Pregnancy timing - can I wait?

[Risha]

This will be long, sorry. Moderators, feel free to move to IMHO if it better belongs there, I wasn't sure. Disclaimer - I'm already planning on discussing some of this with my gyn at my yearly appointment next week.

Phlosphr's recent (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=420948) threads (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=420954) have really resonated for me, as it's something that I've been contemplating for awhile now (and I'm starting to panic myself I think).

I'm coming up on 31 this summer, and my proverbial "biological clock" has been ticking for a few years now. (I hit 28 and suddenly started thinking about children EVERY DAY. Please shut up now, brain.) The research I've done seems to say that female fertility drops a few percentage points a year after 30 (the numbers vary per website), has a large drop after 35, and becomes extremely difficult without donor eggs after 40. Charts like that of Down Syndrome risks increasing each year are increasing my nervousness. However, there are plenty of examples out there that say that it's nothing like impossible to have a healthy baby after 35.

My husband (who is 31) wants to continue to wait, issue number one being outstanding debt that he wants to pay down first. Issue number two is our physical conditions.

Number one is the most clear cut problem and the hardest to argue with. We both have good jobs but are nowhere near one of us being able to be out of work for an extended number of months, so I'd have to go back to work pretty much immediately. One car loan and all college loans will be gone at the end of 2008. We've paid off a few credit cards in the last few years, but the rest of it won't be able to be seriously tackled until after that 2008 date. Having a child now would extend the process for another few years, best case scenario.

Issue number two is what keeps this decision from being a clear cut budgeting vs. percentage risk game. To be frank, I'm in fairly poor condition. I'm roughly 350 pounds (at 6 foot and a little), and have high blood pressure. Diabetes, heart disease, and back problems run through both sides of my family, though I've dodged all of those bullets so far. I am actively trying to watch my diet and exercise more (mostly walking), but I have no reasonable expectation of getting to 300 pounds or less within the next couple of years. My husband is also out of shape, though not as badly as I am (he's at about 320), and is also working to fix that a little.

[Possible TMI alert] My periods have been extremely irregular for the last few years (since I went off of the pill). I've gone as long as nine months without a period, and I'm currently averaging two to three months in between. [/TMI]

SO, my questions are:

- What risks are there (health-wise, for my child and for myself) for having a child now versus waiting?

- How long CAN I wait before pregnancy becomes impossible or impossibly risky? Am I already too late?

- Does the financial side of the picture change your answer at all?

- I didn't mention it above, but both my mother and one of her sisters are schizophrenics, and both my mother and father are bipolar. Is the chance of mental illness increased at all by waiting? I couldn't find anything on the topic.

[cher3]

I don't think there is any reliable way to predict fertility. I know a woman of about your size who started at 36 and went on to have 3 children. They are all reasonably healthy, although the youngest is already obese at 4. She and her husband both came from families with 7 or 8 kids, though, so I don't know if that was a factor.

I can't imagine any doctor on earth, though, who wouldn't want you to get your weight and blood pressure in hand first. Why don't you think you can lose? I've been in Weight Watchers for a while now and seen some real successes. (I should note that Weight Watchers doesn't allow pregnant women to participate in the weight loss program meetings and weigh-ins, although you are welcome while trying to conceive and as soon as the baby is born.)

The financial side is pretty much your call, though. I can tell you there will always be something.

[Risha]

I can't imagine any doctor on earth, though, who wouldn't want you to get your weight and blood pressure in hand first. Why don't you think you can lose? It's not that I don't think that I can loose weight, it's that I don't think that I can loose 50 or 100 pounds in just a couple of years. You're supposed to loose only a pound or so a week, right?

[cher3]

From what I've seen, people who start with more can lose faster for a while, even with a healthy diet. There's one guy in our group who has lost over 100 pounds in less than a year and who claims he doesn't even exercise much. It is easier for men, but women lose reliably too, if they are following one of the programs well. Also, every bit helps. I only had about 30 to lose, and I feel much better.

