Pregnancy Archives - Amazing Health Advances

Scared of Giving Birth? You’re Not Alone, but Stay Positive to Ease the Fear

The AHA! Team — Wed, 20 Aug 2025 05:32:00 +0000

American Physiological Society (APS) via Newswise – Up to 60% of women experience some fear about giving birth, especially for the first time, but a new study shows why some women are more likely to stay calm and confident in the lead-up to childbirth. In a global first, researchers from Robert Gordon University in Scotland and the University of South Australia (UniSA) investigated the factors that help ease childbirth fears, rather than stoke them. They surveyed 88 pregnant women in their third trimester before attending antenatal classes in north-east Scotland. Researchers used the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale to measure the link between mental wellbeing, a woman’s belief in her ability to manage the challenges of labour, and fear of childbirth.While 12% exhibited ‘severe’ fear of childbirth (FOC), those who were more positive, confident and in meaningful relationships reported fewer concerns. The findings are published in the Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynaecology. Lead author Dr Katrina Forbes-McKay says the results provide valuable insights into how antenatal care could be improved to foster confidence, enhance positive emotions and ultimately support healthier births for mothers and babies. “While many studies have explored the negative effects of childbirth fear, including prolonged labour, emergency caesareans and postpartum mental health issues, there has been little research into what protects women from experiencing those fears,” Dr Forbes-McKay says. “Our findings highlight the need for antenatal care that doesn’t just teach women what to do during labour but also empowers them to believe they can do it.” Co-author UniSA Professor Tracy Humphrey says the study found that a woman’s sense of mental wellbeing was the strongest predictor of how fearful she felt about giving birth. “This includes having a sense of purpose, emotional positivity, and meaningful social relationships – all things that are often overlooked in maternity care,” Prof Humphrey says. “The second key predictor was childbirth self-efficacy – particularly whether women believed they could apply coping strategies when the time came.” The study calls for antenatal programs to shift from a solely medical model to one that builds self-belief. Specifically, it recommends that childbirth education: Fosters confidence in the use of labour techniques such as breathing, visualisation and relaxation Enhances psychological wellbeing by supporting social connection, purpose and satisfaction Embraces an approach that focuses on wellness rather than the risks Although this study was restricted to women in the third trimester, further research has been undertaken on the role of antenatal relaxation practices in improving maternal well-being and childbirth experiences. Robert Gordon University midwifery lecturer Dr Mo Tabib led the study as part of her PhD, under the supervision of Dr Forbes-McKay and Professor Humphrey. Significant improvements “Women who incorporated these relaxation techniques reported “significant improvements” in their mental wellbeing and confidence in approaching childbirth; improvements which remained stable until 4-8 weeks after birth,” Dr Tabib says. “The findings align with global priorities from the World Health Organization to promote the mental and physical health of women during pregnancy. “By addressing fear of childbirth through psychological and educational interventions, we not only support women to have more positive birth experiences but potentially reduce medical interventions and improve outcomes for mothers and infants,” she says. The researchers are now calling for larger, multi-site studies to validate these findings across diverse populations. ‘Predicting fear of childbirth during pregnancy, the positive role of self-efficacy and mental wellbeing: a cross-sectional study’ is co-authored by Katrina Forbes McKay, Mo Tabib and Tracy Humphrey. DOI 10.1080/0167482X.2025.2527658 To read the original article click here.

The post Scared of Giving Birth? You’re Not Alone, but Stay Positive to Ease the Fear appeared first on Amazing Health Advances.

