It just popped up on my Facebook newsfeed that too much folic acid may increase autism risk. This comes just days after we learn swaddling may increase SIDS risk. Granted, the folate study has not yet been peer reviewed and the swaddling findings are much more nuanced, but SERIOUSLY?!?!
Pregnancy and being a mom are hard enough...Can't scientific findings provide any good news for a change?!?!
So much has changed even since my four year old was born. I try to stay informed, but not stress over every detail. Life is unfortunately never risk free.
If you have 20 minutes, watch this John Oliver clip about media coverage of scientific studies. So on point, and hilarious. Also makes me feel better! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rnq1NpHdmw
So much has changed even since my four year old was born. I try to stay informed, but not stress over every detail. Life is unfortunately never risk free.
I just find it frustrating that the things that really are foundational to pregnancy (folic acid) and early infancy (swaddling) have had daggers thrown at them. Will this stop me from swaddling my newborn and continuing with prenatals (when I can actually stomach them)? No, but I'm a big rule follower by nature, so any information that contradicts what I've held as firm tenets of motherhood makes me uneasy.
Correlation does not equal causation. This shit pisses me off. We could also link smart phones to autism since both increased in prevalence during the same time frame... doesn't mean the two are related.
A problem is really in the way the media presents studies though. In that swaddling study, it said that babies swaddled and then placed on their side or stomach are at a higher risk for SIDS and that babies who are swaddled when they can roll over (like 3-4 months I believe it said) are at a higher risk. That is not new and is why they started the "back is best" campaigns. But the media doesn't say that, they just say swaddling is related to SIDS.
@MrsAlliKat I was going to say that exact same thing! Yeah, I can see how swaddling your baby and laying them on their face might cause more SIDS, but I'm pretty sure common sense would have told me that without the benefit of a research study. I get it, news outlets want clicks and people love sensational stories, but knock it off already with acting like one study is the new parenting gospel, I've got enough to freak out about already.
The media exists to get views. They will word headlines in way to get people to "tune in at 6 to learn more" even if it means slightly misrepresentating the facts.
The autism thing. -Its a preliminary study, the authors next step, according to them, is to confirm their findings. -They measured blood levels of folate and B12 in the days following delivery and assumed they would be the same as during the last trimester. -They have NO data on maternal nutrition or supplementation. None. The mothers could have been over supplementing or could have a genetic predisposition that causes issues with folate and B12 metabolism as well as predisposes their child to Autism (MTHFR is a potential candidate). -They were very clear in the interview I read. They are not recommending against supplementation, they actually said low levels of folic acid are known to cause problems and prenatals need to be continued.
In case you don't want to read the interview, the most important part IMO: RG: For women who are currently pregnant, how would you recommend they best manage their folate intake?
Fallin: We are deeply concerned about this particular messaging: Our work is very consistent with previous work showing that supplementation is critical to maternal health and child development and health, so at this point the recommendation is definitely to continue supplementation. What this study finds is that while maintaining adequate levels of folate is important, extreme levels may be harmful. As we move forward, we want to understand if that is consistently true – that extreme levels are harmful – and if so, how we would go about optimizing dosage in ways that achieve maximum benefit without additional risk.
A problem is really in the way the media presents studies though. In that swaddling study, it said that babies swaddled and then placed on their side or stomach are at a higher risk for SIDS and that babies who are swaddled when they can roll over (like 3-4 months I believe it said) are at a higher risk. That is not new and is why they started the "back is best" campaigns. But the media doesn't say that, they just say swaddling is related to SIDS.
The article I read did say this . It was just a click bait headline. The infant care class I took, the nurse said the same thing. Swaddling a baby less than 2 months old is still fine.
Folic acid study is not peer reviewed. I believe it was taking too much of it may cause problems, but normal amounts should be fine. I'm not worried.
My thing is, my dr would have notified me if he felt the risk of my child having autism was increased because my prenatal has folic acid in it. He did not, and I am not worried. I don't take any "extra" supplements or vitamins besides the prenatal, and it has less folic acid in it than an average non-prenatal. The swaddling issue is common sense. Don't swaddle and put on belly or side. Don't swaddle when they can roll over. Simple. I hate the media for the way they tell the story without the facts or the science.
