Nutrition and genetics - Diet and breastfeeding affect brain function of child

Tuesday, November 22, 2011 by: Amelia Bentrup

NaturalNews) Natural News readers are likely already aware that fish is considered "brain food" and affects cognitive function. However, until this time, little was known about the interaction between genetics and nutrition. During a recent conference held in Madrid, Spain, the European Commission-funded Nutrimenthe Project hosted a symposium on "Nutrition and Cognitive Function." The results of the work of the Nutrimenthe Project and ALSPAC (Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children) were presented by Dr. Eva Lattka from the German Research Centre for Environmental Health. Dr. Lattka presented studies showing that gene expression influences the way fatty acids are synthesized by a woman during pregnancy. Specifically, they looked at variations in the FADS (fatty acid desaturase) gene cluster, which is involved in DHA (docosahexaenoic acid) synthesis from omega-3 fatty acids and prostaglandin synthesis from omega-6 fatty acids. Blood samples were taken from women at 20 weeks of pregnancy and again from the umbilical cord at birth and analyzed for omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids. Over 2000 mothers and babies were involved in this study. It was found that both maternal and child genotype affects the composition of fatty acids in cord blood. The mother's genotype heavily influenced omega-6 precursors while the child's genotype was more influential on omega-6 products. Both the mother's genotype and baby's genotype equally affected levels of DHA.

Diet Matters
Both omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids are essential fatty acids. This means that they can not be synthesized by the body and must be consumed. Fatty fish is the main nutritional source of omega-3 fatty acids, although certain plants, such as flax, also contain this essential nutrient. Once these fatty acids are consumed, various enzymes, vitamins and minerals (including zinc and vitamin C) are involved in the conversion

of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids to other substances needed by the body. Variations in an individual's genotype affect the production of enzymes involved in this process. The ALSPAC previously published results in 2007 showing that children of mothers, who consumed more fish during pregnancy, scored better on tests for verbal intelligence, fine motor skills and pro-social behavior at age 8. This study followed more than 11,000 pregnant women living in Bristol, England, and it looked at their fish consumption during pregnancy and followed their children through 8 years of age. At various ages, the children were tested in verbal intelligence, social skills and fine motor skills. Another study conducted in Quebec, Canada and published May 2011 in theAmerican Journal of Clinical Nutritionalshowed similar results. This study examined 154 Intuit Children. It was found that children with higher cord plasma concentrations of DHA had higher performance on neurobehavioral memory assessments when assessed at an average of 11 years of age.

Breastfeeding Matters
For the infant, breastmilk is the primary source of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids; it contains very high levels of both. A study consisting of 5934 children from the ALSPAC study showed that those who carried a minor "variant" of the FADS gene cluster and were never breastfeed scored the poorest on IQ tests. These results suggest that fatty acid synthesis along with breastfeeding plays an important role in future IQ. While we can't change our genes, we can certainly change our diets. All pregnant women should consume adequate amounts of omega-3 containing foods to maximize brain function in their developing baby. Breastfeeding is also extremely important to insure the infant continues to get adequate levels of omega-3 fatty acids before he or she is able to obtain adequate nutrition from solid food.

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/034215_nutrition_genetics.html#ixzz1iaTgyFuz

Having a problem getting pregnant? A remarkable discovery that will improve your chances
Sunday, September 25, 2011 by: Matthew Silverstone

(NaturalNews) Infertility treatment has risen by 25% over the past five years in the US alone. More and more women are turning to desperate and expensive methods of treatment in order to get pregnant not knowing there is a free and simple alternative available elsewhere. The food that we eat, the water we drink and the lifestyles we choose to live, have mostly caused this horrific increase in infertility. Given all of these factors there is still one step you can take to increase your chances of conceiving without having to make any changes to your lifestyle. I want you to ask yourself the following question so that when you read the solution below it will seem blindingly obvious. Are there any conception methods or techniques we can learn from other species or civilisations? All living organisms emanate from the same primordial soup millions of years ago and they have all learnt to adapt to their environment. Fertilising eggs is of course the major method of advancing a species so the process of getting it right would have been achieved to perfection already many millions of years ago. Fish are one of the oldest species and have a technique of fertilising eggs that is a pointer to how humans should best fertilise theirs. Do you think any ancient civilisations would have noticed that the success rate of fertilisation with fish, animals and humans had a pattern to it? Of course they did. The Greek, Egyptian, Chinese and Roman civilisations were incredibly advanced mathematically and scientifically. In fact in ancient Greece they had more medical specialists than we have today in areas such as diabetes, cardiology and brain tumours.

