for one reason or
another, capable of maintaining a good oxygenation of the placenta.
And the people with poorly implanted placentas are classic PE cases
(and virtually every recent study starts out with a sentence something
like "PE is characterised by shallowly implanted placentas that...")
Serum levels of sFlt-1 go up the more severe a case of PE is, with mild
PE cases having values much closer to controls. And hypoxia is a
possible argument for antioxidant therapy, obviously.

They're working now on a predictive blood test for the first trimester
and a predictive urine test for the second, because in the women in the
lowest tertile of placental growth factor have something like a 29-fold
increased risk for PE. That's a much, much solider association than
anything I can find with respect to diet. Yeah, sure, diet might
affect how the placenta initially implants, but if it does, I ought to
be able to find some studies with intriguing correlations between diet
and PE, and I can't.

Here's another study quote:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14764923

"The sFlt-1 level increased beginning approximately five weeks before
the onset of preeclampsia. At the onset of clinical disease, the mean
serum level in the women with preeclampsia was 4382 pg per milliliter,
as compared with 1643 pg per milliliter in controls with fetuses of
similar gestational age (P<0.001). The PlGF levels were significantly
lower in the women who later had preeclampsia than in the controls
beginning at 13 to 16 weeks of gestation (mean, 90 pg per milliliter
vs. 142 pg per milliliter, P=0.01), with the greatest difference
occurring during the weeks before the onset of preeclampsia, coincident
with the increase in the sFlt-1 level."

And check this out:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12855650
It says that sFlt-1 screws up the liver.

And see
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11262466,
a large cohort study which found no statistically significant
differences in nutrient intake between PE cases and controls.

"By means of logistic regression a baseline risk model was constructed
for preeclampsia and pregnancy-associated hypertension. After
adjustment for treatment and clinical site, body mass index >26 kg/m(2)
and race were significantly associated with an increased risk of
preeclampsia. Body mass index > or =35 kg/m(2), race, and never smoking
were significantly associated with an increased risk of
pregnancy-associated hypertension. After adjustment for baseline risks,
none of the 28 nutritional factors analyzed were significantly related
to either preeclampsia or pregnancy-associated hypertension."

If you have *any* studies linking diet and PE, please point me at them!
--
C, mama to two year old nursling

[Donna Metler]

"Chookie" > wrote in message
...
> In article <1104671817.10809ed9858d1cc2fed03c54a4bf5fd4@terane ws>,
> "Jenrose" > wrote:
>
> > One thing to note is that most of the things that Dr. Brewer recommends
> > actually *do* have positive effects on the "root causes" of some
> > preeclampsia. Clotting for example... we know that people who clot more
tend
> > to get preeclampsia more...
>
> Um, no -- we know that people with blood clotting disorders and some
> autoimmune disorders (especially lupus) are more prone to PE.
>
> <snip stuff that Caryn has already covered>
>
> > Dr. Brewer's diet is high in protein, vitamins, fluids... but I think he
> > misses a few possible points that could "complete" the picture.
> > Unfortunately he's not open to discussion of the issue (and if you've
ever
> > been on his personal snail mail list you will understand why) at all.
But
>
> Do tell!
>
> <snip>
>
> > I saw a *clear* reaction in my body when I had a few bad days diet-wise
and
> > vitamin wise. And restoring the vitamins and sufficient nutritious food
and
> > fluids has had a near instant effect. It did with my daughter's
pregnancy,
> > too, at the same stage. I started swelling, hands and face even, and in
that
> > case, it went on longer and my bp started to rise. In that case I *only*
> > increased protein, fluids and salt, and had a dramatic reversal. In that
> > case, it was maybe more dramatic because I was worse off to start
with...but
> > it wasn't a complete reversal. This time, I acted fast and it was
complete.
> > Does that mean it will work for everyone? Nope. But I'd be foolish to
ignore
> > positive results for myself.
> >
> > Incidentally, mentioning to the people who are doing the cooking (my dad
and
> > my husband primarily) that making sure dinner included protien, complex
> > carbs, green and orange veggies, etc. would make me healthier resulted
in a
> > week of really healthy meals. When I showed them the difference, it
> > reinforced the message.
>
> Well, if I were being given meals that were low in protein, complex
> carbohydrates and green and orange vegies (what does that leave, spuds?),
I'd
> expect to feel crook. What on earth were they feeding you? Mind you, I
would
> be complaining about the cooking even before I started complaining about
> symptoms...
>
> I am not sure why you felt the need to increase the salt in your diet.
Most
> of us get more than enough sodium (particularly when we *know* we're
eating
> poorly -- junk food has a lot of it). It has been known for some time
that
> hypertension in pregnancy is unaffected by sodium intake, but that is no
> reason to increase your sodium.
>
> In Australia, we do not use oedema as a diagnostic criterion for PE at
all.
> Here, you need high blood pressure, plus one or more of these: protein in
the
> urine (or related kidney problems), liver pain (or other liver problems),
> headache (or other neurological symptoms), blood abnormalities or a baby
small
> for gestational age.
>
Interesing-by that standard, I had PE in this last pregnancy from 22 weeks,
while in the USA, I never quite made the requirements, because I never got
the +2 on protein required. But I did have headaches with neurological
symptoms (which is why I ended up on phenobarbital) and high blood pressure.


