Diet for the pregnant woman should be well planned so that it contains all the essential nutrients needed during pregnancy. It is not necessary to increase the amount of food you eat. The quality of your diet has to be improved, not the quantity.

 

The different food groups and and the number of ‘servings’ of each group that you need to eat daily is discussed here.

 

Food providing Carbohydrates: Carbohydrates give us the energy necessary for our life. The major sources of carbohydrates are foods like breads, rice, noodles and cereals. They also provide nutrients like Vitamin B, iron, zinc and certain trace minerals..

 

Requirements - Eat at least 6 servings of carbohydrates a day. A single serving is -

·  2 slices of average sized breadslices.

·  ½ cup cereal

·  ½ cup of cooked rice or noodles

 

Food providing Proteins: Proteins are the building blocks of the body cells. They are needed to make all the different body tissues like muscles, blood, nerves, bones and all the organs of our body. Food containing proteins also contain iron and Folic Acid. Normal requirement in a non-pregnant woman is 1 gram of protein per kg body weight per day. In pregnancy, 10 grams of extra protein should be added daily over this requirement.

 

Requirements: Eat at least 3 servings of protein each day. Each serving is equivalent to:

·  60 grams of lean meat like chicken or fish

·  2 eggs

·  1 glass of milk

·  ½ cup of low fat yogurt

·  1 cup of cooked beans like soyabeans, lentils, peas.

 

Milk and milk products: Milk and milk products are a rich source of calcium, protein, vitamin D, vitamin B12 and other fat soluble vitamins and minerals. Your baby needs calcium to build strong bones and teeth as well as to develop muscle, heart and nerve tissue. If the calcium supply in your diet is inadequate, the calcium from your bones will leak out to supply your baby’s needs. This can cause you to develop osteoporosis later on. Cramps in the calves of the legs and pains in the long bones are also signs that the calcium level in your body is low.

The normal daily requirement of calcium is 1000mg in pregnancy and 1500 mg in breastfeeding mothers.

 

Requirements: You need at least 4 servings of milk and milk products in a day. A single serving is equivalent to:

·  200 ml of whole milk (1 average-sized glass)

·  1 cup of soyamilk

·  100 grams of cottage cheese (paneer)

·  1 cup of yogurt, custard or milk pudding.

 

Fruits:  Fruits add taste, texture and flavour to your diet. They are also packed full of essential vitamins and minerals necessary for the baby’s growth. They also provide dietary fibre and anti-oxidants. The skin of the fruit should be retained wherever possible as it provides valuable nutrients.

 

Requirements:Eat at least 5 servings of fruits daily. A single serving of fruit is:

·  1 medium sized fruit like an apple, orange or banana

·  1 slice of a large sized fruit like watermelon and pineapple.

·  2 fruits if they are small sized like plums and kiwis

·  1 cup of very small sized fruits like grapes or strawberries

·  ½ cup canned fruits

·  ½ cup of 100 % pure fruit juice with no added sugar.

 

Vegetables: Vegetables, like fruits, are rich in vitamins, minerals and necessary trace elements. They add crunch, colour and flavour to your diet and provide you with fluids and fibre.

 

Requirements: Eat at least 4 servings of vegetables in a day. One serving is equivalent to:

·  1 cup raw or ½ cup cooked vegetables

·  1 cup vegetable juice

·  1 side plate of salad

·  ½ cup of sprouts.

 

Fats and Oils: Although some amount of fats and oils are necessary in the diet, too much can make you overweight. Olive oil and rice bran oil are good oils that not only provide the necessary fat but also supply some amount of fat soluble vitamins and anti-oxidants.

The average daily requirement of fat in pregnancy is 35 to 40 grams.
A total of 5 teaspoonfuls of oil are enough to provide this amount in a day.

Nuts and seeds like almonds and peanuts can supply you with the right fats. They are also good sources of proteins and are also tasty to eat. You can take 2 servings of nuts and seeds in a day, 1 serving being 2 tablespoonfuls.

 

Breast augmentation affirms the
identity of the person undergoing such surgery. It affirms who they
are to themselves, and in turn, to those around them. This is
because, in general, there are probably few other zones of the body
we consider to be more significant than a woman’s breasts. Regardless
of one’s gender or sexual orientation, we all recognize the
significance most societies place upon them. For better or for worse,
they are part of how we define women, much like how we treat faces as
part of how we define people.

