Study: Your Child is Not Fat Because You Had a C-section

Don't blame the Cesarean, ma.<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/51035555243@N01/145503818/">Thomas Hawk</a>/Flickr

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


There are plenty of risks that come with opting for a Cesarean section: There’s always the chance of postpartum infection. There’s a possible link between elective C-sections and higher infant mortality. The operation is often performed too early. And the scarring isn’t exactly a plus.

But according to a recent study, the concern of “your kid will end up a fattie if you don’t suck it up and give birth the way God intended…” can be crossed off the list.

Reuters Health has the story:

Kids born by Cesarean section are no more likely to become obese than if they are born vaginally, a new study concludes…For the new research, [scientists] used data on three groups of several thousand people born in Southern Brazil in 1982, 1993 or 2004…The new research is of particular interest in Brazil, because in 2009 more than half of the babies there were born by C-section. In the U.S., the number has been on the rise for years and is now over 30 percent.

The research does rightly address a controversial Brazilian study published last May that suggested a correlation between C-sections and fatter children. (The working theory was that lack of exposure to bacteria from the birth canal could increase the chances of chunky brood.)

What was fishy about those findings? Like countless other scientific studies with lofty claims, the researchers forgot to account for…the staggeringly obvious:

“We thought from the beginning that probably what happened with the previous study is that they didn’t adjust for all of the confounders,” Fernando Barros, a professor and scientist at the Catholic University of Pelotas in Brazil, told Reuters. “If a mother gives birth by C-section, she’s different than a mother who has a vaginal birth.”

The new study from southern Brazil, published in the latest issue of The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, did find that the children born by C-section had obesity rates between nine and sixteen percent, noticeably higher than the seven to ten percent among those born via the birth canal. But the disparity was erased after the scientists factored in data such as birth weight, the mother’s weight, smoking habits, and household incomes.

“The most simple explanation would be that more obese women require more Cesarean sections than lean women…and it’s really not the C-section itself,” Dr. David Ludwig, director of the Optimal Weight for Life Clinic at Children’s Hospital Boston, said in response to the new findings.

Boom. There you have it: From now on, do the rational thing and just blame your best friends for your outrageous poundage.

TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and it's truly crunch time: About 15 percent of our yearly online giving usually comes in during the final week of the year, and in "No Cute Headlines or Manipulative BS," we explain why we simply can't afford to come up short right now.

The bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. And advertising or profit-driven ownership groups will never make time-intensive, in-depth reporting viable.

That's why donations big and small make up 74 percent of our budget this year. There is no backup to keep us going, no alternate revenue source, no secret benefactor. If readers don’t donate, we won’t be here. It's that simple.

And if you can help us out with a donation right now, all online gifts will be matched thanks to an incredibly generous matching gift pledge.

payment methods

TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and it's truly crunch time: About 15 percent of our yearly online giving usually comes in during the final week of the year, and in "No Cute Headlines or Manipulative BS," we explain why we simply can't afford to come up short right now.

The bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. And advertising or profit-driven ownership groups will never make time-intensive, in-depth reporting viable.

That's why donations big and small make up 74 percent of our budget this year. There is no backup to keep us going, no alternate revenue source, no secret benefactor. If readers don’t donate, we won’t be here. It's that simple.

And if you can help us out with a donation right now, all online gifts will be matched thanks to an incredibly generous matching gift pledge.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate