PDA

View Full Version : Baby brain? No, having a child makes you more intelligent........



Ponce
21st October 2010, 10:56 AM
Know you know why I never wanted kids.....from my wife, of course.
================================================== ============


Baby brain? No, having a child makes you more intelligent.

By Fiona Macrae
Last updated at 6:34 PM on 21st October 2010

Research shows that a woman’s grey matter grows in the weeks and months after she has given birth.

And it’s the most doting mothers who experience the biggest burst of brain cells.
Boost: New mums experience an increase in brain cells, contrary to popular belief
It is thought that the hormonal changes associated with having a baby ‘supercharge’ the brain, helping prepare women for the challenges ahead.

And the memory lapses that plague new mothers may be explained by a simpler cause – sleep deprivation.

More...Bedroom chemicals 'raise child's allergy risk by up to 180%'

The finding, from a small study published by the American Psychological Association, contradicts the long-held notion that motherhood addles a woman’s brain.

Neuroscientists from the respected Yale University in the U.S. scanned the brains of 19 new mothers in the weeks after they had given birth.

The results showed that the amount of grey matter – brain cells that crunch information – had increased by a small but significant amount by the time the women were three to four months into motherhood.

Such changes usually only occur after intense periods of learning or a brain injury or illness.

The areas that grew involve motivation, reasoning, judgement, the processing of emotions and feelings of satisfaction, and are key to the mother-child relationship.

Expansion in the brain’s ‘motivation area’, said the researchers, could lead to more nurturing, which would help babies survive and thrive physically, emotionally and cognitively.
No sleep: A lack of sleep is thought to be behind new mothers' memory loss
The mothers who gushed most about their newborns tended to experience the biggest amounts of growth, the journal Behavioral Neuroscience reports.

It is unclear to what extent the changes are due to rises in hormones such as oestrogen and oxytocin that occur when a woman gives birth, and how much they are caused by chemical changes brought on by cuddling and playing with their babies.

Studies of adoptive mothers could help separate the two.

Siobhan Freegard, founder of the Netmums website, said that ‘supercharging’ made sense.

She added: ‘Nature has an amazing way of giving us things that we need. Having a baby is a momentous occasion, so it is not surprising the brain gets that little bit extra to equip us for the challenge.’

She suggested that any ‘baby brain’ memory lapses could be due to changing priorities, with the newborn being deemed more important than most other matters.

The results of the study echo research from last year which concluded that, contrary to popular belief, pregnancy does nothing to dim brainpower.

Professor Helen Christensen, of the Australian National University in Canberra, showed that women did as well on tests of memory and logic when pregnant as they had in previous years.

She said: ‘It really leaves the question open as to why women – and often their partners – think they have poor memories, when the best evidence we have is that they don’t.

‘Perhaps women notice minor lapses in mental ability and then attribute it to being pregnant because that is the most significant thing in their mind at the time.

‘Or sleep deprivation could mask the positive cognitive effect.’



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1322365/Baby-brain-mush-No-having-child-makes-BRIGHTER.html#ixzz130d48bt0

Serpo
21st October 2010, 11:11 AM
Ive had 3 kids cept im a male ,does that count

if not can you keep this quiet.....

SLV^GLD
21st October 2010, 11:35 AM
I recall reading sometime ago that the umbilical cells that remain inside the women act as powerful healing agents much like stem cells. I also recall that the more numerous the childbirths the higher density these cells.

Quick and dirty google search delivered this article on the topic:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5195551

Ponce
21st October 2010, 12:31 PM
Sil? they are also keeping the the cord to be used later on in life.......

ShortJohnSilver
21st October 2010, 03:07 PM
I recall reading sometime ago that the umbilical cells that remain inside the women act as powerful healing agents much like stem cells. I also recall that the more numerous the childbirths the higher density these cells.

Quick and dirty google search delivered this article on the topic:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5195551


As well, there is a huge increase in hemoglobin (the part of blood that carries oxygen), such that some female athletes competing to Olympic or national levels, will get pregnant and then have an abortion in order to get the O2 boost.

