# Overweight women shouldn't get pregnant according to this.



## Mack27 (Oct 26, 2009)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1222447/Overweight-pregnant-women-condemning-children-lifetime-obesity.html

More dangerous hogwash if you ask me.


----------



## rollhandler (Oct 26, 2009)

I think it will be a cold day in Hades before humans figure out that Nature knows better than science what humans need, and stop tampering with the species.
Nature would not provide those who prefer fat bodies, nor the ability to procreate at a variety of sizes, nor the propensity toward becoming fat by genetic design as this article suggests unless nature had a reason for it to be so. It must also by logical extension be part of natures design in the cycle of life and ecosystem of humans for these traits to exist not as an aberration but as a significant percentage.
Rollhandler


----------



## FatAndProud (Oct 26, 2009)

i hate when news stations take pictures of unsuspecting FAT people...and remove the heads...they don't do it to skinny people...and what? fat people get embarrassed of being fat if you leave their face on the photograph? well....don't take a picture of them in the first place, creepy cameraman.


----------



## BeautifulPoeticDisaster (Oct 26, 2009)

and look where it came from.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Oct 26, 2009)

BigBellySSBBW said:


> and look where it came from.



My thoughts exactly. Oh and I love the requisite picture with not one big ass but a mom and child's big ass center frame. Niiice.  Damn moms passing on their fat genes. They should just stop having kids.

Can I just say how much I HATE this kind of shit????


----------



## rainyday (Oct 26, 2009)

I recall reading a news report a couple years ago that dieting while pregnant also predisposes offspring to obesity. What do they suggest you do if you find yourself unexpectedly pregnant while--horrors--still fat?



ETA: Just googled to find a link about this. Several came up but since one also came up from this same newspaper, I'm linking that one just for the irony of it.  It's here. There's also a different study about the maternal dieting/infant obesity link reported here.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Oct 26, 2009)

See, here's where I'm coming from. With all the stupid, crazy stuff pregnant women do -- smoke crack, meth, alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, exposure to STI's and the like, things which can actively DAMAGE a growing fetus -- they're getting excited about being FAT??? Seriously??? This is more important than the lack of prenatal care that's largely responsible for such high infant mortality rates?

Suppose a woman can't lose weight. Then what? Have WLS? That carries its own risks. Wait until she can lose weight, which could take many years if it happens at all? Then she's more at risk because she's older. 

This BS blame game foisted on moms pisses me off. Royally (pun intended).


----------



## rollhandler (Oct 26, 2009)

Looks like another media attempt to guilt people into selective breeding practices to remove or reduce an undesireable trait. It also deepens the prejudice that is used as an arguement of guilt along the lines of "Don't you care about your baby?" How dare you be an active sexual being? or If you are fat you should never have unprotected sex so you don't chance passing your unhealthiness and ugliness to the next generation. I am not only waiting for condom commercials to use a partners fatness as a selling point as a result of these types of studies that are becoming more and more prevailing in the media but I am waiting for the court cases to start stacking up for child abuse against fat parents who conceive. Or to have FAness set in the annals of psychiatry as a perversion that can be treated or combatted when the children come in to be victimized by the therapist for their parents thoughtless actions of love and humanity through procreation while being overweight.
It won't be long at this rate!
Rollhandler


----------



## TraciJo67 (Oct 26, 2009)

Miss Vickie said:


> See, here's where I'm coming from. With all the stupid, crazy stuff pregnant women do -- smoke crack, meth, alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, exposure to STI's and the like, things which can actively DAMAGE a growing fetus -- they're getting excited about being FAT??? Seriously??? This is more important than the lack of prenatal care that's largely responsible for such high infant mortality rates?
> 
> Suppose a woman can't lose weight. Then what? Have WLS? That carries its own risks. Wait until she can lose weight, which could take many years if it happens at all? Then she's more at risk because she's older.
> 
> This BS blame game foisted on moms pisses me off. Royally (pun intended).



Not to mention, what the WLS surgery does to the body itself could make it very difficult for a woman to sustain a pregnancy. 

