[escepticos] ¿El pelo del feto causa revoltura?

Vie Mar 14 20:54:08 WET 2008

Estoy de acuerdo contigo en lo de paja mental. Si hubiera un sistema tan
refinado para detectar los toxicos, que indujera al vomito como proteccion etc,
etc.. no se cuando una mujer embarazada fumara le deberia saber a rayos, o
debería no se, partirse en dos... y he conocido embarazadas fumadoras que no
tenian nauseas.

Missatge citat per Moreno <magofreston en fastmail.fm>:

> Bueno, las referencias prometidas:
> esta hipótesis la expresó la bióloga Magie Profet en "Pregnancy sickness
> as adaptation". Podéis buscar información al respecto por internet.
> Resumo un par de referencias que he encontrado a su trabajo:
> En http://www.morningsickness.eu/ (sí, sí, en serio):
> <<As for root causes, this issue is still somewhat controversial. A
> notable current scientific hypothesis is that morning sickness exists as
> a safeguard for the embryo's health. Biologists Gillian V. Pepper and S.
> Craig Roberts have done a study that indicates that the intake of
> alcohol, sugar, oils, and meat can trigger morning sickness. This then
> acts as a way of discouraging ingestion of less healthy foods.[1]
> According to Margie Profet, eating vegetables may be a factor as
> well.[2] Vegetables produce a small amount of toxins to deter insect
> infestation and while these toxins are normally harmless to adult
> humans, they are potentially dangerous to embryos.[3] Additionally,
> morning sickness begins at the point when the embryo's organ systems are
> being laid down and the embryo is most vulnerable to birth-defect
> inducing chemicals, but is growing slowly and has only a modest need for
> nutrients. By the 14th-16th week, when morning sickness typically wanes,
> the organ systems of the embryo are mostly complete and the most
> prominent need is now nutrients. Women afflicted by morning sickness
> typically avoid "bitter, pungent, highly-flavored, and novel foods,"
> foods which are likely to contain toxins. Foraging people are at an
> unusually high risk of ingesting plant toxins, due to wild plants being
> a substantially larger part of their diet than civilized people's. Thus,
> morning sickness offers an evolutionary advantage, as studies have shown
> that women with more severe morning sickness have less chance to
> miscarry as well as less chance to have children with birth defects (see
> below), which explains its prevalence among most women and why it is a
> universal phenomenon across the human race.>>
>
> Aunque en
>
http://www.viamedica.pl/gazety/gazetaJ/darmowy_pdf.phtml?indeks=12&indeks_art=191
> vienen a decir que:
> <<     Profet [11] has suggested that the nausea of pregnancy is
> caused by a recalibration of the chemoreceptor trigger zone
> in the area postrema, a region of the medulla where toxins
> can be detected in the circulating blood and vomiting initia-
> ted. She goes on to suggest that a decrease in the mother’s
> threshold for taste and smell occurs as a protective mecha-
> nism for screening out toxins from the embryo during the
> first trimester of pregnancy. As a result of this threshold shift,
> previously desired foods with strong taste and/or odors, like
> coffee, strong smelling cheese, etc., are nauseating and are
> thus avoided. Profet calls attention to the adaptive value of
> pregnancy sickness; however, other investigators (e.g., Brown,
> Kahn, & Hartman [12] have questioned the validity of Pro-
> fet’s theory, citing an absence of supporting data.>>
>
> Vamos, que de momento parece que no pasa de paja mental.
>
> Un saludo.
>
>
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 06:51:10 -0700, "Moreno" <magofreston en fastmail.fm>
> said:
> >
> > On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:17:20 +0100, "Inés Toledo" <inesucu en gmail.com>
> > said:
> > > > El 14/03/08, Moreno <magofreston en fastmail.fm> escribió:
> > > >
> > > > > La conjetura a la que yo había dado más credibilidad es que ciertas
> > > >  >  sustancias tóxicas presentes en los vegetales, aunque son inocuas
> para
> > > >  >  un adulto, pueden ser desastrosas para el feto. Los vómitos
> permitirían
> > > >  >  deshacerse de estas sustancias.
> > > >  >  Había también estudios que apoyaban esta hipótesis sobre abortos
> > > >  >  naturales o malformaciones en el feto. También se relacionaba la
> época
> > > >  >  de aparición de las náuseas con la fase de desarrollo del feto en
> la que
> > > >  >  sería más vulnerable a estas sustancias. A ver si esta tarde tengo
> > > >  >  tiempo y busco las referencias.
> > > >  >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > (IT) Pero aparecerían vómitos únicamente si se toman esas sustancias
> > > >  tóxicas... no entiendo muy bien lo que dices.
> >
> > Claro, aparecerían al tomar alimentos que probablemente contengan
> > toxinas... que son muchos.
> >
> > >
> > > Yo sabía lo de los vómitos de los dos (más o menos) primeros meses.
> > > Nunca tuve noticia de otro periodo de náuseas a los cinco-seis
> > > meses...
> >
> > No entiendo, ¿de dónde sale este segundo periodo?
> >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Inés
> > >
> > > http://blogdeinestoledo.blogspot.com/
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Escepticos mailing list
> > > Escepticos en dis.ulpgc.es
> > > http://correo.dis.ulpgc.es/mailman/listinfo/escepticos
> >
> > --
> > http://www.fastmail.fm - And now for something completely different…
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Escepticos mailing list
> > Escepticos en dis.ulpgc.es
> > http://correo.dis.ulpgc.es/mailman/listinfo/escepticos
>
> --
> http://www.fastmail.fm - IMAP accessible web-mail
>
> _______________________________________________
> Escepticos mailing list
> Escepticos en dis.ulpgc.es
> http://correo.dis.ulpgc.es/mailman/listinfo/escepticos
>