NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,095
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Aug 6, 2014 13:36:25 GMT -5
idk, my baby belly was totally gone by 7 days pp, and I was back to my exact starting weight by my 6 week pp check-up.
I was back down to 92 lbs at my six week appointment. Boo-ya! I did not, however, get my stomach back. There isn't a whole lot I can do exercise wise to get it back, I'd need plastic surgery go back to what it looked like pre-kid. When I catch DH oogling 18 year olds in the parking lot I want to roll down the window and yell "Wait until you have a child!"
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Aug 6, 2014 13:40:10 GMT -5
at least you know your DH isn't a robot. My boobs did not recover. They weren't that big to begin with, but after I was done nursing they went down at least half a cup size! AND THEY SAG!!!!!
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,095
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Aug 6, 2014 13:42:28 GMT -5
Everybody kept telling me my boobs would stay bigger. Nuh uh! They SHRANK! It's not like I had a lot to begin with, plus the sag and they're shaped funny. They better stay bigger this time, if they get any smaller I'll be concave.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Aug 6, 2014 13:47:54 GMT -5
All Anesthesia providers agree that having a full stomach before undergoing surgery puts you at increased risk of death by aspiration. Doesnt mean people dont have emergency surgery with full stomachs, they do when the risk of delaying surgery outweighs the risk of aspirating. But why put yourself at increased ridk? but if someone is willing to take the risk of side effects from epidural pain management, then why can't that same someone accept the risk that if they need an emergency c-section under general anesthesia they could aspirate? are you seriously not understanding the comparison? why can a patient accept one risk but not another? If u aren't going to follow medical advice why bother to go to the hospital? If you aren't going to trust the medical professionals why not just give birth at home?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 10, 2024 10:24:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2014 13:53:29 GMT -5
but if someone is willing to take the risk of side effects from epidural pain management, then why can't that same someone accept the risk that if they need an emergency c-section under general anesthesia they could aspirate? are you seriously not understanding the comparison? why can a patient accept one risk but not another? If u aren't going to follow medical advice why bother to go to the hospital? If you aren't going to trust the medical professionals why not just give birth at home? you still aren't understanding and I'm done explaining. but I gave birth in a free-standing birth center with a midwife because I trusted their idea and management of childbirth better than an OB. not to mention that in similar groups of low risk women, midwives have better outcomes than OBs.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 10, 2024 10:24:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2014 14:02:37 GMT -5
They have lower rates of c-section but higher rates of death and brain damage. In the Netherlands where homebirthing is integrated into the healthcare system low risk women who birth at home have worse outcomes than high risk women who birth in hospitals. Things have changed quite a bit in the last few years. here in the United States - which is where I gave birth - low risk women who use a midwife have better outcomes when compared to similar groups of low risk women who use OBs. I really don't care about the statistics in the Netherlands - they have a different healthcare system, education and training, etc.
|
|
Chocolate Lover
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:54:19 GMT -5
Posts: 23,200
|
Post by Chocolate Lover on Aug 6, 2014 14:05:04 GMT -5
idk, my baby belly was totally gone by 7 days pp, and I was back to my exact starting weight by my 6 week pp check-up. Bring the hate, bitches! <<puts down chocolate and wanders out of thread>> stupid skinny bitches!
|
|
raeoflyte
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 15:43:53 GMT -5
Posts: 15,014
|
Post by raeoflyte on Aug 6, 2014 14:05:37 GMT -5
I could not have pushed dd out with an epi. I've done both. I know how differently I push between the 2. So no, I'm not making this up. And statistically every intervention makes another intervention more likely. I didn't say it caused it just that it becomes more likely. Sent from my ADR6410LVW using proboards Interesting that you felt a difference in pushing between epi & non-epi. I had 2 with epis & one completely natural & noticed no difference in my ability to push. But then it literally took 1-3 pushes for each, so I never had the whole pushing for hours experience that some talk about. I pushed for 2 hours and 45 minutes with ds and an epi. Plenty of pressure and at the time I would have told you it hurt like hell. Pushed for 1.5 hours with dd, no epi and learned about real pain. The strength to push harder mid contraction, and know when its worth it to push that much harder just wasn't there with the epi because you just don't have the sensation. I was 15 minutes away from additional interventions with both kids but with dd it would have been a c-section because I just couldn't keep going. I don't regret my first one, just how I ended up with it. As a first time mom in hard labor I shouldn't have had to keep advocating for myself. I loved getting 2 hours to rest though. I thought I had a reaction to the percocet, but later realized that most of my post partum issues were side effects of the epi. Nothing terrible, but I wish I had known that was the problem at the time. Had I had 10 pushes or less, my perception would be very different. Sent from my ADR6410LVW using proboards
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,095
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Aug 6, 2014 14:09:21 GMT -5
Is it bad that I can't remember how many times I pushed? I just recall the nurses noted it took 7 hours which I guess is pretty short for a first time mom.