In a civilisation that for example had a population of many hundreds of thousands of people and lasted thousands of years, the statistics available to analyse the results would be extensive. That is why for example, the Romans named a goddess of fertility based upon this statistical analysis. They could tell that there was a very significant statistical relationship to getting pregnant. One of the most famous Roman writers, Pliny the Elder (AD 43), stated very matterof-factly, in his huge book describing the every day life of Romans, that it was common knowledge conception was directly related to one factor - the moon. It was so obvious to them that the goddess of fertility was also the goddess of the moon. Do you think the reason the female fish lay their eggs on a full moon is purely a coincidence? Of course not. The fact that all ancient civilisations practised conception on full moon days, and fish conceive on full moon days should lead you to ask yourself why no one has told you this basic information before. It is flabbergasting that almost no one is aware of this incredibly simple idea that has been staring us all in the face for hundreds of years. What is even more truly remarkable is barely anyone has even done a study on this. How unbelievable is that! It was only by chance, whilst researching for my book Blinded By Sciencewww.blindedbyscience.co.ukthat I stumbled across it whilst reading Pliny the Elders book and asking myself why had this knowledge been lost. In my research I barely found any studies that investigated this idea. In the few that I did, they all showed a significant success rate. Successful studies have been done on horses in stud farms that overwhelmingly proved that the rate of conception increases massively over a full moon. The few studies on human embryos were on frozen ones that had been stored in a fertility bank, and even those showed increased success rates on a full moon. Where has this knowledge gone? Why are couples not trying to conceive on a full moon when the women's cycle is in sync with the moons?

I find it strange that scientists have ignored this important point. Why are they not doing more research regarding successful conception during a full moon? It is difficult to understand when studies have taken place in regard to animals with intriguing results. My first piece of advice to any woman who has pregnancy issues is to think about trying to conceive around the full moon when the magnetic pull has an effect either on the success of the sperm in finding the egg or on the sperm actually penetrating the egg and fertilising it. I must add a lot of other pieces of advice that I came across whilst researching my book on how you can improve your chances of a successful pregnancy using a common sense approach. In studies on ancient civilisations, I learnt that they had a very systematic approach to pregnancy. When couples intended to conceive, both the man and the woman were put on specific diets that increased their chances of a successful conception. Once the woman became pregnant, she was then put on a different diet that was aimed at maintaining both her health and the health of the foetus. Once the baby was born the mother was then put on a third diet that nourished her bodies needs and that of the child. ONLY 4 years later, after her body had fully recovered was she allowed to get pregnant again. The purpose of these diets was to maintain a healthy lineage for the family or the village in which they were born. Healthy children were much more beneficial in helping to maintain the food supply than unhealthy children so it was in everyone's best interest that they followed the rules. So, having read these ideas, would you not as a man or a woman seriously consider putting your self on a specific diet in order to increase the chances of conceiving? This diet would obviously have to be organic so that you did not digest any artificial hormones that would affect your chances of getting pregnant. Plus only drinking natural spring water - not any produced by Pepsi or Coke as these really aren't any better than tap water. Also de-stress your life - stress is a major issue in inhibiting conception. Then when you have cleansed your body and changed your lifestyle try attempting sex on or around the full moon and see what success you have.

