![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 15 of 15. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 25, 2002, at 13:56:47
J Affect Disord 2002 May;69(1-3):15-29
Seafood consumption, the DHA content of mothers' milk and prevalence rates of postpartum depression: a cross-national, ecological analysis.Hibbeln JR.
Laboratory of Membrane Biophysics and Biochemistry, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health, Park 5, Room 150, 12420 Parklawn Drive, 20892, Rockville, MD, USA
BACKGROUND: Mothers selectively transfer docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) to their fetuses to support optimal neurological development during pregnancy. Without sufficient dietary intake, mothers become depleted of DHA and may increase their risk of suffering major depressive symptoms in the postpartum period. We postulated that the DHA content of mothers' milk and seafood consumption would both predict prevalence rates of postpartum depression across countries. METHODS: Published prevalence data for postpartum depression were included that used the Edinburgh Postpartum Depression Scale (n=14532 subjects in 41 studies). These data were compared to the DHA, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and arachidonic acid (AA) content in mothers' milk and to seafood consumption rates in published reports from 23 countries. RESULTS: Higher concentrations of DHA in mothers' milk (r=-0.84, p<0.0001, n=16 countries) and greater seafood consumption (r=-0.81, p<0.0001, n=22 countries) both predicted lower prevalence rates of postpartum depression in simple and logarithmic models, respectively. The AA and EPA content of mothers' milk were unrelated to postpartum depression prevalence. LIMITATIONS: These findings do not prove that higher omega-3 status cause lower prevalence rates of postpartum depression. Data on potentially confounding factors were not uniformly available for all countries. CONCLUSIONS: Both lower DHA content in mothers' milk and lower seafood consumption were associated with higher rates of postpartum depression. These results do not appear to be an artifact of cross-national differences in well-established risk factors for postpartum depression. Interventional studies are needed to determine if omega-3 fatty acids can reduce major postpartum depressive symptoms.
Posted by bubblegumchewer on November 26, 2002, at 8:33:41
In reply to DHA and post-partum depression: a new study, posted by Larry Hoover on November 25, 2002, at 13:56:47
This is what I meant a few days ago when I said that I wish to give my soon-to-be-born baby the benefits of omega-3 fatty acids; I remember now that my body is already doing that, and probably squeezing my paltry supplies dry in the process. So what I really meant to say is that I'm selfishly looking out for myself and my own mental health. I've been pregnant and/or breastfeeding almost continuously for the last ten years (only four children but spaced out well) and this should be my last stop as I get off the fertility train. I would think that if anyone would be depleted of DHA it would be me.
I've been following some of these studies, and there was a big one going on at Baylor Medical College in Texas (?) and it seems to have fizzled out because I can't find anything else on it. Also there are trials of LAX-101 (if I remember correctly) which is a synthesized form of DHA/EPA (I think??) and I haven't checked in on that one for a while. That was for treatment of schizophrenia.
Thanks for providing some intelligent conversation here. Believe it or not, in most forums I visit, I'm unfortunately the smartest one there (you may think "and that's not saying much") and it's frustrating (people say things like "I was up all night throwing up, I guess that flu shot the doctor gave me was useless" and I try to shed light but no one listens) and here at psycho-babble I can always find smarter, better informed people to make me feel like a mental midget. It's humbling and refreshing as well as a good way to get some good information.
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 26, 2002, at 10:28:15
In reply to Thanks, Lar, posted by bubblegumchewer on November 26, 2002, at 8:33:41
> This is what I meant a few days ago when I said that I wish to give my soon-to-be-born baby the benefits of omega-3 fatty acids; I remember now that my body is already doing that, and probably squeezing my paltry supplies dry in the process. So what I really meant to say is that I'm selfishly looking out for myself and my own mental health.
I hope I'm not hearing too much self-attack here. By even recognizing the issue at all, you're well ahead of most people. Even most doctors don't know what you know. Your unborn child, and all your other children, depend on you for their wellbeing. Looking after yourself *is* looking after them.
>I've been pregnant and/or breastfeeding almost continuously for the last ten years (only four children but spaced out well) and this should be my last stop as I get off the fertility train. I would think that if anyone would be depleted of DHA it would be me.