However, unlike a new hairstyle,
make-up, or overall change in fashion, surgical breast augmentation
takes on a deeper meaning. It’s surgery. Not something that is easily
separated from the person. It becomes a part of the person. This is
why it’s so important to the person who makes the decision that they
do so with a certain degree of comfort, of understanding, of
willingness to enter the process, and the support of those close to
them.

Implants, for the purpose of breast
augmentation, have mainly been used for two reasons: reconstruction
and cosmetic. Regardless of the reason, implants have changed since
the ones produced in the 1970s. It has primarily been their design,
due to our knowledge of their impact on the body. As such, we know
much more about implants today than when they were used in the 1970s.

Today’s implants may still be made of
silicone gel, but have apparently have a much lower risk of rupture
than the earlier ones. In fact, the two main types: silicon gel and
saline solution, both employ a sili
cone shell. However, the issue of
rupture - whether silicone or of the saline solution variety - is a
possibility, thereby requiring that implants be checked. One of the
main methods used to check them are with mammograms.

The surgical technique used is also a
consideration. However, a lot can depend upon the surgeon and the
individual themselves. Variables include the following: the surgeon’s
preference, and the amount of existing breast tissue where the
implant is to be placed. The main techniques are: sub-glandular,
sub-fascial, and sub-muscular. In addition, there are different types
of incision that may be employed by the surgeon: Peri-Areolar,
Infra-Mammary, and Axillary. Each technique has its advantages and
disadvantages. For this reason, it’s recommended that the individual
consult their surgeon in advance regarding the different techniques
and how they may affect them.

There is also another type known as
polypropylene string breast implants. They are less common as they
don’t involve the use of a prosthetic device. Their use tends to be
more documented in the adult video or sex trade industry. Also,
regular checkups and procedures are required for such implants.

Finally, depending on the country you
live in, there may be regulations regarding the types of implants
that may be used. For example, some countries may ban the use of
silicone gel-filled implants, or only allow their use on a strict
case-by-case basis. Regardless, an initial consultation with a
surgeon is always important, as with any elective surgery.

With increasing population pressure and modern independent lifestyles, procreation has become an option that is declined, or at least significantly restricted.  But with these decisions women remove themselves from a natural biological role.  Additionally, opting for synthetic milk formulas and treating the breast as an ornament, rather than a feeding organ, also disengages women from a natural biological function.    

 

When these choices are coupled with the use of contraceptive hormones, hormone replacement therapy, an increasing load of estrogenic pollutants in the environment and food, and a diet that has veered significantly from its natural design, the formula for hormonal pandemonium, metabolic dysfunction and disease is in place.  The results are manifest today in early menses in children (beginning as early as eight and nine years of age), infertility, abnormal and erratic menstrual cycles, cervical dysplasia, fibroids, endometrial cancer, breast cancer, premenstrual syndrome, dramatic mood swings, depression, osteoporosis, and the hot flashes, psychological problems, decreased libido, thinning of the vaginal wall and other symptoms of abnormal menopause.     

 

If women would have as many children as they are capable of, nurse them for years as they are designed to, eat natural foods and live in a more pristine environment, these modern health problems would disappear.  If money flowed out of our tap we wouldn’t have economic problems either, right?  Nevertheless, although the ideal biological lifestyle may not be possible for any of us today, we can take a lesson and try to move our lives as close to the ideal as possible.

 

At present, the desire to eliminate or limit pregnancies is a personal choice.  But it may one day not even be an option.  We either curtail population growth or we will outstrip resources and be buried in our own refuse.  Population is the engine that ultimately drives all environmental woes.  We live on a finite planet with finite resources, but have an infinite ability to breed.  We either live within the limits of Earth’s sustainable resources or we will destroy ourselves.     

 

So we have a dilemma.  As I will explain, women need to fulfill their reproductive role to achieve metabolic balance and health, but at the same time they do not want to be restricted by the burdens of large families, nor are large families socially or environmentally responsible.      

 

In an attempt to solve this dilemma, women have turned to the quick fix of synthetic hormones.  There are hormones to control conception, modulate abnormal menstrual cycles, for sex drive and to fix menopause. But there is no free lunch.  Since the 1940’s, when estrogen therapy became popular, hundreds of thousands of women have succumbed to estrogen-sensitive cancer.  For example, a woman is 13 times more likely to get endometrial cancer and there is a 30% increased risk of breast cancer by taking estrogen.  The two top preventable breast cancer risks are now known to be oral birth control pills and estrogen replacement therapy.    

