Easy Childbirth on Paleo Diets

[PaleoPhil]

P.S., I don't mean the last post as a criticism, Tyler, as much as a recognition that I don't tend to respond well to that style of retort. So I'm recognizing my limitations and trying to focus more on providing information rather than responding directly to each counterpoint. I'm going to try to focus more on my strengths, which seem to include seeing things from a slightly different, contrarian angle than most people and sometimes gaining unusual and perhaps interesting insights from this, being good at finding and researching information and summarizing and explaining the findings for other people (albeit in an overly wordy manner ). My original intent was more to share and learn than debate, though debating can also at times be helpful in filtering out the weaker areas in my knowledge base and gaining new insights.

[TylerDurden]

No probs

[PaleoPhil]

Here is Jared Diamond's explanation of how the nomadic lifestyle of hunter gatherers (including Paleolithic hunter gatherers) may contribute to higher infant mortality than in sedentary societies:

"A hunter-gatherer mother who is shifting camp can carry only one child, along with her few possessions. She cannot afford to bear her next child until the previous toddler can walk fast enough to keep up with the tribe and not hold it back. In practice, nomadic hunter-gatherers space their children about four years apart by means of lactational amenorrhea, sexual abstinence, infanticide, and abortion. By contrast, sedentary people, unconstrained by problems of carrying young children on treks, can bear and raise as many children as they can feed."

(p. 55 of Guns, Germs and Steel)

[William]

Here is Jared Diamond's explanation of how the nomadic lifestyle of hunter gatherers (including Paleolithic hunter gatherers) may contribute to higher infant mortality than in sedentary societies:

"A hunter-gatherer mother who is shifting camp can carry only one child, along with her few possessions. She cannot afford to bear her next child until the previous toddler can walk fast enough to keep up with the tribe and not hold it back.

They were social, as we, and had uncles aunts cousins nephews grandparents some of whom would have been capable of carrying a child when necessary. May have also been organized as clans, if so, many hands to make light work.
Mr. Diamond seems to assume that they were as uncaring as animals, and as incompetent as their shrunken modern descendants.

[goodsamaritan]

If the Paleo dieting mother is not on a high carb diet which can only be delivered by starchy foods, then the baby in the tummy would not grow so massively big that childbirth will be a lot easier.

This is the wisdom given by midwives in our provinces telling pregnant women to cut down on rice and other sweets so the baby doesn't grow too big.

[TylerDurden]

Here is Jared Diamond's explanation of how the nomadic lifestyle of hunter gatherers (including Paleolithic hunter gatherers) may contribute to higher infant mortality than in sedentary societies:

"A hunter-gatherer mother who is shifting camp can carry only one child, along with her few possessions. She cannot afford to bear her next child until the previous toddler can walk fast enough to keep up with the tribe and not hold it back. In practice, nomadic hunter-gatherers space their children about four years apart by means of lactational amenorrhea, sexual abstinence, infanticide, and abortion. By contrast, sedentary people, unconstrained by problems of carrying young children on treks, can bear and raise as many children as they can feed."

(p. 55 of Guns, Germs and Steel)

The trouble is that it is a very weak explanation. Palaeo tribes, much like other tribes, were extremely cooperative societies with everyone somehow related to each other etc.  So, it is a given that nonfertile females along with teenaged females and  older women/grandmothers would have been on hand to look after any surplus offspring.

[PaleoPhil]

The trouble is that it is a very weak explanation. Palaeo tribes, much like other tribes, were extremely cooperative societies with everyone somehow related to each other etc.  So, it is a given that nonfertile females along with teenaged females and  older women/grandmothers would have been on hand to look after any surplus offspring.

True, HG societies are definitely more cooperative, and every surplus child wasn't killed (and this probably helps account for some of the gradual population growth before agrarianism--along with improved hunting technologies, some horticulture, etc.). Still, according to every account I've seen, HG societies in both Stone Age times and today do space their children out about twice as much or more than agrarian societies and multiple other sources I've read in the past did say that HGs sometimes use abortion or infanticide when a mother becomes pregnant while still suckling and carrying an infant. This type practice is also apparently practiced by wild animals (for example, a mother wolf may abandon or kill a pup if her litter is too large to feed them all).

I'll leave to William and others the value judgment arguments about whether nature is "wrong" or "sinful" because of this. For now, I'm focusing on exploring this widely-reported phenomenon of reduced dystocia among HG societies and the role that a RPD may play in this.

My hypothesis is that Paleo foods (no grains, dairy, legumes, sweets, etc.) help with this, and also less thoroughly cooked foods. All HG societies appear to eat less agrarian foods and less thoroughly cooked foods (with "low-and-slow" characterizing their cooking methods and with plentiful raw foods featuring in most HG diets, including some raw meats/organs). In other words, reduced rates of dystocia may be a benefit of RPD diets--and BOTH the Paleo AND Raw aspects of the RPD may help. I don't see the success stories of people on cooked PALEO (emphasis on PALEO) diets as canceling out the contribution of raw. Instead, I see both as possibly contributing, and therefore see this thread as supporting the RPD, rather than as a "hot topic."

[William]

I'll leave to William and others the value judgment arguments about whether nature is "wrong" or "sinful" because of this. For now, I'm focusing on exploring this widely-reported phenomenon of reduced dystocia among HG societies and the role that a RPD may play in this.

