Woman gives birth hours after marathon

earlyevening

Yeah it took 6:25 but I still thought I'd stick it up here.

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/americas/us-woman-gives-birth-hours-after-running-chicago-marathon-2901647.html

robinph

I realise my maths might not be that good, but isn't 39 weeks over nine months?

hunnymonster

an average pregnancy is 40 weeks (although the first two weeks dont really count as the clock starts ticking on the first day of the previous period!)

TheRoadRunner

Is it just me or does anybody else find that ridiculous and irresponsible? She was actually in labor while walking/running. What's the point?

On another point she managed to beat her husband. He needs a serious kick up the hole.

Child is probably already suffering from shaken baby syndrome!

tunney

My wife is due in two weeks, my mates wife is due in three weeks.

Mailed them a link to this and told them to HTFU and STFU

Another friend is due (former tri national champion in multiple distances) is due in 4 weeks. She is about to stop full on training. The others hate her.

hunnymonster

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

What's the point?

Pain relief, mental sanity, help with progression of labour, .... who knows, baby is kinda well protected in there and the doctors had ok'ed it so I don't see how it's irresponsible?

moomooman

Just goes to show that all that being chased by lions/tigers/hyenas etc over the millenia really stands to the modern human.

tunney

moomooman wrote: »

Just goes to show that all that being chased by lions/tigers/hyenas etc over the millenia really stands to the modern human.

Pregnant women are just bl00dy stubborn. Her husband probably told her "you couldn't do that".......

TheRoadRunner

hunnymonster wrote: »

Pain relief, mental sanity, help with progression of labour, .... who knows, baby is kinda well protected in there and the doctors had ok'ed it so I don't see how it's irresponsible?

yes it could be all of those but why do it in a big city marathon on an incredibly warm day? What if her contractions increased rapidly and the baby had to be delivered on the course? Her doctor may have given her the OK but I'd be amazed if the organisers, or more to the point the insurers of the event would have allowed her to compete if they had of known. Sure there are medics on course but are they expecting a pregnant woman, I doubt it.

When I read hair brain stories like this I always get the feeling it was done simply to get into the newspaper!

Gringo78

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

Is it just me or does anybody else find that ridiculous and irresponsible? She was actually in labor while walking/running. What's the point?

On another point she managed to beat her husband. He needs a serious kick up the hole.

Child is probably already suffering from shaken baby syndrome!

+1 The fact that she went into labour and had the baby hours afterwards proves it - the baby decided f**k this, I'm getting myself out of this loon before she does any more damage.

tunney

Lets call a spade a spade, she went for a long walk and then had a kid. No risk to the kid.

Give her time was about three and a half hours off the mark to be deemed "running" the baby was well safe.

shels4ever

what time would she run tomorrow with the X'lbs weight loss.

RacoonQueen

tunney wrote: »

Another friend is due (former tri national champion in multiple distances) is due in 4 weeks. She is about to stop full on training. The others hate her.

Full on? As in the same training she'd do if she was competing? Or just the same sort of hours with less intensity? Genuinely interested.

tunney wrote: »

Pregnant women are just bl00dy stubborn. Her husband probably told her "you couldn't do that".......

Just when we're pregnant? :pac:

shels4ever wrote: »

what time would she run tomorrow with the X'lbs weight loss.

I'm sure there's a thread somewhere that will help us work this out.

Seres

Gringo78 wrote: »

+1 The fact that she went into labour and had the baby hours afterwards proves it - the baby decided f**k this, I'm getting myself out of this loon before she does any more damage.

Its very possible that the stress of 6+ hrs out running could have brought on the labour alright . Im all for taking exercise when pregnant , on doctors permission it can be a health benefit . I also think your suppose to listen to your body to know when to quit and most doctors advice that too , 'pull back or stop if you feel your body is under too much stress ' . Its left to your own discretion as well to know when to quit . Doctors cover themselves enough not to be used as scape goats either

Rantan

she's fine, baby's fine, no problem, no issue - cant see why this even made the papers, if she ran a 2.30 marathon and then had the kid maybe thats something(thats what I expected when I saw the headline or else something crazy like she hadn;t known she was pregnant) but 6.25 is a long walk really, no harm IMO

hunnymonster

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

yes it could be all of those but why do it in a big city marathon on an incredibly warm day? What if her contractions increased rapidly and the baby had to be delivered on the course? Her doctor may have given her the OK but I'd be amazed if the organisers, or more to the point the insurers of the event would have allowed her to compete if they had of known. Sure there are medics on course but are they expecting a pregnant woman, I doubt it.