 

Some women justify the use of estrogen for the putative benefits of decreased risk of osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease.  But they have succumbed to marketing, not good sense.  Proper exercise, diet and lifestyle choices can have the same beneficial effect without the potential consequence of cancer.  But hey, why change lifestyle when all you need to do is take a pill?  

 

Here’s what nature intended and why living in accordance with it is protective against the modern plague of female cancers. The average mom today chooses to give birth to about two infants. On the other hand, women in the primitive natural setting who may not even know what causes pregnancy or how to prevent it even if they wanted to, would have started menstruating and ovulating at age 12 and would have delivered 9 babies and breast-fed them all.  When they did breastfeed, they did so for up to five or more years.  Pregnancy stops the reproductive hormone cycles (that generate estrogen) since there is room in the uterus for only one pregnancy.  Nursing also stops the cycle because the body “knows” that lactation and caring for an infant is about all one body can endure.

 

This means that the modern woman who has only two children would reproductively cycle and ovulate 438 times during her lifetime.  On the other hand, the combination of more numerous pregnancies along with extended breast-feeding would have decreased the number of ovulations and cycles that a primitive mother would have had to about 9.

 

This means that women today cycle through their menstrual periods an abnormal number of times, causing repeated surges of estrogen–about 50 times more than nature intended.  Little wonder that estrogen sensitive cancers abound in our modern world.  The cancer-estrogen link is also proven by the fact that such cancers in humans and animals are decreased if the estrogen generating ovaries are surgically removed.  (I am just making a point, not advocating the procedure since the absence of estrogen creates problems as well.)

 

The resting periods of lower estrogen that women experienced in the pre-modern setting during pregnancy and lactation served as a protective effect against cancer.  (Women today can even dramatically decrease their risk of breast cancer by nursing their young for even as little as two years.)   Additionally, the fresh foods of the natural diet contain compounds known as phytoestrogens.  These plant estrogenic compounds are able to attach to estrogen receptor sites in the body and prevent the stronger ovarian estrogens from attaching to tissues.  However, the phytoestrogens only exert a mild estrogenic effect and even inhibit oncogene (tumor genes) expression and thus are not cancer promoting.  This is the logic behind plant-based nutritional supplements (nutraceuticals) to help women with estrogenic problems and cancer prevention.

 

Hormones are master regulators of body function.  They cannot be manipulated either by lifestyle choices or medications without serious consequences.  Women do well to think of their genetic heritage and try to live life as close to that as possible if health is the goal.

 

For further reading, or for more information about, Dr Wysong and the Wysong Corporation please visit www.wysong.net or write to wysong@wysong.net.  For resources on healthier foods for people including snacks, and breakfast cereals please visit www.cerealwysong.com.

Breast augmentation had never been a top concern for me. Ditto for
cosmetic surgery. It had always seemed like a cop out. As if the
people who went under the knife for it did it because they were
insecure. Not only that, but they thought it would be the “be
all and end all” for them. In other words, they’d still feel
insecure after the fact because they hadn’t dealt with the real
problem. Their own self-image.

Then one day, I saw some interviews with women who had done it. It
really blew me away. They weren’t insecure. They were happy for
having done it. It wasn’t like they felt they HAD to. They wanted to
regardless of what other people thought or said. So, it was their OWN
decision. They knew the risks, had heard all the stuff in the past in
the news about the safety of implants.

It’s hard to describe how it felt to hear them. It felt… Well,
it was kind of empowering. Their bodies, their choice. That’s what I
got out of it. And so, that’s when I realized that all my negative
obsessing about breast augmentation was wrong, a cover up. I was
trying avoid my own interest in the procedure by putting it down.

This isn’t to say that it’s the same for everyone. Nor do I want
anyone to think that they SHOULD do it just because they’re
“interested”. I had to think a long time about this, and
feel comfortable knowing that it was what I wanted.

After preparing myself, I then went on the mythical quest for the
perfect surgeon. What I found was a lot of information about all the
different ways breast augmentation could be done. On top of that, the
different kinds of implants. As well, the legal restrictions around
certain types of implants - namely the silicone-filled variety.

The other thing I found was how different the surgeons and/or
clinics marketed themselves. There were a lot of ads that would
reaffirm everything I thought was wrong about it. Fortunately, there
were some that actually sounded intelligent, i.e. not some
turn-of-the-century hawker selling snake oil.