It is not nature that I judge, but rather writers.
They persist in imposing their own modern worldview on paleoman, for no reason at all, except their own prejudice, then they come up with crap such as high infant mortality, distocia, ridiculously short lifespan and anything else dredged from their crippled minds in an attempt to show our superiority.

We are told that the paleolithic age lasted much longer than our neolithic, this can only be because they were not stupidly self-destructive, as we are.

WE are poisoned, in mind and body.

[PaleoPhil]

It is not nature that I judge, but rather writers.
They persist in imposing their own modern worldview on paleoman, for no reason at all, except their own prejudice, then they come up with crap such as high infant mortality, distocia, ridiculously short lifespan and anything else dredged from their crippled minds in an attempt to show our superiority.

I don't know of a single source claiming that rates of dystocia (difficult childbirth) were higher during the Paleolithic than afterward. I also don't know of a single source claiming that rates of dystocia are higher among HGs than modern food eaters. All the sources I've found show the opposite, which was the gist of this thread. If you know of any to the contrary, please share it.

You're right that the lifespan argument was used in the past, but I want to try to avoid getting into the lifespan subject here and focus on childbirth, because the lifespan topic could easily fill another thread and it has already been discussed in other threads.

Infant mortality is not the same thing as dystocia, so it is possible to have high rates of infant mortality (such as from infanticide and accidents) with low rates of dystocia.

[TylerDurden]

True, HG societies are definitely more cooperative, and every surplus child wasn't killed (and this probably helps account for some of the gradual population growth before agrarianism--along with improved hunting technologies, some horticulture, etc.). Still, according to every account I've seen, HG societies in both Stone Age times and today do space their children out about twice as much or more than agrarian societies and multiple other sources I've read in the past did say that HGs sometimes use abortion or infanticide when a mother becomes pregnant while still suckling and carrying an infant. This type practice is also apparently practiced by wild animals (for example, a mother wolf may abandon or kill a pup if her litter is too large to feed them all).

There are plenty of other explanations re the lack of Palaeo population growth(except near the tail-end of the Palaeolithic). The obvious one is exposure to feast and famine(a logical consequence of a pre-Neolithic non-settled society). Another point made re Palaeo peoples is that Palaeos had far less in the way of fat-layers while Neolithic peoples had plenty(extra fat helps make a woman more fertile, thus resulting in more offspring and vice-versa). Plus, Neolithic women reached puberty much, much  earlier than Palaeo peoples, which meant that Palaeos would inevitably have had fewer children by comparison. Added to the fact that breastfeeding also slows down the chance of conception by a huge amount, means far fewer children born to Palaeo tribes each generation than Neolithic communities.

Another obvious point is that men traditionally guard women from harm in most societies, giving especial attention to protecting women with very young children(plus women have fewer roles involving serious danger re warfare or hunting) so that one would naturally expect female lifespan to be longer than men's UNLESS some major , unavoidable factor, such as deaths from childbirth or extreme predation on human females by predators, acted to lower that figure to a significant extent.

[PaleoPhil]

There are plenty of other explanations re the lack of Palaeo population growth(except near the tail-end of the Palaeolithic). The obvious one is exposure to feast and famine(a logical consequence of a pre-Neolithic non-settled society). Another point made re Palaeo peoples is that Palaeos had far less in the way of fat-layers while Neolithic peoples had plenty(extra fat helps make a woman more fertile, thus resulting in more offspring and vice-versa). Plus, Neolithic women reached puberty much, much  earlier than Palaeo peoples, which meant that Palaeos would inevitably have had fewer children by comparison. Added to the fact that breastfeeding also slows down the chance of conception by a huge amount, means far fewer children born to Palaeo tribes each generation than Neolithic communities.

Yup, Jared Diamond, Richard Leakey and others have cited the breastfeeding factor. However, as I recall, they also say that there was infanticide and other factors that contributed to infant mortality and I don't recall any of them linking infant mortality to any problems in the foods Stone Agers were eating.

...female lifespan to be longer than men's UNLESS some major , unavoidable factor, such as deaths from childbirth or extreme predation on human females by predators, acted to lower that figure to a significant extent.

I think you're making a stretch by extrapolating increased dystocia in Stone Age and hunter gatherer societies based on infant mortality rates. If it's true, then why do all anthropologists and every source I've seen claim that childbirth is easier, not harder, among HGs in the 20th century and today? Do you have a source that found the opposite?

[William]

One of the reason I suspect that Paleoman had a much longer lifespan than us is the known slow breeding rate of long-lived critters compared to short-lived.
Starving, sickly Neolithic man must breed rapidly or become extinct. We see this happening in our own time.

[TylerDurden]

I think you're making a stretch by extrapolating increased dystocia in Stone Age and hunter gatherer societies based on infant mortality rates. If it's true, then why do all anthropologists and every source I've seen claim that childbirth is easier, not harder, among HGs in the 20th century and today? Do you have a source that found the opposite?

The only source I've ever personally come across claiming tribes had easier childbirth due to better diet was Weston Price, and he's hardly reliable. Also,  there are obvious flaws in any such claims:- after all, modern medicine now forces women to undergo Caesarians which can easily cause complications(well, often it's the women who insist on them), plus doctors routinely administer drugs in order to speed up a birth and clear hospital beds - other complications include the fact that modern technology is now making it much easier to give birth(albeit with difficulty in certain cases) to infants who would otherwise have died in the womb. These factors have nothing to do with diet, so that it would be  misleading to claim that modern women have more difficult  childbirths than native tribes mainly due to diet.