There's a good argument for that, yes.
> I've been following some of these studies, and there was a big one going on at Baylor Medical College in Texas (?) and it seems to have fizzled out because I can't find anything else on it. Also there are trials of LAX-101 (if I remember correctly) which is a synthesized form of DHA/EPA (I think??) and I haven't checked in on that one for a while. That was for treatment of schizophrenia.You got me curious. Lax-101 is ethyl-eicosapentaenoate, the ester formed from ethanol and eicosapentaenoic acid. It is being promoted as a treatment in Huntingdon's disease.
You know what sucks about this stuff? Because it is purified (from fish oil) and chemically modified (transformed to an ester), it might eventually qualify as a patented drug, guaranteeing massive expense and limited availability. It already has an investigational drug ID number. Bah, humbug!
The Baylor/Harvard study is still ongoing. Results are expected soon. A preliminary study was released, as a rationale for the larger one, involving 120 subjects.
> Thanks for providing some intelligent conversation here. Believe it or not, in most forums I visit, I'm unfortunately the smartest one there (you may think "and that's not saying much") and it's frustrating (people say things like "I was up all night throwing up, I guess that flu shot the doctor gave me was useless" and I try to shed light but no one listens) and here at psycho-babble I can always find smarter, better informed people to make me feel like a mental midget. It's humbling and refreshing as well as a good way to get some good information.<spock eyebrow> Mental midget? Please. You're a valuable contributor. Really.
Posted by bubblegumchewer on November 27, 2002, at 9:08:45
In reply to Re: Thanks, Lar, posted by Larry Hoover on November 26, 2002, at 10:28:15
I haven't read up on the LAX-101 in a while so I forgot. I think I'll look it up now. It's slow going, though, being a "real" pharmaceutical trial. I noticed it has big funding because it will become a real (expensive and profitable) pharmaceutical, if successful. I guess that's the idea: no one wants to fund research on food supplements. That would be too mundane. I should buy some of that pharmaceutical stock. My husband had some of it for a while but let it go.
Don't worry, Larry, any self-deprecation is merely a little attempt at humor. I take my health and my family's seriously. I've been fine for more than a year now and for the most part fine over the last 20 years except for some intermittent E.R. trips for panic attacks (I've had about a 20 year history of such with a maximum of the same number of E.R. visits; probably less than half that many, actually, although at least twice that many problematic episodes) and one inpatient stay a year and a half ago that lasted one week, during which I thought I was going to die, and of course with a life and a husband and wonderful children I can't afford such an episode of illness. This got my attention enough to research possible dietary remedies to what is an infrequent but sometimes viciously disabling problem for me. Fatty acid balance may be NOT the culprit in my case but I'm sure such therapy can't hurt. Doctors don't even want to hear about it. It's as if you're bringing up colonics and ear candling.
I'm on no pharmaceuticals at all now and doing fine, just like I've done for the majority of my life. I've only taken a few meds over the years and therefore don't have a lot of interest in the many discussions on many different meds here. So I just check in every few months to see if anything is being discussed that interests me. I was pleased to see all the fish oil threads. And like I said, I like a challenge (reading information posted by intelligent people more knowledgeable than myself.)
Since I've tried to curb my overuse of the internet for interaction and entertainment, I've bookmarked only a few forums that I regularly visit, and one of them is a pregnant women's board. Unfortunately the majority of posts are uninteresting, but what can you expect from a group of women who only have one such common denominator? But someone there posted a very good question: If amniotic fluid is supposedly replaced every x # of hours, where does the old fluid go? I tried to explain but my short explanation wasn't accepted; I gave a longer explanation of how ALL body fluid, amniotic fluid being no exception, is absorbed into the bloodstream and partially excreted through respiration and perspiration before being filtered by the kidneys and excreted via bladder, etc. but no one was listening. They seemed to be under the impression that there must be a direct drainage tube from amniotic sac to bladder and thus what they had previously thought was urine was actually pure amniotic fluid. I am not joking; they had the serious conclusion that urine is sometimes not urine but just a load of amniotic fluid being emptied. I explained the true route of fluid absorption and excretion in the body and no one cared or listened. I have to admit that being one of the smarter ones around, although I'm generally not conceited about it (there is SO much that I don't know and SO many smarter people) I get irritated when people seem content to leave their level of understanding down in the dumps, particularly when they ASK to understand and then don't listen. I didn't think that fluid excretion (if I'm right about it, after all) was such a complicated concept.