[Joey P]

As for the money issue.
When my wife and I did the premarrige thing, they asked if we where planning on having kids, we said no and told them we didn't have enough saved up right now. They chuckled and basically said don't worry about that. Kids are cheap at the beginning, they don't get expensive for a few years. And he was right, (assuming you have insurance), baby clothes are cheap, baby food is cheap (especially if you plan to breast feed), etc etc etc. (Oh, did I mention we have a baby now).
SO...Medical issues aside, assuming your doing okay, money wise, I wouldn't let that be the deciding factor.

[cher3]

Childcare, however, is not cheap.

[The Blue-Sighted Shadow]

There seems to be an increased risk of schizophrenia in older fathers (http://www.schizophrenia.com/sznews/archives/002037.html) , but there isn't a correlation with maternal age.

On preview, 1 - 2 a week is the general rule of thumb, but in your weight range, people have been known to lose up to 10 pounds a week at first. Are you working with someone, a doctor, dietitian, Weight Watchers, or doing this on your own? Your diet needs and requirements are much different from someone who is, say, 30 - 50 pounds overweight. Anecdotally, my friend emailed me recently that her husband has lost 139 pounds so far this year, under a doctor's care, and from ~450. He has serious health issues, though, so getting the weight off is top priority.

[WhyNot]

While you're right that fertility decreases after 30 (and I apologize for alarming you with that information) fertility also decreases and pregnancy and delivery complications drastically increase with obesity. While you should check with your doctor to be sure, my guess is that the two will sort of cancel each other out, and that waiting a few years and losing weight and getting into shape will find you MORE fertile than you are now.

One of the things stored in fat is estrogen, one of the female hormones. We overweight women have a lot more estrogen than our skinny sisters. This can really wreck havoc on our fertility - it can create an effective progesterone deficiency (that is, there's not really a progesterone deficiency, but our body reacts to the ratio of estrogen:progesterone at certain points during the cycle. You may have so much estrogen because of your excess fat that your body isn't really "reading" the progesterone. This can make your menstrual cycles really, really wonky, and make pregnancy very hard to achieve.

I'll be honest - everything in me is whispering "wait". I don't know if the intuition of a stranger on the internet is worth a damn, but there it is.

[Ca3799]

I work with high risk pregnancy and I'd be out of work if it weren't for advanced maternal age, hypertension, obesity, diabetes, and preterm labor! Most of our patients do well with proper management. Pregnancy can be a risky business for the young and healthy. Go for it!

[fessie]

Yes, you can wait. I became pregnant at 38 (totally out of the blue) with twins (who are also more likely when you're older and overweight). High blood pressure is nothing to mess with. If you could lose 100 lbs in the next 2 years, plus make headway against that debt, it would be so much easier to handle motherhood. Motherhood is so big, it wipes you completely off your feet (most of the time). Make it easier on yourself.

[boygenius]

As for the money issue.
When my wife and I did the premarrige thing, they asked if we where planning on having kids, we said no and told them we didn't have enough saved up right now. They chuckled and basically said don't worry about that. Kids are cheap at the beginning, they don't get expensive for a few years. And he was right, (assuming you have insurance), baby clothes are cheap, baby food is cheap (especially if you plan to breast feed), etc etc etc. (Oh, did I mention we have a baby now).
SO...Medical issues aside, assuming your doing okay, money wise, I wouldn't let that be the deciding factor.

I agree. If you have kids, one way or another you're gonna figure out a way to pay for them. And if you wait, there will always be some sort of financial pressure on you. Also, fertility treatments are very expensive - the longer you wait, the more likely you will need them.

[Eliahna]

I second WhyNot's advice, especially to consult a doctor. Weight problems, irregular periods and a family history of diabetes are all potential warning signs of PCOS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCOS), and even if it's not that, the irregular periods alone are a cause for concern with regards to your fertility. It may take longer than you anticipate simply to fall pregnant. Of course, I'm a pessimist due to my own experience - we started trying for a baby at 26. Four years later when my husband left me, we still had not conceived. I have PCOS and he was infertile so we had a battle on two fronts. We didn't pick up on his problems for two and a half years because mine were so obvious, so we wasted a lot of time treating the wrong condition. If I knew then what I know now, we'd have both gone to the doctor before we started trying for a baby and had a complete physical, a sperm analysis for him and a 2 hour glucose test for me. That would have detected his low count and my insulin resistance and saved us all a lot of time.

