Been on a bit of a break. Not away, just consumed by books (Robin Hobb again), stupid iPod games, spending time with family and sleeping.
But coming home from work tonight I heard a news interview on Checkpoint that has driven me back to blog.
It's Mary Wilson talking to a NZ paediatrician [audio] who has conducted some research that seems to show that women who do light exercise during pregnancy have babies with lower birth weights.
Now I'm confused. Lower birth weight is supposed to be one of the negative outcomes of smoking during pregnancy. But now lower birth weight is also a positive thing that can mean a child doesn't become obese, and later become an obese adult, who, if female, then becomes an obese pregnant woman, who then in turn gives birth to a heavier baby, which goes on to become... Obesity Epidemic WIN!
The paediatrician did say that the pregnant women didn't lose any weight as a result of the exercise, and that there were some positive outcomes for themselves as a result of their extra activity, so that's good. Nice to know it's not all about the fetus. But he did talk about how tired the women were before they got on the exercycle, and while the exercise alleviated that afterwards one of the standard pieces of medical advice about activity during pregnancy is if you are already tired you should stop and have a rest.
Yet again it seems you can't win. Exercise can be good for you and the fetus. Exercise can be bad for you and the fetus. A lower birth weight for the baby can be positive or negative, and should thus be enouraged/avoided.
Frankly I'll start listening to this stuff when they tell me I can eat feta while I'm pregnant. That's the kind of pregnancy advice I'm hanging out for!