I've just done a quick google under "dystocia" and have indeed found some references to dystocia among native tribes(eg:-

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/summary/101/19/1506

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2844324

Evidence re dystocia among animals is also present:-

http://www.fao.org/wairdocs/ilri/x5472b/x5472b0g.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_bound

[William]

The only source I've ever personally come across claiming tribes had easier childbirth due to better diet was Weston Price, and he's hardly reliable.

I heard it in person from an Amerindian.

[PaleoPhil]

I've just done a quick google under "dystocia" and have indeed found some references to dystocia among native tribes(eg:-

http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/exercisebodybuilding/low-carb-and-zero-carb-exercise/msg17548/?topicseen#new

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/summary/101/19/1506 (1933)

This one mentions "a chapter on dystocia among the savage tribes." Which tribes were they, what year(s) were they observed, did they eat HG diets, and were the rates of dystocia found to be higher than those of moderners?

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2844324 - "Traditionally farmers, the Ganda are a Bantu people...." --http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Ganda

This source supports the case for RPDs and against farm diets, not the reverse. Did you read this one or just post whatever hits you got?

Evidence re dystocia among animals is also present:-
http://www.fao.org/wairdocs/ilri/x5472b/x5472b0g.htm ("Reproductive traits and disease incidence characteristics of Dorper, Dorper x Masai and Masai ewes raised under semi-arid conditions in Kenya")

Dystocia rate among lamb breeds:
Dorper 10.0% [Dorpers are known to adapt well to feed lot conditions which offers farmers an alternative method to finish lambs in times of drought. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorper_(sheep)]
F1 Dorper x Masai 12.1%
Masai 2.0%

This appears to look at different breeds of pasture-fed animals, with no comparison to grainfed or wild animals. I didn't say there was NO dystocia among wild animals or pasture-fed animals, just probably less among wild animals vs. grainfed, and maybe less also among pasture-fed animals, based on what the people at the Adams Ranch told me. How do the rates of dystocia among these animals compare to wild or grainfed animals? What were they fed? "They were maintained on natural pastures that consisted primarily of Naivasha star-grass. Once a month the animals were supplied with mineral supplements. Water was supplied freely."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_bound

No evidence here of equal or better rates of dystocia among grain-fed, farmed animals

I added a 14th source below that did report lower rates of dystocia among grassfed animals and a couple of counter-sources that did not find that. Counter sources seem to be few and far between.

---------------------------------------------------

Since this and other threads keep getting distracted by focus on WAP, I've deleted the two sources that referenced him and relisted the 15 I have below.

I wrote that there are links to modern foods as vs. diets consisting mainly of Paleo foods--I didn't claim that it was "mainly due to diet" and I didn't say "native tribes"--that's a straw man argument I didn't make. Additional factors do not refute the dietary connection, they merely add to it. The evidence seems to suggest that the closer women move to a RPD (more Paleo, less processed, and probably more raw, given the tendency of people who avoid cooked grains and legumes to eat a higher proportion of raw foods) the more likely they are to have unusually easy pregnancies. This should not be surprising to any of us here who have experienced remarkable improvements from a RPD.

Since the modern foods that most Paleo dieters eliminate (grains, dairy and legumes) are mostly cooked or heat pasteurized or otherwise highly processed, and since many of the foods Paleo dieters eat more of (such as raw fruits and vegetables), are less cooked or otherwise processed, Paleo diets by their nature tend to be more raw than modern diets. So even cooked Paleo diets lend some support to the case for the raw aspect, as well as the Paleo aspect, of RPDs.

----------

NON-WAP SOURCES SUPPORTING LESS DYSTOCIA ON PALEO-TYPE VS STANDARD AMERICAN DIETS:

1) A Darwinian View of Obstructed Labor
Robert P. Roy, MD, FRCSC
Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada
Address reprint requests to: Robert P. Roy, MD, FRCSC, 4398 Buchanan Street, #1805, Burnaby, BC, V5C 6R7, Canada; E-mail: robertproy@yahoo.ca.
Obstetrics & Gynecology 2003;101:397-401
© 2003 by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
http://www.greenjournal.org/cgi/content/abstract/101/2/397
This essay discusses the evolutionary biology of dystocia. From a Darwinian standpoint, the high frequency of dystocia observed today seems evolutionarily untenable. Hunter-gatherers, most notably the Inuit [when eating their traditional diet], appear not to suffer from dystocia. It may be that people from an agriculture-based background are, obstetrically speaking, less well adapted to the good nutrition of a modern affluent diet.


2) Question: Is NeanderThin safe during pregnancy?

Answer (by Ray Audette):  "As hunter-gatherers have the easiest births and the lowest incidence of birth defects, it is not only safe but is preferred. But before adopting any changes, you must consult your family physician. The pregnant woman craves added nutrients to nourish and sustain herself and her developing baby. The mother's immune system is also working hard to protect mother and child, so care must be taken to avoid the forbidden foods while satisfying cravings by increasing dietary diversity. In this way the nausea common in pregnancy can be greatly reduced if not eliminated."


