Why just clear liquids during labor

[Anonymous]

I would love to hear a follow up on this topic. Wouldn't it be fun to know how many of us ate or wanted food at all once we were actually in labor? I feel like so many pregnant women think in such extremes. With my first baby, i went to a breastfeeding class and they asked how many people were going to have a "natural" childbirth with no drugs. The entire class of about 20 people, except my friend and I raised their hands enthusiastically. Of those, 18 who insisted on no drugs, i would LOVE to know how many actually followed through on that wish. No judgement either way, but how can you be so sure of what you will want before you are there? The thing is, you just have no idea what will happen until you are in the moment so relax, dont sweat it and go with the flow. Otherwise, you will waste a lot of time and energy worrying for nothing.

[Anonymous]

I was induced at 40 1/2 weeks. Went to the hospital around 6 p.m. (after eating a big meal) and brought some snacks with me. Had some complications from the cervadil that they inserted around 9 p.m. and ended up not eating anything after that time. Started pitocin around 7 a.m. the next morning and didn't eat anything all day except for a couple of popsicles. Had an epidural around 10 a.m. Between the adrenalin and the nausea, I never really felt hungry or thought about food, though. Delivered around 6 p.m. and didn't eat anything until about 10 p.m. when my husband brought some food from a nearby restaurant. I was FAMISHED at that point and definitely would recommend ordering food or having someone pick something up for you as soon as possible after you deliver. I was really nervous about the whole not eating thing, but it really wasn't that bad. It's not like any other day where you have to eat all the time.

[Anonymous]

i was concerned about this too - i thought i would be starving.

the night i went into labor i ate dinner at maybe 6 or 7 pm. my water broke at 930ish. i vomited everything up by midnight. i also vomited the water i drank to stay hydrated throughout the night. i did have an epidural and got the sugar water drip b/c i had gestational diabetes. i was not hungry at all. baby was born about noon.

i ate in the afternoon sometime, i don't remember actually. it's been a while. :0)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm married to an anesthesiologist and the no-foods rule is not a joke. It can be extremely dangerous to perform surgery on someone with a full-stomach (and that's defined as having anything other than water for the last 8 hours). Pregnant women are especially prone to vomiting, and the risk of aspiration (vomit entering the lungs) is high and can be extremely dangerous, even fatal.

Tell your husband to look at the research on this. the risk of aspiration is the same regardless of whether or not the patient has eaten.

Yes, you're right. My husband trained at Johns Hopkins. I hear they are totally out-of-date at that fogey old institution. Why on earth would they recommend a medical precaution that a DCUM says is antiquated?

Snark aside, I'll do my best to defend the practice to the best of my non-medically-trained understanding. It's a question of risk-calculus. Often times a surgery will be delayed if a patient has eaten. However, if a patient has a full stomach requires emergency surgery, such as after a trauma, it is significantly more risky to delay surgery than to wait for the food to digest. Anesthesiologists must perform a different assessment of the airway and the method of induction for a full-stomach patient, and sometimes that may method be contraindicated by other characteristics of the patient. Pregnant patients are more likely to vomit and to aspirate than non-pregnant patients. When you weigh the risks, forgoing a plate of spaghetti while laboring is certainly less burdensome than the risk of developing a severe lung infection or death in the event you aspirate on the table, no?

Seriously, read the research on this. You are wrong. Most midwives practice evidence based medicine (unlike most hospitals and OBs) and encourage you to eat during labor (if you want to).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would love to hear a follow up on this topic. Wouldn't it be fun to know how many of us ate or wanted food at all once we were actually in labor? I feel like so many pregnant women think in such extremes. With my first baby, i went to a breastfeeding class and they asked how many people were going to have a "natural" childbirth with no drugs. The entire class of about 20 people, except my friend and I raised their hands enthusiastically. Of those, 18 who insisted on no drugs, i would LOVE to know how many actually followed through on that wish. No judgement either way, but how can you be so sure of what you will want before you are there? The thing is, you just have no idea what will happen until you are in the moment so relax, dont sweat it and go with the flow. Otherwise, you will waste a lot of time and energy worrying for nothing.

If those 18 were giving birth in an environment that supported natural childbirth I'm certain that most of them would have done so if that was what they really wanted. Unfortunately most women give birth in hospitals that do not support and rarely see natural childbirth. When the medical providers are pushing epidurals or trying to keep you strapped to the bed your chances of getting the natural birth you want are much less. Despite this, if you have a plan as to what you want and how things will go your chances will be higher. If you "go with the flow" you will undoubtedly end up with an epidural and multiple interventions (unless your labor is too quick for that to happen).

[Anonymous]

Let's think about this "rationally" (yes I know, most things birthing wise are not thought about rationally). If a woman is in labor, start to finish, for 24 hours, is it really feasible for her not to eat at all this entire time? Of course not! We're wondering why women don't have the energy left to push and end up with a c-section.

As long as a woman wants to eat, she should be allowed. Yes many will not want to eat anything, some who will end up with emergency c-sections shouldn't, but having a "one size fits all" type of rule in this situation is ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Wow! There are a lot of hippie birthing moms visiting this thread. (Which I have to admit, is refreshing here at DCUM). Where are all you people on all the other threads!? Ha.

[Anonymous]

This particular DCUM forum is much more "hipppie oriented". I'm another who was VERY hung up on the no food rules and convinced I need fuel for what could be a very long labor (my mom labored a long time with me, her first). As it turned out, both my labors were short - #2 VERY short - race for the epidural short! in neither was i hungry once we reached the serious labor point.

[Anonymous]

wow.

I'm an anesthesiologist, and I've had 5 kids, four by c-section.

Clear liquids, great! Food? You better be healthy, reasonably slim, with a normal labor pattern and a healthy baby. Yeah, midwives are great, but they pass all the sick patients to the OB docs, that's why everything's so "awesome" with midwives.

If you're sick, the baby's sick, or you're obese, you're at higher risk of emergency C-section. Your airway is swollen during pregnancy, 10x higher risk of complications during breathing tube placement for general anesthesia. You will become very ill, or die, if chunks of food or stomach acid end up in your lungs.

off topic, for all the "natural" childbirth fans-- being induced with drugs (pitocin, cytotec) is NOT natural. If you don't want an epidural, no problem, but going without painkillers is only part of the "natural" experience. No medals are awarded for drug-free vaginal delivery; we all just want healthy babies!

I breastfed all my kids until 13 months, no formula, so don't give me crap for having 4 medically necessary c-sections. I have some hippie cred!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would love to hear a follow up on this topic. Wouldn't it be fun to know how many of us ate or wanted food at all once we were actually in labor? I feel like so many pregnant women think in such extremes. With my first baby, i went to a breastfeeding class and they asked how many people were going to have a "natural" childbirth with no drugs. The entire class of about 20 people, except my friend and I raised their hands enthusiastically. Of those, 18 who insisted on no drugs, i would LOVE to know how many actually followed through on that wish. No judgement either way, but how can you be so sure of what you will want before you are there? The thing is, you just have no idea what will happen until you are in the moment so relax, dont sweat it and go with the flow. Otherwise, you will waste a lot of time and energy worrying for nothing.

i ate dinner [lasagna!] at 6:30pm, water broke at 8pm, gave birth around 7am. headed to hospital quickly because of gbs status. don't think i ate at hospital, but i did pack snacks. drank gatorade [it's for marathons, right?] and then water because i was sick of the sugar in the gatorade. i really didn't want food, but just wanted to know i could have it if i wanted. midwife pre-approved it, and i wasn't about to ask the nurses about hospital policy.

had my natural birth with no drugs, as intended. also breastfed to 22 months, which was not intended.

guess this makes me a hippie, but you wouldn't know it from looking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:wow.

I'm an anesthesiologist, and I've had 5 kids, four by c-section.

Clear liquids, great! Food? You better be healthy, reasonably slim, with a normal labor pattern and a healthy baby. Yeah, midwives are great, but they pass all the sick patients to the OB docs, that's why everything's so "awesome" with midwives.

If you're sick, the baby's sick, or you're obese, you're at higher risk of emergency C-section. Your airway is swollen during pregnancy, 10x higher risk of complications during breathing tube placement for general anesthesia. You will become very ill, or die, if chunks of food or stomach acid end up in your lungs.

off topic, for all the "natural" childbirth fans-- being induced with drugs (pitocin, cytotec) is NOT natural. If you don't want an epidural, no problem, but going without painkillers is only part of the "natural" experience. No medals are awarded for drug-free vaginal delivery; we all just want healthy babies!