I am rambling... ah, coffee is gone so a better mood should be setting in soon. Oh! That reminds me of another irritation on the pregnant women's board: women who apologize: "sorry this was long" or "sorry if this was boring" or "sorry if I offended anyone..." See, I was about to say, "sorry, no one asked to hear my life story and my gripes of the day," but actually I don't apologize for such because it's my position that no one has to read what doesn't interest them. I certainly don't read everything here. Got to go watch puppet show constructed by creative children now.
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 27, 2002, at 11:21:01
In reply to Yes, Huntingdon's, that's correct, posted by bubblegumchewer on November 27, 2002, at 9:08:45
I hope the puppet show was gratifying. ;-)
Humour is probably the most difficult emotion to convey over the net. You're very intelligent, and I think you downplay that. Self-talk is a way to monitor self-respect, and I remain a little bit concerned. Maybe it's depression talking, but maybe it's a habit.
I like you. I hope you stick around.
Lar
Posted by bubblegumchewer on November 27, 2002, at 12:53:18
In reply to Thanks, Lar, posted by bubblegumchewer on November 26, 2002, at 8:33:41
How nice to be liked! Of course I like you, too. Ok, now that we're being personal, I have to confess that I am NOT a bubble gum chewer and never have been much of one. The name was derived from another name that was equally randomly picked... anyway, lately I have become a CHEWING gum chewer. Here's where I'm going with this. Maybe you can offer some insight into this.
On the pregnant women's board it's fairly common knowledge that a craving for strange non-food items can signal nutritional deficiencies, most notably iron (pica referring to the actual eating of ice, clay, laundry starch etc.) Now, my eating habits surely aren't the best but being blessed with the body that just doesn't want to be unhealthy (thanks Mom and Dad for the genes!) every time I go to the OB I get the perfect bill of health, even with perfect iron levels despite my lack of prenatal vitamin supplementation up until recently (I felt too sick to eat much of anything let alone vitamins for a few months; ironically, nausea seems to be a GOOD sign during pregnancy; sick stomach = strong hormones = unhappy mom but happy healthy baby.) Anyway, I'm taking the darn vitamins with iron now. But back to the subject, I had some strange "cravings" last pregnancy but even more this pregnancy. Thankfully, I don't actually have the urge to EAT anything weird but I have a passionate craving for some non-food odors. A few other women have confessed to the same. Here's my list. Can you, as a chemist, find a common thread or venture a guess as to what in the heck could be going on biochemically to cause a YEARNING to smell the following items??
Winterfresh sugarless gum (chew it constantly) (this is the only ingested substance... the flavoring of course, not the gum.)
Smells of: new tires
dusty basements (had this last pregnancy too) We had some water leaking under our sink and destroying the drywall and the damp smell is absolutely intoxicating to me. I'm embarrassed to say I go in there just to stick my head under the vanity and take in the damp smell. I just LOVE anyplace dusty like a warehouse or basement.
Tide with bleach powdered detergent. Also make excuses to open the box of Tide and smell it, even run fingers through it, like I'm possessed
Air conditioning in car just upon starting it up.
That's my list. I've heard others confess that they've licked dusty cabinets. I haven't done that nor felt the urge; I'm not even drawn to ice. But I have trouble staying away from any dusty odor source if it is near. It is so compelling and pleasurable, yet it leaves me unsatisfied and wanting more. What could possibly be behind this?? Have any idea whatsoever? I believe it is mainly a pregnancy phenomenon although I've always liked the classic basement smell.
I don't like all odors like nasty mildew or a stinky goldfish tank. I seem to be mainly drawn to a classic dusty or damp smell plus certain industrial fragrances like certain laundry detergents and perfumes used in lotion, shampoo etc. Normally I am neutral about detergent and don't care much for perfumes. Thanks for any input.