3) Obesity, waist-hip ratio and hunter-gatherers
LEP Wood (2006)
BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 113 (10), 1110-1116.
doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.01070.x

Abstract
Obesity is a rapidly growing global problem. It is not simply the result of eating too much, and not all types of obesity have the same significance. Obesity is in part genetic, and one particularly important genetic type of obesity is the tendency to 'truncal obesity',-that is, a raised waist-to-hip ratio. Such obesity is powerfully associated not only with a tendency to diabetes, but also to cardiovascular disease, ('Syndrome X'). Interestingly, this is the type of obesity seen in every hunter-gatherer (HG) population around the globe. Such people are intolerant of carbohydrate, especially refined carbohydrate, especially in the excessive amounts typically consumed in affluent societies. In such pure HG communities, rates of diabetes can be as high as 50% [and higher], when the 'Western' lifestyle is adopted. Many of us, however, share some of their genes and their carbohydrate intolerance-perhaps as many as 20 or 30% of the world's population. Pregnancy can uncover this characteristic, and obesity and glucose intolerance in pregnancy are rapidly burgeoning problems. Quite contrary to the common nutritional dogma of encouraging regular carbohydrates, it is suggested that pregnant women with a high waist-to-hip ratio should be strongly advised to adhere to a low-glycaemic-index diet. Additionally, many dietary interventions, some of them derived from observation of HG populations, are of proven benefit in reducing the expression of glucose intolerance and may well help in tackling the obesity epidemic.

4) Rising caesarean section rates: can evolution and ecology explain some of the difficulties of modern childbirth?
W A Liston FRCOG 
Department of Obstetrics, Simpson Centre for Reproductive Health, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh
Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
http://www.jrsm.org/cgi/content/full/96/11/559#REF15

[...] Why is it that modern human childbirth is so frequently associated with difficulty? Only occasionally has anyone attempted to explain this. [...]

With huge increases in population and later industrialization the life of modern woman and man bears little relation to that of the hunter-gatherer. Because biological evolution cannot keep pace, man is a hunter-gatherer living in a 21st century world. Admittedly, where selection pressures have been very strong (e.g. malaria and the haemoglobinopathies) there have been genetic changes, but the species retains much of the physiology of pre-agricultural times. Whereas hunter-gatherers went through tens of thousands of generations there have been only 500 generations of agriculturalists and just a few in the industrial era. Physicians and nutritionists have therefore proposed that certain modern diseases, particularly heart disease and type 2 diabetes, are caused by a maladaption to our current lifestyle. Similar arguments can be applied to reproductive health and obstetric performance.

 CHANGES IN HUMAN ECOLOGY 

There are four chief ways in which this misfit between biology and lifestyle could affect childbirth-diet, population density, exercise and reproductive behaviour. The diet in palaeolithic times was by most accounts richer in protein and poorer in carbohydrate, with a different pattern of fats.8,9 It was also very varied. In particular the carbohydrate component had little refined starch and sugar with much more fibre. The agriculturalists then moved to a diet with less protein and fat, and more complex carbohydrate. The modern western diet contains a super-abundance of food, especially sugar and fat with less protein than that of early upper palaeolithic man. In poorer parts of the world where protein is scarce, food consists largely of complex carbohydrate, but western tendencies and fast food are spreading to all parts of the globe.8,9 [...]

What is not widely known is that the invention of agriculture and the development of settled living had pronounced affects on physical stature. Study of skeletons points to adverse changes in the teeth11 and a general reduction of height.8,12-14 Angel 15 has charted the patterns over thousands of years. Humans were tall in early upper palaeolithic times and did not become as tall again until the late 20th century in Western Europe and the USA. ....

 CONCLUSION

Changes in diet, population density, exercise and reproductive behaviour mean that primigravid women are commonly shorter, older and fatter than is ideal for first childbirth. These adverse factors have been well recorded....


Anecdotal Reports:

5)
Date:         Tue, 3 Oct 2000 02:57:58 GMT
Sender:       Paleolithic Eating Support List <PALEOFOOD@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
From:         Stacie Tolen <tolen4@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: paleo & pregnancy

Dear Jeremy,

I am a mother of two, and was a vegetarian during each of my pregnancies-Oops. I am sorry to say that due to the effects my diet had on my uterus and sacrum (and yes I can prove this), I endured a C-section with each of my children. I also suffered severe swelling, extreme fatigue, polyhydramnios, sciatica, and many more complications and such during my pregnancies. Though a longtime vegetarian, I craved buffalo meat like mad. Protein is absolutely essential during pregnancy, 80 mg daily. Conditions such as pre-eclampsia and the dreaded toxemia are attributed to protein deficiency. B-12 (available only in animal ingredients: meat, eggs, milk), folate, iron, calcium and vitamin C are others whose deficiency can cause tremendous problems for the pregnant woman, or worse, can damage the baby. Dairy products, especially those containing traces of hormones (BGH) can cause painful menstrual cramps, and possibly worsen pain with contractions. Soy is especially harmful to the fetus, and I have the child with autistic tendencies who proves that. When I eat grains, it causes problems with my joints (some people get arthritis) and if the pelvic and sacral joints are not functioning optimally, the baby will have problems getting through. While this organization does not speak of paleolithic diet, I do recommend that you check out http://www.bradleybirth.org for info. on prenatal nutritional requirements and, if you're interested, natural childbirth. Please do not confuse Bradley with Lamaze, they couldn't be more different and I personally do NOT recommend Lamaze or, worse, something wich claims to be a combination thereof. Your baby's mother should begin paying attention to her diet now if you plan to conceive in the next few months.