> --
> Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
> (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)
>
> "Life is like a cigarette -- smoke it to the butt." -- Harvie Krumpet

[Nikki]

Chookie wrote:

> In Australia, we do not use oedema as a diagnostic criterion for PE
> at all. Here, you need high blood pressure, plus one or more of
> these: protein in the urine (or related kidney problems), liver pain
> (or other liver problems), headache (or other neurological symptoms),
> blood abnormalities or a baby small for gestational age.

I'm in the US. I did not have PE but was watched closely for it since I had
high blood pressure. Since I have always had headaches and ocular migraines
from time to time I couldn't use that as a symptom unless it was accompanied
by some other feeling of unwellness or increased to a crazy frequency. I
was told that rapid swelling of the face should be immediately reported but
that other swelling was expected. I gained 60lbs according to the doctor.
I'm sure it was more then that because her first weigh in was at 12 weeks
and I always eat like a horse the first trimester. Baby was 8lbs 9oz, full
term, and healthy. 4 ounces smaller then my first baby.

They also monitored the other items you mentioned.


--
Nikki

[Anne Rogers]

>
> I wish they'd just *ban* scales from Dr. offices, etc. Because it puts the
> focus not on nutrition but on the silly numbers. And the
> recommendations--don't take into account at *all* that the same things
> that made me heavy in the first place make me put on weight *really*
> easily during pregnancy. I'd literally have to starve myself to stay
> within the "recommended" 15 pounds--and would end up with all manner of
> problems. When just eating well and breastfeeding will have me growing a
> healthy baby and the weight will come off later.

15lb? I think in England they are saying 15kg not 15lb, that is if you are
starting at a normal weight. Obviously for you a specific weight gain is a
bad thing, for me, I eat when I am hungry, but I'm not sure the signals are
quite right from my stomach. Under 6lb babies are not normal range, nor are
normal for my family, who mostly produce very average 7lb something babies,
the only 6lbers have been one of twins, plus my dad who was is just
abnormal, his little sister was the same height as him when she was 3 and he
was 6!

I haven't targeted any specific weight gain, but perhaps I should, last time
I had a small baby and struggled with milk production, who knows what will
happen this time.

Anne

[Chookie]

In article <1104931655.ae9bfa84ec48677f05019b0fdc20a284@terane ws>,
"Jenrose" > wrote:

> "Chookie" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <1104671817.10809ed9858d1cc2fed03c54a4bf5fd4@terane ws>,
> > "Jenrose" > wrote:
> >
> >> One thing to note is that most of the things that Dr. Brewer recommends
> >> actually *do* have positive effects on the "root causes" of some
> >> preeclampsia. Clotting for example... we know that people who clot more
> >> tend to get preeclampsia more...
> >
> > Um, no -- we know that people with blood clotting disorders and some
> > autoimmune disorders (especially lupus) are more prone to PE.
>
> Isn't that what I just said?

I thought you were talking about a general tendency, not specific disorders.

> > <snip stuff that Caryn has already covered>
> >
> >> Dr. Brewer's diet is high in protein, vitamins, fluids... but I think he
> >> misses a few possible points that could "complete" the picture.
> >> Unfortunately he's not open to discussion of the issue (and if you've
> >> ever been on his personal snail mail list you will understand why)
> >> at all. But
> >
> > Do tell!
> >
> He tends to send a lot of newspaper clippings with stuff scrawled all over
> it, the same things over and over again, and if you ever try to send him a
> note saying, "Hey, look at this bit of research" he runs off on the same
> rant over and over again. Not conducive to having a rational conversation.

Yeah, just the kinda guy I'd trust to give me medical advice -- the ones who
scribble on newspaper clippings. Yikes!