When I read hair brain stories like this I always get the feeling it was done simply to get into the newspaper!

Any of the marathons I did while pregnant, I always let the oganisers know in advance. They never had a problem. Pregnancy isn't an injury or a disease. lol, on the getting in the papers, at 39 weeks she realistically wan't expecting to give birth for another week, babies don't read mom's timetable and say, now is a good time to arrive. They comewhen they are ready!

Mr Slow

One spends the time before pregnancy taking Folic acid, when one gets pregnant one eats right, doesn't smoke, minimises/cuts out alcohol, spends lots of time deciding on how best to protect the newborn baby - making sure to have the safest car seat, buying one of those monitors that help prevent cot death, stocking up on the best infant formula just incase breast feeding isn't an option. If God forbid the child has something wrong with it one doesn't have to reproach oneself.
Running a marathon IMO is a risk, an unnecessary one!

cynder

At 39 weeks I was lucky I could walk, sciatica on both sides, what if she had of tripped over and landed on bump or collapsed or fainted, would have been a whole different story, she took a stupid risk that turned out well this time......

dna_leri

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

On another point she managed to beat her husband. He needs a serious kick up the hole.

!

I think if my wife was walking 26 miles while 39 weeks pregnant, I might consider walking behind her too.

Peckham

Two observations about this story:

"I was kind of planning on running about half, and maybe skipping to the end and walking across the finish line,"

a.k.a. cheating

managed to beat her husband Joe by 19 minutes.

I presume they started together, which would mean that at some point he suggested to his 39 week pregnant wife that he was struggling and she should push on and he'd catch her up at the finish :eek:

Seres

hunnymonster wrote: »

. They comewhen they are ready!

or if there is undue stress on the body, cant rule this is out as a strong possibilty . I gave birth 10days early on the back of a very unexpected emotional stress .

TheRoadRunner

No harm seems to have been done. What would peoples reaction be if there were complications on course and baby died. Simple

Cat Melodeon

This was her eighth marathon. The woman is obviously fit and healthy and well used to exertion. Doctors only ever recommend against exercise in pregnancy where there are underlying health concerns or where the woman is increasing the intensity of the exercise. This woman obviously was fit before she got pregnant, walking for half the marathon shows she was taking it easy by her standards. Plenty of women work in physical jobs right up until they give birth. If you are strong and healthy there is no danger in it. And running walking is not an impact sport - the risk of falling or causing injury to the baby is extremely low.

Personally, at 34 weeks pregnant I could not even imagine being as active as that. I barely manage the 45 min waddle round the park with the dogs each evening. Fair play to her though.

RacoonQueen

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

This was her eighth marathon. The woman is obviously fit and healthy and well used to exertion. Doctors only ever recommend against exercise in pregnancy where there are underlying health concerns or where the woman is increasing the intensity of the exercise. This woman obviously was fit before she got pregnant, walking for half the marathon shows she was taking it easy by her standards. Plenty of women work in physical jobs right up until they give birth. If you are strong and healthy there is no danger in it. And running walking is not an impact sport - the risk of falling or causing injury to the baby is extremely low.

Personally, at 34 weeks pregnant I could not even imagine being as active as that. I barely manage the 45 min waddle round the park with the dogs each evening. Fair play to her though.

Just because she's done 7 marathons previously it doesn't mean she is well used to exertion. I did a quick search to see if I could find any of her previous times, I can't I just get a load of regurgitations of this article, and most of them are saying this one was a 'bit' slower than her previous times...

And whatever about doing a marathon when 20 weeks or even 30 weeks pregnant, this is 39 weeks.

Edit: Actually, I've found two - both while she was just under 20 weeks and both around 4:30...

Mr Slow

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

Doctors only ever recommend against exercise in pregnancy where there are underlying health concerns or where the woman is increasing the intensity of the exercise.

It's not 'exercise', it's a marathon.