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,379
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Aug 6, 2014 14:09:49 GMT -5
Is it bad that I can't remember how many times I pushed? I just recall the nurses noted it took 7 hours which I guess is pretty short for a first time mom. 7 hours of pushing
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,095
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Aug 6, 2014 14:10:25 GMT -5
7 hours of pushing
No from the time I was admitted to the time Gwen made her appearance.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 10, 2024 10:24:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2014 14:11:08 GMT -5
Is it bad that I can't remember how many times I pushed? I just recall the nurses noted it took 7 hours which I guess is pretty short for a first time mom. 7 hours of pushing I agree. I don't think that's short! My first was 2 hours (after 14 hours of labor) and I thought that was bad! 2nd was quick. Maybe 20 minutes of pushing.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 10, 2024 10:24:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2014 14:11:36 GMT -5
7 hours of pushing No from the time I was admitted to the time Gwen made her appearance. Oh, never mind. That was short.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Aug 6, 2014 14:12:11 GMT -5
here is the United States - which is where I gave birth - low risk women who use a midwife have better outcomes when compared to similar groups of low risk women who use OBs. I really don't care about the statistics in the Netherlands - they have a different healthcare system, education and training, etc.
This is another place where you are trying to compare apples to oranges. A midwife is going to only handle low risk deliveries and will divert any that could cause problems to an OB, even if they have been low risk for the better part of their pregnancy. So her outcome is ONLY going to be the lowest of low risk patients. The OB, OTOH is going to see both low and high risk patients all the time. So if his low risk patient has a problem, he's going to deal with it because he's been trained to do so.
It's all a matter of how they put the spin on the statistics.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 10, 2024 10:24:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2014 14:15:03 GMT -5
No they do not. I pointed out that in the Netherlands, where one would expect homebirth outcomes to be better because of the healthcare system they are actually worse. In the U.S. it is even worse than that. If you define outcomes as merely avoidance of c-sections or pain relief than yes, homebirth might be considered better. When you weigh it against the far greater risk of death or disability then homebirth outcomes in the U.S. are terrible. They have about 10 times the rate of death and 20 times the rate of brain injury (as defined by the need for cooling therapy.) are you under the impression that I didn't do my research? no, better outcomes means less prematurity, better birthweight, less interventions, less NICU visits, less complications, and less c-sections. and I'm not comparing homebirth - not sure where you got that idea. I'm comparing births managed by a midwife as the primary caregiven (most of whom are CNMs) and births managed by an OB. please stop throwing homebirths into the mix - many of which are not planned as homebirths and therefore the mother is unprepared -
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 10, 2024 10:24:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2014 14:16:12 GMT -5
here is the United States - which is where I gave birth - low risk women who use a midwife have better outcomes when compared to similar groups of low risk women who use OBs. I really don't care about the statistics in the Netherlands - they have a different healthcare system, education and training, etc.This is another place where you are trying to compare apples to oranges. A midwife is going to only handle low risk deliveries and will divert any that could cause problems to an OB, even if they have been low risk for the better part of their pregnancy. So her outcome is ONLY going to be the lowest of low risk patients. The OB, OTOH is going to see both low and high risk patients all the time. So if his low risk patient has a problem, he's going to deal with it because he's been trained to do so. It's all a matter of how they put the spin on the statistics. what part of - in comparing groups of low risk women, i.e., women who remained low risk - did you miss? plus when I was doing my research there was a study done of high risk patients - I think in Harlem or some place like that. and in comparing the groups of high-risk women managed by a midwife, they still had better outcomes than a group treated by the OBs.
