Miranda Kerr boasts about being stretchmark-free

Oh Miranda Kerr. You know when I was all pro-Miranda a few weeks ago when she published that lovely breastfeeding photo on her blog? Well, it didn't take her very long to start to start to use her pregnancy to push some of her organic beauty products on other mums. This week, in her blog, the supermodel boasts that she doesn't have any stretch marks following her pregnancy with baby Flynn:

"I am so excited and just wanted to share with you how my pregancy skin routine has helped me to prevent any stretch marks. As you know I had a huge belly (carrying a 9lb 12 ounce baby) and was convinced I would have stretch marks as a result. But I am so happy to report that my combination of daily body brushing and applying KORA Organics Body Lotion twice a day have helped me to prevent stretch marks."

She didn't get any stretch marks. I'm irked by the fact that she has decided to use her lack of stretch marks as an opportunity to sell $45 moisturiser to her readers. Firstly, who the hell has $45 to spend on bloody skin cream? Secondly, there is no evidence that creams actually work in preventing stretch marks. Scientists are divided as to what you can do to make them appear less prominently on your body. There is no evidence to suggest, however, that you can prevent them entirely. Genetics appears to play a significant role as to whether you are prone to getting them when you are pregnant.

So, in short, I would have liked to hear about Miranda's post-baby body minus the sales pitch.

Review: The Australian Baby Guide

I often get sent books by publishers asking me to review them on the site. I was recently sent The Australian Baby Guide (rrp $29.95) from Goose Books. Here are my thoughts for those of you who are in the market for an Australia specific all-purpose parenting book:

Good:
-lots of practical information in easily digestible sections, nothing too overwhelming (but also nothing particularly new)
-well organised, very easy to find things
-provides a wealth of web resources for parents across Australia
-vox pop from mums and dads on a range of topics

Less good:
-some of the information seemed outdated. For instance, given that I have a keen interest in maternity clothing and have spent a considerable amount of time in maternity shops and interviewing designers, I was surprised to see that many of the most relevant designers did not even get a mention. Rather, the usual suspects like Pumpkin Patch seemed to get pride of place (which leads me to my next point). Also, no resources for those mums in need of plus-size maternity clothing (Boo!).

-There is way too much advertising material in this book. The publishers never disclose how certain items/services make it to the top of their lists. It is no wonder that many of the independent or smaller businesses don't get a mention (probably because larger corps like Huggies have paid for ad space). Sections on 'Leading Brands' following each chapter seems out of place and inappropriate.

-Considering all of the information that the guide does contain, I was stunned to see two areas in particular neglected: 1) eco-parenting/natural parenting resources and 2) pregnancy body image resources. With the threat of climate change upon us, I would have liked to see more info on 'green' pregnancy and sustainable parenting methods (recycling, cloth nappies, organics). Maybe I'm biased but the lack of body image resources for pregnant women seemed, to me, to be a considerable oversight. Given the focus on maternal obesity, postpartum weight loss and pregorexia panics in our current cultural climate, it seems astounding that the otherwise comprehensive guide has no resources for women suffering from pregnancy eating disorders or who want info on coping with weight gain.

Rating: 2.5 stars

Overall: good resource for basic info on pregnancy and parenting, some info pertinent to raising older children and lots of web resources for those who are internet savvy. Less useful if you are attracted to more alternative approaches to parenting and definitely not so great if you favour small, independent retailers.

Keri Russell's marathon labour and quick weight loss

Keri Russell, formerly of Felicity, revealed on The View that she was in labour for 38 hours in June with her son River Russell Deary.

"It was intense... It was a long time. But it all worked out okay," she said.

Keri also talked about snapping back into a size zero without actually exercising:

"I would love to say I worked out every day. But it's truly genetics. You have what you have, and then you work hard or you don't. And I... It was genetics. "I didn't – because I didn't have a babysitter until two weeks ago. It was like walking through the park. And I have to say, breast-feeding, you burn so many calories, and I'm still doing it."

