Study: C-Section Babies Miss Out on a Dose of Beneficial Bacteria

[one...two...tree 2,762]

DNA may dictate your development, but you also wouldn't be you without the unique mix of bacteria that make their home on your body. This week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers say that the very moment of your birth can decide for a lifetime what kind bacteria live in your body, and even whether you'll be at a higher risk for conditions like asthma. The uterus is a sterile environment. So, in the womb, babies don't have any bacteria to call their own. It's only once they enter the world that they begin to collect the microbes that will colonize their bodies and help shape their immunity [Scientific American].

How babies enter the world is the key, the team says. The studied surveyed the bacterial colonies of 10 mothers just before birth; four of those women gave birth traditionally and six did through cesarean section. When the scientists then checked up on the bacteria living in the newborns, they found that the difference in birth method decided what microbes the baby would get. Those born vaginally tended to pick up the bacteria from their mother's #######, while those born via C-section harbored bacterial colonies that tend to come from skin.

Dr Noah Fierer, one of the study leaders from the University of Colorado at Boulder, US, said: "In a sense the skin of newborn infants is like freshly tilled soil that is awaiting seeds for planting – in this case, bacterial communities. The microbial communities that cluster on newborns essentially act as their first inoculation." He added: "In C-sections, the bacterial communities of infants could come from the first person to handle the baby, perhaps the father" [UK Press Association].

While C-sections have shot up in popularity and can be a life-saving procedure for the mother, this study suggests that the birth method can skew those "bacterial communities." And the mix of skin bacteria that C-section babies pick up may not be as effective an inoculation.

Previous research suggests that babies born via C-section are more likely to develop allergies, asthma and other immune system–related troubles than are babies born the traditional way [Science News].

link

[Fandango 1,439]

Men espousing views on others' birth plans are just ikky.

[Jewel-8 21]

Men espousing views on others' birth plans are just ikky.

It's an interesting article. I've never met someone that's on the fence about which way to deliver their babies. I don't think most people choose CS unless they have some really fantastic reasons.

[Peikko 1,575]

It's an interesting article. I've never met someone that's on the fence about which way to deliver their babies. I don't think most people choose CS unless they have some really fantastic reasons.

In the UK this is true, it's not considered an option without some medical necessity being involved. In the US it's an elective procedure 'choice'. I don't get it personally - there are significant risks with all forms of delivery but why would one choose to have one's abdomen sliced, it's a procedure that cuts through muscle and deep tissue, that's not something I would voluntarily undertake for 'convenience'.

Edited June 24, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Gemmie 142]

True, but I've noticed that the US seem to be 'induce / C-section' happy when it comes to delivery.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

True, but I've noticed that the US seem to be 'induce / C-section' happy when it comes to delivery.

Rumor has it that woman have to fight for their right to have an old fashioned birth or they get scheduled and have labor induced to fit a doctor's schedule.

Edited June 24, 2010 by Sousuke

[^_^ 5,021]

bacterial colonies sounds icky.

[Eveline 9]

Rumor has it that woman have to fight for their right to have an old fashioned birth or they get scheduled and have labor induced to fit a doctor's schedule.

True sometimes for a hospital birth, not so true for a birth at a birth center and most DEFINETELY true when you're trying to VBAC at a hospital. I don't know how often I asked my OB if I could VBAC or if he had forgotten about it already.

[Christi and Ian 24]

In the UK this is true, it's not considered an option without some medical necessity being involved. In the US it's an elective procedure 'choice'. I don't get it personally - there are significant risks with all forms of delivery but why would one choose to have one's abdomen sliced, it's a procedure that cuts through muscle and deep tissue, that's not something I would voluntarily undertake for 'convenience'.

One of my husband's best friends in the UK was in labor for days and I couldn't understand why they wouldn't give her a C-section. By the end, mother and infant were exhausted. It seems to me they should have elected to give her a C-section long before they finally decided upon it. Not that I believe a C-section should be a substitution for vaginal birth, but it seemed like they were doing everything in their power to keep her from having what she obviously needed and ended up having.

