
Pregnancy alters woman's brain 'for at least two years' - richardboegli
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-38341901
======
kaitai
It's unfortunate that the link that made the front page here is to the BBC
article rather than the NYTimes article [1] on the same study, as the NYTimes
article much more clearly addresses a number of the points brought up by
commenters here today. The NYTimes article briefly mentions other non-
pregnancy related studies on the "pruning" of grey matter. One place to get a
bunch of citations for studies on synaptic pruning is in the lit review of
[2], since the NYTimes article itself doesn't have a citation for synaptic
pruning research in adolescents. However, the NYTimes article does link to
[3], an article about spontaneous theory of mind and synaptic density in 18-26
year olds. It looks at a this group of people not by age but by performance on
theory of mind tasks, examining the relationship with structural MRI data from
the participants. This sheds some light on efficiency and good performance on
theory of mind tasks and the neuroanatomy of a person. I think for most HNers
taking out thinking about pregnancy and looking at this study first would be
useful in understanding the results -- we've all got a lot of preconceived
notions about the effects of pregnancy that make it hard to think about the
results of the study rationally.

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/19/health/pregnancy-brain-
cha...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/19/health/pregnancy-brain-change.html)
[2]
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2475802/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2475802/)
[3]
[https://scan.oxfordjournals.org/content/10/3/327.abstract](https://scan.oxfordjournals.org/content/10/3/327.abstract)

~~~
dsacco
Thanks for making this point, especially with regards to pregnancy being a
loaded discussion topic.

In the original study I found it very interesting that the authors drew
parallels between the "maturation" of a new mother's brain (grey matter
reductions) and the brains of adolescents undergoing pregnancy. If this study
replicates, I would love to see followup studies exploring measures of
narcissism, time management, executive functioning and facial recognition over
time in women shortly before, during and after pregnancy (and perhaps even two
years afterwards). These are all areas in which adolescents experience
significant variations in functioning when compared to the general population,
and there could be a lot of fertile ground here.

One other thought that strikes me is how the grey matter alterations could
potentially impact teenage mothers. If the mother's brain has not left
adolescence by the time she experiences pregnancy, it would be interesting to
see how the grey matter alterations differ, considering the authors'
comparison.

~~~
kaitai
Fertile ground... :) Moving on, agreed on follow-up studies. A study similar
to this one looking at adolescent moms, non-moms, dads, and non-dads would be
very interesting as well. After all, if a teen guy is undergoing similar
pruning, what does that mean for his experience of a partner's pregnancy?
Disentangling social factors from neuroanatomical changes in teen parents
would be very hard, though, in societies where teen pregnancy is unusual and
has big economic impacts. Might be easier to do someplace where it's more
usual.

------
radicalbyte
Anecdotally I can say it has a large effect on the male brain too. The lack of
sleep and time changes you. You get ruthless against time stealers and start
seeing 6 hours as a nice long sleep.

Full disclosure : I've had about 8hr sleep in 3 days,two sick kids...

~~~
quickben
Yep, 5 month old here, teething. Short term memory is impacted.

~~~
vanderreeah
Still, impressive typing skills for your age.

~~~
quickben
You made my day :D

------
6DM
I never thought a reduction could result in an improvement. The brain is so
fascinating!

"The researchers found "substantial" reductions in the volume of grey matter
in the brains of first-time mothers. The grey matter changes occurred in areas
of the brain involved in social interactions used for attributing thoughts and
feelings to other people - known as "theory-of-mind" tasks. The researchers
thought this would give new mothers an advantage in various ways - help them
recognise the needs of their child, be more aware of potential social threats
and become more attached to their baby."

~~~
joncrocks
I'd be slightly careful here about separating out the findings from the
speculation.

The study[1] looked at what changed in the women's brains, the regions in
which it changed, and then tested to see which areas 'lit up' when viewing a
picture of their own child vs. other children. In addition measurements were
taken over time to see how permanent the changes were.

The reasons for change and the actual/quantitative impact of the changes would
have to come from another study. While what the "researchers thought" is
interesting, it's not supported by any evidence, i.e. no measurements were
taken to see if any of the suggested improvements were present.

[1]
[http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nn.44...](http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nn.4458.html)

~~~
mistermann
FWIW my wife underwent a drastic personality change after giving birth, and I
would definitely agree with this being one of the symptoms. But just one data
point of course.

~~~
dsacco
I really don't want this to come across as rude, because I don't mean to
single you out or invalidate your experience (or your contribution to
discussion!).