I was shocked to see the final remarks in this article -- it literally suggests that otherwise healthy fat women hold off on getting pregnant until they lose the weight. That's just ... wow. So, so ignorant.


----------



## BeautifulPoeticDisaster (Oct 26, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> That's just ... wow. So, so ignorant.



Indeed!!!!!!


----------



## Paquito (Oct 26, 2009)

Naturally, the next step is to ban fat people from entering a 100-foot radius of your baby. It's for the baby's health, really.


----------



## thatgirl08 (Oct 26, 2009)

"Sending a signal" this sounds like least scientific thing ever. What the fuck.


----------



## RobitusinZ (Oct 26, 2009)

Eh, that's stupid. There are health risks involved with an overweight woman being pregnant, but "Possibility of Fat Kids" is just ridiculous.


----------



## Admiral_Snackbar (Oct 26, 2009)

The population of Samoa would like to speak (or flip the bird to) the author of that article.


----------



## Sandie S-R (Oct 26, 2009)

Fat women have been popping out babies for centuries. We manage to to get pregnant and have babies just fine. What a bunch of nonsense.


----------



## gangstadawg (Oct 26, 2009)

this article is more full of shit than the toilet after someone eating mexican.


----------



## Webmaster (Oct 26, 2009)

This seems sort of a nature vs nurture kind of thing. Nature would indicate that, by and large, offspring are roughly halfway between mom and dad (which is where my son is). Since WLS does not impact DNA, any difference between babies born before or after WLS would appear to be a "Nurture" kind of thing. This doctor claims that "families typically don't change lifestyle or diet after surgery" (which I find hard to believe), so the results are either flawed or the family diet after WLS is different after all. It'd be interesting to know if the research is in any way sponsored by the WLS industry.


----------



## superodalisque (Oct 26, 2009)

women who are healthy should get pregnant. that doesn't necessarily include or exclude fat women. its time that people stopped equating health potentialities with size. it all has to do with an individuals personal maintenance and some genetic propensities--not simply whether they are big are small. some of the best, healthiest and most intelligent people wouldn't exist today if people had believed this hogwash about fat women.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Oct 26, 2009)

I don't know how scientific my response is but all I have to really say is I'm the fat mom that has one child that fights being underweight. She was put on a special status by her peditrician as a baby for "failure to thrive". I had to give your slim fast meal shakes along with her regular food to put her weight up "just over the border line" of being underweight (the pediasure the physician recommended didn't have enough calories to do the trick....so I had to give her an extra 500 a day as a two year old to push her weight up high enough to be considered "safe"). This got the dr off my back and she finally echoed what I had been telling her all along: She is a petite person that will always be smaller/thinner than a lot of other people.....naturally 

She eats more than her larger twin sister that outweighs her by 14 lbs and is three inches taller. 
None of my children are fat. 

I was fat in both pregnancies. They seemed panicked about this fatty having diabetes with my first pregnancy due to my weight.....never had any problems with it. I had extreme, constant "morning sickness" that lasted all day with that pregnancy. I told my dr and nurses this on every visit but was ignored until I lost weight into my fifth month of pregnancy. That was when a nurse informed me that I wasn't supposed to diet while pregnant. Feeling aggravated enough to slap her, I once again explained about NOT BEING ABLE to eat and how no one listened/cared anytime I told them. She offered to give me something to ease my nausea. Realizing they could have helped me much sooner, I wanted to slap her harder 

They assume obese women are food maniacs that have never consumed a vegetable or helpful vitamin in their life. Looks like they want to shift their phobias/prejudices onto the children now. 

How's that for a study?


----------



## GutsGirl (Oct 26, 2009)

rainyday said:


> ETA: Just googled to find a link about this. Several came up but since one also came up from this same newspaper, I'm linking that one just for the irony of it.  It's here.



Another "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. I guess in this case, the only solution is for fat people to stop existing, period.


----------



## Vader7476 (Oct 26, 2009)

The article makes it seem as if no signal had been found at all. They're talking here about epigenetics, and dumbed it down a lot, but I just emailed one of the research doctors to clarify that point, or if the article is basically using correlation as a causation unjustly. In which case, it should then be removed.