Postpartum Female Preference for Cooler Temperatures Linked to Brain Changes

The AHA! Team — Mon, 11 Aug 2025 05:35:50 +0000

Baylor College of Medicine via EurekAlert! – Mothers experience major metabolic adaptations during pregnancy and lactation to support the development and growth of the new life. Although many metabolic changes have been studied, body temperature regulation and environmental temperature preference during and after pregnancy remain poorly understood. Researchers at Baylor College of Medicine and collaborating institutions show in the journal Molecular Metabolism that postpartum female mice develop new environmental temperature preferences and reveal brain changes mediating these changes. Humans and mice body temperature “In both humans and mice, body temperature increases during early pregnancy, drops to normal temperature during late pregnancy and then goes up again during lactation,” said co-corresponding author Dr. Chunmei Wang, assistant professor of pediatrics at USDA/ARS Children’s Nutrition Research Center at Baylor. In this study, Wang and her colleagues investigated what changes occurred in the brain that mediated the new temperature preference. “We worked with mice and found that female mice prefer a cooler environment starting from late pregnancy and persisting in long-term postpartum,” Wang said. “For more than four weeks post-weaning female mice had a lower body temperature and preferred cooler environments; they lost their typical preference for warm environments (30 °C/86 °F) but still avoided cold environments (15 °C/59 °F).” To identify the biological underpinnings of these changes, the researchers studied the preoptic area (POA), a brain region important for sensing and regulating body temperature. “We discovered that the change in temperature preference in postpartum female mice was associated with a significant decrease in a particular group of neurons, estrogen receptor alpha (ERα)-expressing neurons in the preoptic area of the brain (ERαPOA neurons),” Wang said. Supporting this finding, the researchers found that virgin females in which the estrogen receptor alpha had been deleted in ERαPOA neurons also preferred lower temperatures and avoided warmer locations, mimicking postpartum females. Looking closely into the ERαPOA neurons, the researchers found that these neurons vary in their ability to sense warm or cold temperatures – one group of ERαPOA neurons can directly respond to warmth, while another group responds to cooler temperatures. “Interestingly, compared to female mice that had not been pregnant, ERαPOA neurons of postpartum females had reduced response to warmth and an enhanced response to cold,” Wang said. Together, the results support that the ability of ERαPOA neurons to sense warmth and cold is regulated by reproductive experience and leads to changes in temperature preferences that alter the animal’s warmth-seeking behavior. Currently, the researchers are exploring the function of each group of ERαPOA neurons on the regulation body temperature and thermal preference. Other contributors to this work include Nan Zhang, Meng Yu, Qianru Zhao, Bing Feng, Yue Deng, Jonathan C. Bean, Qingzhuo Liu, Benjamin P. Eappen, Yang He, Kristine M. Conde, Hailan Liu, Yongjie Yang, Longlong Tu, Mengjie Wang, Yongxiang Li, Na Yin, Hesong Liu, Junying Han, Darah Ave Threat, Nathan Xu, Taylor Smiley, Pingwen Xu, Lulu Chen and co-corresponding authors Tianshu Zeng and Yanlin He. The authors are affiliated with one or more of the following institutions: Baylor College of Medicine, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Hubei Branch of National Center for Clinical Medical Research of Metabolic Diseases, Louisiana State University, South-central Minzu University and the University of Illinois. This work was supported by grants from the USDA/CRIS (3092-51000-062-04(B)S), Pennington Biomedical Research Center institutional funding and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. ### Journal Molecular Metabolism DOI 10.1016/j.molmet.2025.102108 To read the original article click here.

The post Postpartum Female Preference for Cooler Temperatures Linked to Brain Changes appeared first on Amazing Health Advances.

Digital Baby Formula Campaigns Undermine Breastfeeding & Put Child Health at Risk