I breastfed all my kids until 13 months, no formula, so don't give me crap for having 4 medically necessary c-sections. I have some hippie cred!

I was with you, right up until the bolded line. I'm one of the posters arguing for no food during labor and I've had both medicated and natural births. I didn't forego the epidural for a medal, but thanks for your snark.

[Anonymous]

Two kids, both "natural" births, meaning I had no medications administered to me during my labor. Like the previous poster stated, I didn't do it for a medal. I did it because I place great value on a healthy, natural lifestyle and I found that these sentiments carried over to my birthing choices. I felt like it was the best way for my baby to enter the world (drug free) and I trusted that my body would function the way nature intended (without interventions). That's my own personal story, but I know that many don't have the same opinions and that's fine. It all comes down to having the autonomy and resources for informed decision making.

[Anonymous]

I think using the term "natural" can be confusing, as some interpret is solely as a vaginal birth, and others interpret it as intervention free (meaning no IV's, no epidurals, no medication, just a woman and her body).

Whatever path you choose, it's important to research the location you're giving birth (hospital or birth center, I'd assume you know your home pretty well if you choose a home birth) and familiarize yourself with their rules. If you're not comfortable, start looking elsewhere. It also would help to make a list of what really is important to you about the birthing process (such as delayed cord clamping, delayed bath, etc), as you might have to make some sacrifices and prioritize your list. My best friend didn't want to forgo food, but delaying the cord clamping was more important, so that's the hospital she chose (out of state).

[Anonymous]

What's the point of distinguishing between natural meaning no epi and natural mean no drugs at all on this thread? No one is looking for a medal. Women who don't get an epi are in for more of a strong physical experience and may be more likely to need food to sustain their energy. Women who are induced for medical reasons and still forego the epi may need food all the more because the pain is higher or they may have no interest in food because of the induction drugs. Some women who get epis want food and some don't. All good.

And yes, some labors are very fast and some women never feel like eating. None of that is counter to the fact that women should be able to have some food if they need it to run the race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:wow.

I'm an anesthesiologist, and I've had 5 kids, four by c-section.

Clear liquids, great! Food? You better be healthy, reasonably slim, with a normal labor pattern and a healthy baby. Yeah, midwives are great, but they pass all the sick patients to the OB docs, that's why everything's so "awesome" with midwives.

If you're sick, the baby's sick, or you're obese, you're at higher risk of emergency C-section. Your airway is swollen during pregnancy, 10x higher risk of complications during breathing tube placement for general anesthesia. You will become very ill, or die, if chunks of food or stomach acid end up in your lungs.

off topic, for all the "natural" childbirth fans-- being induced with drugs (pitocin, cytotec) is NOT natural. If you don't want an epidural, no problem, but going without painkillers is only part of the "natural" experience. No medals are awarded for drug-free vaginal delivery; we all just want healthy babies!

I breastfed all my kids until 13 months, no formula, so don't give me crap for having 4 medically necessary c-sections. I have some hippie cred!

If you're an anesthesiologist perhaps you can tell me why you are ignoring all the research? If you haven't seen it, here are some links:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7961689.stm (News article about a Kings College London study reported in the BMJ that found there is no difference in rates of vomiting between women who have or have not eaten)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10507677 (research study found "Research does not support restricting food and fluids in labor to prevent gastric aspiration. Restricting oral intake during labor has unexpected negative outcomes." Also stated that the rate of aspiration was about 7 in 10 million births.)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8410348 (Literature review re eating and drinking during labor)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20585208 (Review of evidence surrounding oral intake during labor - "Nurses in intrapartum settings are encouraged to work in multidisciplinary teams to revise policies that are unnecessarily restrictive regarding oral intake during labor among low-risk women")

Other news articles:

http://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20100120/eating-drinking-may-be-ok-during-labor
http://www.cleveland.com/healthfit/index.ssf/2010/08/hospital_policy_of_withholding.html

This is what I found in a 2 minute search. So, now please tell us why you don't practice evidence based medicine? Or feel free to direct me to some recent research that disproves the above. (And not the 1946 study that is what most hospitals policies are based on).