Best wishes, Stacie

6)
Date:         Wed, 16 Aug 2000 13:57:19 -0500
Sender:       Paleolithic Eating Support List <PALEOFOOD@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
From:         Brad Cooley <Bcooley@SOUTHDOWN.COM>
Subject:      Re: Healthy Babies

Justin,

My first advice for your pregnant coworkers is to read The Continuum Concept by Jean Liedloff (http://www.continuum-concept.org/)  and Our Babies, Ourselves by Meredith Small.  These books really don't address nutritional aspects of childcare, but do address other issues that affect health.  If they would like breastfeeding information, their local La Leche League (http://www.lalecheleague.org/) should have monthly meetings and individuals that can provide information and other support.   LLL has been a great resource for my wife.

My wife gave birth to our first child in April 2000.  Before she started incorporating paleo philosophy into her eating habits, she was unable to conceive.  Within 3 weeks of going paleo, she was pregnant...maybe just a happy coincidence.  During her pregnancy she gained only 25 lbs, gave birth to a 7 lb 10 oz girl, was walking within an hour of the birth, and dropped 35 lbs within a month (from pre-birth weight).  I should point out that she didnt always eat paleo foods, but stuck to it pretty well.  Certainly, her diet contributed to a relatively low weight gain, a successful natural childbirth, and significant loss of weight after childbirth.  Also, IMO, because she eats a lot of meat, her milk production has been very good while breastfeeding.  The baby is always well-fed, and sleeps very well at night.

Oddly enough many of the diets recommended for pregnant and lactating women are near-paleo, but with an emphasis on fruits and vegetables.  The same can be said for children.

Let me know if you would like more info.

Brad
 
7)
Date:         Thu, 23 Dec 1999 08:28:23 -0600
Date:         Wed, 10 Apr 2002 01:22:32 -0500
Sender:       Paleolithic Eating Support List <PALEOFOOD@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
From:         Ray Audette <rso456@AIRMAIL.NET>
Subject:      Re: the "perils of childbirth" -- question for Ray

From: Jana Eagle >
> I am just wondering if you have some evidence about paleolithic
> childbirths and death statistics or if you are taking the modern-day
> media images of the traumatic operating room childbirth and
> transferring it onto paleolithic times.

I didn't mean to leave this impression.  From studies cited by [Vilhjalmur] Stefansson,
hunter-gatherers have far less trauma and labor in childbirth than do
agricultural women.  Just removing the hazards of gestational diabetes often
found in modern women ( resulting in very large babies) would improve these
statistics considerably but I suspect much more is involved.

When Gray-Hawk ( seven on May 14th ) was born, it was without doctors or
drugs.  We arrived at the mid-wives['] at 3:15 PM and he arrived at 5:20 after
2 hours of mild labor […].  As my prediction, five months earlier, of the easiest birth they had ever seen came true, the midwives bought six copies of my book.

After one year he weaned himself from his mother and would eat almost
nothing but Pemmican for the next year.  About the only exceptions were
watered-down fruit juice and pork rinds for teething.

Ray Audette
Author "NeanderThin"


8.
Date:         Fri, 19 Apr 2002 11:07:05 -0600
Sender:       Paleolithic Eating Support List <PALEOFOOD@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
From:         Jana Eagle <jana@FIG.ORG>
Subject:      toddlers and paleo

        Rebecca Fincher <meegok2@HOTMAIL.COM> writes:

> 1.  I was reading in the archives a chain titled "pain in childbirth?" that
> interested me because of my experience with PPD (not known to be present in
> tribal cultures or most "traditional" cultures)and because I have had 2
> C-sections (intended to have a natural birth both times).  Is Ray Audette's
> wife an isolated example of paleodiet eaters who give birth quickly and w/o
> complications?  Anyone else out there?  Anyone with experience to the
> contrary? Is there any research on this available?

I can find out more about this, depending on your interest.  I do know someone personally who had a very easy, painless birth and was following a paleo diet.  I wish I knew of more paleo eaters and their birth experiences.  I imagine there are so many circumstances that affect birth that every situation is different...

> 2.  I have corresponded some with Stacie Tolen on this subject, but if there
> is anyone out there who has raised a toddler on this diet, I would
> appreciate your input.  How do you keep enough calcium in the diet?  (Both
> my kids still bf; maybe it's not a concern.)  What foods do you prepare that
> your kids like/can eat?

believe it or not, I talked to my two year old and explained that sugar wasn't good for her body, and she doesn't ask for cookies, ice cream, candy like i thought she would.  she will ask me if something has sugar in it and if it does she understands that we're not going to eat it.  everywhere we go, people are offering her sugar, though.  it makes me realize how much candy kids really do eat

we have this little game about food that "grows on trees".  if it grows on trees or on a plant, we eat it.  so she asks does coconut grow on trees?  do kiwis grow on trees?  and we talk about all the food that grows on trees.

i prepare almost all our meals at home and always pack snacks to take along on outings.  she likes meat a lot, and goes through phases on fruits and vegetables and nuts, where she will really like one thing and eat a lot of it, and then a week later seems "finished" and moves on to something else.  the freshest, in season produce seems the most attractive.  also she likes jerky.

JAna


9)
Date:         Thu, 11 Aug 2005 11:18:49 -0700
Sender:       Paleolithic Eating Support List <PALEOFOOD@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
From:         Susan Carmack <scarmack@DOWCO.COM>
Subject:      Paleo is in the Bible too!

Hi Kristina and paleopeoples,

....

I have a friend who went completely paleo - no grains - who just had a baby at her house in a tub of water. NO pain. 3 1/2 hours of labour. She is 40 and said it was so easy, she would have 'a million more'. Her husband agreed to one. She has 2 toddlers at home already!! This woman was originally scheduled for a Caesarian … because she almost died last time from heart disease/or an allergic reaction to penicillin.