[Hilarity N. Suze]

As a stranger on the internet I say, wait. Work on your health issues, and if you have two paychecks aim to deposit one whole paycheck into savings while living on the other. (You should probably pay down any credit-card balances along with the savings.) In other words, get in practice living on one income.

Right now you look at it as someone staying home for a few months, but child-care costs cut into your income even if you go back to work very quickly. Work-at-home sounds good but you still have to hire someone to look after the kid if you expect to get much work done. (You could probably swing about 4 hours a day without help, though.)

The risks of Downs Syndrome increases as you get older, but there are no guarantees of anything at any age. You're not that old.

[dangermom]

I also say go to the doctor and discuss this stuff. Your weight could be affecting your fertility and accounting for the irregular periods. Your age will soon be working against you and not for you, but is probably not as important as the health issues. Losing weight is a very, very good idea and will certainly help; OTOH, waiting too long for the exact right moment doesn't always work. Work on your health and visit your doctor, and good wishes.

(Useless anecdote: my best friend is very overweight and has had a hard time conceiving--PCOS, Clomid, etc. She is the queen of getting pregnant unexpectedly and not while trying. Three kids so far, each in a new and creative way!)

[Sapo]

Risha, the question is: are you both mentally ready? do you both want kids? If the answer is yes to both, then go for it. There will always be a reason or another to not have the kids. My wife and I live from one emergency to the next, and here we are with two kids (3 and 2) happily bouncing around, making our disaster zone a fun disaster zone.

If we had waited for the right time, we would still be waiting. You never have enough, you are never ready enough, you never feel like you can rise up to the task. All it takes is the desire to do it. Kids are born with a loaf of bread under their arm. Don't sweat it.

[zweisamkeit]

It's not that I don't think that I can loose weight, it's that I don't think that I can loose 50 or 100 pounds in just a couple of years. You're supposed to loose only a pound or so a week, right?

But a year has 52 weeks. A pound a week would be 52 lbs in a year. Is there something I'm missing here (regarding your second sentence)? :confused:

[Risha]

But a year has 52 weeks. A pound a week would be 52 lbs in a year. Is there something I'm missing here (regarding your second sentence)? :confused:Well, if you want to be literal about it... :D

OK, I am really tired and need to go to bed, so I haven't more than skimmed all of your responses (thank you, by the way! I will reread them in detail and respond tomorrow). But one clarification will help, I think.

I am not unhappy enough with myself to go for the sort of drastic measures that losing enough weight to no longer be obese would entail, unless my doctor says that its a medical necessity. Which she hasn't yet. A general improvement to my health is all that I'm really aiming for. Let's be realistic - I would have to lose an entire person to get down to a normal weight, even at my height. Dropping 50 pounds in the next year or two is probably possible if I'm diligent at exercise, and I'd be thrilled by that. But that would still leave me at 300 pounds. Losing a hundred pounds would require taking that to a level that would mean a kind of daily obsession about what I eat and do that I'm just not willing to put myself through without a good reason. And I'd still be obese, and would need to loose another hundred plus.

Would I put the effort into it if I couldn't have a child otherwise? Yeah, almost certainly, but I'd be miserable the entire time. And my self esteem isn't low enough to put myself through that for anything less.

So when contemplating these questions, assume that I'll only be losing enough weight in the immediate future to make a minor difference, not to completely eliminate all weight-based risk. Unless that really is the answer to all of my questions.

(Wow, that turned really long winded anyway. Off to bed.)

[Alice The Goon]

I think that a "good reason" to start losing the weight now are the very real risks of heart disease, diabetes, and stroke that you are facing in the very near future. I hope that you aren't in denial about the state of your health already. It doesn't take low self-esteem to fight obesity, it takes having high self-esteem!


Do you, like some alcoholics and drug addicts, have to hit "rock bottom" in order to realize that you're in trouble?