Posted by bubblegumchewer on November 29, 2002, at 11:16:19
In reply to Re: Thanks, Lar, posted by bubblegumchewer on November 27, 2002, at 12:53:18
I'm not trying to nag. If you have no idea or no interest, then that's ok. I've tried to do my own research but can find almost NOTHING on anything related to olfactory functions. I know that this subject is off the medication track but it has a little to do with nutritional deficiencies (or at least I think it might); therefore I thought you might have some kind of clue. It's not important; I'm just very curious as to why or even whether nutritional deficiencies or some other (hormonal?) mechanism could drive people to ingest or at least lust after the smell of non-food items that normally don't inspire delight. I forgot to mention that I am drawn to any bleach-type smell such as plain old bleach or cleanser. Though I'm smarter than to linger near the comet-ed bathtub and take it in for too long. I know that's probably not the healthiest habit.
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 29, 2002, at 12:13:31
In reply to There was a question hidden above, posted by bubblegumchewer on November 29, 2002, at 11:16:19
> I'm not trying to nag. If you have no idea or no interest, then that's ok. I've tried to do my own research but can find almost NOTHING on anything related to olfactory functions. I know that this subject is off the medication track but it has a little to do with nutritional deficiencies (or at least I think it might); therefore I thought you might have some kind of clue. It's not important; I'm just very curious as to why or even whether nutritional deficiencies or some other (hormonal?) mechanism could drive people to ingest or at least lust after the smell of non-food items that normally don't inspire delight. I forgot to mention that I am drawn to any bleach-type smell such as plain old bleach or cleanser. Though I'm smarter than to linger near the comet-ed bathtub and take it in for too long. I know that's probably not the healthiest habit.
Ya, forgot about this part. Two thoughts: a) apparently you're not alone; b) there may be no meaning to the practice, and attempting to find one may be futile.
Birth 1995 Sep;22(3):129-37
Pica and olfactory craving of pregnancy: how deep are the secrets?
Cooksey NR.
The practice of pica during pregnancy is described in contemporary literature as the ingestion of nonfood substances and food staples in response to craving. A previously unnamed practice, olfactory craving of pregnancy, is the smelling by pregnant women of selected substances in response to craving, which may occur alone or with pica. Observations and descriptions of women's experiences of pica and olfactory craving were documented during individualized postpartum bedside instruction of 300 women at a midwestern hospital between 1992 and 1994. Most women were African American and low income. Eight themes about pica of pregnancy were keeping practices secret, singularity of the experience, obtaining the craved substance, fears for effects on the fetus, yielding or not yielding to cravings, use of substances as medication, pica and food intake, and sensory experiences other than taste. Three themes about olfactory craving of pregnancy were changes in sense of smell during pregnancy, types of craved substances and settings, and escalation in use during pregnancy. The clinical stages of pica and olfactory craving require further investigation, and perinatal caregivers have to seek and remove the barriers that cause pregnant women to isolate themselves with the practices that stem from these cravings.
Posted by bubblegumchewer on November 29, 2002, at 12:31:27
In reply to Re: There was a question hidden above, posted by Larry Hoover on November 29, 2002, at 12:13:31
Thanks, and I should not use you as a search engine. I thought I did a search on PubMed a while back but I didn't turn up that article. I'll do some more research as I'm still curious. It seems like a subject that is poorly understood. It may not be an important subject in the grand scheme of things but I am drawn to mysteries.
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 29, 2002, at 12:56:48
In reply to Re: There was a question hidden above, posted by bubblegumchewer on November 29, 2002, at 12:31:27
> Thanks, and I should not use you as a search engine. I thought I did a search on PubMed a while back but I didn't turn up that article.
My experience is that keyword selection is sometimes ineffective, even if I know that the keywords are in the target paper. Anyway, pica and smell as keywords turned up this paper as the first hit.
Don't worry about "using" me as a search engine. I do searches for a living, and one more is a trivial change in my load.
> I'll do some more research as I'm still curious. It seems like a subject that is poorly understood. It may not be an important subject in the grand scheme of things but I am drawn to mysteries.