----------



## Captain Save (Oct 26, 2009)

Going over the articles we've seen so far, I'm getting the impression the media would like to see a large group of angry citizens all over the European countryside armed with pitchforks and blazing torches; they're looking for who they've been told is the scourge of the land and the cause of all that is wrong in the world. 

I give the European public much more credit than to be so easily swayed, and the source publication here discredits itself by passing off this trash to its readers. Am I correct in assuming it's usually found near the cash register in the markets?


----------



## BeautifulPoeticDisaster (Oct 27, 2009)

Captain Save said:


> Going over the articles we've seen so far, I'm getting the impression the media would like to see a large group of angry citizens all over the European countryside armed with pitchforks and blazing torches; they're looking for who they've been told is the scourge of the land and the cause of all that is wrong in the world.
> 
> I give the European public much more credit than to be so easily swayed, and the source publication here discredits itself by passing off this trash to its readers. Am I correct in assuming it's usually found near the cash register in the markets?



The Daily Mail holds as much weight here as the National Inquirer does in the states. Funny enough, I've never seen magazines or news papers next to the til unless in a garage, lol, not that it matters...it's just funny that it took me 3 years to realise this haha

I seriously would love to see the daily mail burnt to the ground. It spews nothing but hatred and the people who buy into it are the ones who already have deep seated opinions about fat people.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Oct 27, 2009)

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> I don't know how scientific my response is but all I have to really say is I'm the fat mom that has one child that fights being underweight. She was put on a special status by her peditrician as a baby for "failure to thrive". I had to give your slim fast meal shakes along with her regular food to put her weight up "just over the border line" of being underweight (the pediasure the physician recommended didn't have enough calories to do the trick....so I had to give her an extra 500 a day as a two year old to push her weight up high enough to be considered "safe"). This got the dr off my back and she finally echoed what I had been telling her all along: She is a petite person that will always be smaller/thinner than a lot of other people.....naturally
> 
> She eats more than her larger twin sister that outweighs her by 14 lbs and is three inches taller.
> None of my children are fat.
> ...



I like it (your study, that is). 

I think this article is just a whole lotta scare tactics. I, too, was a fat mom whose kids also have fat dads and guess what? My kids are all average to thin. I hated it when people made assumptions about me while I was pregnant and I try very hard not to do that to my patients; when I was pregnant with my son I had horrible carpal tunnel syndrome, with tingling and pain in my middle and ring fingers. The doc blamed it on all the salt I was eating, despite the fact that I naturally eat a low salt diet and had no swelling anywhere else. He said, "Well, it's in all the processed foods you're eating" but at that particular time in my life, I lived in Berkeley, and ate only foods I prepared myself, mostly organic and cooked out of the Moosewood Cookbooks. But you know, because I was fat, I "must", therefore, have been eating shit nonstop.

And like you, GEF, I had horrible nausea in my pregnancies and gained very little, after losing a few pounds in the first and second trimester. But did they offer me anything to help? Nope. Asshats. Plus they labeled me as "morbidly obese" on my chart, despite that my pre-pregnancy weight was 216 pounds.


----------



## Vader7476 (Oct 27, 2009)

Vader7476 said:


> The article makes it seem as if no signal had been found at all. They're talking here about epigenetics, and dumbed it down a lot, but I just emailed one of the research doctors to clarify that point, or if the article is basically using correlation as a causation unjustly. In which case, it should then be removed.



Follow up: I just received a 7 page PDF from Dr. Waterland with his published findings. 

Incredibly interesting stuff.


----------



## Captain Save (Oct 29, 2009)

BigBellySSBBW said:


> The Daily Mail holds as much weight here as the National Inquirer does in the states. Funny enough, I've never seen magazines or news papers next to the til unless in a garage, lol, not that it matters...it's just funny that it took me 3 years to realise this haha
> 
> I seriously would love to see the daily mail burnt to the ground. It spews nothing but hatred and the people who buy into it are the ones who already have deep seated opinions about fat people.