Science is dumb.... media mishandles it... society swims in its fear...
Science isn't dumb, that's a ridiculous thing to say. The way the media presents science is incorrect often times.
Yes. This. Also, although there are definitely news outlets that embrace clickbait at the expense of good reporting, usually with science stories the problem is that smaller newsrooms mean reporters covering these stories aren't experienced in the subject matter and don't have or don't take the time to make sure they completely understand what they're reporting. It's generally not malicious -- just sloppy. Especially when something blows up quickly like this one did and everyone feels pressure to get something up about it. Even the NYTimes screwed this one up.
@GoldenmamaJ Thanks for sharing the interview. I had read an article earlier that didn't cover as many details. As a FTM who is homozygous MTHFR and who's husband's family had several cases of autism, I have to say this freaked me out today. I know my body cannot process folic acid, which is why my dr told me to take L-methylfolate. I'm worried now about having been taking too much. I'm wondering if the moms in the study had MTHFR, were treated properly for it, or were supplementing with folic acid potentially creating an increase of it in their system. I intend to talk to my dr about this ASAP and push to get my blood tested for my levels. Although I'm worried it's all too little too late since I'm 35+1. Ugh.
@arteduc8 no problem! I was high risk for neural tube defects so they had me taking 4x the daily dose of folic acid for all of the first trimester so I flipped out when I heard the news too. That interview was a huge comfort to me because it showed how little they really had as far as data and how many other factors could be at play. Best of luck getting your doctor to test your levels and hopefully it all turns out well for you
We already know some people believe everything they read or hear, hence the Bill Gates will give you a million dollar facebook shares. People need to be smarter and if something doesn't sound correct look into it more.
As a scientist, science is not dumb, but there are dumb scientists and there are lay people who don't understand everything they read when an article is published, and like a pp said some things get misconstrued. Are there bad scientists? Absolutely, just look at the scientist that fabricated the vaccines cause autism data, and people still believe it.
Also keep in mind that headlines are not written by the reporter - editors write them with an eye to grabbing readers' attention. So, even a competently written article by a legitimate science reporter may have a misleading/"if it bleeds it leads" type headline. Unfortunately, that's all that many people read.
Re: Science Rant
Also makes me feel better!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rnq1NpHdmw
The autism thing.
-Its a preliminary study, the authors next step, according to them, is to confirm their findings.
-They measured blood levels of folate and B12 in the days following delivery and assumed they would be the same as during the last trimester.
-They have NO data on maternal nutrition or supplementation. None. The mothers could have been over supplementing or could have a genetic predisposition that causes issues with folate and B12 metabolism as well as predisposes their child to Autism (MTHFR is a potential candidate).
-They were very clear in the interview I read. They are not recommending against supplementation, they actually said low levels of folic acid are known to cause problems and prenatals need to be continued.
Interview with senior researcher on the project https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/high-folate-levels-during-pregnancy-double-risk-of-autism-johns-hopkins-study-finds
In case you don't want to read the interview, the most important part IMO:
RG: For women who are currently pregnant, how would you recommend they best manage their folate intake?
Fallin: We are deeply concerned about this particular messaging: Our work is very consistent with previous work showing that supplementation is critical to maternal health and child development and health, so at this point the recommendation is definitely to continue supplementation. What this study finds is that while maintaining adequate levels of folate is important, extreme levels may be harmful. As we move forward, we want to understand if that is consistently true – that extreme levels are harmful – and if so, how we would go about optimizing dosage in ways that achieve maximum benefit without additional risk.
Folic acid study is not peer reviewed. I believe it was taking too much of it may cause problems, but normal amounts should be fine. I'm not worried.
The swaddling issue is common sense. Don't swaddle and put on belly or side. Don't swaddle when they can roll over. Simple. I hate the media for the way they tell the story without the facts or the science.
As a scientist, science is not dumb, but there are dumb scientists and there are lay people who don't understand everything they read when an article is published, and like a pp said some things get misconstrued. Are there bad scientists? Absolutely, just look at the scientist that fabricated the vaccines cause autism data, and people still believe it.