<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Morning Sickness is an Adaptation, not a &#8230; Sickness	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/07/03/morning-sickness-is-an-adaptat-3/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/07/03/morning-sickness-is-an-adaptat-3/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2009 12:57:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.8</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: daedalus2u		</title>
		<link>https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/07/03/morning-sickness-is-an-adaptat-3/#comment-539141</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[daedalus2u]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2009 12:57:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/07/03/morning-sickness-is-an-adaptat-3/#comment-539141</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[A reduction in the rate of eating supports an adaptation hypothesis.  If the &quot;problem&quot; is the rate of metabolism of xenobiotic chemicals, then spreading out that consumption over a longer period of time better matches metabolic capacity with metabolic needs.  Adverse effects are likely concentration dependant, and if the consumption rate is kept low, then the liver may be able to substantially fully metabolize them on the first pass blood flow from the gut.  

There are very few pathways in physiology that do only one thing.  Virtually all pathways evolved from something else, so they have multiple activities.  That is one of the things that makes physiology so difficult to understand, there are so many things going on simultaneously.  

Anemia also raises NO levels because hemoglobin is the sink for NO.  That has been observed in isovolemic anemia (replacement of blood with plasma or other red blood cell free extenders) in rabbits where exhaled NO increases with anemia.  Similarly isovolemic anemia causes vasodilatation and tachycardia, but with no hypoxia.  The partial pressure of O2 in the venous return blood is not lower during isovolemic anemia even with ~50% reductions in blood hemoglobin.  

NO prevents the formation of bacterial biofilms.  I think that is the reason behind the very high NO levels of septic shock, to generate very high NO levels to prevent formation of a biofilm in the vasculature (which would very likely be fatal).  Anemia may facilitate that, and may be why anemia during pregnancy occurs and why there are more adverse effects in pregnancies with high hemoglobin levels.  Puerperal fever was a major cause of death before antibiotics.   Evolution is going to â??optimizeâ? survival by trading off death due to anemia, puerperal fever, cephalopelvic disproportion and everything else.  ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A reduction in the rate of eating supports an adaptation hypothesis.  If the &#8220;problem&#8221; is the rate of metabolism of xenobiotic chemicals, then spreading out that consumption over a longer period of time better matches metabolic capacity with metabolic needs.  Adverse effects are likely concentration dependant, and if the consumption rate is kept low, then the liver may be able to substantially fully metabolize them on the first pass blood flow from the gut.  </p>
<p>There are very few pathways in physiology that do only one thing.  Virtually all pathways evolved from something else, so they have multiple activities.  That is one of the things that makes physiology so difficult to understand, there are so many things going on simultaneously.  </p>
<p>Anemia also raises NO levels because hemoglobin is the sink for NO.  That has been observed in isovolemic anemia (replacement of blood with plasma or other red blood cell free extenders) in rabbits where exhaled NO increases with anemia.  Similarly isovolemic anemia causes vasodilatation and tachycardia, but with no hypoxia.  The partial pressure of O2 in the venous return blood is not lower during isovolemic anemia even with ~50% reductions in blood hemoglobin.  </p>
<p>NO prevents the formation of bacterial biofilms.  I think that is the reason behind the very high NO levels of septic shock, to generate very high NO levels to prevent formation of a biofilm in the vasculature (which would very likely be fatal).  Anemia may facilitate that, and may be why anemia during pregnancy occurs and why there are more adverse effects in pregnancies with high hemoglobin levels.  Puerperal fever was a major cause of death before antibiotics.   Evolution is going to â??optimizeâ? survival by trading off death due to anemia, puerperal fever, cephalopelvic disproportion and everything else.  </p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Greg Laden		</title>
		<link>https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/07/03/morning-sickness-is-an-adaptat-3/#comment-539140</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Greg Laden]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Jul 2009 22:46:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/07/03/morning-sickness-is-an-adaptat-3/#comment-539140</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[d[10]:&lt;em&gt;What is the â??purposeâ? of nausea in the first place, among the non-pregnant? We know that nausea evolved, and that many organisms have states that seem to be nausea-like. Presumably nausea didnâ??t suddenly appear with humans.&lt;/em&gt;

That might be a good question or it might be a side trip for now.  I would not say with confidence that nausea arose in any other species. Offhand I can&#039;t think of any research on that at all.  Puking, yes, bu nausea, I really don&#039;t know.