This is really sad. I remember hearing that the National Enquirer has been sued countless times, yet continues to grow from the publicity. Now that I've had my suspicions confirmed, I'll be expecting the very worst when I see a link to it in a post.


----------



## Vader7476 (Oct 30, 2009)

Captain Save said:


> This is really sad. I remember hearing that the National Enquirer has been sued countless times, yet continues to grow from the publicity. Now that I've had my suspicions confirmed, I'll be expecting the very worst when I see a link to it in a post.



Although I have no opinion on the linked news site, the story was picked up by others as well on October 23 (A day before the Daily Mail). Yahoo, NY Times, CBS News, and the list goes on and on. All copied each other and put the article up. I read through one of the experiments, and there is legitimacy to it. I've been trying to get the other findings but no luck so far.


----------



## Captain Save (Oct 30, 2009)

Vader7476 said:


> Although I have no opinion on the linked news site, the story was picked up by others as well on October 23 (A day before the Daily Mail). Yahoo, NY Times, CBS News, and the list goes on and on. All copied each other and put the article up. I read through one of the experiments, and there is legitimacy to it. I've been trying to get the other findings but no luck so far.



I have noticed that the site seems to focus on more celebrity related material as opposed to more intellectual pursuits, and it is this tendency, along with the observations of BigBellySSBBW that drives my opinion. Resolving the ultimate legitimacy of the studies covered here might produce something of value, and is an admirable goal. I honestly would like to know if anything good comes out of the study, and I'd be grateful if you kept us informed.


----------



## Vader7476 (Oct 30, 2009)

Captain Save said:


> I have noticed that the site seems to focus on more celebrity related material as opposed to more intellectual pursuits, and it is this tendency, along with the observations of BigBellySSBBW that drives my opinion. Resolving the ultimate legitimacy of the studies covered here might produce something of value, and is an admirable goal. I honestly would like to know if anything good comes out of the study, and I'd be grateful if you kept us informed.



I'll try, for sure, and I'll briefly comment(And put into Layman's) on the experiment I have data for. Although I'm no scientist so I don't want to give that impression. The Dr. Waterland study, which doesn't address what I really want to know, shows that obesity need not be inhereted genetically. There are genetic factors to obesity(I assume you could find them on this forum, but this wikipedia entry addresses a lot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTO_gene and if you do read through, pay some attention to leptin as well) but there is something called epigenetics which is non genetical things that can have an impact on DNA! The study shows that transgenerational accumulation of adipose(Many generations will build fat) and that it isn't necessarily diet, lifestyle, or genes! Rather, actual body weight influences it as well. 

The study focuses on 3 generations of mice, and shows the trend of body weight increasing except when you correct for epigenetics. If you'd like I could elaborate a bit on how they do that, but it has to do them stopping the DNA from changing. 

The study I want, Dr. Kral's, I wish to see how involved he got, because from my experience, anyone that goes through WLS drastically changes their diet and lifestyle(Exercise). I'd also be interested if amount of fat cells were taken into consideration as well.


----------



## Vader7476 (Nov 1, 2009)

Captain Save said:


> I have noticed that the site seems to focus on more celebrity related material as opposed to more intellectual pursuits, and it is this tendency, along with the observations of BigBellySSBBW that drives my opinion. Resolving the ultimate legitimacy of the studies covered here might produce something of value, and is an admirable goal. I honestly would like to know if anything good comes out of the study, and I'd be grateful if you kept us informed.



Just got a reply from Dr. Kral. Sadly he didn't provide any studies, and briefly wrote to me. In short, he told me that his specific form of surgery worked and that journalism isn't scientific publication, but that wasn't really my question to him. I replied trying to clear up some things. We'll see if he points me to his specific studies. I want to see if he thinks it has more to do with weight loss or more to do with calorie intake during pregnancy really.


----------



## Captain Save (Nov 1, 2009)

Sounds like the good doctor has a low opinion of the publication as well, if not just a general disdain for publishing discoveries to the general public and not peers in the field.

