I used to be a drink till it's pink kind of gal...

obbb3

Until I saw this article today. It's actually the only thing that is making me feel better about being on CD 1, since I drank last weekend. I think I'm now going to be a teetotalling TWW'er.

@ACleanLife24 - you're a scientist, right? Any thoughts?

lostkyte

It would be great if the study detailed the AMOUNT of alcohol consumed by the pregnant mouse. But still, scary. 

Really hate it sometimes when the DH (teetotaler) is right. :P

MrsDepo

I wish the article would have linked the actual study because when they say that time frame is "correlated with 3-6 weeks in human" we don't know if they mean weeks from LMP or from fertilization. Furthermore, in humans placentation doesn't occur until a week after fertilization, right around implantation time and the mother and baby do not share a blood supply until later than that. While it is possible they showed differences as early as 3 weeks in mice, and mice are an excellent model for human pregnancy complications, we must remember that there are differences and what happens in one species does not always correlate with the other. The nutrient transfer layer or the filtering layer of the placenta is definitely similar but I also ended up learning a whole lot of ways they are different. I really wouldn't be too concerned.

peppers1227

I looked at it. Would need to see more sample size and information on the model they are correlating their results to human gestation with. And to note....they only made 10% alcohol available to test mice, no water. So it's the same as you drinking only wine 24/7 while pregnant.

Also, I've never heard of the journal PLOS ONE which automatically sets my BS radar off. Their site describes themselves as "PLOS ONE takes the hard work out of publishing. There's no stress waiting to find out if your article meets subjective acceptance criteria. As long as your work reaches a high technical and ethical standard, PLOS ONE will publish it and make it freely available to a global audience." So basically, non-peer reviewed journal that lets you publish fast and likely without digging deeper into results. I don't trust it.

MrsDepo

PLOS ONE is a reputable journal. A lot a graduate students post there so sometimes it gets a bad rap but its still good and peer reviewed.

"Each submission to PLOS ONE passes through a rigorous quality control and peer-review evaluation process before receiving a decision."

The journal is more focused on publishing quality work even if it is not deemed "important enough" to go to bigger journals. That's what makes it good for students and researchers interested in less studied topics.

Don't bash PLOS ONE please, I haven't published there but some grad students in my lab have.

27alex

There are too many missing factors, like mentioned above, I'm not buying it.

peppers1227

MrsDepo said:

I wish the article would have linked the actual study because when they say that time frame is "correlated with 3-6 weeks in human" we don't know if they mean weeks from LMP or from fertilization. Furthermore, in humans placentation doesn't occur until a week after fertilization, right around implantation time and the mother and baby do not share a blood supply until later than that. While it is possible they showed differences as early as 3 weeks in mice, and mice are an excellent model for human pregnancy complications, we must remember that there are differences and what happens in one species does not always correlate with the other. The nutrient transfer layer or the filtering layer of the placenta is definitely similar but I also ended up learning a whole lot of ways they are different. I really wouldn't be too concerned.

If you keep following the sources you can get to the full article.

peppers1227

MrsDepo said:

PLOS ONE is a reputable journal. A lot a graduate students post there so sometimes it gets a bad rap but its still good and peer reviewed.

"Each submission to PLOS ONE passes through a rigorous quality control and peer-review evaluation process before receiving a decision."

The journal is more focused on publishing quality work even if it is not deemed "important enough" to go to bigger journals. That's what makes it good for students and researchers interested in less studied topics.

Don't bash PLOS ONE please, I haven't published there but some grad students in my lab have.

It depends on your field, that doesn't fly in my field and none of my colleagues from grad school have published there that I know of. In my field it's considered suspect if it's not in one of the top journals, even if it is a peer reviewed journal. In my group's journal club if you brought a paper from any lower tier paper the faculty members were guaranteed to find a million holes in it. Hence me being very distrustful of anything that doesn't have the checks and balances.

KaaaaaatieRN

MrsDepo said:

PLOS ONE is a reputable journal. A lot a graduate students post there so sometimes it gets a bad rap but its still good and peer reviewed.

"Each submission to PLOS ONE passes through a rigorous quality control and peer-review evaluation process before receiving a decision."

The journal is more focused on publishing quality work even if it is not deemed "important enough" to go to bigger journals. That's what makes it good for students and researchers interested in less studied topics.

Don't bash PLOS ONE please, I haven't published there but some grad students in my lab have.

I didn't see anyone bashing, but I don't feel like it's fair for you to ask someone not to. If you post an article of this magnitude (because so many of us drink til it's pink, you can expect there to be skeptics if it looks a little sketchy.

