Ban on surgery for patients who are overweight or who smoke?

Looking at these "new scientific findings" is just that. Someone working in this field has noted a correlation with the statistics about aspects of C section babies which might give a researcher something to do.

To make any real sense out of this someone needs the funding to try and see if any useful discoveries will come out of this.

Yes Anya some of it is. However I think there is some validity in expecting people to do their bit in keeping themselves healthy, it's a case of trying to lose a little weight, cutting down on cigarettes with a view to stopping. Please let's be sensible, nobody has suggested old people be denied treatment, think everyone should be looked at individually. As to the dangerous sports I do think there should be some sort of insurance to help all the volunteers who risk life and limb rescuing ill prepared people from dangerous situations

I had five children born by CS. They are all in their 20's and are all slim. They were all breast fed for between sixteen months and three years.

Good essay here by David Shaw entitled "Delaying surgery for obese and smoking patients is illogical and unethical". He's a research fellow in biomedical ethics at Basel.

I agree with Jess here, without being an expert. One of the latest theories is that there's a link between gut bacteria and obesity, but I don't think that's proven. The only real absolute certainty about that is on some cranky websites.

In any case, the link between CSs and obesity is only a suggestion. The NHS article I linked to earlier states:

"Ultimately, the study doesn't prove that caesarean section causes obesity."

If there's a larger study and there's still a correlation, the reasons for the CS need to be noted. At the moment. there is no definite cause and effect.

It would suggest that the following could be reasons:

1 Obese women are more likely to need CSs and they are more likely to overfeed their children.

2 Women are less likely to breastfeed their children after CS, because it's painful or the mother herself is unwell. There is a link between not breastfeeding and obesity.

3 Diabetic women are more likely to need CSs and have big babies, who could go on to become obese. That's why my own second baby was so big and why I kept being nagged to keep his weight down.

If a woman needs a CS, it's the safest way to deliver a baby.

I think it is the case that it is not certain that there is a link between gut microbiota and obesity in humans but there is interesting mouse evidence.

Caesarian section ops have to be done in a sterile environment, like all surgery. The vagina is not a sterile environment so babies born that way come into the world being exposed to various bacteria, exposure to most of which is beneficial to their health in the long term, or so it seems from what the articles are saying.

I don't understand all the whys and wherefores either, obi, not being a medic, but I think I can grasp the basic idea that being born into a sterile (i.e. essentially unreal) environment is less good for human health than being born normally. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the same thing applies to other animals that reproduce viviparously.

I just dont see how a baby being born along the vagina, so getting bacteria on to it's skin? helps stop it getting obese in later life?
I am probably missing the point entirely or something.

Bacteria make...

There is bacteria in virtually everything, obi. Bacteria makes the world go round, as the saying goes. Most of it is harmless, some of it is beneficial, and some causes problems, serious problems at times.

Re breast milk, up to about six months babies get antibodies from their mother's milk which they can use against various infections.

This is the article from 'NHS - Behind the headlines' about the link between obesity an CS:

www.nhs.uk/news/2016/09September/Pages/C-section-babies-more-likely-to-grow-up-obese.aspx

The site is always worth reading for some facts behind medical stories in the media.

It concludes:

"Ultimately, the study doesn't prove that caesarean section causes obesity. An important limitation of the study, acknowledged by the researchers, is that they did not know the reasons why a caesarean section was carried out in the first place."

"Of the 22,068 children questioned, 4,921 had been born by caesarean section. Among all participants, there was a 13% risk of obesity by the end of follow up, aged 20 to 28.

Individuals born by caesarean delivery were 15% more likely to become obese during follow up than those born by vaginal delivery (adjusted risk ratio (aRR) 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06 to 1.26).
Those born by caesarean section had 64% higher odds of obesity compared with their siblings born by vaginal delivery (aRR 1.64, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.48).
Vaginal birth after a previous caesarean section was associated with a 31% lower risk of offspring obesity compared with those born to women with repeated caesarean deliveries (aRR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.83)."

"The authors have shown that there appears to be a link between mode of childbirth and obesity later in life for offspring.

The strengths of the study were that it was a large prospective cohort that examined BMI over a long period, meaning the risk of obesity could be seen from childhood into early adulthood. The reporting of information on pregnancy also allowed other factors to be accounted for.

However, there are a number of important considerations:

Babies born by caesarean section are less likely to have been breastfed, which has previously been linked with risk of obesity. This was not included in the adjusted analysis.
The mothers' diet was not taken into account, which has been shown to impact on the weight of offspring.
Obesity was measured using self-reported information, which may have resulted in inaccurate findings.
Finally, the mothers involved in the study were all nurses. They might not have been representative of the general population and therefore results might not be generalizable.

While it may be the case that some people born via caesarean have an increased tendency towards obesity, such a tendency can be overcome through the standard pattern of healthy eating and regular exercise."

I could well be wrong, but I dont see how an average 8 hour labour while the baby is going through the vagina, how the baby picks up good bacteria from the vagina.

I can understand far more how it could possibly get good bacteria from breastmilk.

Not 'both early' but 'born early'.

Obi I don't think it's a case of babies being both early or full term. It us likely that the baby's gut is a sterile environment until the waters break and the baby is pushed into the world. En route it picks up 'good' bacteria from the mother's vagina.

This is what the report suggests. It also,appears that breast fed babies have a richer gut bacteria than bottle fed ones.

My lovely but very obese cousin has just had a hip replacement she was in hospital for a month had to have renal dialysis intensive care almost died . Is now home but still cannot walk on her new hip . Which came first the obesity from immobility or the hip problem because of the obesity? . So difficult but she was and is an anaesthetic nightmare . The risks are so great with any op and obesity !!!

I think cs birth research should be divided into those css that happen at full term, and those that dont.

I have two born by caesarean, the rest normally.
The two that are cs, one would be described as slim, and one average not obese. The rest, one is bigger.

But interestingly, one of the cs ones has gut problems. I never knew until now that they could be linked.

And still dont understand how they can be. Perhaps it is the same with asthma. An early birth[36 weeks] could mean that the gut isnt yet sufficiently developed?

The cs's I had were because the babies would have been stillbirth otherwise.

Both my children were born by CS. My son weighed 11 lb (nearly 5kg) at birth and was classified as obese until he was about 15 months old . The fact that he was born the same weight as an average 4 month old seemed to upset the chart. With babies, they don't take height into account (only age). He's 6'4 (190cm) now and definitely not obese.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c-section-babies-face-raised-obesity-risk-ldvjd9pv6?shareToken=2ded2a128300903718087473d94b0249

As always, statistics can be contradicted by individual cases.
My 3 DDs were all born by C section. In her mid 30's, one of them is a size 6, another 39 and still breastfeeding is an 8, as is the eldest (41) with 3 young children.
Their mother alas, would make more than 2 of them

Best if I start a seperate thread at some point?

Hang on. asthma. If babies are born before 37 weeks[and therefore it was more likely to have been an emergency op for example?] babies born before 37 weeks dont have properly formed lungs.
But that wouldnt mean the asthma was a result of the c section if you see what I mean.

I am not sure this is the right thread for it, but how does having a C section, result in asthma, type 1 diabetes and obesity?

Just remembered, I have a heavy ridged grillpan at the back of the cupboard. Wonder whether the handle is detachable?

Sorry, got diverted.

But perhaps Lakeland stock them?

Is the handle-less frying pan essential, or would they also be fabulous in a different untensil? We don't all have a handle-less frying pan . . .