LACTNET Archives

Lactation Information and Discussion

LACTNET@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Kermaline J. Cotterman" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Lactation Information and Discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 17 Aug 2000 10:43:50 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (58 lines)
Rachel wrote:

<Since a normal pregnancy lasts forty weeks plus two days on
the average, with a statistically predictable distribution of gestational
lengths on either side of this average, it is remarkable to see that
babies
born after pregnancies lasting ten to twenty percent shorter are
considered,
in the context of the quoted article, 'mildly' premature>

During this whole thread I have had an old "tale" or theory echoing in my
head. I once heard it said that the 280 day figure is derived from
multiplying the most common (or oft-quoted 28) # of days in a menstrual
cycle x 10, (as primitive women figured their pregnancies to be 10 moons
long) and that often, women who consistently have longer or shorter
cycles will tend to have pregnancies that go more days, or fewer days
accordingly. (e.g. 27 day cyclers going 270 days, 29 day cyclers going
290 days, etc.

I don't think the multiple of 10 was mentioned as carrying through
exactly, because I have heard of women who consistently have 35 days
between cycles. Who would want a 350 day pregnancy?

But could it possibly figure in, along with not knowing the precise date
of ovulation/conception, etc., in when a labor would start without
intervention?

I had 2 daughters who went 280 + 28 (308) from stated LMP till they were
finally successfully induced. Each labored for > 20 hours before she was
delivered by C.S. of a  9+ # baby, though I have no idea of the # of days
in their cycles before conception.

Interestingly enough, a few years after her first child, one daughter was
subsequently sectioned at 36 weeks during a coma of undetermined origin,
and the baby was 6#, though obviously somewhat premature by p.e.

(BTW, though utterly grievous at the time, all turned out amazingly well,
though the origin of the month-long coma was never medically determined.
They are both hale and hearty 16 years later.)

Has anyone else ever heard of this theory?

Jean
***********
K. Jean Cotterman RNC, IBCLC
Dayton, Ohio USA
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

             ***********************************************
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

ATOM RSS1 RSS2