That said, what is the purpose of offering your anecdotal experience if you
acknowledge that it is an n=1 datapoint? I understand that it's in good faith
to acknowledge that your personal experience doesn't offer any statistical
rigor to an interpretation of the foregoing article, but in my opinion your
comment primes other readers in the discussion to subconsciously accept
certain interpretations that aren't justified by the research. The main
takeaway of your comment is "For what it's worth, I have an anecdote
confirming an interpretation of the data that is not presented in the original
study", and while you follow it up with the anecdote-acknowledgement, the
"damage is done" so to speak. You've already opened Pandora's Box with regards
to your subtle confirmation of the unsubstantiated interpretation.

In my experience it takes conscious effort not to allow anecdotes to impact
interpretation of data, and while I don't think you're doing it purposefully,
I believe it's counterproductive to the parent comment's point to offer an
anecdote to the discussion while simultaneously acknowledging that the
anecdote does not in any way prove the interpretation.

~~~
unethical_ban
Because this is Hacker News, not the Journal of the American Medical
Association. It's a community, and since it's acknowledged by the poster not
to be a scientific observation, I'm not sure he needs corrected on it.

~~~
dsacco
That's a fair point, and maybe I'm just demonstrating a personal bias for a
particular type of discussion that isn't reflected on Hacker News. However, I
didn't try to "correct" the grandparent commenter so much as show that while
an acknowledgement of an anecdote is made in good faith, it doesn't take away
from the overall impact on the audience. We may not be researchers peer
reviewing the work of colleagues here, but we can still strive for a certain
level of scientific literacy and decorum in our discussion.

Stated another way - if this were an article about computer science instead of
neuroscience, would you expect the overall discussion to be stronger, the same
or weaker compared to this discussion in terms of rigor? Furthermore, would
you think that rigor was warranted on this forum (these aren't rhetorical
questions, I'm curious)? I understand that disciplines like neuroscience allow
us to relate with the science a bit (it's tempting to retroactively interpret
our experiences with novel research!) but comments offering anecdotes, even
with those expressly accounted for, allow biases to be couched in between
legitimate data. I certainly think the grandparent comment would be challenged
similarly if this was a psychological study with the current concerns about
replication.

------
ingamx77
I had the baby while at university, and it's true. While I was always
brilliant in math and physics, I couldn't do simple things anymore. That was
very frustrating. Thanks god the physics professor was very forgiving as he
noticed the change

~~~
erroneousfunk
It was probably more about sleep deprivation, chronic stress, and immediate
reprioritization in your life, more than anything. It's hard to focus on
learning new tasks when you're tired, and you're forced to confront a million
new things at home.

The study just said that, in small areas of the brain, gray matter was
reduced, and they theorized that this specialization helped a new mother
recognize her infant and its needs. Nothing to do with math and physics.

~~~
Frondo
From conversations I've had with several mothers, it's not just sleep
deprivation, there's a fog that someone else here called "baby brain".

This article suggests a physical reason why that is so, as well.

~~~
kaitai
I have to say I don't think the article supports that at all. The study looks
at a 2-year stretch and the changes in all but the hippocampus are still there
at 2 years. Even friends who have reported "baby brain" don't claim it lasts 2
years, and synaptic pruning is not correlated with feeling foggy in any other
study (and there have been a bunch!).

------
keyle
We had our first born 7 months ago. I can tell you baby brain is real :)

My wife, herself, recognise she became more centered around the baby, less
forgiving and more selfish. Also less patience.

But hey I'm not complaining, I love our little man. Nature is wonderful.

------
nklyn
Birth control pills boost the same hormones, I wonder if they would have
similar affects on the brain.

~~~
actuallyalys
Pregnancy raises at least estrogen and progesterone to something like ten
times the usual menstrual cycle peak, so I doubt the effect size is
comparable. Also, I think pregnancy affects a broad range of hormones, not
just the handful in birth control.

~~~
elptacek
Oxytocin levels also increase. That would be the first one I'd test for -- if
there was a correlation between oxytocin levels and extent of grey matter
loss.

------
bogrollben
Whereas the child itself alters the brain for the rest of your life.

~~~
setq
Three children in, yes definitely.

------
novia
Brain differences between the sexes are real, but we should interpret them
with caution.

~~~
mibbiting
Otherwise we'll be called sexist?

~~~
pc86
Otherwise we'll project unrelated biases under the guise of science. Otherwise
we risk unconsciously ignoring or lessening the relevance of facts that
contradict those biases.

There's nothing sexist about studying the differences between male and female
and learning about the biological/physiological strength and weaknesses of
each. But there's little scientific justification in extrapolating that to
unrelated conclusions.

Edit: Not to mention the fact that we know very little about the brain
compared to literally any other internal organ, so attempting to draw
conclusions about behavior or sociology based on changes in the brain in some
women during pregnancy is probably a fool's errand.

~~~
rimantas
This goes both ways.

------
lostlogin
Does the percentage of mothers who were getting fertility treatment make this
actually representative? The pain and suffering that those who struggle to
have children followed (presumably!) by happiness when they have a child must
have some effect?

The average age of the participants also seems high to me, but a brief search
for an average age for having a first child put this study cohort only
slightly over that - surprising to me at least.