I haven't come across an explanation for pica that makes sense to me. Even the link to iron deficiency is spurious. I'm not sure that there is a way to understand the psychological effects of pregancy, having observed a few of them at close quarters. ;-)
Posted by medlib on November 29, 2002, at 16:32:03
In reply to There was a question hidden above, posted by bubblegumchewer on November 29, 2002, at 11:16:19
Hi Bgc--
Thought you might find this site fun, if you haven't come across it before.
http://www.macalester.edu/~psych/whathap/UBNRP/Smell/smell.html
"The Nose Knows" suggests, among other things, that the olfactory membrane is swollen during pregnancy, leading to heightened sensitivity (makes sense to me; goodness knows, everything *else* is swollen!).
A word on Pub Med searching (with apologies if you knew this already). Medline is a citation database which uses a controlled vocabulary called MeSH (Medical Subject Headings). Looking up the appropriate MeSH terms for your search may produce more focused results and, sometimes, a greater number of relevant "hits" (although the degree of difference is smaller than it used to be).
Posted by medlib on November 29, 2002, at 17:16:05
In reply to Re: There was a question hidden above, posted by Larry Hoover on November 29, 2002, at 12:56:48
Hi Larry--
It's nice to see a fellow searcher here! Although we have quite a number of very talented lay searchers on PB, you're only the 2nd pro I've run across. Is your searching discipline-specific or general? LIS background? Any details you care to share would be most interesting (or my email's at the top of the page). Although I'm not working now, I still teach beginning and intermediate Internet searching on a volunteer basis. I miss having access to OCLC and Dialog.
If I had any discipline, I'd move this to PSB; but I didn't see your name on that board, and I know that some read only this one. So... :)
Regards, medlib
P.S. Sorry, T., I couldn't resist. Feel free to move this; at least that'll leave a trace.
Posted by Tabitha on November 29, 2002, at 17:47:26
In reply to Re: Searching » Larry Hoover, posted by medlib on November 29, 2002, at 17:16:05
>
> If I had any discipline, I'd move this to PSB; but I didn't see your name on that board, and I know that some read only this one. So... :)
>
> Regards, medlib
>
> P.S. Sorry, T., I couldn't resist. Feel free to move this; at least that'll leave a trace.Hi Medlib, good to see you. A tip: one way to reply on a different board is to send your reply there by changing the board in the reply form, then post a note in the original thread saying "see reply on PB-x".
Posted by bubblegumchewer on November 29, 2002, at 18:26:14
In reply to Re: There was a question hidden above » bubblegumchewer, posted by medlib on November 29, 2002, at 16:32:03
I am a lazy searcher and I never read the "tips for more efficient searching" so I didn't know about the terms you mentioned. I think I'll take the time to learn those the next time I go nosing around PubMed. And thanks for the link, I'm going to check it out now. After I find an excuse to put in some laundry and sniff the Tide. (just kidding. I think.)
Posted by Larry Hoover on December 1, 2002, at 11:53:48
In reply to Re: Searching » Larry Hoover, posted by medlib on November 29, 2002, at 17:16:05
> Hi Larry--
>
> It's nice to see a fellow searcher here! Although we have quite a number of very talented lay searchers on PB, you're only the 2nd pro I've run across. Is your searching discipline-specific or general?Yes, chemistry, focussing on endocrine disrupting chemicals (gender-benders), and environmental toxicology.
>LIS background?
None. I wish.
>Any details you care to share would be most interesting (or my email's at the top of the page).
???Not on mine.
I'm not trained, but I am experienced. I do a variety of internet searches, finding as many primary references as I can, then I travel 100 kms to the nearest medical library, and I hit the stacks. Finding primary references of my primary references leads me down "trees" which don't turn up in my primary searches, for some reason. Back and forth, back and forth, hitting abstract services along the way. I copy what I can, and buy what I can't copy. I might read a meter-thick pile of papers for one research contract. Then I write a summary. My reference list is often longer than my summary paper.
>Although I'm not working now, I still teach beginning and intermediate Internet searching on a volunteer basis. I miss having access to OCLC and Dialog.
I don't even know what those are. Working from home means I don't have to shower, dress, or whatever to get some work done. It allows me to cope with my mood symptoms, and still make money. I can't do regular work any more.
> If I had any discipline, I'd move this to PSB; but I didn't see your name on that board, and I know that some read only this one. So... :)
>
> Regards, medlibI don't read the other lists.
Lar
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.