Is this pain free birth indication that we could be close to going back to the Garden?

>     Planting and tilling and harvesting,
>     sweating in the fields from dawn to dusk,
>     Until you return to that ground yourself, dead and buried;
>     you started out as dirt, you'll end up dirt."

The advent of agricultural revolution and the cultivation of grains! This is coincident to Eliots post about the grains for slaves project. We became slaves when Adam and Eve got the boot! Adam and Eve had everything to eat in the Garden, no sweat involved:

(Genesis 2:8-9) . . .. 9 Thus God made to grow out of the ground every tree desirable to one's sight and good for food and also the tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and bad.

...but it didn't take long to wreck the Place.

Paleobest,
Susan


10)
Date:         Wed, 14 Sep 2005 20:21:11 -0700
Sender:       Paleolithic Eating Support List <PALEOFOOD@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
From:         Mermaid Rose <mermaidxrose@YAHOO.COM>
Subject:      Re: Paleo pregnancy

To all the mamas-to-be, congratulations, and thanks for bringing healthy babies to the world.  Midwife here, doiing home births for 20 years, water births as well... very ancient practices (duh, lol).

I believe paleo is the way of eating that creates healthier pregnancies.  Obviously we are here today because of how we ate.  There are pregnancy related health conditions that can be avoided by eating this way...ie gestational diabetes and toxemia (both which are treated by upping consumption of protein).

As far as the fish oil...it is the only supplement I recommend to my mamas....I am just not sure if the amount you are taking may be too much...wish I knew the answer.  I would not recommend that much myself.  Not based on anything other than gut feelings.  I wish I could get everyone in my practice to eat the plaeo way....but alas...there are a bunch of vegetarians in the crowd!  I love them all!

Remember to eat frequently...helps keep blood glucose even...helps especially with nausea (for which, btw, I also recommend protein).  Snacking is a good way of getting all that.  Especially nuts.  Since you are wanting snacky foods, a nutty trail mix is a good way to take care of the desire of something crunchy and something sweet (put dried apples or apricots in it).  Hard boiled eggs is another quick snack.

If I can be of any help, just write.  Happy birthing!!  Keep us updated.

Love & Peace
Lillian


11)
-----Original Message-----
From: Paleolithic Eating Support List
[mailto:PALEOFOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG] On Behalf Of Mrs Caroline Centa
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 4:02 AM
To: PALEOFOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG
Subject: Re: pregnant paleo?

I was pregnant after I had been Paleo for 2 years.  I was reasonably strict too.  I got sent to a dietitian because the midwives said my diet was ridiculous and not sufficient.  The Dietitian said it was fine.  I had to make sure I was getting enough energy, calcium (100g almonds has twice as much calcium than 100mL of milk... we eat a lot of almonds in the form of almond meal.  You can also get calcium from Kale, Brocolli etc) and carbs and fibre (lots of fruit, especially dried fruit was good for that).

I survived (although I did eat a couple of 'naughty' things due to cravings at the time) and the labour was very good (I had been told that being Paleo makes your body handle labour better and even though I haven't done it before I have witnessed 3 births and think I did really well - no drugs or interventions and not as much pain as I anticipated).  My baby came out very healthy and alert.  He was a good weight (6 pound 14) and was only 3 days early.

We have also been bringing him up on a Paleo diet and he is developing in leaps and bounds.

The Paleo diet is our natural diet.  It does well for our bodies and our children.  We are designed to eat the diet and be pregnant.  I am also pregnant again (9 weeks now) and intend on doing the diet fully this time (not succumbing to the cravings).  I am hoping by doing it properly the pain will be even less...


12) Paleo dieter, Rachel Matesz summed up the common-sense nature of improved pregnancies on a Paleo diet:

>Date:    Thurs, 5 Aug 1999 22:24:40 +0200
>From:    Rachel Matesz <matesz@earthlink.net
Subject:  Paleo-pregnancy

>Re:  Have any studies been done on paleo-pregnancies?  Women following a
>paleo WOL
>during their pregnancy.

For:  Maria Tomashefsky-Dugan and others.  Are you serious?  We don't  need
any studies!!!!  We have 2 1/2 million years of evidence that a Paleo diet
can support reproduction.  How on earth do you think we got here?  The PWOE
and PWOL isn't new.  It's not a fad....it's the longest practiced WOL and
WOE on the planet.  Every heard of a 2 million year old fad?  Whatever we
modern people have been doing, it's a blink of an eye, a few minutes, if
that, in the context of a 24 hour block of time. ….

13) "RE: Easy childbirth, my own recent experiences are quite positive.  My partner does not follow a paleodiet but I did have significant input throughout the pregnancy regarding her diet and she eventually gave birth to an extremely healthy baby boy of 7lb 13oz in May of this year.  It was her first pregnancy, she was strong and full of energy throughout and it ended in a completely natural birth without ANY pain relief whatsoever - except for hot towels and getting me into a headlock during contractions!!   Shocked  My new son is developing very well and shows signs of being physically and mentally advanced already.  Throughout her pregnancy (and also now whilst breastfeeding) I ensured my partner ate plenty of grass-fed meats, liver, heart, fish, eggs, bone stock and blue ice cod liver oil.  I guess her diet could be considered as WAP-like with an attempted emphasis on RAF (including non-paleo raw butter & cream)." --Michael, http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/off-topic/easy-childbirth-on-paleo-diets/msg16745/#msg16745

14) Easy birth vs Dystocia among animals:
Easy birthing vs. dystocia is even apparent in wild vs. domesticated animals. The ranch hands of the Adams Ranch in Florida said that they leave their grass-fed pregnant cows to handle births on their own out in the fields and there is rarely if ever a problem, whereas grain-fed cattle have much higher risks of complications and tend to require having a farmer or vet at hand during the birth, in case there are problems. Every wild animal birth I have seen on nature shows was amazingly quick and easy, whereas I have seen a grain-fed, barn-cooped cow in tremendous distress from her pregnancy.