Don't forget that you have to maintain these diets during pregnancy as well. 1 in 3 pregnancies now end in miscarriages. Yes, you read that correctly, 1 in 3. So in order for you to keep the foetus alive, you must keep a strict organic diet throughout the pregnancy, to make sure that you do not become a statistic. Infertility is not just a woman's problem either. TECHNOLOGY CAN CAUSE MAJOR FERTILITY PROBLEMS IN MEN. There have been a few studies on the relationship between cell phone use and semen quality in recent years. One investigation measured the level of semen of three hundred and fifty men who were attending an infertility clinic and divided them up into four different groups depending upon their hourly usage of mobile telephones per day. The results showed that a greater use of mobiles diminished semen quality by decreasing the sperm count. These findings suggest that a high number of men will have great problems in fathering a child due to the widespread use of mobile phones. In the UK alone, the sperm count has fallen by 29% over the last decade. Mobile phone usage is not the only suggested cause of a low sperm count - other reasons such as weight, stress, smoking and pollution have also been put forward as a cause of this condition. What worries me most, though, is that unless you happened to read a newspaper on the days following the release of these studies, (see the bibliography for free atwww.blindedbyscience.co.uk) you would not be aware of this danger. Could there have been a more urgent call for action than this in any scientific paper? The clear implication is that unless we get rid of mobile phones, they will have a damaging affect on our biological make-up. Our bodies are naturally pre-determined to produce children, so unless you are unlucky enough to have a physical problem, you WILL be able to solve any conception issues by following the ideas that I have mentioned above. For those interested in keeping pregnancy and labour as natural as possible, Blinded by Science is a must-read. From information about technology and plants to alternative therapies and the food we eat, this book is very relevant in today's world. Especially for those confused by modern medicine and science and keen to improve

their wellbeing. It gives great awareness about our environment and the health benefits that can be gained from understanding it a little bit more.

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/033679_infertility_moon_phase.html#ixzz1iaUC b6en

Pregnant women now being dosed with toxic chemotherapy drugs

Wednesday, August 24, 2011 by: Christina Luisa (NaturalNews) In the world of medicine, the toxicity of chemotherapy drugs is widely known. They make your hair fall out, after all, and that's on top of the muscle wasting, vomiting and overall health deterioration that chemo drugs admittedly produce. But now the insanity has reached a new low with doctors routinely prescribing chemotherapy drugs to pregnant women! When a woman becomes pregnant, she is told to avoid alcohol, caffeine, cigarettes, sushi and other conceivable risks to the fetus. Almost every singlemedicationand supplement has warnings thatpregnant womenshould consult adoctorbefore use. The utmost of concern is taken to ensure the protection of theunborn child. So does it seem reasonable that researchers claim that exposing pregnant women tochemotherapy(a deadly treatment that kills living cells) does not APPEAR to affect thefetus? Though still fairly rare (the rate ofpregnancyassociated cancer is about 1 in 1,000 pregnancies), the incidence of pregnancy associatedbreast canceris quickly on the rise. It is becoming more common that pregnant women with breastcanceror other forms of cancer are being treated with chemotherapy despite the potential danger this is to the life growing inside of them. Doctors have even told pregnantpatientsthey will die within a short period of time if they don't get chemotherapy, without informing them of more natural andsafeoptions for treating their disease. New data from researchers at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center says that pregnantwomentreated for breast cancer supposedly do at least as well as non-pregnant women. These results contradict earlier studies showing thatoutcomeswere worse for pregnant women treated for breast cancer. Manydoctorsin the past have also recommendedabortion, advising that chemotherapy could causebirth defects. In a German study examining outcomes among 122 pregnant breast cancer patients, researchers concluded that pregnant patients can often be treated as aggressively as non-pregnant patients, with littleevidenceof ill effects to their babies.

Thesefindingsare said to prove that pregnant women who have breast cancer can be treated successfully without harming theirbabies. Abortion, the only other option that seems to be prevalently considered in cases of cancer during pregnancy is unnecessary. Experts admit to being unsure about what is behind the new statistics but are apparently assuming the only important fact from the newresearchfindings is the revelation that women treated while pregnant "do well."

One more reason not to trust oncologists

Even if cancer is detected in early pregnancy, women are being advised that chemo is completely okay if it is put off until the second trimester, in order to minimize the risk ofbirthdefects. Studies have shown that the birth defect rate is as high as 20% when chemotherapy is given in the first trimester, but that this rate drops to around 1.3% when chemotherapy is given later in the pregnancy. This percentage is said to be on par with the national average. Chemotherapy given after the first trimester "does not usuallyharmthe fetus but may cause early labor andlow birth weight." Putting off chemo until the later trimesters is supposedly good reasoning because the first trimester is the most vulnerable period of a pregnancy, when vital organs are still forming. However, what makes doctors and researchers think that this fact means the rest of the pregnancy does not also require extreme caution, especially when it comes to lethal drugs in largedoses? Pregnant patients are also recommended to receive the samedrugsas non-pregnant patients in the same proportional doses according toweight. Chemotherapy treated patients usually get a combination of three drugs -- fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide. However, it is clearly stated on Drugs.com that Doxorubicin can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman. This type of barbariccancer treatmentand the potent drug regimen during pregnancy carries the possibility of having disastrous effects in many cases. How could this amount and form of toxicity possibly not have some sort of significant harm on the

vulnerable cells developing into a tiny human within a mother's womb? Instead of referring pregnant women to natural cancertreatmentsthat are entirely safe for their unbornchildren, oncologists are pushing them toward the "cure-all" of the corrupt cancer industry chemo. This means more money for them, but what about the children that will likely suffer due to the powerfullytoxictreatments they were exposed to while in theirmotherswomb?