[CairoCarol]

IANAD, but I thought the amount of weight you "should" lose on a diet is as much as 1% of your body weight. When my husband and I dieted together a few years ago (him to get from 220 to 175, me to get from 115 to 105) I lost 1 pound a week and he lost 2.

As practical rather than medical advice, I second waiting a few years and getting health and financial matters in order. Actually, I bet you'd find it safer, easier and more fun to be pregnant as a healthier, more financially secure 34-year old than as a 31-year old with some significant challenges on your plate.

Good luck!

[DiosaBellissima]

I am not unhappy enough with myself to go for the sort of drastic measures that losing enough weight to no longer be obese would entail, unless my doctor says that its a medical necessity. Which she hasn't yet. A general improvement to my health is all that I'm really aiming for. Let's be realistic - I would have to lose an entire person to get down to a normal weight, even at my height. Dropping 50 pounds in the next year or two is probably possible if I'm diligent at exercise, and I'd be thrilled by that. But that would still leave me at 300 pounds. Losing a hundred pounds would require taking that to a level that would mean a kind of daily obsession about what I eat and do that I'm just not willing to put myself through without a good reason. And I'd still be obese, and would need to loose another hundred plus.

Would I put the effort into it if I couldn't have a child otherwise? Yeah, almost certainly, but I'd be miserable the entire time. And my self esteem isn't low enough to put myself through that for anything less.


I'm not trying to be snippy, but if you aren't willing to take care of yourself why on earth do you think you'll be willing to care for a child? 350 isn't just a little overweight, even at 6 feet tall. You are dangerously, severely overweight. I'm certainly not your doctor or anything, but I can't begin to fathom why they haven't brought it up to you (although in previous threads on the subject, we've discussed how some doctors are afraid to bring it up, for fear that their patients will flip). Being only 50 lbs overweight is INCREDIBLY unhealthy, but your ideal weight couldn't possibly be more than 190-- meaning you are in a danger zone that is incredibly bad.

How can you say it's not reasonable that you'd lose more than 50 lbs in two years? Let's be honest, the bigger you are, the faster you lose weight. A pound a week is normal, healthy weight loss. Assuming you lost one pound a week (which, if you're 350 lbs, I imagine would involve a moderate caloric change, diet change, and adding in a bit more light exercise), you'd lose over 100 lbs in two years. Sure, 250 lbs isn't exactly healthy, but that puts you within 50-60 lbs of your ideal weight.

How do you plan on carrying all that extra weight while you're pregnant? Can your body handle pushing 400 lbs? What about gestational diabetes? Better yet, at 350 lbs, how do you plan on chasing after a toddler all day? If you can't find the time to go to the gym for an hour a day (or you find that too much trouble or too exhausting), there's no way you can handle caring for a child.

Take care of yourself, then worry about taking care of a kid. If you can't get control of your own life until it's too late, then perhaps it was for the best.

[Risha]

I think that a "good reason" to start losing the weight now are the very real risks of heart disease, diabetes, and stroke that you are facing in the very near future. I hope that you aren't in denial about the state of your health already. It doesn't take low self-esteem to fight obesity, it takes having high self-esteem!


Do you, like some alcoholics and drug addicts, have to hit "rock bottom" in order to realize that you're in trouble?Eek.

Look, I'm not in the least bit in denial that being obese is bad for my health. I would very much like to lose weight. However, I'm not unhappy with myself as I am, either. Or are you someone who thinks that you need to be thin to be happy?

I am not going to lose 200 pounds in the near future. Doing so would require drastic measures, most of which are also bad for long term health (or do you think that gastric bypass is good for you in any way other than the weight that is lost?).

I am making a concentrated effort to lose some weight in order to generally improve my long term health. My current health is fine other than the blood pressure, which is under control via medication. My diet is (and has always been) largely vegetarian and healthier than the average. My cholesterol is well within the healthy range, though slightly higher in "bad" cholesterol than it should be, and has been steadily dropping. All of my other bloodwork is across the board textbook perfect for an adult female. (Pisses off my doctor every time she has it done, I can tell you.) Aside from the aforementioned irregular periods, all of my other medical issues either date from childhood (when I was thin) (migraines and mild asthma, I'm looking at you), or are unrelated to weight (according to my ENT my ear shape is odd, which makes me prone to ear infections).

