Chronic back pain and the rest

Ouch! She has back pain so bad, she can hardly walk. And, guess what: I have a theory. Oh Yes.

Apart from subscribing to the totally discredited aquatic-phase theory of human evolution, I also adhere to the "we're really savages dressed in fine clothes" argument. In a nutshell, this means our heads are full of 21st-century nonsense (homeopathy, religion, algebra) while our eating, reproductive and posture habits are firmly stuck in the Bronze Age. And I don't mean cutting a dash in the Tanning Parlour.

Though we have become bipedal, women's bodies are not adapted to carrying a child when standing upright. On all fours is actually more comfortable for the mother and baby, but we have lost quadripedal motion; our legs are too long. In the case of Ms Julia Roberts, waaaaay too long.

Not exactly news, I am sure. The result? Chronic back pain and the rest. Do Darwin and Dawkins have views?

Pic from http://academy.asd20.org/kadets/lundberg/darwin/CharlesDarwinD.html by Doug Lundberg, I think. Interesting site.

Sleep, feed, seaside

The baby sleep cycle is becoming more apparent now, the precise opposite of PP's, including waking at about two or three a.m., presumably for the equivalent of a feed.

Seems to me that humans have a significant evolutionary disadvantage in having such helpless infants, which need feeding so frequently. How did our ancestors roaming the savannah cope with noisy, waking infants at night? Did cro-magnon and neanderthal humans follow Gina Ford or Tracy Hogg when Bringing Up Baby?

Vexed questions. I prefer the littoral theory of human evolution. See http://www.sondela.co.uk/ and http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/pseudoscience/aquatic_ape_theory.html a truly fascinating site, with a beautifully clear description and analysis of the acquatic theory.

Quadrupeds, bipeds and large intestines

The kicking is becoming very obvious now, and quite clearly visible. Roughly half an hour after eating, the gymnastics begin. Priti's appetite has rocketed.

The pressure of the bump is producing ever-more side effects in Priti. Her legs are driving her crazy, sort of fizzing, which I guess is a result of pressure on sciatic nerves as the pelvis distorts. Presumably pregnant bellies developed during the quadrupedal phase, and the relatively recent move to bipedalism has compromised our internal layout (think of the large intestine's route). Perhaps if she went around on all fours, life would be easier. Then again, perhaps not.

According to the Rough Guide, at 25 weeks the fetus is about 730g (1lb 9oz) and 220mm from head to bum.

Assembly, Growth, Fat - and John Diamond

Much more cheerful today. A visit to a homeopath (see below) all the way across town to East London, then to Kensal Green, then back to Waterloo, puts her right back in the super-active league. Her moods, energy and activity are a kind of bipolar thing: one day sun, next day rain. They say that this middle section is the Golden Trimester, weeks 15 to 29. After the initial trauma and stress of conception, the glow of pregnancy comes alive as the hormones settle down and the body revs up to full throttle to build the baby.

Talking of building the baby, Note to Self: the three trimesters are, in bloke's terminology, Assembly, Growth, Fat. The first few weeks are conception, turning from an egg and sperm into a ball of cells and then an embryo on which the limb buds, spinal cord, heart and gubbins form into proper organs, extremities and guts. After the Assembly is complete, the embryo becomes a fetus, with all the right components in the right places, very, very small: hence the second trimester is Growth. And when the baby is pretty much grown, the final trimester is spent sticking on weight and reserves to help survive the trauma of birth and the first week or two of life: Fat.

Assembly, Growth, Fat. Probably total cobblers, but it helps me understand what's happeing. It would be much easier if Assembly, Growth, Fat, spelled something handly like GAF or FAG, but you can't have everything.

Anyway, about her attachment to homeopathy... As part of my New Caring Self, I have kept clear of commenting on homeopathy. Let me leave it to Richard Dawkins (second mention in this blog) in the introduction to "Snake Oil" by John Diamond, as quoted by Derren Brown (in "Tricks of the Mind," page 303):

"Any homeopath who really believes his theory should be beavering away from dawn to dusk. After all, if the double-blind trials of patient treatment came out reliably and repeatedly positive, he would win a Nobel Prize not only in Medicine but in Physics as well. He would have discovered a brand-new principle of physics, perhaps a new fundamental force in the universe. With such a prospect in view, homeopaths must surely be falling over each other in their eagerness to be first in the lab, racing like alternative Watsons and Cricks to claim this glittering scientific crown. Er, actually, no, they aren't. Can it be that they don't really believe in their theory, after all?"

Clever bloke, that Professor Dawkins; Alchemy springs to mind. A bit like making babies.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Snake-Other-Preoccupations-John-Diamond/dp/0099428334

They always look like Dad

Being peculiarly sensitive to baby news, I picked up a conversation here in the office about why babies look like their fathers...

Because the maternity is never in doubt, it is important to fathers that the paternity is clear - otherwise they may end up supporting another man's child. So the child looks like its Dad, to establish paternity.

On the other hand, would it not be better for the child to look like its mother, so that all babies might be the father's child?

Presumably both strategies have been tried (by babies, so to speak), and the paternal lookey-likey strategy works best. Richard Dawkins probably has something to say on the topic: anyone have the relevant passage from Professor D?