According to William&#039;s hypothesis on disease, nausea would play the role not in diverting or not food related to fighting the dissease, but rather, diverting food from the pathogen.  As does (and this may be related functionaly) aenemea.


 



]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>d[10]:<em>What is the â??purposeâ? of nausea in the first place, among the non-pregnant? We know that nausea evolved, and that many organisms have states that seem to be nausea-like. Presumably nausea didnâ??t suddenly appear with humans.</em></p>
<p>That might be a good question or it might be a side trip for now.  I would not say with confidence that nausea arose in any other species. Offhand I can&#8217;t think of any research on that at all.  Puking, yes, bu nausea, I really don&#8217;t know.</p>
<p>According to William&#8217;s hypothesis on disease, nausea would play the role not in diverting or not food related to fighting the dissease, but rather, diverting food from the pathogen.  As does (and this may be related functionaly) aenemea.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Greg Laden		</title>
		<link>https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/07/03/morning-sickness-is-an-adaptat-3/#comment-539139</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Greg Laden]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Jul 2009 22:41:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/07/03/morning-sickness-is-an-adaptat-3/#comment-539139</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Anon1 [0]:  That was a repost of something that I&#039;ve not read up on in a year, so I&#039;m not sure so I&#039;m not sure if the rise in progesterone hypothesis is tested and tossed or makes sense or not for some other reasons.  But, this is a good point to note the ultimate/proximate issue.  In your alternative explanation, the ultimate part is avoiding miscarriage (which presumes something we can&#039;t really presume: There is a &quot;thing&quot; called miscarriage that comes along and we want to avoid it) and the rise in progesterone is a proximate mechanism.

If that was shown, it would not eliminate Sherman&#039;s hypothesis.  I can&#039;t think of too many adaptive systems that don&#039;t relate to or piggy back on some other existing system. If there is rising progesterone (and there is) it is going to be the signal for any number of other systems that are adaptations related to pregnancy.  

]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Anon1 [0]:  That was a repost of something that I&#8217;ve not read up on in a year, so I&#8217;m not sure so I&#8217;m not sure if the rise in progesterone hypothesis is tested and tossed or makes sense or not for some other reasons.  But, this is a good point to note the ultimate/proximate issue.  In your alternative explanation, the ultimate part is avoiding miscarriage (which presumes something we can&#8217;t really presume: There is a &#8220;thing&#8221; called miscarriage that comes along and we want to avoid it) and the rise in progesterone is a proximate mechanism.</p>
<p>If that was shown, it would not eliminate Sherman&#8217;s hypothesis.  I can&#8217;t think of too many adaptive systems that don&#8217;t relate to or piggy back on some other existing system. If there is rising progesterone (and there is) it is going to be the signal for any number of other systems that are adaptations related to pregnancy.  </p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Greg Laden		</title>
		<link>https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/07/03/morning-sickness-is-an-adaptat-3/#comment-539138</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Greg Laden]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Jul 2009 22:37:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/07/03/morning-sickness-is-an-adaptat-3/#comment-539138</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Hypatia&#039; da:  Well, this theory is more or less a side effect. Sensitivity goes up.  Because sensitivity goes up, the pregnant woman avoids a class of foods. That&#039;s the adaptation.  

Then she pukes. Side effect.  