Watch the interview here:

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20161086,00.html

Off and running?: pregnancy and exercise debates

If you hadn't noticed, I love Paula Radcliffe. As a distance runner myself, Paula has always been one of my very favourite female elite athletes. Now, given her recent New York marathon win, Paula has put pregnancy and exercise back in the headlines. As many pregnant women reading this know, being ‘fit’ is no longer perceived as being incompatible with motherhood and in fact, debates surrounding exercise engages women in a never-ending cycle of bodywork and self-surveillance. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) state that:

Becoming active and exercising at least 30 minutes on most, if not all, days of the week can benefit your health…Regular activity also helps keep you fit during pregnancy and may improve your ability to cope with the pain of labor. This will make it easier for you to get back in shape after the baby is born.

This commonsense approach has been increasingly endorsed by medical professionals after numerous studies investigating the benefits or risks involved in participating in strenuous exercise whilst pregnant. Even though the most recent medical research positions daily exercise as being a necessary component of a ‘healthy’ pregnancy and recommended daily amounts of exercise are closely aligned with those recommended for periods of non-pregnancy, the exercise in pregnancy debate is long-standing. In the existing literature, exercise during pregnancy pregnancy has not generally been associated with miscarriage although the research is largely inconsistent. In one of the largest studies of the link between exercise and pregnancy to date comprising a cohort of almost 93,000 Danish women revealed that certain types of exercise, particularly those marked as ‘high-impact’ were associated with miscarriage.

However, the recommendations are not as easily translated in consideration of the various activities women participate in during daily life. In many cases, a regimented physical exercise programme is much less likely to occur in pregnancy given the multiple demands and competing expectations of pregnant women’s behaviour. As the guidelines for pregnancy exercise have shifted and a number of clinical studies have demonstrated the positive benefits of moderate exercise, such public biomedical exhortations imply that pregnant women should exercise in order to have a healthy pregnancy. Fitness in pregnancy is situated within notions of 'risk', particularly with regard to how pregnant women use their bodies such that ‘fitness’ is increasingly becoming a part of a successful performance of pregnancy. In pregnancy, the attainment and maintenance of a ‘fit, risk-free, flexible, and responsible body’ is the mark of a ‘good’ mother.

Paula Radcliffe has been positioned as both an inspiration for new mums trying to 'bounce back' and also a detriment to mums who feel they could never live up to the training regimen Paula maintained throughout her pregnancy. However, I was pleased to see a great article in the New York Times today discussing the relative safety of running through pregnancy (albeit with some caution). For so long, women have been told that they cannot exercise vigorously in pregnancy for fear of raising their core temperature too high. However, given that pregnant women's blood volume increases at least 20% during pregnancy, some research has shown that this increase is what allows pregnant women to exercise safely and that body temperature should not be as much of a concern. The major concerns with exercising these days in pregnancy are questions of comfort as opposed to capability. Most importantly, numerous studies have shown that exercising in pregnancy is associated with a more positive body sense of self and body image.

In my study,my pregnant informants’ cited three primary motivations for exercising in pregnancy. First, a number of my informants cited body image, feelings of fatness and pressure to lose weight postnatally. The second motivation involves exercise as positively affecting psychological and physical well-being. Thirdly, my pregnant informants cited the need to be ‘fit’ for birth as a primary motivation for exercise. Often women cited a combination of the above three reasons.

How much did you exercise during pregnancy? I'm writing a chapter for my book on this very topic now, so I would love to hear from you.

Sources: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/08/health/nutrition/08Best.html_r=1&oref=slogin

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071106.wlmarathon06/BNStory/lifeMain/home

More statistics that piss me off.

Apparently, the most fertile women in Australia are women in their 30s according to reports in The Age and Sydney Morning Herald. In particular, women between 30-34 are fuelling the 'baby boom' bringing Australia's fertility rate to its highest level in 12 years.

This is not the statistic that pisses me off. In fact, this comes as no surprise to me personally considering the bulk of the women in my study are between the ages of 30-34 and a good number of my cohort are older than that, between 37-40. This can be attributed to a number of positive social changes: 1) more women are educated 2) more women are waiting to get married or enter a long-term partnership 3) more women are employed in the paid sector 4) women can 'control' (for want of a better word) fertility more easily

This statistic really pisses me off:

"...Victorian women are real laggers in the younger ages and there has been a substantial fall in fertility rates among 20-year-olds over the last five years," Dr Birrell [a demographer] said.

Isn't that a good thing? For once, certain women feel confident enough be positively selfish and put themselves before motherhood; to establish a career, become financially stable, gain life experience. And yet, now people want to complain that 20 year olds are not having babies any more?