The AHA! Team — Wed, 06 Aug 2025 05:21:37 +0000

SciDev.Net via News-Medical – Breastfeeding saves lives. It is one of the most powerful, proven investments in child survival, development and health. A global resolution on digital marketing of breast milk substitutes must be rigorously enforced, writes Afshan Khan, Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations and coordinator of the Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) Movement. Breastfeeding saves lives. It is one of the most powerful, proven investments in child survival, development and health. And yet its practice is being undermined — not by science, but by sophisticated and often misleading digital marketing. More than half of new parents are exposed to online promotions for formula milk, often disguised as medical advice or peer support. In some countries, that figure rises to over 90 per cent. What these aggressive campaigns for breast milk substitutes (BMS) do not tell parents is that breast milk is essential for building a child’s immune system — something formula simply cannot do. They also ignore a critical risk: formula must be mixed with water, and in communities without safe water access, this often leads to illness and infection in young children. Digital marketing campaigns are targeting parents at their most vulnerable — when they are seeking guidance, not manipulation. These tactics distort choice by drowning out trusted, evidence-based information with biased, misleading promotion. This not only undermines public health principles and a decade of progress in breastfeeding promotion, it also puts the health and future of entire generations at risk. These digital marketing tactics contravene a longstanding global framework. The International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes, adopted by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1981, was designed to protect families from precisely this kind of exploitation. Yet, as a 2022 WHO and UNICEF report revealed, formula companies now spend up to 70 per cent of their marketing budgets on digital tools — from apps and virtual baby clubs to paid influencers and online forums — harvesting personal data and pushing targeted promotions in breach of the Code. In response, WHO member states adopted a landmark resolution at the World Health Assembly in Geneva this week (26 May) to curb digital marketing of breast milk substitutes and protect parents’ right to accurate, transparent information. Led by Mexico and Brazil and supported by nine country members of the UN-hosted Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) Movement, this resolution is a critical step forward. The science on breast milk is long proven. By providing essential nutrition, strengthening immunity, and supporting cognitive development, breastfeeding can radically change the health and economic outcomes of mother and child. Scaling up breastfeeding globally could prevent 823,000 unnecessary child deaths and 20,000 deaths from breast cancer every year. It has been linked to a 20 per cent reduction in the risk of physical and cognitive stunting. These recognised advantages of breast milk had begun to take hold. Since 2012, rates of exclusive breastfeeding have risen from 37 per cent to nearly 48 per cent in 2021. Three quarters of these children live in low- and lower-middle-income countries, which represents important, tangible progress. But digital platforms spreading misleading formula marketing are cutting into this progress, with inadequate breastfeeding responsible for 16 per cent of child deaths each year. The new resolution gives countries a new framework to take action. Translating this into results will, however, require further coordinated efforts across sectors. First, stronger enforcement is essential. Countries need robust monitoring and accountability systems to track violations and respond effectively. Vietnam offers a promising model: with support from the SUN Civil Society Alliance, it has launched the AI-powered Virtual Violations Detector, which identifies breaches of the Code in real time and alerts regulators, enabling swift action and targeted advocacy. Another step will be to align fragmented policies across civil society and health systems. Harmful breast milk substitute marketing flourishes in disconnected systems, such as when health workers lack guidance, civil society is under-resourced, or tech platforms are unregulated. To close these gaps, governments must adopt an approach that brings all actors to the table. Finally, it is equally important to support positive campaigns that champion breastfeeding. It is not enough to restrict harmful marketing — parents need support and encouragement to make informed decisions. El Salvador has shown through its “Nacer con Cariño” (Born with Love) national policy how the promotion of breastfeeding can be integrated into prenatal and delivery care. Since its implementation in 2021, 69,000 babies have been born under this respectful care model and, thanks to the training of more than 1,000 breastfeeding counsellors supported by the SUN Movement, the country has far surpassed the global exclusive breastfeeding targets of 50 per cent for 2025, reaching a rate of more than 65 per cent. Informed parents make empowered choices, and empowered choices give every child the best possible start in life. Together with the resolution on the extension of the World Health Assembly nutrition targets, and the commitments made by countries at the Nutrition for Growth Summit in Paris earlier this year, we have a renewed mandate to act. Let’s make sure we use it and ensure this resolution moves from Geneva into meaningful action and change online and on the ground. Afshan Khan is Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations and coordinator of the Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) Movement. Source: SciDev.Net To read the original article click here.

The post Digital Baby Formula Campaigns Undermine Breastfeeding & Put Child Health at Risk appeared first on Amazing Health Advances.