MrsDepo

I guess I only said "bashing" because peppers1227 said it was not peer-reviewed, which is blantantly false. I agree that it's not the best of journals but I wouldn't make claims about them that are untrue.

Edit: I'm really sorry if I offended people with that, I really just don't like when people make claims about things that aren't true. It reminds me of politics where they attack their opponent based off of stuff like that. PLOS ONE isn't the best journal, by far, but I'm agreeing with all of you on the content of the article. I wouldn't use that study alone to base my drinking on based off of what I have learned in my research and other articles I have read. Very frequently animal research does not translate well to human conditions so it's difficult to make good decisions based off that one article.

peppers1227

MrsDepo said:

I guess I only said "bashing" because peppers1227 said it was not peer-reviewed, which is blantantly false. I agree that it's not the best of journals but I wouldn't make claims about them that are untrue.

Edit: I'm really sorry if I offended people with that, I really just don't like when people make claims about things that aren't true. It reminds me of politics where they attack their opponent based off of stuff like that. PLOS ONE isn't the best journal, by far, but I'm agreeing with all of you on the content of the article. I wouldn't use that study alone to base my drinking on based off of what I have learned in my research and other articles I have read. Very frequently animal research does not translate well to human conditions so it's difficult to make good decisions based off that one article.

There is no need to be defensive. I said it was not peer-reviewed because it is not the the traditional sense (a person off the street can't just apply to be a reviewer of most reputable journals in my field), and I don't know what else to call it. We could just go with low impact factor. Regardless, I'm entitled to my opinion and skepticism. I'm not saying that good science is never published in these types of journals, but that it is prudent to be skeptical.

I don't think what I said is remotely close to bashing. I can admit to poor wording but please don't get butthurt because I don't trust a journal that your lab mates published in. FYI, I don't trust many of the articles published in a journal that I myself am published in... Skepticism is a scientist's friend.

jnissa

PLOS One is reputable, but in other articles about this study it's pointed out that the researcher specifically" 

"Researchers in Helsinki fed female mice alcohol in the early stages of pregnancy - although they did not report how much. "

So until they tell me that, I call horseshit and say that they left that out specifically for publication dissemination. My husband is a research doctor, and many of these studies have a lot to do with "publish or perish." If you ultimately want to be on faculty somewhere, you need a deep publication resume and articles that were talked about mainstream as well. 

I suspect if they released the amount, it would be equivalent to what a person with a serious drinking problem drank more than what a casual glass of wine a night or so person drank and we would all say, "Duh. Of course heavy, over-the-top drinking causes an impact on an unborn child even early." There are probably 50 studies to this one all confirming that moderate alcohol during pregnancy is fine. In the meantime, it's just one more way to scare women into thinking that they're only good at being pregnant if they suddenly become puritanical nuns.

tinklerbelly

Edited because my GIF didn't work  

tinklerbelly

tinklerbelly

^ Finally. Sorry to spam everyone 

hope+joy+love

My dad told me about an article he just read that showed a small study of women who had small amounts of alcohol while pregnant and their children grew up to be smarter than those women who didn't drink at all.

NOW, I am not saying go ahead and drink throughout pregnancy and I'm not even sure the source of this article but this is an example that makes me think PP is right, you can find studies across the board on this topic so until further info is found I think it is a personal decision whether to drink in the TWW.

ACleanLife24

FIrst off PLOS ONE  (Proceedings of the Library of Science) had a bit of a struggle when it first opened as it was one of the first open access journals so it was a more expensive to publish there but over the last few years this has become a much more accepted way of publication.  

SECONDLY- Drinking during the TWW

1) Why you should: Conceptions happens 24-48 hours after ovulation.. It then takes about 10 days for the fertilised egg to implant itself into the uterus, form a placenta and start to share blood with the mother.  SO even if you are pickling yourself in bourbon there is no commonly shared blood stream.  This is a mouse study and I am sure that this is not a shock but we have different anatomy.

2) Why you shouldn't... If you are not timing/temping/OPK and don't know your exact dates, particularly for ladies with longer cycles the prior information can be hard to calculate.   As a secondary factor many women TTC have various reasons for difficulty and those with PCOS for example can see improvement in symptoms when they lose weight.  Because the way that alcohol is processed in the liver by the body it does inhibit weight loss.. not to mention all the extra calories depending on what you are drinking.  I personally have given up on drinking in the TWW until I get a negative 10+days after ovulation and it has resulted in the scale continuing to drop little by little.  This is however a personal choice and there is no medical reason why I couldn't.