Has anyone been reading the British newspapers? Teen pregnancy is the new black of moral panics. They are sucking off the welfare system. They are irresponsible. They are 'bad' mothers. Young pregnant women have never been well-received. In fact, wasn't it the 'young mothers' of Australia who were blamed for selfishly getting pregnant only to receive the Baby Bonus? And now people are complaining that 20 year olds aren't getting pregnant fast enough? Instead of positioning the growth of 'older' mothers as a great thing, the tables are turned against women for wanting to be better human beings in waiting to have children.

This is the kicker:

"Fertility Society of Australia spokeswoman Anne Clark warned that the decision to defer motherhood could have serious implications for national population growth: "This is not good news, because fertility levels change for women in their mid-30s and for men after 40, so you are going to have a lot of people pushing it to have more than two children."

Seriously, the boring adage that women's reproductive capacities completely deteriorate at 35 is so ridiculous and only reinforces the nature/culture binary which has plagued the representation of women's bodies in medicine for the last century. If women's bodies are positioned as unruly and chaotic, it is so much easier to justify that the minute a woman is 'old' she is no longer useful and this become a perfect means of social control. It's like 'Have a baby before 35 or else you will dry up, like the useless vessel that you are'.

I don't think any woman over 35 is not blinded by the cultural 'ticking' of her 'biological clock' . But if it means that more women can have full lives by waiting to become mothers (especially young women) then that seems like a great trade off to me. IVF has not become a default mechanism for late parenthood. IVF is so expensive it is definitely not as popular or easily accessible as the media would like us to believe. Women are not selfishly waiting to become mothers to screw over the nation; they are selfishly choosing to put themselves first, a rarity indeed.

Sources: http://www.smh.com.au/news/parenting/baby-boom-for-thirtysomethings/2007/10/29/1193618837109.html
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/median-age-for-mums-now-308/2007/10/29/1193618797586.html

Pregorexia: eating for one?

We spend alot of time talking about the cultural pressure for women not to eat for two on this blog..but what about the pregnant women barely are able to eat for one?

I know it's not a quality (or even very reliable) publication, however, today in The Sun, two anorexic pregnant women are profiled and their stories are pretty horrifying. It bothers me that these anorexic women are treated like spectacles or even 'freak shows' in this particular tabloid. However this article highlights that when it comes to pregnancy, neither anorexia nor obesity is accepted as an appropriate response to motherhood. Yet, in both cases, overeating or undereating, desire (the desire to eat or not eat) is at the root of both problems.

Although most people who have never had an eating disorder cannot imagine not eating whilst growing a baby, the women in the article are represented as though they are proud of their abilities to transcend their hunger on one hand, but on the other hand, they are both extremely concerned for the safety of their future children and even their own health. As their bodies seem to be out of control in pregnancy, anorexia is the only way they can be in control. In fact, historically, anorexia has been theorised as feminine protest; a means by which women resist the limitations of the ideal of female domesticity and separate themselves from their mothers.

In Unbearable Weight, feminist scholar Susan Bordo (1993:160) argues:

Women may feel themselves deeply attracted by the aura of freedom and independence suggested by the boyish body ideal of today. Yet, each hour, each minute spent in anxious pursuit of that ideal (for it does not come naturally to most mature women) is in fact time and energy taken from inner development and social achievement. As a feminine protest, the obsession with slenderness is hopelessly counterproductive.

In pregnancy, women take up more space (literally). The anorexic is always convinced she is taking up too much space. Pregorexia is perhaps the most extreme cultural example of the fear of motherhood and the fear of bodily bigness played out on the body through a sort of internal self-mutilation.

Sources: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman/real_life/article314257.ece
Susan Bordo, Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture and the Body, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1993.

Lindsay Davenport: on bouncing back (on the court)

Here we go again. Why is it always a surprise that a professional female athlete can remain at the top of her game as a mother?

"Just three months after the birth of her first child, Davenport became an instant and almost shocking success".

What is shocking about Lindsay Davenport serving it up to some of her most challenging opponents post-birth considering her widely held status as a 'natural athlete' with a 'lethal groundstroke'? Who is sounding the death knell of the careers of professional female sportswomen just because they fall pregnant?