15) Here is more evidence of less dystocia among animals who are not grain-fed:
"dystocia is unheard of in [grass-fed Certified] Criollos, and 100% calf crops are common." http://www.americancriollobeef.com/Rancher.cfm

16) "I heard [that traditional Native Americans had easier childbirths] in person from an Amerindian." --William http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/hot-topics/easy-childbirth-on-paleo-diets/msg17380/#msg17380

==================

COUNTER-EVIDENCE

I found some, but not much, and it was only regarding cattle:

1) "There was no difference in rate of dystocia for the free-choice hay vs. the high-grain diet group. Calf vigor was equal between both groups."
http://www.angusbeefbulletin.com/ArticlePDF/ABB0904_limitfed.pdf
They did find a higher re-breeding rate among grain-fed cows

2) Incidence rates of both dystocia and combined reproductive disorders were found to be lower (P less than .01) in herds that were fed cottonseed cake as a winter supplement, but higher (P less than .01) in herds that were fed grass hay as a winter supplement. Herds located in the mountains of Colorado had lower (P less than .01) incidence rates of dystocia and reproductive disorders than herds located in the eastern plains.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjas.fass.org%2Fcgi%2Fcontent%2Fabstract%2F68%2F9%2F2642&ei=K7W2SrPXEZHk8Qa7hcCTDw&rct=j&q=Incidence+rates+of+both+dystocia+and+combined+reproductive+disorders+were+found+to+be+lower+&usg=AFQjCNGcjH-3n_xwcSjUHbknqKp8gRg-DQ&sig2=_U9otKzZJa8VGJ0K5hVEEg


===================

Conclusion: based on the weight of the current evidence, dystocia rates appear to be lower among people and animals eating diets that are more biologically appropriate than the SAD/grainfed.


When you combine the above evidence of easier childbirths among women eating diets more RPD-like than the SAD with the Cassidy study that shows that infant mortality was actually lower in a sedentary hunter-gatherer society vs. an agrarian society in the same region in a later period (Cassidy CM. Nutrition and health in agriculturalists and hunter-gatherers: a case study of two prehistoric populations. in Nutritional Anthropology. Eds Jerome NW et al. 1980 Redgrave Publishing Company, Pleasantville, NY pg 117-145, http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/low-carb-diets/nutrition-and-health-in-agriculturalists-and-hunter-gatherers/#more-2877), and Tyler's thread on infanticide during the Paleolithic era (http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/off-topic/infanticide-in-the-palaeolithic/msg11122/#msg11122), it becomes clear that childbirths were probably easier and less likely to result in infant death in hunter gatherer societies vs agrarian societies, whereas infanticide may have been more common among HGs than farmers (and all anthropological sources I've read said the infanticide was usually for band/tribal survival reasons, in the same way that a mother wolf will kill a cub to ensure the survival of the remaining litter, rather than due to murderous impulses).

[TylerDurden]

This one mentions "a chapter on dystocia among the savage tribes." Which tribes were they, what year(s) were they observed, did they eat HG diets, and were the rates of dystocia found to be higher than those of moderners?

The article refers clearly to savage tribes, implying a traditional non-agrarian diet- the  above article unfortunately, like most serious palaeo articles, doesn't allow full scrutiny without paying and I'm loathe to spend money on something that should be widely available. There was a controversy on New Scientist re this, but it hasn't been solved to my satisfaction, yet.
This source supports the case for RPDs and against farm diets, not the reverse. Did you read this one or just post whatever hits you got?[/quote]

No, I'd read previously another reference which showed that the Ganda ate animal foods like insects, lake fish et al  and ironically chose the wrong reference which I didn't check, fully.Precious little data on dystocia in general though random searching of websites shows multiple minor references to indicate that difficult childbirth does indeed exist in native tribes and wild animals. At the least one can't claim universally easy childbirth,merely that childbirth was easiER than modern times, with the factor modern medical practices such as Caesarians confusing the issue further.

This appears to look at different breeds of pasture-fed animals, with no comparison to grainfed or wild animals. I didn't say there was NO dystocia among wild animals or pasture-fed animals, just probably less among wild animals vs. grainfed, and maybe less also among pasture-fed animals, based on what the people at the Adams Ranch told me.

Well, that's fine. My whole thesis was that childbirth is sometimes difficult even for wild animals at times(even they have cases of breech-births etc., with percentages of problems being something between 2% to even as much as 10%(?) depending on the species listed), with a higher rate of difficult births for humans(even on raw diets) than wild animals  given the evolutionary disadvantage of a narrow birth-canal having to pass through infants with proportionately much larger heads than wild animal young have.
---------------------------------------------------

Since this and other threads keep getting distracted by focus on WAP, I've deleted the two sources that referenced him and relisted the 15 I have below.

Fine by me.