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Life is like a cigarette -- smoke it to the butt." -- Harvie Krumpet

[Chookie]

In article <1104929778.b758650bf5ec28d6f1b7acfcf6d5e61a@terane ws>,
"Jenrose" > wrote:

> I wish they'd just *ban* scales from Dr. offices, etc. Because it puts the
> focus not on nutrition but on the silly numbers. And the
> recommendations--don't take into account at *all* that the same things that
> made me heavy in the first place make me put on weight *really* easily
> during pregnancy. I'd literally have to starve myself to stay within the
> "recommended" 15 pounds--and would end up with all manner of problems.

15 *kg* is the *average* gain, I thought, with a fairly wide range.

The only good reason to keep an eye on your weight is that a sudden weight
gain can be a sign of kidney trouble/pre-eclampsia. I suppose a very low
weight gain (or a loss) might be a sign of trouble too -- eg anorexia nervosa
in the mother.

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Life is like a cigarette -- smoke it to the butt." -- Harvie Krumpet

[Jenrose]

"Chookie" > wrote in message
...
> In article <1104929778.b758650bf5ec28d6f1b7acfcf6d5e61a@terane ws>,
> "Jenrose" > wrote:
>
>> I wish they'd just *ban* scales from Dr. offices, etc. Because it puts
>> the
>> focus not on nutrition but on the silly numbers. And the
>> recommendations--don't take into account at *all* that the same things
>> that
>> made me heavy in the first place make me put on weight *really* easily
>> during pregnancy. I'd literally have to starve myself to stay within the
>> "recommended" 15 pounds--and would end up with all manner of problems.
>
> 15 *kg* is the *average* gain, I thought, with a fairly wide range.

Yes, but they tell us fat women to only gain 15 pounds. "Normal" women are
suggested 25-30 pounds. More for twins.

I gained 48 with my daughter, and am on track to do about that with this
baby. I don't eat excessively. My food is by and large pretty healthy when
I'm not queasy. With dd I gained that much even though I threw up many times
per day in the first 5 months--my body is just *very* efficient, and moreso
when I've got extra estrogen in my system. But I also lost most of it with
her quickly, and the rest went soon enough, I just put it back on later. But
before I got pg this time I was pretty much weight stable until I started
trying to get pregnant again. The miscarriage did a number on that--I was
just pregnant enough just long enough to end up 10 pounds up from where I
had hoped to start from.

Jenrose

[Jenrose]

"Chookie" > wrote in message
...
> In article <1104931655.ae9bfa84ec48677f05019b0fdc20a284@terane ws>,
> "Jenrose" > wrote:
>
>> "Chookie" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article <1104671817.10809ed9858d1cc2fed03c54a4bf5fd4@terane ws>,
>> > "Jenrose" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> One thing to note is that most of the things that Dr. Brewer
>> >> recommends
>> >> actually *do* have positive effects on the "root causes" of some
>> >> preeclampsia. Clotting for example... we know that people who clot
>> >> more
>> >> tend to get preeclampsia more...
>> >
>> > Um, no -- we know that people with blood clotting disorders and some
>> > autoimmune disorders (especially lupus) are more prone to PE.
>>
>> Isn't that what I just said?
>
> I thought you were talking about a general tendency, not specific
> disorders.
>

I have factor V leiden, personally. But there are so many clotting
disorders, etc. and the thing they all seem to have in common is PE.

>> > <snip stuff that Caryn has already covered>
>> >
>> >> Dr. Brewer's diet is high in protein, vitamins, fluids... but I think
>> >> he
>> >> misses a few possible points that could "complete" the picture.
>> >> Unfortunately he's not open to discussion of the issue (and if you've
>> >> ever been on his personal snail mail list you will understand why)
>> >> at all. But
>> >
>> > Do tell!
>> >
>> He tends to send a lot of newspaper clippings with stuff scrawled all
>> over
>> it, the same things over and over again, and if you ever try to send him
>> a
>> note saying, "Hey, look at this bit of research" he runs off on the same
>> rant over and over again. Not conducive to having a rational
>> conversation.
>
> Yeah, just the kinda guy I'd trust to give me medical advice -- the ones
> who
> scribble on newspaper clippings. Yikes!
>
I'm not following his diet per se, and I'm not restricting myself to what he
says. But I do think his work has some value and shouldn't be dismissed out
of hand. He lost it after he did the majority of his work.

Jenrose

[Hillary Israeli]

In <1105192296.ebbb7ef9fc5dbab2d27f1ffb35fc5d85@terane ws>,
Jenrose > wrote:

*> 15 *kg* is the *average* gain, I thought, with a fairly wide range.
*
*Yes, but they tell us fat women to only gain 15 pounds. "Normal" women are
*suggested 25-30 pounds. More for twins.