ThisRegard

Isn't sex recommended to help bring on labour ? I see no difference in this case and a rigorous sex session at full term. The sex maybe even tougher on the poor baby if the man is particularly frustrated and realises that a section is the alternative if this doesn't work so there's going to be nothing coming in that department for a good while afterwards so he might as well make the most of the opportunity

robinph

grindelwald wrote: »

At 39 weeks I was lucky I could walk, sciatica on both sides, what if she had of tripped over and landed on bump or collapsed or fainted, would have been a whole different story, she took a stupid risk that turned out well this time......

No problem at all I think if something were to have happened. Baby was ready to make an appearance. Now if she had tripped over and landed on the bump, or collapsed and feinted at 20 weeks (I'm just picking a random number here)then there is likely to be far more of an issue for the kid.

Kid was fully formed and ready to be unleashed on the world. The only complicating factor was that it was still attached to the mother so will have messed up her ability to run.

Also how many first aid posts would you normally pass on your walk down the shops? I'm assuming that it wouldn't be considered a risk for her to ha e gone shopping at 39 weeks. Whilst on her way round Chicago there will have been plenty of people available to assist if needed, and an ambulance no more than a couple of minutes away. Perfectly safe for her to do the Marathon if she is capable.

EC1000

robinph wrote: »

and an ambulance no more than a couple of minutes away

The first scenario that sprung to my mind was the liklihood of the woman going into the final stages of labour on the course. What happens next? Ambulance hears of woman collapsing and speeds down course to assist her.... this is the problem here as far as I am concerned. There is no difficulty with her walking 26 miles if she likes... but if she does it as part of an organised event she is putting others at potential risk.....

shotgunmcos

ThisRegard wrote: »

Isn't sex recommended to help bring on labour ? I see no difference in this case and a rigorous sex session at full term.

Not for 6 and a half hours :rolleyes:

If it was simply a stress relief the woman could have just gone out the door for a long run.

It was an organised event so IMO this was simply irresponsible and attention seeking.

You never know someones true motive. Perhaps she had made a significant promise to someone etc...

Even at that I still don't buy it, the event is on again next year.

Stupid

RacoonQueen

ThisRegard wrote: »

Isn't sex recommended to help bring on labour ? I see no difference in this case and a rigorous sex session at full term. The sex maybe even tougher on the poor baby if the man is particularly frustrated and realises that a section is the alternative if this doesn't work so there's going to be nothing coming in that department for a good while afterwards so he might as well make the most of the opportunity

It's meant to help reduce labour pains as well isn't it?

Bet the husband would have preferred your way to his near 7 hour 'run'

shotgunmcos wrote: »

Not for 6 and a half hours :rolleyes:

Can you not keep going for 6.5 hours then? :pac:

ThisRegard

You're just doing it wrong. That's how you got your user name isn't it ? You're like a hair trigger on a gun, the slightest of touches and you've fired !

robinph

shotgunmcos wrote: »

ThisRegard wrote: »

Isn't sex recommended to help bring on labour ? I see no difference in this case and a rigorous sex session at full term.

Not for 6 and a half hours :rolleyes:

Someone will have to bring you water and gels at various intervals.

shotgunmcos

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Can you not keep going for 6.5 hours then? :pac:

There is no 6.5 hours with a pregnant woman. You are used and abused and cast aside for some oranges,or peas or coal to chew on

ThisRegard wrote: »

You're just doing it wrong. That's how you got your user name isn't it ? You're like a hair trigger on a gun, the slightest of touches and you've fired !

Nope, just have a bigger gun thats all

Fittle

Meh! I know women who've walked more than 26 miles up and down maternity hospital coridoors whilst in labour...

RacoonQueen

shotgunmcos wrote: »

There is no 6.5 hours with a pregnant woman. You are used and abused and cast aside for some oranges,or peas or coal to chew on

That's all most of yee are any good for anyway!

Fittle wrote: »

Meh! I know women who've walked more than 26 miles up and down maternity hospital coridoors whilst in labour...

Did they walk more than 26.2 miles though? Maybe we should post about them in the ultra thread?

Krusty_Clown

You can see the direction this will take, right? She applies for a Guinness Word Record for fastest marathon for a women who subsequently gives birth to a child within a 12 hour period. Queue a rash of planned pregnancies in the US, timed to coincide with big city marathons, followed by induced labours.
Next up? The Ultramarathon? The Ironman?

tunney wrote:

Give her time was about three and a half hours off the mark to be deemed "running" the baby was well safe.