Infant-Directed Singing Shown to Boost Emotional Health

The AHA! Team — Wed, 30 Jul 2025 06:23:15 +0000

Society for Research in Child Development via News-Medical – Many parents know that infants love to be sung to; however, there is limited prior research to show the long-term effects on parental singing. In a new study, researchers explored whether using a music enrichment intervention program to encourage parents to sing more frequently to their babies could improve the health of both infants and caregivers (as with skin-to-contact). This research was featured in a new Child Development article with authors from Yale University (United States), the University of Amsterdam (the Netherlands), the University of Auckland (New Zealand), McGill University (Canada), Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell (United States) and Princeton University (United States). Researchers advertised for study participants through in-person visits to baby fairs, distribution of flyers at local daycare centers, preschools, and delivery hospitals, and an announcement on public radio in New Haven, Connecticut. Online recruitment efforts targeted social media groups for expecting and new parents, along with online communities related to early childhood education. The study requirements mandated that all participants have a smartphone to be able to communicate and complete surveys online in English and be a primary caregiver of the infant. The study was conducted with 110 caregivers and their infants, who were on average nearly 4 months old. Most caregivers were from the United States and New Zealand, predominantly white, educated, and socioeconomically advantaged. Study participants were randomly assigned to the intervention or control group. The main portion of the study lasted six weeks, starting with a pre-test in week one, followed by a four-week intervention, and then a post-test in week six. Caregivers in the intervention group completed a brief, smartphone-based music enrichment program to help them sing more often to their babies (through access to instructional videos with children’s songs). Throughout the study, participants completed smartphone surveys one to three times daily, reporting on infant and parent mood, stress, sleep quality, and music use. The findings suggest that simple, low-cost interventions, such as increasing infant-directed singing, have the potential to improve health outcomes for both infants and caregivers. The Society for Research in Child Development (SRCD) had the opportunity to speak with Dr. Samuel A. Mehr from Auckland University along with Dr. Eun Cho from Yale University and doctoral student, Lidya Yurdum from the University of Amsterdam to learn more about the research. SRCD: Can you please provide a brief overview of the study? Author team: We conducted a randomized controlled trial to test whether a simple, low-cost music intervention-encouraging caregivers to actively integrate singing into daily routines with their infants-could improve wellbeing for both infants and caregivers. The study included 110 caregiver-infant pairs, primarily from the United States and New Zealand (with infants on average about 4 months old). Participants were randomly assigned to either an intervention group or a control group. During the 4-week intervention, participants in the intervention group were encouraged to sing more to their infants than usual. We measured how this change in behavior would influence infant mood, stress, sleep, and music behavior, using brief, smartphone based surveys that caregivers completed at random times throughout the day. Our main finding was that the intervention successfully increased the frequency of infant-directed singing, especially in soothing contexts, and led to measurable improvements in infants’ general mood as reported by caregivers. SRCD: Did you learn anything that surprised you? Author team: One interesting finding was how intuitively caregivers incorporated singing into soothing routines for their infants, even though the intervention did not explicitly instruct them to use singing for this purpose. Among a dozen soothing strategies, singing was the only one that showed a significant increase in use following the intervention. From a methodological perspective, a particularly encouraging outcome was the high level of compliance with the study protocol-caregivers completed over 70% of the surveys across the 10-week period, demonstrating the feasibility of this approach for future developmental research. This strong compliance supported our decision to move forward with a longer-term, longitudinal study, which is currently underway. SRCD: Can you please explain how this research might be helpful for parents, caregivers and pediatricians? Author team: Our findings suggest that encouraging parents and caregivers to sing more frequently to their infants can have a positive, causal impact on infant mood. Singing is a universal practice-parents from almost every culture and throughout history have intuitively used singing to soothe and connect with their infants. It’s easy to do, requires no special equipment or training, and is accessible to everyone. Because infant mood is closely linked to parenting stress, caregiver-infant bonding, and later social-emotional development, such a simple intervention could have meaningful downstream benefits. For pediatricians and professionals working with families, recommending increased infant-directed singing is a practical, accessible strategy to support infant well-being. SRCD: Can you please address some of the research limitations? Author team: There are several limitations to note. First, our sample was predominantly white, highly educated, and socioeconomically advantaged and composed mainly of mothers, which limits the generalizability of the findings to more diverse populations. Second, all infant mood data were based on caregiver reports-although these reports were collected in real time to reduce recall bias, they remain subject to potential reporting biases. Third, the intervention was relatively brief and low-intensity; longer and more structured interventions might yield broader effects, including on caregiver mood or other health outcomes. Finally, music was already a regular part of many families’ routines at baseline, which may have limited the observable effect size of the intervention. SRCD: What’s next in this field of research? Author team: Despite the intervention lasting only four weeks, we observed clear benefits for infant mood. This suggests that the positive effects of singing to infants may be even more pronounced with longer-term, higher-intensity interventions-and may also extend to caregiver wellbeing and additional aspects of infant health beyond mood. Building on these findings, we are currently conducting two follow-up studies. The first is a direct replication of our original study, but with professionally developed, higher-quality intervention materials designed to help parents sing more to their infants. This will allow us to determine if improved resources can enhance the intervention’s effectiveness. The second is a longitudinal, randomized trial that follows families over eight months. In this study, we are comparing three active interventions -singing (music plus active parent-infant interaction), music listening (music without active interaction), and reading (no music but active interaction) – as well as a general control group. This design will help us disentangle the unique contributions of music, singing, and interactive activities to infant and caregiver outcomes. More information about this ongoing research can be found at https://www.togetherwegrow.study. This research was funded by the National Institutes of Health (United States), the Royal Society of New Zealand, the University of Auckland (New Zealand) and Princeton University (United States). Source: Society for Research in Child Development Journal reference: Cho, E., et al. (2025) Ecological Momentary Assessment Reveals Causal Effects of Music Enrichment on Infant Mood. Child Development. doi.org/10.1111/cdev.14246. To read the original article click here.

The post Infant-Directed Singing Shown to Boost Emotional Health appeared first on Amazing Health Advances.