FWIW, my OB is on the staff of the U of PA health system (at PA Hospital),
and he has always pooh-poohed the idea of a "one size fits all" 25-30 lb
gain. Every single pregnancy, at some point, I've asked him if I was
gaining too much (because I'm a worrier about my weight), and even though
I've gained as much as 65 lbs in a pregnancy, he's always said "you're
gaining what you gain, if there's a problem I will let you know," and
there never has been a problem that he's let me know about :). I'm
currently 52 lbs above my starting weight this pregnancy, due 1/18, and he
says I look great and am doing great. So although the "official" ACOG
party line is something like 25-35 lbs, it's my experience that a good and
experienced (and locally well-respected, because he's frequently in the
"Best of Philly" awards) OB will pooh-pooh that guideline.

h.

--
Hillary Israeli, VMD
Lafayette Hill/PA/USA/Earth
"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is
too dark to read." --Groucho Marx

[Nikki]

Hillary Israeli wrote:

So although the "official" ACOG party line is
> something like 25-35 lbs, it's my experience that a good and
> experienced (and locally well-respected, because he's frequently in
> the "Best of Philly" awards) OB will pooh-pooh that guideline.

That was exactly my experience with my OB. She is experienced and
well-respected in this area. I gained roughly 60lbs each time between my
12week appt. and term. I'm sure it was more then that because I eat
constantly in the first trimester but I didn't weigh in until my first appt.
at 12 weeks. She didn't bat an eye or even mention weight gain.

--
Nikki

[Rivka W]

Hillary Israeli wrote:
>
> FWIW, my OB is on the staff of the U of PA health system (at
> PA Hospital), and he has always pooh-poohed the idea of a
> "one size fits all" 25-30 lb gain. Every single pregnancy, at some
> point, I've asked him if I was gaining too much (because I'm a
> worrier about my weight), and even though I've gained as much
> as 65 lbs in a pregnancy, he's always said "you're gaining what
> you gain, if there's a problem I will let you know," and there never
> has been a problem that he's let me know about :).

Yeah, at my first prenatal checkup I asked my midwife if I should be
concerned about gaining a particular amount of weight, and she said
she thought anywhere from 5-70 pounds could be "normal" depending on
the individual woman. Throughout, the midwives I see have asked a lot
of questions about my nutritional habits but have shown very little
interest in my weight. (More protein, more calcium, more water, is
what they tell me at every visit.)

As it happens, I've gained very little weight during pregnancy - I
lost seven pounds in the first trimester and was slow to gain them
back. I'm at 28 weeks now, and only 4 pounds over my pre-pregnancy
weight. Which is strange, because I have an *enormous* belly. I'm not
sure where it came from!

Rivka
Li'l Critter due 4/3/05

--
Visit my weblog at http://respectfulofotters.blogspot.com

[Chookie]

In article <1105192296.ebbb7ef9fc5dbab2d27f1ffb35fc5d85@terane ws>,
"Jenrose" > wrote:

> Yes, but they tell us fat women to only gain 15 pounds. "Normal" women are
> suggested 25-30 pounds. More for twins.

Ah. They don't tell us anything like that. I would imagine that fat women
would generally tend to put on less in the way of fat stores, as they already
have them, but that's not a huge proportion of the weight gain anyway. Here's
how the average weight gain is distributed:

baby, placenta, amniotic fluid: 4.5 kg
increased size of uterus: 1 kg
increased breast size: 0.5--1 kg
increased blood: 1 kg
retained fluid: 3 kg
increased fat/protein stores: 3 kg

Nobody has ever suggested what I *ought* to put on -- that's out of the ark!

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Life is like a cigarette -- smoke it to the butt." -- Harvie Krumpet

[Jenrose]

"Chookie" > wrote in message
...
> In article <1105192296.ebbb7ef9fc5dbab2d27f1ffb35fc5d85@terane ws>,
> "Jenrose" > wrote:
>
>> Yes, but they tell us fat women to only gain 15 pounds. "Normal" women
>> are
>> suggested 25-30 pounds. More for twins.
>
> Ah. They don't tell us anything like that. I would imagine that fat
> women
> would generally tend to put on less in the way of fat stores, as they
> already
> have them, but that's not a huge proportion of the weight gain anyway.
> Here's
> how the average weight gain is distributed:
>

Except that part of the reason I'm fat is because my body is *really good*
at making fat stores.

Jenrose

[Chookie]

In article <1105416161.5829566e2c525ce440f8393f9e5d2ca5@terane ws>,
"Jenrose" > wrote:

> Except that part of the reason I'm fat is because my body is *really good*
> at making fat stores.

LOL, I thought that was a general problem!

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Life is like a cigarette -- smoke it to the butt." -- Harvie Krumpet