Talking with these people, who actually sounded like they cared, I
was finally able to make a decision. They also answered the endless
questions and concerns I had about the different kinds of breast
augmentation. Not only the pros and cons of each technique but what
had to be done afterwards to make sure that the implants wouldn’t
rupture.

Although it took a while, in the end I was glad I did my homework
first. But more importantly, I’m glad for having seen those women
talk about their own experiences with breast augmentation. 

While science is busy scurrying around trying to find the genes that cause homosexuality, a new chemotherapeutic agent to cure female cancers, new diagnostic tests to detect prostate cancer earlier, throwing more and more money at research, the answer likely lies right under our noses.

 

Sex hormones are critical in governing a broad range of biological activities, including the development of the sexes. Early in fetal life, through a series of molecular switches, hormones signal the development of either male or female structures. It is the relative amount of female-to-male hormones that dictates whether we become male or female.

 

Over the past couple of decades, research has demonstrated that a kaleidoscope of synthetic chemicals and pollutants that have been introduced into our environment are capable of mimicking the effects of these natural sex hormones.

 

There are now some 45 environmental pollutants known to cause changes in the reproductive system. Examples include herbicides, pesticides, fungicides, insecticides, nematocides, PCB’s, styrene, combustion pollutants, a variety of metals, ingredients in plastics, break-down products of common detergents and other industrial by-products and commercial chemicals.

 

Estrogenic pesticides have now even appeared at detectable levels in the Antarctic penguin. 2, 4-D is the largest selling broad-leaf herbicide in North America, with some 60 million pounds of it and its chemical analogs used annually in the United States. This compound is another estrogen mimicker.

 

A diverse array of chemicals, many structurally quite unlike natural hormones, specifically mimic the female sex hormone, estrogen. Thus, it is not possible to determine by molecular analysis whether chemicals will mimic sex hormones until they are released into our environment and produce damage.

 

Environmental hormone mimickers may not only induce female and male cancers – but in levels far less than required to produce cancer – may trigger reproductive effects.

 

Here are examples of what these pollutants are doing in the biological world:

The eggshells of many birds are thinning. The result is that embryonic birds can be crushed by the mother, as has occurred in the past as a result of DDT contamination.

 

Gulls have developed grossly feminized reproductive tracts and some female gulls, called lesbian gulls, share nests. Gonads developed intersex characteristics – such that tissues had both the characteristics of ovaries and testicles. Males lost interest in mating and developed feminized sex organs.

 

Reproduction in bald eagles is known to drop when PCB’s in their bodies exceed 4 to 6 parts per million, or when DDE, a descendant of DDT exceeds 1 part per million. In the Great Lakes area, eggs are being found with PCB concentrations as high as 120 parts per million.

 

In Florida, there are super female alligators with ratios of estrogen to testosterone twice as high as normal. Some entire groups of hatchlings show no characteristics of maleness at all. Males had what looked like ovaries and stunted genitalia, and the ovaries of the females, on the histological (tissue) level, looked as though they were exhausted. These anomalies found in animals at Lake Apopka were traced to an effluent from the Tower Chemical Company. Their pesticide, Dicofol, is a molecule that looks identical to DDT except it has an extra oxygen atom. Spills into the lake were also laced with DDT and DDE, even though these chemicals have been outlawed long ago. Remember, although the U.S. may ban domestic sale of some chemicals, that does not prevent manufacturers from producing them for export. (Not an admirable ethic, to be sure.)

 

Trout exposed to industrial effluent have 500 to 100,000 fold increases in vitel-logenin, a biomarker for exposure to estrogenic pollutants.

 

The Pallid Sturgeon, an endangered fish native to the Mississippi and Missouri rivers, simply doesn’t reproduce anymore. Some have gonads neither distinctly male nor female.

 

Ethynylestradiol is the main estrogenic compound in birth control pills. Women who take the pill excrete the compound in their urine, which then passes through water treatment plants and on into the environment. The level of such birth control pill by-products in potable water supplies is in concentrations below the limits of detection. Nevertheless, these compounds are exerting biological effects on wildlife in the waterways.

 

Breakdown products of alkyl phenol polyethoxylates, a class of surfactants used in various soaps and even in pesticides, herbicides and cosmetics, have the ability to directly activate the body’s estrogen receptors. These compounds bioaccumulate in tissues, particularly fat tissues. Some 360 million pounds of these surfactants are sold in the United States each year.