I get that this would be better if I was normal weight. (No duh. :rolleyes: ) I would very much like to know some more solid information about what it means for my fertility that I am not. (Thank you, WhyNot and Cazzle.)

Otherwise, drop the sermonizing. Now.

[Alice The Goon]

Yeah, I thought maybe I should edit so as not to sound like a bitch, and sorry about that. But it does almost seem as though you are actively ignoring the health risks of your obesity and being unrealistic about what complications it's almost certain to bring during conception, pregnancy, and life in general.

Maybe it was something about the way you implied that only obese people that are unhappy with who they are and suffer from low self-esteem have the motivation to make that life change that will make them healthier. I see it as more of a matter of seeing yourself as worthy of living better and that's what takes self-esteem.

While it's great that you see yourself as perfect just how you are, 350 pounds is just dangerous, any way you slice it.

I do wish you luck with any choices that you make.

[Risha]

I'm not trying to be snippy, but if you aren't willing to take care of yourself why on earth do you think you'll be willing to care for a child? 350 isn't just a little overweight, even at 6 feet tall. You are dangerously, severely overweight. I'm obese. No duh. I have not denied this.

I suggest that you find an overweight mother somewhere and accuse her of neglecting her children as she obviously can't bother to care for them properly since she's fat. Of course I'll laugh at you when she slaps you, but at least you will have gotten your message across.

How can you say it's not reasonable that you'd lose more than 50 lbs in two years? Let's be honest, the bigger you are, the faster you lose weight. A pound a week is normal, healthy weight loss. Assuming you lost one pound a week (which, if you're 350 lbs, I imagine would involve a moderate caloric change, diet change, and adding in a bit more light exercise), you'd lose over 100 lbs in two years. Wow. Way to make assumptions. How about this as an assumption - if it was as easy as "a moderate caloric change, diet change, and adding in a bit more light exercise", don't you think I'd be thin already? By the way, see my response above about diet. Other than too much coffee and soft drinks, both of which I've cut back on due to my attempts to lose weight, I'd match my diet to yours and see which is superior. You might be a vegan or something and I'd lose, but I like my odds.

How do you plan on carrying all that extra weight while you're pregnant? Can your body handle pushing 400 lbs? What about gestational diabetes? Great questions. How about you offer some solid cites in response to them instead of just throwing it out there? That's the sort of thing I was looking for.

Better yet, at 350 lbs, how do you plan on chasing after a toddler all day? If you can't find the time to go to the gym for an hour a day (or you find that too much trouble or too exhausting), there's no way you can handle caring for a child. Again, way to make assumptions. I certainly could use more exercise, but what makes you think that I don't exercise already? I don't belong to a gym anymore, because I found the hours unsuited to my job, but I have exercise equipment downstairs and a rambunctious puppy.

Take care of yourself, then worry about taking care of a kid. If you can't get control of your own life until it's too late, then perhaps it was for the best. I hope you enjoy being perfect.

[DiosaBellissima]

Again, way to make assumptions. I certainly could use more exercise, but what makes you think that I don't exercise already?

Because you're 350 lbs. If you eat as good as you say and work out regularly, yet still weigh 350 lbs, there is something medically wrong with you that you probably should get checked out before you have a baby. I mean this quite genuinely and not snarky at all. If you are doing everything you say and are still over weight, there is some underlying and bad medical problem going on. We always get into this debate on the Dope- calories in and calories out vs medical illnesses. But it's always one or the other- either you're taking in more calories than you're burning or you are sick.


And I'm not perfect, though I appreciate that wonderful compliment. I'm overweight myself, but 50 lbs, not 150. I'm working on fixing my problem and have been slowly and successfully fixing it over the last year or so. If I wanted to have a baby, you can bet your butt that I'd be at the gym every day, losing that extra weight to insure that I could be the best me for my baby. And I'm not losing weight because I'm depressed- I think I'm pretty hot, myself. I'm doing it because it's healthy and the best thing for me and my hypothetical family I'd like to have sometime in the next several years.