This is not a new story. The critics sang the praises Jana Rawlinson (who did a 30 min run on the day she gave birth) upon winning gold last month in Osaka after many months of speculation that she would give up her sport. Paula Radcliffe, world champion marathon runner, was similarly subject to whispers that her desire for competition would wane as soon as she announced her pregnancy. At the time, Radcliffe said:

"What has surprised me most is that people ask if I will carry on competing," she said. "This is especially surprising, as I have said I want to carry on until 2012. And this news means it is more likely rather than less likely that I will do that."

Rawlinson, Radcliffe and of course, Aussie marathoner and winner of Commonwealth gold, Kerryn McCann have all proven that mothers can still win races.

So why are sporting critics consistently surprised that someone like Lindsay Davenport would be unable to continue achieving in tennis?

"Now she returns as a devoted, full-time mom, those punishing groundstrokes still intact. Embrace the sight while you can".

Give me a break. Davenport has many, many years of experience and 'natural' talent. Pregnancy actually gives professional female athletes a bit of a break from their hardcore training and their bodies can rest so it is no wonder that so many women come storming back into their favoured sport, renewed and energised by motherhood. Professional athletes are supposed to be selfish, obsessively devoted to training and with a vision only of winning. Mothers, in contrast, are seen as being antithetical to athleticism. Represented as selflessly devoted to their babies, 'soft' and hormonal, the thought that a professional athlete could revive her body from the 'trauma' of pregnancy and birth is a constant source of discussion for all the majority of male sports writers.

Lindsay Davenport didn't have her arm cut off. She had a baby. Get over it!

Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/07/SPKVSFJMT.DTL

Nicole Ritchie's bump show

Us magazine has a created a slideshow documenting the 'evolution' of Nicole Ritchie's baby bump. Considering how thin she was, Ritchie's bodily transformation is pretty unbelievable.

Have a look: http://www.usmagazine.com/nicole_richie_baby_on_board_092807

'Pregnancy is not a time for indulgence': Real life story

I think it's really important to let women speak on this blog in their own voices, so I'm posting an email I received from one woman who agrees with the new guidelines regarding the importance of mantaining a healthy weight in pregnancy and not overindulging. Feel free to respond with your own stories, thoughts and opinions.

"At nine months of pregnancy I weighed 117 pounds. I do not think pregnancy is a time for indulgence. I was never more disciplined than during my pregnancy. I think that ideally pregnant women should not eat fatty, junky, or processed food, every bite should be nutritious, every meal and snack proportioned healthily and not for a manatee. Of course, there's no such thing as perfection so every once and a while everyone is going to have a treat, but it's so important not to go overboard. Pregnancy with a single child normally only requires about 200 extra calories a day (like a handful of almonds or large banana). And exercise is so important. Being pregnant is like being told that in 9 months you'll be running a marathon, and the prize is a child that you'll love more than you ever imagined possible. I wanted a safe labor and birth for the benefit of both me and my child and did yoga and Pilates regularly and walked at least a couple miles a day. One day before my due date I went into labor. Labored for 6 hours, pushed for 15 minutes (receiving no IV, no epidural, or drugs of any kind), and gave birth to a beautiful baby girl who was 20 inches long (51cm) and weighed 6 pounds and 15 ounces (about 3kg). Her pediatrician couldn't believe her APGAR score. She said it was the highest she'd ever seen. And because of the good health of both me and my baby, we were sent home early by approval of the doctor."

"I returned to my flat-stomached pre-pregnant size in about 5 days post-birth. My daughter will be a year old in a few days and I am still breastfeeding and making sure I eat nutritiously. Both my daughter and I are very active and love to play. She crawled at 5 months and took her first step at 8 1/2 months. She's running now and definitely gives me a daily workout. It's more important to me than ever to stay fit and not carry any extra weight because I need all the fitness and energy to keep up with her and have fun together** It's definitely possible for the average woman to be thin, attractive, and a mother (I have only one child but I know mothers of two, three, six, and seven that are thinner than I am). I'm a stay-at-home mom and wife and have no personal trainer or any of that stuff."

You can download the report from the Institude of Medicine about weight gain in pregnancy:

http://www.iom.edu/CMS/12552/31379/41424.aspx

Pregnancy & Birth: July/August

This month my research is featured in Pregnancy & Birth magazine:

A WEIGHTY ISSUE:

'So much for it being the one time you can relax about your weight---for those women who are slaves to the scales, pregnancy is a minefield' (pp.29-30)