I had a C-section, but it was because my daughter was 6 1/2 weeks premature, and breech...and since my water broke in a bad way, it would have been a completely dry birth. The giving birth part was easy. The recovery was difficult - those muscles in your lower abdomen do A LOT to support your lower back - and I was recovering from a back injury for quite a while.

[Jewel-8 21]

In the UK this is true, it's not considered an option without some medical necessity being involved. In the US it's an elective procedure 'choice'. I don't get it personally - there are significant risks with all forms of delivery but why would one choose to have one's abdomen sliced, it's a procedure that cuts through muscle and deep tissue, that's not something I would voluntarily undertake for 'convenience'.

That's true. I don't like the attitude of doctors in the US. I went with a nurse midwife and had my only child in the hospital. Which is good because it was more than 3 weeks before the due date.

The bad part was at 8 pm I still hadnt gone into hard labor so she did *something* quite painful without warning me to make my labor go faster. Not a pleasant experience considering I went completely natural and just took Tylenol for labor pains. I even refused the IV because I didnt want anything invasive.

If I ever have another child it will be at home or in a birthing center if I make it past 37 weeks. I'm pretty sure I can talk a midwife friend into helping me do it with NO medical intervention next time. Which would work considering I live just a few blocks from a hospital.

[Eveline 9]

That's true. I don't like the attitude of doctors in the US. I went with a nurse midwife and had my only child in the hospital. Which is good because it was more than 3 weeks before the due date.

The bad part was at 8 pm I still hadnt gone into hard labor so she did *something* quite painful without warning me to make my labor go faster. Not a pleasant experience considering I went completely natural and just took Tylenol for labor pains. I even refused the IV because I didnt want anything invasive.

If I ever have another child it will be at home or in a birthing center if I make it past 37 weeks. I'm pretty sure I can talk a midwife friend into helping me do it with NO medical intervention next time. Which would work considering I live just a few blocks from a hospital.

She probably swept your membranes off your cervix with her fingers. I had it done to acutally go into labor. I begged my OB to do it three times and he did it three times, with no success. I ended up having my water broken to get things going. It didn't hurt me though, it was just very uncomfortable (the membrane sweep that is).

Edited June 24, 2010 by Eveline

[Peikko 1,575]

One of my husband's best friends in the UK was in labor for days and I couldn't understand why they wouldn't give her a C-section. By the end, mother and infant were exhausted. It seems to me they should have elected to give her a C-section long before they finally decided upon it. Not that I believe a C-section should be a substitution for vaginal birth, but it seemed like they were doing everything in their power to keep her from having what she obviously needed and ended up having.

I had a C-section, but it was because my daughter was 6 1/2 weeks premature, and breech...and since my water broke in a bad way, it would have been a completely dry birth. The giving birth part was easy. The recovery was difficult - those muscles in your lower abdomen do A LOT to support your lower back - and I was recovering from a back injury for quite a while.

I had a C-section for medical reasons - I would have preferred not to have had to if I could have given birth any other way - they didn't hold off for days though, just until it was the only option and they considered it risky for the baby to wait any longer. It would be surprising if a Dr chose to with hold required treatment but things do happen that way sometimes, unfortunately.

Edited June 24, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Men espousing views on others' birth plans are just ikky.

Correctly spelled..."icky" I think it relates to the fish disease called "ich" Maybe not. Probably not a good analogy.

At any rate, I think it is important to note the regenerative and beneficial effects that the ####### offers us and encourage people to return to it often for health purposes.

You know the old phrase..."An apple a day...."

[mawilson 2,133]

Those born vaginally tended to pick up the bacteria from their mother's #######, while those born via C-section harbored bacterial colonies that tend to come from skin.

And everyone knows that vaginal bacteria are soooo much better than skin bacteria!

[Peikko 1,575]

And everyone knows that vaginal bacteria are soooo much better than skin bacteria!

I know, I thought that too when I read it. Still, you never know - and men might benefit from it too