|
|
skubikky
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 7:37:12 GMT -5
Posts: 3,044
|
Post by skubikky on Aug 6, 2014 14:18:29 GMT -5
No they do not. I pointed out that in the Netherlands, where one would expect homebirth outcomes to be better because of the healthcare system they are actually worse. In the U.S. it is even worse than that. If you define outcomes as merely avoidance of c-sections or pain relief than yes, homebirth might be considered better. When you weigh it against the far greater risk of death or disability then homebirth outcomes in the U.S. are terrible. They have about 10 times the rate of death and 20 times the rate of brain injury (as defined by the need for cooling therapy.) are you under the impression that I didn't do my research? no, better outcomes means less prematurity, better birthweight, less interventions, less NICU visits, less complications, and less c-sections. and I'm not comparing homebirth - not sure where you got that idea. I'm comparing births managed by a midwife as the primary caregiven (most of whom are CNMs) and births managed by an OB. please stop throwing homebirths into the mix - many of which are not planned as homebirths and therefore the mother is unprepared - But even in a facility where a midwife is providing care, if there was a need for intervention, the patient would then be assigned to an OB so again, the point being that midwives don't do C-sections as they're not surgeons.
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Aug 6, 2014 14:18:51 GMT -5
holy crap, if i had to push for 2 hrs - we would have minus 2 kids right now.
anyone who pushed for that long and then had another baby - you win the bestest mother award right from the start!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 10, 2024 10:24:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2014 14:20:04 GMT -5
are you under the impression that I didn't do my research? no, better outcomes means less prematurity, better birthweight, less interventions, less NICU visits, less complications, and less c-sections. and I'm not comparing homebirth - not sure where you got that idea. I'm comparing births managed by a midwife as the primary caregiven (most of whom are CNMs) and births managed by an OB. please stop throwing homebirths into the mix - many of which are not planned as homebirths and therefore the mother is unprepared - But even in a facility where a midwife is providing care, if there was a need for intervention, the patient would then be assigned to an OB so again, the point being that midwives don't do C-sections as they're not surgeons. part of the midwives statistics are how many patients transfer to the hospital, both emergency and non-emergency, and what percentage of those have c-sections. so yes, the midwife practice I used had a c-section rate.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 10, 2024 10:24:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2014 14:20:23 GMT -5
holy crap, if i had to push for 2 hrs - we would have minus 2 kids right now. anyone who pushed for that long and then had another baby - you win the bestest mother award right from the start! I pushed fro 2.5 hours with my first.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Aug 6, 2014 14:22:15 GMT -5
idk, my baby belly was totally gone by 7 days pp, and I was back to my exact starting weight by my 6 week pp check-up. Bring the hate, bitches! <<puts down chocolate and wanders out of thread>> stupid skinny bitches!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 10, 2024 10:24:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2014 14:23:30 GMT -5
Many homebirths are planned. Most studies differentiate between planned and unplanned homebirths. Although in a recent study it was found that taxi drivers have similar outcomes to homebirth midwives. CNM's work in hospitals and transfer higher risk cases to OB's. They can't do c-sections so they are going to have a lower rate. no, my CNMs worked in a freestanding birth center NOT attached to a hospital. and either midwives have a c-section rate (the number of patients who started their labor with them and had to have a c-section) or then have a 0% c-section rate (they aren't surgeons). which is it? why do you keep bringing up homebirth? I have no statistics on it and haven't mentioned homebirth at all. I did my research based on CNMs practicing in a free standing birthcenter that transferred to a hospital if necessary.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Aug 6, 2014 14:23:52 GMT -5