Babies at Risk: Glyphosate’s Shocking Toll on Birth Outcomes

The AHA! Team — Wed, 16 Jul 2025 05:23:40 +0000

Patrick Tims via NaturalHealth365 – We will examine this study, which observes the link between premature birth, low birth weight, and other peri/prenatal concerns associated with exposure to glyphosate and other environmental toxins. Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the world, accounting for massive spots of agricultural production and invading every part of our communities. While the link between glyphosate and certain types of cancers has already been established, there is emerging data that suggests that glyphosate impacts prenatal health and birth outcomes as well. We will examine this study, which observes the link between premature birth, low birth weight, and other peri/prenatal concerns associated with exposure to glyphosate and other environmental toxins. While environmental toxins like glyphosate are more pervasive than most people realize, we’ll provide actionable steps to help you reduce your exposure and safeguard the health of you and your family. Understanding glyphosate exposure risks to unborn babies Researchers were concerned about the potential harmful effects of glyphosate on fertility and birth outcomes, particularly for individuals living in agricultural areas where glyphosate is heavily used. They focused on communities with lower economic mobility, as these individuals often face the highest levels of exposure. To understand the issue, it’s important to know how glyphosate works. Glyphosate is a powerful herbicide that kills plants unless they are genetically modified (GMO) to resist it. The same company that produces glyphosate also sells GMO seeds designed to survive its application. As a result, glyphosate is often sprayed liberally on fields, eliminating weeds while saturating the soil, groundwater, and air with a highly toxic chemical. Researchers analyzed data from U.S. counties where glyphosate use was especially high, often in areas growing GMO crops like corn and soybeans, which were already well-suited to those regions. After 1996, glyphosate usage soared, and researchers reviewed over 9 million birth records spanning 1993 to 2021 to assess its impact. They compared birth outcomes – such as birth weight and gestational length – in counties with high glyphosate use to those with significantly less exposure. The findings were concerning. On average, babies born in areas with higher glyphosate exposure had gestational periods shortened by a full day and weighed an ounce less at birth. Alarmingly, the effects were even worse for babies who were already at risk of being premature or having low birth weight, although the study couldn’t pinpoint the exact reasons for this heightened vulnerability. Overall, the research demonstrated that glyphosate exposure negatively affects gestational time and birth weight for all babies, with the most severe outcomes seen in already vulnerable populations. Families with lower socioeconomic status, who are often more exposed and have fewer resources to reduce their risk, bear the greatest burden. Compounding risks of other environmental toxins Undoubtedly, the relentless presence of air pollution and the widespread use of plastics have caused significant genetic damage over generations. Heavy metals, air pollutants, BPAs from disposable plastics, pesticides, herbicides, and chemical runoff contaminate groundwater and poison agricultural communities daily. When you combine the impact of glyphosate on farmers and rural populations with these other environmental toxins, the effects on children’s gestational and birth health, as well as their long-term well-being, are deeply concerning. Glyphosate is particularly insidious. Rural communities are exposed not only when it is applied to crops but also through its residue, which remains on food long after harvest. Wheat and potatoes are especially problematic, as they are heavily treated with glyphosate, and traces persist when they reach the market. Despite the position of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that these levels pose ‘no safety concern,’ the continued presence of glyphosate in our food supply raises serious questions about its long-term impact on health. Solutions and preventative measures Unfortunately, those corporations with wealth and power often prioritize profit over public health, leaving vulnerable communities to bear the brunt of harmful practices. Companies like Monsanto (now owned by Bayer) have deep pockets to lobby politicians and keep glyphosate legal. The power to create change lies in grassroots, community-driven efforts where people unite to demand better from their representatives and protect their communities. Start by lobbying your congressional representatives, making it clear that their re-election depends on their support for your stance against glyphosate use. Building local community organizations to educate others about the dangers of glyphosate can also have a significant impact. At the very least, push for transparency by ensuring your community is informed when large-scale glyphosate applications are planned. Advocating for herbicide-free green spaces in your town is another proactive step. On a personal level, you can reduce your exposure to glyphosate by supporting small farms that produce organic crops. In many cases, buying your food from local sources can save you money and the long-term health benefits far outweigh the expense. Investing in a high-quality water filtration system is another critical measure, especially for those living in rural or agricultural areas where contamination risks are higher. While it’s uncertain whether glyphosate will ever be thoroughly scrutinized for its toxicity in the U.S., you can still take steps to protect yourself and your loved ones. By wisely investing your time, energy, and resources – whether through advocacy, education, or personal choices – you can help secure a healthier future for your family and your communities. Sources for this article include: PNAS.org Medicalxpress.com To read the original article click here.

The post Babies at Risk: Glyphosate’s Shocking Toll on Birth Outcomes appeared first on Amazing Health Advances.