So, this is an &quot;adaptive explanation&quot; in that it is an explanation that involves an adaptation, but not that the specific symptoms we identify as the syndrome are themselves adaptive. ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hypatia&#8217; da:  Well, this theory is more or less a side effect. Sensitivity goes up.  Because sensitivity goes up, the pregnant woman avoids a class of foods. That&#8217;s the adaptation.  </p>
<p>Then she pukes. Side effect.  </p>
<p>So, this is an &#8220;adaptive explanation&#8221; in that it is an explanation that involves an adaptation, but not that the specific symptoms we identify as the syndrome are themselves adaptive. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Hypatia's Daughter		</title>
		<link>https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/07/03/morning-sickness-is-an-adaptat-3/#comment-539137</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hypatia's Daughter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Jul 2009 19:45:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/07/03/morning-sickness-is-an-adaptat-3/#comment-539137</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Daedalus2u, I have to wade through your biology terms (biology is not my forte, I am more into astronomy &amp; physics), but to restate what you said:
You get sick, you produce high NO levels, high NO levels make you nauseous.
&quot;Nausea does occur during sickness, and reduces food consumption during sickness. The bodyâ??s need for energy and nutrients is not reduced during sickness, however the bodyâ??s metabolic capacity is being diverted to sickness fighting, and perhaps nausea is the way to divert metabolic capacity away from food digestion to sickness fighting.&quot;
But is not the primary function of nausea (&amp; diaherra) during sickness to EXPEL the germs, virus &amp;/or toxins that are making you ill? It may also be its useful in diverting resources during illness, but is that its primary  function?
In pregnancy you are not sick but you become nauseous for only an hour two. Then you resume your normal eating patterns. How effective is nausea at making you &quot;avoid... (the) consumption of xenobiotic chemicals&quot; if it only prevents you from eating normally for 2 out of 24 hours in the day?
I suspect that nausea (it is not really &quot;sickness&quot;) is a side-effect of pregnancy - something is triggered by the hormones, such as over-production of bile, which then makes you nauseous.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Daedalus2u, I have to wade through your biology terms (biology is not my forte, I am more into astronomy &#038; physics), but to restate what you said:<br />
You get sick, you produce high NO levels, high NO levels make you nauseous.<br />
&#8220;Nausea does occur during sickness, and reduces food consumption during sickness. The bodyâ??s need for energy and nutrients is not reduced during sickness, however the bodyâ??s metabolic capacity is being diverted to sickness fighting, and perhaps nausea is the way to divert metabolic capacity away from food digestion to sickness fighting.&#8221;<br />
But is not the primary function of nausea (&#038; diaherra) during sickness to EXPEL the germs, virus &#038;/or toxins that are making you ill? It may also be its useful in diverting resources during illness, but is that its primary  function?<br />
In pregnancy you are not sick but you become nauseous for only an hour two. Then you resume your normal eating patterns. How effective is nausea at making you &#8220;avoid&#8230; (the) consumption of xenobiotic chemicals&#8221; if it only prevents you from eating normally for 2 out of 24 hours in the day?<br />
I suspect that nausea (it is not really &#8220;sickness&#8221;) is a side-effect of pregnancy &#8211; something is triggered by the hormones, such as over-production of bile, which then makes you nauseous.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: daedalus2u		</title>
		<link>https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/07/03/morning-sickness-is-an-adaptat-3/#comment-539136</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[daedalus2u]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2009 19:13:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/07/03/morning-sickness-is-an-adaptat-3/#comment-539136</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The time the fetus is most sensitive to teratogens is while differentiation and epigenetic programming is going on and that is mostly in the first trimester.  In the formation of the structure of organs, cells have to proliferate and differentiate in specific patterns depending on signals inside and between cells.  These developmental processes are extremely complex (a vast understatement).  There are many things about the motherâ??s health that are known to affect the epigenetic programming of the fetus, including stress, diet and illness as well as teratogen exposure.  

What is the â??purposeâ? of nausea in the first place, among the non-pregnant?  We know that nausea evolved, and that many organisms have states that seem to be nausea-like.  Presumably nausea didnâ??t suddenly appear with humans.  

Nausea does occur during sickness, and reduces food consumption during sickness.  The bodyâ??s need for energy and nutrients is not reduced during sickness, however the bodyâ??s metabolic capacity is being diverted to sickness fighting, and perhaps nausea is the way to divert metabolic capacity away from food digestion to sickness fighting.  If your body can successfully deal with the sickness, then you can regain what ever weight you lost.  If it doesnâ??t, then you didnâ??t divert enough resources to fighting it.  