here is the United States - which is where I gave birth - low risk women who use a midwife have better outcomes when compared to similar groups of low risk women who use OBs. I really don't care about the statistics in the Netherlands - they have a different healthcare system, education and training, etc.This is another place where you are trying to compare apples to oranges. A midwife is going to only handle low risk deliveries and will divert any that could cause problems to an OB, even if they have been low risk for the better part of their pregnancy. So her outcome is ONLY going to be the lowest of low risk patients. The OB, OTOH is going to see both low and high risk patients all the time. So if his low risk patient has a problem, he's going to deal with it because he's been trained to do so. It's all a matter of how they put the spin on the statistics. what part of - in comparing groups of low risk women, i.e., women who remained low risk - did you miss? plus when I was doing my research there was a study done of high risk patients - I think in Harlem or some place like that. and in comparing the groups of high-risk women managed by a midwife, they still had better outcomes than a group treated by the OBs. You are still missing the point. Low risk women who started out low risk and remained that way during their entire pregnancy remained with the midwives. Low risk women who acquired a complication mid pregnancy were diverted to an OB. So you are comparing birth outcomes of midwives, who by law MUST divert more complicated pregnancies to an OB to an OB, whose low risk pregnancies have a wider range of possible complications but are not considered high risk. The midwives have the ability to cherrypick their low risk pregnancies, OBs do not. Groups are not equal, therefore you really can't compare them.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 10, 2024 10:24:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2014 14:26:28 GMT -5
what part of - in comparing groups of low risk women, i.e., women who remained low risk - did you miss? plus when I was doing my research there was a study done of high risk patients - I think in Harlem or some place like that. and in comparing the groups of high-risk women managed by a midwife, they still had better outcomes than a group treated by the OBs. You are still missing the point. Low risk women who started out low risk and remained that way during their entire pregnancy remained with the midwives. Low risk women who acquired a complication mid pregnancy were diverted to an OB. So you are comparing birth outcomes of midwives, who by law MUST divert more complicated pregnancies to an OB to an OB, whose low risk pregnancies have a wider range of possible complications but are not considered high risk. The midwives have the ability to cherrypick their low risk pregnancies, OBs do not. Groups are not equal, therefore you really can't compare them. ummmmm, no, I'm not the one missing the point. I'm talking about one group of low risk women who started with a midwife and a completely separate group of low risk women who started with an OB. not women who transferred from a midwife to an OB. the second group NEVER had care from the midwife. so for example, 10 low risk women - 5 managed by a midwife and the other 5 managed by an OB (never receiving care from a midwife).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 10, 2024 10:24:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2014 14:26:54 GMT -5
My ex's wife got booted from the midwife to an OB already. First pregnancy she made it to the last few weeks, but this time the diabetes and preeclampsia showed up early.
|
|
Chocolate Lover
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:54:19 GMT -5
Posts: 23,200
|
Post by Chocolate Lover on Aug 6, 2014 14:30:15 GMT -5
<<puts down chocolate and wanders out of thread>> stupid skinny bitches! That's a nice picture icon.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 10, 2024 10:24:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2014 14:34:34 GMT -5
Freestanding birth centers are the equivalent of homebirthing. It's just somebody else's bed unless they have a high level resuscitation team and doctors trained to get the baby out quickly. They are still calling the ambulance like you would at home with all the delays that entails. A baby died at a freestanding birth center here in PDX just a few months ago. whatever.....maybe in your area but since I gave birth in one 3 times I think I know what I'm talking about. they could do everything a hospital could except a c-section. and of course a baby never dies in a hospital right?
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Aug 6, 2014 14:38:05 GMT -5
That's a nice picture icon. damn!
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Aug 6, 2014 14:38:11 GMT -5
ummmmm, no, I'm not the one missing the point. I'm talking about one group of low risk women who started with a midwife and a completely separate group of low risk women who started with an OB. not women who transferred from a midwife to an OB. the second group NEVER had care from the midwife.
so for example, 10 low risk women - 5 managed by a midwife and the other 5 managed by an OB (never receiving care from a midwife).
And I am talking about 10 low risk women, 5 managed by midwife and other 5 managed by OB. However, 2 women from the midwife group develop complications during pregnancy and are diverted to OB. That leaves 3 low risk women who proceed to delivery. However, you are comparing it to a group of 5 low risk women in the OB group, where 2 have had complications. Because the OB can handle the complications, his 'low risk' patients are not diverted.
Again, the midwives are dealing with the lowest of the low risk patients only. The OB is dealing with low risk patients on a spectrum.
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,379
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Aug 6, 2014 14:38:59 GMT -5
That's a nice picture icon. damn!
|
|