Better Sleep, BMI, & Glucose Control Lower Female Infertility Odds

The AHA! Team — Mon, 07 Jul 2025 05:26:07 +0000

Tarun Sai Lomte via News-Medical – In a recent study published in the journal Scientific Reports, researchers explored the associations between Life’s Crucial 9 (LC9) and female infertility. Female infertility is a common reproductive condition. The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study found that female infertility prevalence has increased by over 56 million cases in the past three decades worldwide, and is also projected to increase over the next decade. Female infertility can cause emotional and psychological stress. Besides, female infertility may be linked to the development of various gynecologic cancers, metabolic disorders, and cardiovascular disease. As such, exploring risk factors for infertility for the reduction of disease burden and early prevention has important implications for reproductive health. Life’s Essential 8 (LE8) is a tool for cardiovascular health assessment by the American Heart Association. Recently, LC9 was proposed, building on the LE8, and includes a mental health assessment component. LC9 is associated with cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, but with a limited increase in predictive power over LE8. About the study The present study examined the associations between female infertility and LC9. Female participants from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys from 2013 to 2018 were included. Females not of reproductive age and those with missing data were excluded. LE8 was assessed by pooling four health behaviors (sleep health, physical activity, diet quality, and nicotine exposure) and four health factors (body mass index [BMI] and blood pressure, glucose, and lipids). The Healthy Eating Index (HEI)-2015 was used to assess diet quality. Sleep health, physical activity, and nicotine exposure were self-reported. The blood glucose score was determined based on glycated hemoglobin, fasting blood glucose, or a history of diabetes, while the blood lipid score was derived from serum levels of non-high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol. A depression score was calculated from the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. The LC9 score was calculated as the average of the scores from the eight LE8 components and the depression score, each scaled from 0 to 100. Female infertility was ascertained from the self-reported Reproductive Health Questionnaire. Covariates included age, ethnicity/race, education, marital status, income-poverty ratio, alcohol intake, age at menarche, pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) history, and intake of birth control pills. Multivariable logistic regression models examined the association between female infertility and LC9. The models were unadjusted (crude), partially adjusted (model 1), or fully adjusted (model 2). Furthermore, restricted cubic spline models were examined to investigate non-linear associations between the independent variable and female infertility. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to evaluate whether LC9 improves over LE8 in predicting female infertility. Findings The study enrolled 2,088 females, with an average age of 32.6 years. The prevalence of infertility was almost 14%. The infertile population was more likely to be non-single, non-Hispanic White, and older than females without infertility. Infertile females had lower LE8 and LC9 scores. As LC9 scores increased, subjects were younger, non-Hispanic White, free from infertility, moderate/light or never drinkers, and had higher age at menarche and no PID history. The fully adjusted model indicated that a 10-point increment in LC9 reduced the odds of female infertility by more than 21%. Similarly, a 10-point increment in LE8 decreased the odds of infertility by nearly 18%. Both LE8 and LC9 showed negative linear associations with female infertility. Further, higher scores for BMI, sleep health, blood glucose, and depression were each independently and inversely associated with infertility. Other LC9 components—diet quality, physical activity, nicotine exposure, blood lipids, and blood pressure—were not significantly associated. Further, the team identified ethnicity/race and age as significant effect modifiers. That is, the associations between infertility and LC9 were more pronounced in the Mexican American population and in women under 35 years. The ROC curve analysis revealed that LC9 and LE8 had comparable predictive capabilities for female infertility, with modest area under the curve (AUC) values of 0.594 and 0.590, respectively, indicating limited predictive utility. Conclusions The findings reveal inverse linear associations of LE8 and LC9 with female infertility. Depression, blood glucose, BMI, and sleep health were the components of the LC9 that were (inversely) associated with female infertility. However, LC9 did not significantly outperform LE8 in predicting female infertility. These results suggest that incorporating a depression score into LE8 may not be essential for infertility prediction, despite depression’s association with infertility. The authors note that the overlap between depression and other cardiovascular risk factors may reduce its added predictive value, and that depression assessment tools like the PHQ-9 may introduce subjectivity. Future research should examine the benefits of LC9 in other health domains, particularly in young women and underserved ethnic groups, and explore interventions targeting modifiable LC9 components, such as sleep and mental health. Limitations of the study include its cross-sectional design, reliance on self-reported measures, and the inability to infer causality. Journal reference: Li B, Zhai H. Life’s crucial 9 is inversely and linearly associated with female infertility prevalence: a cross-sectional analysis from NHANES 2013–2018. Scientific Reports, 2025, DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-99023-7, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-99023-7 To read the original article click here.

The post Better Sleep, BMI, & Glucose Control Lower Female Infertility Odds appeared first on Amazing Health Advances.

Early Pregnancy Anemia Linked to Higher Risk of Heart Defects in Newborns

The AHA! Team — Mon, 30 Jun 2025 05:37:54 +0000

Wiley via News-Medical – We already know that the risk of congenital heart disease can be raised by a variety of factors, but these results develop our understanding of anemia specifically and take it from lab studies to the clinic. New research published in BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology found that mothers who are anemic in early pregnancy face a higher likelihood of giving birth to a child with a heart defect. The study assessed the health records of 2,776 women with a child diagnosed with congenital heart disease who were matched to 13,880 women whose children did not have this condition. Investigators found that 4.4% of children with congenital heart disease and 2.8% of children with normal heart function had anemia. After adjusting for potential influencing factors, the odds of giving birth to a child with congenital heart disease was 47% higher among anemic mothers. A variety of factors We already know that the risk of congenital heart disease can be raised by a variety of factors, but these results develop our understanding of anemia specifically and take it from lab studies to the clinic. Knowing that early maternal anemia is so damaging could be a gamechanger worldwide. Because iron deficiency is the root cause of many cases of anemia, widespread iron supplementation for women-both when trying for a baby and when pregnant-could help prevent congenital heart disease in many newborns before it has developed.” – Duncan B. Sparrow, PhD, corresponding author, University of Oxford Source: Wiley Journal reference: Nair, M., et al. (2025) Maternal Anaemia and Congenital Heart Disease in Offspring: A Case–Control Study Using Linked Electronic Health Records in the United Kingdom. BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.18150. To read the original article click here.