[Risha]

Yeah, I thought maybe I should edit so as not to sound like a bitch, and sorry about that. But it does almost seem as though you are actively ignoring the health risks of your obesity and being unrealistic about what complications it's almost certain to bring during conception, pregnancy, and life in general.

Maybe it was something about the way you implied that only obese people that are unhappy with who they are and suffer from low self-esteem have the motivation to make that life change that will make them healthier. I see it as more of a matter of seeing yourself as worthy of living better and that's what takes self-esteem.

While it's great that you see yourself as perfect just how you are, 350 pounds is just dangerous, any way you slice it.

I do wish you luck with any choices that you make.I certainly don't think of myself as perfect as I am.

OK, is everyone listening?

I AM OBESE. THIS IS EXTREMELY BAD FOR MY LONG TERM HEALTH, EVEN THOUGH I CURRENTLY HAVE ALMOST NO PROBLEMS BECAUSE OF IT. I GET IT. I'VE KNOWN THAT FOR MANY, MANY YEARS NOW BECAUSE I AM NOT STUPID.

Now that we got that out of the way, I'm not trying to in any way imply that I shouldn't be actively working to lose weight, or that it wouldn't be better if I was thinner before having a child. Or that my having good self-esteem means that I'm happy with the weight that I'm at.

What I was trying to say (obviously poorly, but I was hoping to avoid a tangent) is that I am not generally unhappy with my life or myself. That doesn't mean I wouldn't want to improve parts of both. And that in my evaluation, the sort of choices that would result in me losing enough weight to no longer be obese (200 pounds!) within the few years are those that would do either major damage to my body (such as gastric bypass, liposuction), or my quality of life (quitting my job to exercise six hours a day), or both (prolonged starvation dieting). Frankly, I'm stunned that people seem to think that it's a reasonable thing to do. I'm sure that there are people who manage it, but it's not easy, unless you were fat because you were eating a couple of chickens a day for dinner.


Do I intend to lose weight? Yes.
A lot of it? Hopefully.
Do I beat myself up in the mirror everyday because I hate how I look? No.
Will this weight loss, if done through reasonable, sustainable, and healthy lifestyle changes, be finished in a year, or two, or three? Almost certainly not.


Can we leave this now? Please?

And by the way, I was exasperated but didn't think you were a bitch, Alice. Now DiosaBellissima, she was a bitch about it.

[DiosaBellissima]

And by the way, I was exasperated but didn't think you were a bitch, Alice. Now DiosaBellissima, she was a bitch about it.


Thanks, I think?

I wasn't trying to "be a bitch about it"- I was giving you some honest advice. You asked what the risks presently would be for you and I tried to logically give you some. I mean, logically, what do you honestly think is causing you to have sporadic (at best) periods? I apologize for not telling you what you wanted to hear, but I'll bow out of this thread now. Good luck with whatever you decide.

[Risha]

Because you're 350 lbs. If you eat as good as you say and work out regularly, yet still weigh 350 lbs, there is something medically wrong with you that you probably should get checked out before you have a baby. I mean this quite genuinely and not snarky at all. If you are doing everything you say and are still over weight, there is some underlying and bad medical problem going on. We always get into this debate on the Dope- calories in and calories out vs medical illnesses. But it's always one or the other- either you're taking in more calories than you're burning or you are sick. I'd love to have a disease to blame it on, but I'm pretty sure that I just have a slow metabolism. I admit that I need more exercise to combat it - I just was taking umbrage at the implication that I was not getting any exercise at all, or was too lazy to get to the gym. It doesn't mean that I couldn't improve - putting in an extra half hour a day would probably do a lot. Which is why I'm trying to ramp it up, and have been trying for several months. Burning weight off is a slow process, as I'm sure you know, just like it was to put it on. It's not like you just wake up 350 pounds one day.