SLV^GLD
21st October 2010, 04:14 PM
That's interesting because it was my understanding that Olympic caliber females lose their menses due to the extreme leanness of their bodies. I am not sure how one can become pregnant without an egg to be fertilized.

General of Darkness
21st October 2010, 04:19 PM
If that was TRULY the case then every mestizos, and every third worlder would have a Phd.

Ash_Williams
22nd October 2010, 06:58 AM
As well, there is a huge increase in hemoglobin (the part of blood that carries oxygen), such that some female athletes competing to Olympic or national levels, will get pregnant and then have an abortion in order to get the O2 boost.

Got it. I'll be hanging around the athlete training areas 4 months before the next olympics...


If that was TRULY the case then every mestizos, and every third worlder would have a Phd.

Hahahah yeah. The people I see with a lot of kids are rarely the brightest.

TheNocturnalEgyptian
22nd October 2010, 01:26 PM
So if the umbilical cord is being used post-birth by the body as a source of stem-cells, does this give any "God intended it this way" type of credence to the idea of using stem-cells in humans from now on?

i.e. This is, according to the article, a mechanism which occurs naturally. Since the universe is designed it to work this way (apparently), can we now abolish the some of the fear of stem-cells as a cure for degenerative diseases?


My understanding was that the ban only existed because stem cells were "Unnatural" but this seems to show that it is part of the natural mechanism, and if you believe in God, then you naturally assume that it designed things this way.

Please correct my thinking if mistaken.

SLV^GLD
22nd October 2010, 07:28 PM
My understanding was that the ban only existed because stem cells were "Unnatural"

Please correct my thinking if mistaken.
The ban is on using fetal cells. Shortly after the ban it was discovered that stem cells occur in the adult body from several sources. The umbilical cells are not, strictly speaking, stem cells. The pulp in your teeth, strictly speaking, ARE stem cells. Look it up sometime. I am in agreement with a ban on cultivating fetuses with the sole intent of propagating stem cells. I am very glad that the ban pushed researchers to find existing, adult sources of stem cell material. There is no ban on using stem cells in research; there is only a ban on using fetuses as a source of stem cells.

Before you lambaste me as some kind of overlording government expansion nazi freak, I would be totally okay with collecting stem cells from placenta or what have you during the birth of a child. The bans were put in place because in vitro fetuses were being developed to farm stem cells with zero motivation to see the fertilized egg through to a viable lifeform.

TheNocturnalEgyptian
22nd October 2010, 09:06 PM
My understanding was that the ban only existed because stem cells were "Unnatural"

Please correct my thinking if mistaken.
The ban is on using fetal cells. Shortly after the ban it was discovered that stem cells occur in the adult body from several sources. The umbilical cells are not, strictly speaking, stem cells. The pulp in your teeth, strictly speaking, ARE stem cells. Look it up sometime. I am in agreement with a ban on cultivating fetuses with the sole intent of propagating stem cells. I am very glad that the ban pushed researchers to find existing, adult sources of stem cell material. There is no ban on using stem cells in research; there is only a ban on using fetuses as a source of stem cells.

Before you lambaste me as some kind of overlording government expansion nazi freak, I would be totally okay with collecting stem cells from placenta or what have you during the birth of a child. The bans were put in place because in vitro fetuses were being developed to farm stem cells with zero motivation to see the fertilized egg through to a viable lifeform.


I was asking in a more general manner, much as you described the ways they are gathered from adults. I am not of the mind to ever farm for genetic material from our own species wantonly, at least certainly not in the fashions suggested by today's science so far.

This individual was not aware that the ban was strictly fetal cells. Seeing as such, I suppose this makes my original question a bit null, since there is already a generally favorable attitude towards gathering stem cells from certain adult sources, which I am for. My original thinking was that even this was frowned upon, and I was wondering whether the research in the OP would switch anyone over to a favorable opinion of using adult source stem cells.



Edited my first post a bit for clarity.