The post Early Pregnancy Anemia Linked to Higher Risk of Heart Defects in Newborns appeared first on Amazing Health Advances.

Too Dangerous for Ice Cream, but “Safe” for Newborn Injections?

The AHA! Team — Fri, 20 Jun 2025 05:09:28 +0000

Edit Lang via NaturalHealth365 – A shocking double standard is emerging in the world of chemical safety that should outrage every parent. Scientists have recently published damning evidence that Polysorbate 80 (PS-80) – a synthetic emulsifier found in a wide range of products, including ice cream and salad dressing – accelerates intestinal aging and triggers severe metabolic dysfunction. Yet this same chemical is routinely injected directly into newborns through 22 different vaccines. The contradiction is staggering: If PS-80 is too dangerous to eat, how can health authorities claim it’s safe to bypass all natural defenses and inject it straight into developing babies? What’s really aging your gut from the inside out? A study published in Food Research International has revealed the devastating effects of PS-80 on intestinal health. Researchers have discovered that this ubiquitous food additive not only disrupts digestion but also accelerates the aging process at the cellular level. The study revealed PS-80’s sinister mechanism: it activates specific metabolic pathways that flood intestinal cells with toxic fats, triggering what scientists call “lipotoxicity.” This process generates massive amounts of free radicals and inflammatory compounds, essentially fast-forwarding intestinal aging. Essentially, PS-80 tricks your intestines into absorbing dangerous amounts of fats, creating a toxic environment that ages your gut decades faster than normal. Why is “too dangerous for food” somehow safe for a baby’s bloodstream? Here’s where the story gets truly disturbing. Food safety experts are increasingly calling for the elimination of PS-80 from processed foods due to mounting evidence of harm. KFF Health News recently published an exposé detailing how emulsifiers, such as PS-80, “alter the mix of bacteria in the gut, damage the lining of the gastrointestinal tract, and trigger inflammation.” Yet while food regulators debate removing PS-80 from your sandwich, vaccine manufacturers continue injecting it directly into children, including newborns on their first day of life. The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia admits PS-80 is present in 22 vaccines given to children or pregnant women, but dismisses concerns by claiming the amount is “comparable to an extremely tiny piece of a raisin.” This comparison is not only misleading but also dangerously irrelevant. Your stomach can filter it, but your bloodstream can’t Children’s Health Defense Senior Research Scientist Karl Jablonowski cuts through the regulatory doublespeak: “Anything that is injected bypasses our natural defenses. A substance that is unfit to ingest is certainly unfit to inject.” The science backs this up. Research shows PS-80 is significantly more toxic when injected compared to oral consumption. While your digestive system can partially filter ingested PS-80, injection delivers it directly into the muscle tissue and bloodstream, bypassing all natural protective barriers. Even more concerning, PS-80 crosses the blood-brain barrier. Pediatrician Dr. Lawrence Palevsky raises the obvious question: “What viral, bacterial, yeast, heavy metal, or other vaccine-containing ingredient needs to pass into the brains of our children?” Recent research reveals PS-80’s composition is far more variable and toxic than previously understood, containing up to 355 different compounds that can trigger immediate hypersensitivity reactions, including anaphylaxis. Day one of life: Is this really when we start poisoning babies? The timing of PS-80 exposure makes this controversy even more outrageous. Infants following the CDC’s recommended vaccine schedule are exposed to PS-80 at birth through RSV and hepatitis B shots, precisely when their detoxification systems are most vulnerable. New research published in the International Journal of Medical Sciences reveals that underdeveloped liver enzyme pathways in infants may make it harder for them to process toxic vaccine ingredients, potentially contributing to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). What you don’t know about hidden vaccine ingredients could kill Perhaps most disturbing is the potential for PS-80 to cause generational harm. The manufacturing process leaves behind sorbitol residues with known side effects, including dehydration, organ dysfunction, and metabolic disruption. To hide the resulting cloudiness in vaccines, manufacturers add undisclosed chemicals like organosiloxane and silicon dioxide – neither of which is required to be listed on labels. Dr. Arthur Brawer’s research suggests these hidden additives can amplify vaccine toxicity, potentially contributing to the epidemic of chronic autoimmune diseases plaguing our children. How to protect your family when regulators won’t You have more power than regulatory agencies want you to believe: Immediate actions: Eliminate processed foods containing PS-80 (check labels for “Polysorbate 80”) Choose whole, unprocessed foods that don’t require emulsifiers Research vaccine ingredients before consenting to injections for your children Demand transparency about all vaccine additives from healthcare providers Support your child’s detoxification systems with nutrient-dense foods Demand accountability: Question why substances deemed unsafe for food remain “safe” for injection Contact representatives about this regulatory double standard Support research into vaccine excipient safety Join advocacy groups demanding honest vaccine ingredient disclosure The time for blind trust is over The PS-80 paradox highlights a fundamental flaw in our regulatory system: chemicals can simultaneously be deemed “too dangerous” for ice cream yet considered “perfectly safe” for newborn injections. This contradiction should shatter any remaining faith in authorities who claim to protect our children while exposing them to known toxins. Every parent deserves honest answers about what’s being put into their children’s bodies. The emerging science on PS-80 demands immediate action – not more studies, not more delays, but real protection for our most vulnerable citizens. Whole Body Detox Summit If you’re ready to take control of your family’s toxic burden and support natural detoxification, Jonathan Landsman’s Whole Body Detox Summit brings together 27 leading experts who share proven strategies for safely removing these dangerous chemicals and protecting your children’s developing systems. The double standard ends when parents demand better. Your child’s health depends on seeing through the regulatory deception and taking action now. Sources for this article include: Sciencedirect.com Childrenshealthdefense.org To read the original article click here.