I admit, I'm not too informed about this type of study, but I would imagine that there are most likely just certain people that have specific reactions to certain foods for whatever reason, and it might be nice to know about the less obvious long term effects on the aforementioned people and why they are thus affected.


----------



## Vader7476 (Nov 2, 2009)

Captain Save said:


> Sounds like the good doctor has a low opinion of the publication as well, if not just a general disdain for publishing discoveries to the general public and not peers in the field.
> 
> I admit, I'm not too informed about this type of study, but I would imagine that there are most likely just certain people that have specific reactions to certain foods for whatever reason, and it might be nice to know about the less obvious long term effects on the aforementioned people and why they are thus affected.



Just got another reply. Due to the specific type of surgery he performed and tested on(biliopancreatic diversion with or without the duodenal switch) the amount of calories available to a fetus is lower, not necessarily the calories consumed which happens in other operations. Weight plays a role because of sugar levels, which definitely have influences on the fetus. Obesity surgery checks this metabolic disease of the mother. He cleared up one area of confusion for me, in his tests the mothers had children before WLS and after. I didn't pick that up in the original article, and it's incredibly crucial. 

So yeah, that's pretty solid evidence, two sources of independent verification. (Independent verification is when different methods lead you to the same conclusion. Cutting down a tree and counting the rings yields 30 rings. You know the tree is about 30 years old. You historically know the tree was planted about 30 years ago by your father. Or, as a third verification, you radioactively date the tree, and it comes up to be about 30. 3 different tests that show the tree is 30, it's safe to assume that's the age of the tree)


----------



## merle234 (Dec 2, 2009)

Are there any pregnant BBW on here?


----------



## mossystate (Dec 2, 2009)

merle234 said:


> Are there any pregnant BBW on here?




Nope... we all just look like we are.


:bow:


----------



## merle234 (Dec 3, 2009)

mossystate said:


> Nope... we all just look like we are.
> 
> 
> :bow:



Well you should get pregnant.
That would be hot!


----------



## mossystate (Dec 3, 2009)

merle234 said:


> Well you should get pregnant.
> That would be hot!




You first!!

That would be SUPER DUPER HOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## merle234 (Dec 3, 2009)

mossystate said:


> You first!!
> 
> That would be SUPER DUPER HOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Can't.
There's gender restrictions.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Dec 3, 2009)

merle234 said:


> Can't.
> There's gender restrictions.



I bet if you really tried, if you really wanted to, if our happiness was truly important to you ... you'd find a way.


----------



## TallFatSue (Dec 3, 2009)

merle234 said:


> Are there any pregnant BBW on here?


Not me, but I eat for 2 anyway. :eat2:


----------



## Jes (Dec 3, 2009)

merle234 said:


> Well you should get pregnant.
> That would be hot!



you should talk with Admiral Snackbar. He's also into hot preggies!


----------



## Littleghost (Dec 3, 2009)

FatAndProud said:


> i hate when news stations take pictures of unsuspecting FAT people...and remove the heads...they don't do it to skinny people...and what? fat people get embarrassed of being fat if you leave their face on the photograph? well....don't take a picture of them in the first place, creepy cameraman.



That's to avoid liability for using people's likeness without permission. Makes it even more sleazy, no?


----------



## Lovelyone (Dec 4, 2009)

According to general society..at one time or another fat women were not supposed to get pregnant, look nice, feel pretty, act sexy, be intelligent, be clean, find love, be happy...etc. Its a 17 ton load of donkey crap, if you ask me.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Dec 5, 2009)

mossystate said:


> Nope... we all just look like we are.
> 
> 
> :bow:



Oh how I laughed.........



merle234 said:


> Well you should get pregnant.
> That would be hot!



Oh how I laughed even more...............


----------



## fatlane (Dec 5, 2009)

So I read the article and then it occurred to me...

WOMEN GET FAT DURING PREGNANCY.

So, uh... does that mean we're doomed as a species because we're not allowed to be having the babies anymore and we'll just have to adopt high-functioning chimps from here on out if we want the childrens?


----------