~~~
DanBC
> followed (presumably!) by happiness

Baby blues and postnatal depression are common, even among people who've been
through fertility treatment. Indeed, those people may find it harder to seek
help because of the assumptions that they must be happy after all that
struggle.

(Also, about 1 in 10 men have postnatal depression.)

~~~
lostlogin
This is true, but two years down the track one would hope this had passed. I
know that long term health problems do occur but I don't think anyone would
describe them as post-natal depression or baby blues at that point.

~~~
DanBC
Postnatal depression is most common 4 years after the birth.

------
nommm-nommm
>And they compared these women's brains with those of 19 first-time fathers,
17 men without children and 20 women who had never given birth.

Incomplete control group. They should have included first time adoptive
mothers and women who gave their baby up for adoption.

Also extremely small sample size.

EDIT: It would have also been very relevant to include a sample of lesbian
parents of the same child where one parent gave birth and one didn't.

~~~
xkcd-sucks
It's a bit surprising that a Nature Neuro paper didn't have more control
groups. But on the other hand, it's trickier to get ahold of first time
adoptive mothers etc. And on the third hand, there's always somebody
requesting increasingly specific control groups and one just has to stop and
publish at some point.

~~~
econnors
Similar to open sourcing "ugly" code. At some point the benefit of releasing
is worth putting out non-perfect work. If there's interest, someone can build
on what you've done and fork your progress.

------
partiallypro
I always wonder about claims like this from both sides. I see people claiming
pregnancy alters a woman's brain, miscarriages can cause postpartum
depression, but then see claims that abortions do not effect the brain at all.
The third I find hard to believe given the first two. And I know this is a
touchy topic, but I am pro-choice yet find it a bit baffling that we ignore
some of the science behind its effects on the brain and moods. Hormones are
very powerful. If you are on either side of that fence, I think we can all
agree that we want the woman to be well. I feel like writing off effects for
political reasons does nothing but damage women (I think this is more U.S.
than other countries.) Especially if we consider some women getting abortions
are doing so for socio-economic reasons. If their brains are effected (they
become depressed,) that is hurting their social standing even more. If we can
identify that as a possible effect, then we can treat them.

A bit of a tangent, but it's something reading this prompted me to rant about.

~~~
discordianfish
> I see people claiming pregnancy alters a woman's brain, miscarriages can
> cause postpartum depression, but then see claims that abortions do not
> effect the brain at all. The third I find hard to believe given the first
> two.

The reason a miscarriage can cause depression while an abortion usually does
not is because the former is against a women's will and the other her choice.
I find that quite obvious to be honest.

~~~
Pamar
Even if the abortion is a decision by the woman I doubt it's something that
has no impact on her psyche.

~~~
discordianfish
Nobody said that.

------
randyrand
It permanently altered my brain for sure and I'm a father. It altered my
thoughts. The things I care about. The way I act. There is no going back.

------
modzu
another bbc link at the bottom of the article: "scientists say baby brain
doesn't exist" lol

such bad reporting. i digress. btw, small sample size too -- only 25 women?

~~~
zeroer
Depends on the effect size.

------
wcummings
In what way is this "on topic"?

------
throwaway7645
My wife and I both took our Professional Engineering Exams (8 hour test that
is brutally hard) and she was 6 mo pregnant and still passed while I failed. I
really feel dumb now.

~~~
johnlbevan2
She was thinking for 2 though ;)

------
LeoDox
I am genuinely not trolling, just curious coz I'm new here: what does this
have to do with software? Or does HackerNews cover more than just software?
Genuine question, not rhetorical

~~~
yorwba
From
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

 _What to Submit

On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes
more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the
answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity. _

------
kagamine
"women's brains"? Or was it just one lady? Come on journalism, be clear in
your meaning.

~~~
caminante
Stop trolling.

    
    
      And they compared these women's brains with those of 19 first-time 
      fathers, 17 men without children and 20 women who had never given birth.

~~~
manarth
I think kegamine is pointing to the grammatical oddity of using the singular
"woman" in the title, rather than the plural "women":

    
    
      Pregnancy alters woman's brain
    

The article introduction phrases this in a little more concise a way:

    
    
      Pregnancy reduces grey matter in specific parts of a woman's brain
    

I can see how the introduction probably became contracted to form the title,
but in the contracted version, the plural "Pregnancy alters women's brain"
would seem a little more grammatically precise than "Pregnancy alters woman's
brain".

~~~
pc86
Not trying to split hairs but is the study statistically significant that they
can safely generalize to all women? Regardless I think the phrase "some
womens'" would have been better in the title.

------
known
Salute the women;