I'm overweight myself, but 50 lbs, not 150. I'm working on fixing my problem and have been slowly and successfully fixing it over the last year or so. If I wanted to have a baby, you can bet your butt that I'd be at the gym every day, losing that extra weight to insure that I could be the best me for my baby. And I'm not losing weight because I'm depressed- I think I'm pretty hot, myself. I'm doing it because it's healthy and the best thing for me and my hypothetical family I'd like to have sometime in the next several years.Good for you. I hope you succeed. Of course, you're talking about significantly less poundage over a much longer period of time. And I think that you'd have more sympathy for the timeframes involved considering that you've been "slowly" losing it "over the last year or so"? :dubious:

[Rico]

<mod>

OK, people. This is GQ. Let's keep it civil. You too, Risha.

I don't see any bitchiness here. I see people concerned for your health. MHO only, take it or leave it.

If you don't like what's said, don't shoot the messenger.

Chill.

</mod>

[Risha]

You asked what the risks presently would be for you and I tried to logically give you some. I mean, logically, what do you honestly think is causing you to have sporadic (at best) periods? I apologize for not telling you what you wanted to hear, but I'll bow out of this thread now. I'm not upset at you saying that my weight is at fault (though I did have problems with how you said it). It's a logical conclusion.

How about some advice other than "lose tons of weight because it is bad for your entire body" (as message is received, does not need further discussion)? Anyone?

[Risha]

<mod>

OK, people. This is GQ. Let's keep it civil. You too, Risha.

I don't see any bitchiness here. I see people concerned for your health. MHO only, take it or leave it.

If you don't like what's said, don't shoot the messenger.

Chill.

</mod>Sorry about that. I shouldn't have let my emotions get the better of me. Chilling.

[Renee]

And that in my evaluation, the sort of choices that would result in me losing enough weight to no longer be obese (200 pounds!) within the few years are those that would do either major damage to my body (such as gastric bypass, liposuction), or my quality of life (quitting my job to exercise six hours a day), or both (prolonged starvation dieting). Frankly, I'm stunned that people seem to think that it's a reasonable thing to do. I'm sure that there are people who manage it, but it's not easy, unless you were fat because you were eating a couple of chickens a day for dinner.


I'm sorry, I know you don't want to talk about this anymore, but this is a total load of crap and I don't know where in the world you got this idea from. You are overweight enough that loosing weight will require much less effort for you than it would for someone who only fifty or so pounds to loose. You really think you'll have to starve yourself and exercise six hours a day to drop fifty lbs a year at your size? I think you need to see a dietician or something, because there is no way you get to your level of obesity on a diet as healthy as you claim yours is unless you have a serious medical condition causing you to gain weight like that (and you said you've had bloodwork which would presumably identify thyroid problems). No wonder you don't want to do it if you think it's going to be that much work--but it isn't. Really.


Having gotten that out of my system (and again, sorry) I do wish you the best with loosing the weight and having babies, whenever you decide to do it.

[Richard Pearse]

In my opinion, issue number one should probably not stop you having a baby, unless your husband is using it as an excuse not to have kids in which case you have other problems to deal with.

Consider this. If you start trying for kids now, there's a good chance you won't be giving birth until the latter half of 2008 so there is plenty of time to further improve the finances. Also, as others have said, finances are never perfect, there always seems to be something to pay off or save for. I find it best to just go for it and then deal with the financial consequences as they come. This is assuming that you have some sort of reasonable financial base to start with, i.e., you foresee it being financially difficult but not impossible.

Issue two needs to be discussed frankly with a doctor.

[Aspidistra]

Having had my first two kids at age 33 and 35 (and expecting #3 at age 37) I would by no means say it's impossible to have healthy kids well into your 30's. But until you try, you don't know how fertile you are, and if there are issues there, you could be quite a while going from doctor to doctor to get them sorted out. So I'd have to cast my vote as "don't wait too long". But don't stress too much, because 31 is really, actually not that old.