During sickness, the body generates high nitric oxide levels through the expression of iNOS.  That high NO level is what causes the vasodilation and hypotension of septic shock.  NO normally blocks heme enzymes including the cytochrome P450 enzymes which are the major xenobiotic metabolizing enzymes.  If the P450 enzyme activity is compromised by high NO, then avoiding consumption of xenobiotic chemicals would be advantageous.  Similarly if those P450s are needed to metabolize toxins produced by pathogens, avoiding food might be advantageous.

Early fetal life is pretty hypoxic.  Much of the energy is produced by glycolysis which produces far fewer free radicals than oxidative phosphorylation.  Early pregnancy does not require additional energy.  What is most important is that the fidelity of DNA replication is kept very high.  NO is an excellent anti-oxidant, several orders of magnitude better than vitamin E.  

What is needed in the first trimester is to expand the blood supply (requires NO to increase Epo), increase mitochondria number (requires NO to trigger mitochondria biogenesis), increase vascularization of the placenta (requires NO for angiogenesis).  I suspect that the high NO of sepsis and the high NO of early pregnancy both trigger nausea.  I think that trying to counter the nausea of pregnancy is not a good idea.  ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The time the fetus is most sensitive to teratogens is while differentiation and epigenetic programming is going on and that is mostly in the first trimester.  In the formation of the structure of organs, cells have to proliferate and differentiate in specific patterns depending on signals inside and between cells.  These developmental processes are extremely complex (a vast understatement).  There are many things about the motherâ??s health that are known to affect the epigenetic programming of the fetus, including stress, diet and illness as well as teratogen exposure.  </p>
<p>What is the â??purposeâ? of nausea in the first place, among the non-pregnant?  We know that nausea evolved, and that many organisms have states that seem to be nausea-like.  Presumably nausea didnâ??t suddenly appear with humans.  </p>
<p>Nausea does occur during sickness, and reduces food consumption during sickness.  The bodyâ??s need for energy and nutrients is not reduced during sickness, however the bodyâ??s metabolic capacity is being diverted to sickness fighting, and perhaps nausea is the way to divert metabolic capacity away from food digestion to sickness fighting.  If your body can successfully deal with the sickness, then you can regain what ever weight you lost.  If it doesnâ??t, then you didnâ??t divert enough resources to fighting it.  </p>
<p>During sickness, the body generates high nitric oxide levels through the expression of iNOS.  That high NO level is what causes the vasodilation and hypotension of septic shock.  NO normally blocks heme enzymes including the cytochrome P450 enzymes which are the major xenobiotic metabolizing enzymes.  If the P450 enzyme activity is compromised by high NO, then avoiding consumption of xenobiotic chemicals would be advantageous.  Similarly if those P450s are needed to metabolize toxins produced by pathogens, avoiding food might be advantageous.</p>
<p>Early fetal life is pretty hypoxic.  Much of the energy is produced by glycolysis which produces far fewer free radicals than oxidative phosphorylation.  Early pregnancy does not require additional energy.  What is most important is that the fidelity of DNA replication is kept very high.  NO is an excellent anti-oxidant, several orders of magnitude better than vitamin E.  </p>
<p>What is needed in the first trimester is to expand the blood supply (requires NO to increase Epo), increase mitochondria number (requires NO to trigger mitochondria biogenesis), increase vascularization of the placenta (requires NO for angiogenesis).  I suspect that the high NO of sepsis and the high NO of early pregnancy both trigger nausea.  I think that trying to counter the nausea of pregnancy is not a good idea.  </p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Anon1		</title>
		<link>https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/07/03/morning-sickness-is-an-adaptat-3/#comment-539135</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anon1]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2009 12:48:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/07/03/morning-sickness-is-an-adaptat-3/#comment-539135</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Isn&#039;t there a theory that morning sickness is related to the rise in progesterone, which protects against miscarriage? That would fit with Hypatia&#039;s Daughter&#039;s scenario where morning sickness is the unpleasant by-product of an adaptation, not the adaptation itself.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Isn&#8217;t there a theory that morning sickness is related to the rise in progesterone, which protects against miscarriage? That would fit with Hypatia&#8217;s Daughter&#8217;s scenario where morning sickness is the unpleasant by-product of an adaptation, not the adaptation itself.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Hypatia's Daughter		</title>