I wrote that there are links to modern foods as vs. diets consisting mainly of Paleo foods--I didn't claim that it was "mainly due to diet" and I didn't say "native tribes"--that's a straw man argument I didn't make. Additional factors do not refute the dietary connection, they merely add to it. The evidence seems to suggest that the closer women move to a RPD (more Paleo, less processed, and probably more raw, given the tendency of people who avoid cooked grains and legumes to eat a higher proportion of raw foods) the more likely they are to have unusually easy pregnancies. This should not be surprising to any of us here who have experienced remarkable improvements from a RPD.

My only concerns are these:- all these other claims re hunter-gatherers and diet by the other people you cite don't seem to take into account the fact that modern birthing practices vastly increase the number of difficult births(eg:- women going in for Caesarians in order to avoid the hassle of birth, often for no medical reason, use of drugs to speed up birth). Take that factor away(such as experiments of women on modern diets practising traditional birthing methods or water-birth etc.), and with  such a huge drop in side-effects, you might well find a much lower rate of dystocia among such women, perhaps not much higher than women on native diets.Granted, people with specific conditions, such as womb cancer or diabetes or whatever are going to have a higher chance of (indirect)complications by implication, which may very well be strongly linked to consumption of modern processed foods, but that's all. One could argue that hunter-gatherer women who did no exercise at all, would also have increased rates of dystocia.

[PaleoPhil]

My whole thesis was that childbirth is sometimes difficult even for wild animals at times

I have always held that view as well and didn't write anything contrary to that, AFAIK (as a matter of fact, I believe I also stated earlier that there is dystocia among wild animals). I was just reporting evidence that suggests that childbirths are easIER on more biologically appropriate diets, not ALWAYS easY. I hope that clears up any confusion.

[cherimoya_kid]

Dr. Price does mention a book called "Safe Childbirth" by a Kathleen Vaughan in NAPD, chapter 19, page 345.  Here is the relevant passage:


"...In addition to the problems growing out of physical injuries through lack of development before birth, which express themselves as facial and other deformities, there is increasing need for concern for physical handicaps entailed in underdevelopment of the hips. The difficulty encountered at childbirth in our modern civilization has been emphasized by Dr. Kathleen Vaughan (16) of London. In her book, "Safe Childbirth," she states that faults of development more than race modify pelvic shape. In the Foreword to her book, Dr. Howard A. Kelly, Professor Emeritus of Gynaecological Surgery, Johns Hopkins University, says:

    Dr. Vaughan presents such an array of facts and data that the book must impress every reader. It is of vital importance that her conclusions be considered, for in my opinion our methods of bringing up our girls and the habits of our women with many of the customs of 'civilized' life must be radically readjusted.

This important work should be made available for reference in the school libraries of the United States. Further data from it are presented in Chapter 21...."


Dr. Pottenger also notes in "Pottenger's Cats" that the wide hips and narrow shoulders of women (and the wide shoulders and narrow hips of men) are not nearly as apparent on a poorer diet.

I'm not saying this answers the whole issue, just that it bears investigation.

[PaleoPhil]

Thanks for the reference, cherimoya. Johns Hopkins has an illustrious history and happens to be my favorite medical school and hospital, though I like the Mayo Clinic quite a bit too.

[cherimoya_kid]

Thanks for the reference, cherimoya. Johns Hopkins has an illustrious history and happens to be my favorite medical school and hospital, though I like the Mayo Clinic quite a bit too.

I've been watching this discussion carefully, wondering when the best time to post this would come.  I was sort of hoping someone else would find their own sources, independent of the ones I quoted.  Does anyone know of anything else along these lines?

[PaleoPhil]

About what specifically, wide vs. narrow hips?

[cherimoya_kid]

About what specifically, wide vs. narrow hips?

Yes.

[PaleoPhil]

Sandy Simmons' website probably has lots of good info on structural deformities linked to diet/nutrition and diseases of civilization. On hips:

Narrow, deformed hips have been observed as being more common in societies with highly processed, nutritionally deficient diets. Sandy notes that narrow or deformed hips are a reported symptom of the following connective-tissue-disorder-related diseases:

> Marfan syndrome (acetabuli malformations)
> Rickets - which involves many nutritional deficiencies

Source:
Connective Tissue Disorders: The Overlaps and Links to Diet
http://www.ctds.info/connective_disorders1.html

She makes other interesting connections too. And before anyone considers criticizing this stuff, please first read as much as you can from Sandy's site, as she links to numerous studies and research papers and she is a very intelligent, reasonable person. There are a some mistakes at her site, yes, but it is the most comprehensive source of info on connective tissue disorders on the Internet, it has proved valuable and motivating in my own health recovery program, and she's a good-hearted person who has helped many, so I'd appreciate it if folks don't speak badly of her even if you disagree with her on some things. As outlandish as some of it may seem, a lot of what she has written has proven true for myself and loved ones, so folks would do wise to do a LOT of reading on connective tissue disorders before dismissing something she has written.

[TylerDurden]

It's interesting. I think it's pretty clear that diet must have some influence re increasing/reducing genetic conditions. And then there's the science of epigenetics where diet (or something like smoking) could influence gene-expression. However, given mutations etc., there would have to be a basic percentage of infants born with genetic defects regardless of the mother having had a good diet. What really annoys me is that there's insufficient data on the normal percentage of birth-defects/genetic issues in wildlife.

[PaleoPhil]

Aajonus reports about an extremely easy childbirth anecdote via raw Primal diet in this video:
Primal Diet Workshop Sampler