The post Too Dangerous for Ice Cream, but “Safe” for Newborn Injections? appeared first on Amazing Health Advances.

What Parents Should Know About Newborn Hearing Screenings

The AHA! Team — Wed, 11 Jun 2025 05:09:29 +0000

Children’s Hospital Los Angeles via Newswise – Early detection of hearing loss in children is imperative. Learn what the result of your kid’s hearing test means—and what you need to do about it next. In the United States, approximately 3 out of every 1,000 infants are born with hearing loss. Surprisingly, over 90% of these children are born to parents who themselves have normal hearing. As mandated by state regulations, newborn hearing screenings are performed in all hospitals where babies are delivered. These screenings are essential for early detection, which Kristina Rousso, AuD, an audiologist with the California Leadership Education in Neurodevelopmental and Related Disabilities (CA-LEND) training program at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, says is crucial for achieving optimal outcomes in a child’s development. Babies’ brains “From birth, babies’ brains are constantly taking in information to support development of listening, language, and reading,” Dr. Rousso says. Dr. Rousso says that she and her colleagues follow the Joint Committee on Infant Hearing Guidelines 1:3:6 model—identification through screening by 1 month of age; diagnosis of hearing level and type with a pediatric audiologist by 3 months of age; and treatment with hearing devices by 6 months of age. What can cause hearing loss at birth? Below are some of the reasons that a baby may be born with hearing loss: Genetic factors Maternal viruses during pregnancy, such as cytomegalovirus (CMV) and rubella Extended stays in neonatal intensive care, due to risk factors such as low birth weight, lack of oxygen, and phototherapy treatment Two types of newborn hearing screenings There are two primary types of newborn hearing screenings: otoacoustic emissions (OAE) and auditory brainstem response (ABR). “Both are painless, fast, and easy to measure,” Dr. Rousso says. Otoacoustic emissions involves playing different sounds into the baby’s ear to detect a response from the inner ear Auditory brainstem response measures the brain’s response to sounds and volume levels through electrodes placed on the baby’s head during sleep. Hearing screenings provide a “pass” or “refer” result. Here is what each means. Pass: A “pass” indicates your baby likely has normal to near-normal hearing. “However,” Dr. Rousso says, “it’s still important to monitor speech and language development and the baby’s responses to different sounds in the environment.” If your baby does not respond to sounds appropriately at home, or their speech and language development is not advancing, schedule a hearing test appointment with a pediatric audiologist, who can evaluate and treat your child for possible hearing loss. Refer: A ”refer” result means that more information is needed to determine if the baby has hearing loss in one or both ears. A second hearing test will be administered before you and your baby are discharged. If the baby does not pass the second time, you will be referred to a pediatric audiologist for a comprehensive diagnostic evaluation. Dr. Rousso emphasizes the importance of promptly taking your baby to a pediatric audiologist for a complete evaluation if the baby does not pass the hearing screen, or if the baby is not developing speech or language. The sooner hearing loss is diagnosed and treated, the faster a baby’s brain can start to develop speech and language. To read the original article click here.

The post What Parents Should Know About Newborn Hearing Screenings appeared first on Amazing Health Advances.