Modern lifestyles are bad for fertility
Stress, diet and exercise can dent women’s reproductive capacity.
A combination of stress, diet and exercise can dramatically affect female fertility, research on monkeys suggests. Although stress is known to reduce fertility, researchers now warn that if a woman is also dieting and exercising, the effect could be many times greater.
Read more here
Comments
The thesis of this post is ridiculous.
Rich, educated women are very fertile. They do no have children because they believe they have better things to do with their lives. In other words, it's not biology (or stress), it's feminism.
Joaquim, in Canada
Required reading: this recent column by Linda Hirshman in the Washington Post. She writes "that women who quit their jobs to stay home with their children were making a mistake. Worse, I said that the tasks of housekeeping and child rearing were not worthy of the full time and talents of intelligent and educated human beings. They do not require a great intellect, they are not honored and they do not involve risks and the rewards that risk brings."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061601766.html
Posted by: Joaquim R | June 20, 2006 06:46 PM
I agree that low birth rates are in part due to many women chosing not to have children. It is their choice. But Ms Hirshman's opinion is just that, one woman's opinion, albeit probably influencial. There are a lot of intelligent, educated women who chose to become mother and find it very rewarding. If anything, Ms Hirshman's column highlights the need to honour their work.
My question is this: How does rich, educated women believing they have better things to do than have children account for the high rates of amenorrhoea or the results in monkeys?
Posted by: Marc Andre Belanger | June 21, 2006 03:11 PM
From the CIA world fact book (link below), here are a few recent total birth rates (children per woman):
Afghanistan: 6.69
Gaza strip: 5.78
Nigeria: 5.49
Iraq: 4.18
United States: 2.09
Canada : 1.61
European Union: 1.47
As you can see, there is a POSITIVE relationship between war (stress) and fertility. Therefore, despite the very well known inhibition of individual female fertility by stress, stress is irrelevant at the level of human populations.
Again, the thesis of this post is ridiculous.
Joaquim, in Canada
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
Posted by: Joaquim R | June 21, 2006 06:26 PM
Though it is interesting, it is to be noted that not only the stress, diet or exercise account for reduced reproduction capability. There are other factors like the genetic abnormalities, hormonal imbalance & family history.
Pre marital counselling helps the couples to be more compatible & to spend some time together, rather than a mechanical life. Apart from this, yoga & meditation can also release the pent up emotions(emotional catharisis).
So try to be natural & be what you are than trying to lead a more sophisticated life.
Posted by: Shanthi Sankaralingam | June 24, 2006 06:48 AM
Well, the story, nor I, never said that women's choice doesn't impact birth rates (actually they talk about an impact on fertility). What the CIA world fact book statistics seem to show is that the more women are free to choose, the lower the birth rate. Also, the higher the level of survival stress ("will we make it until tomorrow), the higher the birth rate. Which the thesis presented does not deny. But there is a difference between that type of stress (and it's impact) and the one faced by westerners. It is that kind of day-to-day, non-life-threatening stress that was studied.
Posted by: Marc Andre Belanger | June 25, 2006 08:36 PM
So, is the current trend of chosing to not have children, and raising pets in place of children, becoming "the norm" in the US ? I see people of other nationalities who have relocated to the US still raising families, but not people of America's "twenty-to thirty something" generation (?)
Posted by: Joyce O'Malley | July 10, 2006 07:14 PM
I agree that low birth rates are in part due to many women chosing not to have children. It is their choice. But Ms Hirshman's opinion is just that, one woman's opinion, albeit probably influencial. There are a lot of intelligent, educated women who chose to become mother and find it very rewarding. If anything, Ms Hirshman's column highlights the need to honour their work.
Posted by: Hossohbet | June 19, 2007 01:43 PM
Hirshman's opinion is just that, one woman's opinion, albeit probably influencial. There are a lot of intelligent, educated women who chose to become mother and find it very rewarding. If anything, Ms Hirshman's column highlights the need to honour their work.
Posted by: sohbet | October 19, 2007 09:39 PM
is the current trend of chosing to not have children, and raising pets in place of children, becoming "the norm" in the US ? I see people of other nationalities who have relocated to the US still raising families, but not people of America's "twenty-to thirty something" generation (?)
Posted by: video share | December 23, 2007 03:22 PM