New research coming in from Holland shows that expectant mothers who
eat nuts (or nut products like peanut butter) daily during pregnancy
increase their children’s risk of developing asthma by more than 50
percent over women who rarely or never consume nut products during
their pregnancy.
“We were pretty surprised to see the adverse associations between
daily versus rare nut product consumption during pregnancy and
symptoms of asthma in children, because we haven’t seen this in
similar previous studies,” said the study’s lead author, Saskia M.
Willers, M.Sc.
The study appeared in the second July issue for July of the American
Thoracic Society’s "American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care
Medicine."
Maternal consumption of allergenic foods during pregnancy may increase
the risk that the fetuses they carry would become sensitized to
certain allergens. Research on the topic, however, has been
contradictory and often inconclusive.
Nearly 4,000 expectant mothers from the "Prevention and Incidence of
Asthma and Allergy Study" conducted by the Dutch government completed
a dietary questionnaire that asked how often they consumed vegetables,
fresh fruit, fish, eggs, milk, milk products, nuts and nut products
during the last month. Their children’s diets were also assessed at
two years of age, and their asthma and allergy symptoms were assessed
yearly until eight years of age. By the end of the eight years, the
researchers had complete data for 2,832 children and their mothers. As
studies like this go, this one is large and fairly comprehensive.
“The only consistent association between the maternal intake of the
investigated food groups during pregnancy and childhood asthma
symptoms until eight years of age that we found was with nut
products,” said the lead author. “Daily versus rare consumption of nut
products—which we assumed was largely peanut butter—was consistently
and positively associated with childhood asthma symptoms.”
The association remained even after controlling for the child’s diet.
Additionally, the authors noted, there was a small effect of daily
maternal fruit consumption during pregnancy on reducing the risk of
wheeze in children, but other factors such as health-consciousness and
consumption of prenatal vitamins may have been contributing factors in
ways that were undetectable in this study’s design. Still, this hints
to me of the overall value of fruit as a part of an overall healthy
nutrition program for women.
Dave
Full text article above extracted from http://shamvswham.blogspot.com/
Mark Thorson - 15 Jul 2008 21:09 GMT
> Still, this hints
> to me of the overall value of fruit as a part of an overall healthy
> nutrition program for women.
That advice runs contrary to what the study's authors said.
The last sentence of the abstract says:
"These findings need to be replicated by other studies
before dietary advice can be given to pregnant women."
And yet, you just plunge ahead and dispense advice.
Also, you failed to note that peanuts are not nuts.
They are a type of legume. This is of critical
importance, because peanuts may have accounted for
the results reported by the authors. (Peanuts are
known to trigger asthma attacks in sensitive people,
hence there is a plausible relation to maternal
peanut consumption.)
The study did not track legume consumption separately
from nut consumption. You didn't note this flaw
in the study design because you lack the background
needed to interpret scientific papers. Without this
background, you can't evaluate the quality of a study.
They all seem the same to you, so you just pick out
ones that seem to support notions you want to pitch.
Dave - 16 Jul 2008 05:32 GMT
> > Still, this hints
> > to me of the overall value of fruit as a part of an overall healthy
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> They all seem the same to you, so you just pick out
> ones that seem to support notions you want to pitch.
Mark,
As anyone can tell, your usenet posts are far more rampant than mine,
and nearly all of them have a nasty undercurrent, with flaming and
name calling. We've been through this all before. I have every right
to post my blog reports here -- just as much right as you have to
criticize them.
So, you don't like that I print my own advice in my own blog? Gee,
that sounds like a terrible violation of Usenet rules and regulations.
Wow, I suggested that fruit is a good part of a healthy nutrition
program for women. This sure sounds inaccurate and dangerous.
Sorry, nothing you can do about my comments, Mark, and I know that is
very frustrating for you. If you don't like them, don't read them.
That's a fairly simple solution to your problem.
Dave
Mark Thorson - 16 Jul 2008 05:44 GMT
> Sorry, nothing you can do about my comments, Mark, and I know that is
> very frustrating for you. If you don't like them, don't read them.
> That's a fairly simple solution to your problem.
Ha! There's nothing frustrating about it, spammer.
Your Internet get-rich-quick scheme has gone over
like a lead balloon. I expose your lack of knowledge,
errors, and commercial marketing spin. And it will
always be so. Readers of Usenet newsgroups need
to be warned that you cannot be trusted to interpret
the scientific literature, and I will provide that
warning. You are a liar, plagiarist, and spammer,
truly a loathesome combination.