 

Even electromagnetic fields (EMF) generated by power lines, household appliances and wiring demasculinize mature males. EMF abnormalities in rats include the development of abnormal testes and prostate glands. Researchers remark that the reproductive system of the rat is “built like a Sherman tank.” Certainly, then, if they are affected by electromagnetic fields, humans may be even more susceptible.

 

Sixty-seven percent of male Florida panthers, an endangered species with only about 30 to 50 animals still surviving, have undescended testicles. Only 14% of males had this condition just 10 years earlier. Even normal males are producing abnormal and deformed sperm cells. Some males had an estrogen to testosterone ratio that was inverted, having more estrogen than testosterone rather than vice-versa.

 

Environmental estrogenic pollutants are particularly dangerous to the male since the male’s reproductive system is more sensitive to the effects of estrogen than any other organ system.

 

Even though adult animals may appear perfectly normal, they may be reproductively dysfunctional. Some species of animals, though apparently healthy right now, may be in effect extinct.

 

The ubiquitous nature of feminizing hormones in our environment effectively bathes us in a sea of estrogenic substances. The full consequences of this exposure are only beginning to be understood. We are breathing it in our air, eating it on our fruit, and absorbing it through our skin; children are receiving it in the blood and milk from their mothers.

 

Many countries are now seeing a sharp rise in testicular cancer, more than tripling over the past 50 years. Also, the sperm count in men has fallen almost 50%, as documented in a study of some 15,000 men between the years of 1940 and 1990.

 

The rate of cryptorchidism (undescended testicles) has increased by almost two-fold in the years from 1950 to 1970. [We are so clever. First we saturate the bodies of our babies with feminizing pollutants and cause their testicles not to descend, and then we cleverly implant a silicone prosthetic testicle in the scrotum so that they appear normal. Then, the silicone causes an autoimmune disturbance resulting in the debilitating disease lupus erythematosus. (Vol. 8, No. 2).]

 

Another condition, hypospadias, in which the urinary tract is not formed properly in the fetus, doubled between the years 1964 and 1982.

 

Early exposure to feminizing hormone pollutants may disrupt the Sertoli cell in the testicles. These cells direct the development and descent of the testes and control the development of sperm and the secretion of male hormones responsible for masculinization. Sertoli cells are particularly sensitive to follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), but exogenous estrogenic pollutants inhibit FSH. Reproductive problems experienced in the general population are identical to the problems experienced by the male offspring of women who, during pregnancy, receive treatment with diethylstilbestrol (DES), a potent synthetic estrogen.

 

The broad range of estrogenic substances in our environment makes it almost impossible to determine a person’s exposure. Though a limit might be set on each of the estrogenic compounds, their effects are additive. Thus, if a person were only taking a tenth of the supposedly safe dosage of 10 different compounds, the additive effect would be toxic. In our clamor to rid our environment of carcinogenic (cancer-causing) substances, we have ignored the estrogenic effects. Alarmingly, the threshold levels for compounds to produce reproductive and sexual aberrations are often far less than those necessary to produce cancer.

 

If estrogenic compounds are capable of changing virtually every reproductive tissue in the body, as well as disrupting hormone balances, might they not also affect sexual behavior? Might the rise in sexual crimes and homosexuality be at least partially a result of our swimming in an increasingly concentrated sea of estrogens?

 

What can we do? First of all, take seriously the dangers of synthetic chemicals and pollutants in our food and environment. Don’t minimize the dangers or worry about being picayunish. It is likely that you simply can’t be careful enough. Also, do your part to decrease industrialization by decreasing consumption and waste. By decreasing demand we decrease the odds of pollution.

 

It is of interest that phytoestrogens found in whole grains such as rye, as well as in legumes such as soy – although estrogenic – possibly have the ability to compete against environmental pollutant estrogens. They are antagonistic to estrogenic adverse effects and apparently do not exert the harmful estrogenic effects of the environmental pollutants.

 

Since estrogenic compounds are fat soluble, the more fat you have, the greater the potential reservoir for these pollutants. This is yet another reason to maintain healthy body weight.

 

The ubiquitous nature of synthetic estrogenic compounds and their potential adverse effects is a serious and insidious threat to life on Earth. The power to change things is in our hands.

 

We must restore our natural context if we are to enjoy health and leave a livable world to our children.

 

For further reading, or for more information about, Dr Wysong and the Wysong Corporation please visit www.wysong.net or write to wysong@wysong.net.  For resources on healthier foods for people including snacks, and breakfast cereals please visit www.cerealwysong.com.