Re discussion of who has priority during pregnancy -- I guess I didn't make
myself very clear.  I didn't mean to imply that a baby born to a
malnourished mother would be hunky-dory.  I know better than that!  The
long-term effects of malnutrition in childhood, including inter-generational
effects, are one of my research specialties.  What I meant to say was that,
given not enough for both members of the pair (mom, fetus), the fetus had
priority.  For example, the mom might be taking in 90% of what would be
ideal for both of them, and the fetus ends up with 95% of what it needs, and
the mother with 85%.  Or in cases of more serious malnutrition, say the mom
is taking in 70% of what would be ideal for both of them, and the fetus gets
80% of what it needs while the mom gets 60% of what she needs.  The fetus is
obviously suffering too, but is somewhat buffered by the mother.  The mother
suffers relatively more.  That is all I meant, not that it was a good thing
for the mother to be malnourished, nor that the fetus would somehow get 100%
of what it needed regardless of mother's nutritional status.

Re your comment about mothers not eating much during pregnancy on purpose in
order to deliver smaller babies than those seen in western countries, a
thought: in many places where these beliefs are prevalent, and practiced, it
is probably a very good thing, because any cases of cephalo-pelvic
disproportion result in death of both mother and infant due to lack of
access to modern medical care such as a Caesarian section.  It may be
adaptive in the long run to keep the infant small in utero and let it play
catch-up after birth.  Usually these smaller babies do grow especially fast
in the first few months and catch up to the American growth standards by 1-2
months, where they stay until about 6 months, when they start to fall away
due to a combination of inadequate supplementation, introduction of
parasites and bacteria with solid food and contact with ground (when
crawling), and first onslaught of diseases.  Likewise, the high percentage
of U.S. births that must be C-section due to cephalo-pelvic disproportion
just shows that it is possible to have problems from over-nutrition during
pregnancy as well.  Many of these very high birthweight babies (whether
C-section of not) likewise show a slower than normal growth in the first few
months of life as they "catch down" to the U.S. standards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
Katherine A. Dettwyler                                email:
[log in to unmask]
Anthropology Department                               phone: (409) 845-5256
Texas A&M University                                    fax: (409) 845-4070
College Station, TX  77843-4352