So 2:55 is the new 'running' standard? Phew. Glad I made the cut.

Mr Slow

robinph wrote: »

Someone will have to bring you water and gels at various intervals.

Don't forget Beer!

Oryx

Its recommended to stay active during pregnancy and for as long as possible during labour. Why is everyone assuming this woman is a twit and trying to wrap her in cotton wool? She was able for it. And for anyone saying she shouldn't do something so strenuous while so pregnant, what about labour? Thats a marathon and then some!

madon

It says that she originally had planned to run half and skip to the end (I presume she means take a short cut rather than the movement) and that she had doctors fully aware of her exercise plans but she didn't really have them fully aware if she decided to change her plan and do the full marathon.
The way I see it the risk for hurting baby is higher by doing a marathon at 39 weeks than not doing a marathon at 39 weeks, I would rather choose the no risk option.
I think it was all for publicity.

madon

Oryx wrote: »

And for anyone saying she shouldn't do something so strenuous while so pregnant, what about labour? Thats a marathon and then some!

Yes it is a marathon in itself and she risked going through such a marathon being very fatigued from doing the first one, I wonder if even the fittest of marathon runners could run two marathons in one day. She obviously had a very straight forward labor, she was very lucky.

Oryx

And the exercise probably helped.

tunney

Oryx wrote: »

Its recommended to stay active during pregnancy and for as long as possible during labour. Why is everyone assuming this woman is a twit and trying to wrap her in cotton wool? She was able for it. And for anyone saying she shouldn't do something so strenuous while so pregnant, what about labour? Thats a marathon and then some!

I have to say respect to the woman.

I'd venture a guess that most men and women without kids are the ones that are taking the "cotton wool approach".

lway

Seres wrote: »

Its very possible that the stress of 6+ hrs out running could have brought on the labour alright ..

+1 on this point, that was my first thought when I saw the headline. Surely while her body was trying to recover from the exertion it had to decide what was best for the mother and though "time for the child to be born". I'm glad it was 39 weeks and all are well but surely she risked premature birth while training. And I wonder what effects all the adrenaline and/or lactic acid in her system would have had, might turn out to be a super baby .


BTW, Male but have two kids so not coming from a completely ignorant standpoint.

TheRoadRunner

tunney wrote: »

I have to say respect to the woman.

I'd venture a guess that most men and women without kids are the ones that are taking the "cotton wool approach".

maybe you should start a poll!

I have kids and I'm taking the cotton wool approach. Quite frankly if my wife at 39 weeks told me she was heading out in 30 degree heat to walk/run for 6+ hours I'd quite frankly would have told her to kop on.

Mr Slow

tunney wrote: »

I have to say respect to the woman.

I'd venture a guess that most men and women without kids are the ones that are taking the "cotton wool approach".

I have 2!!!

tunney

Medical advice friends and family have received recently when pregnant (3/4 of the tri club are having kids before Christmas). "If you do it before you can keep doing it but just don't take up anything new. Pregnancy is not an illness it doesn't stop you doing anything, just listen to your body."

Pregnant women aren't fragile - just insane.

Gringo78

lway wrote: »

And I wonder what effects all the adrenaline and/or lactic acid in her system would have had, might turn out to be a super baby .

Not sure there was any lactic acid involved

kincsem

That baby has a great story to tell on its first day in school.

madon

I have two- I've just seen how quickly something can go wrong during labor and I thank god that I had the strength in me to listen and be able to do exactly what the doctor told me.
I do think that at the end of a pregnancy a womans priority is to prepare herself for labour not a marathon.

Krusty_Clown

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

maybe you should start a poll!

I have kids and I'm taking the cotton wool approach. Quite frankly if my wife at 39 weeks told me she was heading out in 30 degree heat to walk/run for 6+ hours I'd quite frankly would have told her to kop on.

Just for clarification, it wasn't 30'C on the day. Closer to around 24'C with high humidity. Some of the temperature gauges were showing 86'F (30'C) on the course, but I reckon these were probably inaccurate or sitting in the sun. Not that it changes the outcome in any way. Just clarifying!

earlyevening

This baby thing has me thinking.

I wonder if anyone has been conceived an hour before a marathon, or possibly even during one.

Stranger things have happened.