		<link>https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/07/03/morning-sickness-is-an-adaptat-3/#comment-539134</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hypatia's Daughter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2009 08:12:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/07/03/morning-sickness-is-an-adaptat-3/#comment-539134</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I know this is just one anecdote but my morning sickness WAS in the morning (3 times) - BEFORE I had eaten. All I could force down was dry crackers. Ralphing bile is nasty. Why would my body be rejecting toxic foods before I had eaten ANY foods, even water?
How about a 3rd reason - a non-adaptive side-effect of pregnancy? Not everything is the direct result of evolutionary adaptation - sometimes things happen because of adaption for another reason. Fevers are the bodies way of fighting infection - high fevers make the body less palatable as a growth medium for germs &amp; viruses. But they also make us feel ill and can &quot;get out of control&quot; causing brain damage &amp; death. Hardly the &quot;purpose&quot; of the fever mechanism.
As 6EQUJ5 said, nausea can be a side effect of the body trying to adjust. Pregnancy is a big adjustment and the body may just &quot; get bungled up&quot; during the process and nausea is a side effect.
I also think 6EQUJ5 has a good point - would it not be a better scientific approach to find the physical mechanism first (what is causing the nausea, why it is triggered by pregnancy) rather than all the broad range of assumptions that Sherman had to make about each competing theory]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I know this is just one anecdote but my morning sickness WAS in the morning (3 times) &#8211; BEFORE I had eaten. All I could force down was dry crackers. Ralphing bile is nasty. Why would my body be rejecting toxic foods before I had eaten ANY foods, even water?<br />
How about a 3rd reason &#8211; a non-adaptive side-effect of pregnancy? Not everything is the direct result of evolutionary adaptation &#8211; sometimes things happen because of adaption for another reason. Fevers are the bodies way of fighting infection &#8211; high fevers make the body less palatable as a growth medium for germs &#038; viruses. But they also make us feel ill and can &#8220;get out of control&#8221; causing brain damage &#038; death. Hardly the &#8220;purpose&#8221; of the fever mechanism.<br />
As 6EQUJ5 said, nausea can be a side effect of the body trying to adjust. Pregnancy is a big adjustment and the body may just &#8221; get bungled up&#8221; during the process and nausea is a side effect.<br />
I also think 6EQUJ5 has a good point &#8211; would it not be a better scientific approach to find the physical mechanism first (what is causing the nausea, why it is triggered by pregnancy) rather than all the broad range of assumptions that Sherman had to make about each competing theory</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Mike B.		</title>
		<link>https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/07/03/morning-sickness-is-an-adaptat-3/#comment-539133</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike B.]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2009 00:02:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/07/03/morning-sickness-is-an-adaptat-3/#comment-539133</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Rather thin on the foods.  Which foods?  Name &#039;em.  Then compare among women who experience morning sickness.  See if the foods are consistent among a large group of women. ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rather thin on the foods.  Which foods?  Name &#8217;em.  Then compare among women who experience morning sickness.  See if the foods are consistent among a large group of women. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Greg Laden		</title>
		<link>https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/07/03/morning-sickness-is-an-adaptat-3/#comment-539132</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Greg Laden]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2009 23:12:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/07/03/morning-sickness-is-an-adaptat-3/#comment-539132</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Rosie: Really?  I&#039;ve seen Paul speak a number of times and I&#039;ve always been favorably impressed.   I would not put too much value in a single experience.

Sailor:  No, I doubt that they do.  Remember: Dog are always puking.  To a dog, puking is just fun.  They are obviously using pregnancy as an excuse to puke more...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rosie: Really?  I&#8217;ve seen Paul speak a number of times and I&#8217;ve always been favorably impressed.   I would not put too much value in a single experience.</p>
<p>Sailor:  No, I doubt that they do.  Remember: Dog are always puking.  To a dog, puking is just fun.  They are obviously using pregnancy as an excuse to puke more&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