Questionable (uncertain)claims
It is being claimed by researchers, scientists, and doctors that chemotherapy has supposedly no detrimental effect on the fetus and that there is no increasedriskof congenital defects in children who are exposed to chemotherapy during pregnancy. The reasoning used for this is that the placenta acts "as a filter" for most of the products researched and "protects the fetus against the damaging effects of chemotherapy." New research is stating that some medications barely penetrate the placenta, while in cases of other drugs the same concentration is found in both the mother and fetus. Does this sound like convincing enough evidence that the fetus is protected from the harmful effects of chemo? Anarticlein the Journal of Clinical Oncology also claims chemotherapy administered to pregnant women during second or third trimesters for thetreatmentof breast cancer APPEARS safe for both the fetus and mother. In fact, many of the articles published on similar researchstudieson chemotherapy during pregnancy claim that the dangerous treatment APPEARS safe for unborn children. This wording certainly sounds confident and sound. Although it has been clinically proven chemotherapy and radiation therapy can causechangesin germ cell DNA, most such changes are claimed to "not be viable, yieldingonly a slightlyincreased risk of birth defects." Only a slightly increased risk? Really? Even a New York Times article clearly stated that "Contradictions abound about just how chemotherapy affects babies in utero." The same article mentions how the FDA has established 5 categories for the use of drugs during pregnancy, with category A the only unequivocally safe one. Most

chemotherapeutic agents fall into category D, meaning there is clear evidence of risk to the fetus.

The study that started it all

In 1973, a senior researcher at the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social in Mexico City named Dr. Agustin Aviles saw his first pregnant patient withleukemia. This woman became the catalyst for his revolutionary study on the effects of chemo while pregnant and the first of 84 patients who received chemotherapy during pregnancy between 1973 and 2003 (58 of them during the first trimester). All 84 had acute leukemia, advanced Hodgkin's or malignant lymphoma and were told by doctors that putting off chemotherapy for even a few days could kill both them and the unborn children in their wombs. Among all 84 cases in his study, every fetus survived and 5.8% of them had birth defects -- most of which were reported to be supposedly minor. In a follow-up study, Aviles examined 43 children born to mothers who received chemo from 1970 to 1986. The children's ages ranged from 3 to 19 at the time of his assessment and all were recorded to have normal physical, neurological and psychological development. Because of this study and other more recent ones, doctors have been telling patients they don't have to make a choice between their lives and the life of theirbaby. Although Aviles found that only 5.8 % of the babies of mothers who had undergone chemo in the first trimester were born with defects, other studies have found defects in the 14 to 19 % range when chemo is given in the first trimester. Even during the second and third trimesters, chemo is not risk free. Some studies clearly indicate that chemotherapy increases the risk of stillbirth, lowbirth weightand retardation.

Pregnant chemo patients are taking a potentially dangerous gamble

Most of the problems described in the babies exposed to chemotherapy in this minor study were said by a doctor to not be related to the treatment, but were "most probably

due to other circumstances." These circumstances were not specified, however. Some of the problems recorded in the study included: alopecia, trisomia 18 (a chromosomal disorder which caused a baby to die one week after birth), necrotic enterocolitis (a severe bacterial infection of the intestine which caused a baby to die three weeks after birth), sepsis (blood infection), neutropenia (low white blood cell count) and anaemia. Few studies have followed the long-term development of children born to women who received chemotherapy during pregnancy. Although growing numbers of doctors are recommending chemo as an option for pregnant women, many of these women are still refusing treatment unless they abort their fetus first. However, some women have stated that being pregnant increases their will to survive after being diagnosed. This is a decision that clearly carries a lot of weight in many different ways, and the only person who should be responsible for deciding what is best for the baby is the mother carrying its life in her body.

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/033418_pregnant_women_chemotherapy.html#ixz z1iaUYs8z0