The main health issue I think you need to worry about is blood pressure - it tends to go up in pregnancy. You might need to factor into your plans, thinking about whether you'd cope (financially, mentally, whatever...) if you had to give up work and go on bedrest half way through your pregnancy. Is your blood pressure linked to your weight? If so, that's a good reason to lose as much of it as you can. But if you think your BP won't go down by much ... well, I'll defer to other dopers who know more about weight issues than I, but I don't know of any health issues of just being overweight in pregnancy, other than that it contributes to things like high BP, and difficulty concieving (and the second factor, obviously, is more of a reason NOT to wait)

Two other issues that jump out at me:

1) Apart from "Issue 1" and "Issue 2", is your husband on board? Enthusiastic about the idea? If those issues went away tomorrow, would he be saying "go for it?" Or are the issues a good excuse not to talk about any other reasons he might have for having reservations? It's worth waiting some for the sake of you both being ready for it - parenthood is hard on dads too!

2) You mention you're a vegetarian. How's your iron? You want plenty of iron and calcium in your system in your system when you're pregnant - those little foetuses burn through the stuff real quick.

Good luck, whatever you decide!

[norinew]

I know this is GQ, but I'm going to post an anecdote, anyway:
I was 38 years old when I had my last child. When she was conceived, I weighed roughly 325lbs. (at 5'8" tall, I was equivalently the size of the OP, since she's taller than me). When I delivered, I was 360lbs.

The only problems I had were:
It took me longer to conceive her than the first two (8 months, as opposed to just a matter of a few weeks), probably because of my age.
Borderline high blood pressure for the first couple of months.
Higher risk of Downs Syndrome (I didn't get an amnio, though; at that age, there was a 1 in 200 chance of having a Downs baby; I told the specialist I preferred to think of it as a 199 in 200 chance of no Downs, plus even if she'd had DS, I wouldn't have terminated the pregnancy).

In spite of the fact that I did not have gestational diabetes, the baby still weighed 11lbs. 14oz.

I agree that there will always be financial problems (unless you hit the lottery for many millions of dollars). Waiting until you're older can increase the difficulty you have in conceiving.

I'm not trying to be snippy, but if you aren't willing to take care of yourself why on earth do you think you'll be willing to care for a child?
I don't know why, but it's always been much easier for me to take care of my children than to take care of myself. Some of it is probably instinctual. All kinds of mommy mammals will go without food so that her babies can eat; many, many mothers I know sacrifice of themselves so their children won't go without. I'd say it's probably pretty typical to more willing to take care of our children than to take care of ourselves.

[norinew]

Hy, Risha, I had a lot of stuff to say that would have hijacked the thread, and doesn't belong in GQ anyway, so I emailed you. I hope that's okay.

[fessie]

I'm not suggesting that you should hate yourself in any way, shape or form. Not in the least -- I can understand your view that losing weight = self-denial. I agree, in terms of dieting (which is why it doesn't work, imho). The only thing that ever helps ME lose weight (as a recovering bulimic) is avoiding trigger foods (like sugar) and getting lots of exercise. Vigorous exercise, to a good sweat.

My concern for YOU is that pregnancy, childbirth and caring for an infant are very physically draining.

High blood pressure is extremely dangerous during pregnancy, and is one of the reasons for prematurity (and worse complications). My blood pressure shot up at the end, and I had gestational diabetes (which is common with twins). I had terrible edema even after the kids were born, I was all swollen and had to lay on my left side for days. It's hard to take care of a baby when you're not well.

Some women end up on bedrest during most or all of their pregnancy because of high blood pressure. We're talking no work, no nothing - getting up to go potty (and occasionally bathe) is all they can do. Given your financial concerns, that seems like a big risk to take.

And then having a baby in the house means being on your feet. A lot. When they're walking, it's even worse - somebody has to follow after them. Kids don't respond to verbal commands, you have to get up and remove them or take away the temptation. And everything is a temptation. Somebody has to be able to get on the floor with them, because babies spend hours on the floor - which also means someone has to keep the floor clean, spotlessly clean.

They need fresh air, too, they need to go to the park, you have to stay with them as they wander around, you have to push them on the swings forever. You have to carry them, too, or at least get them in and out of the stroller, which means squatting and bending.

It's not a moral issue, or a judgement. It's just about mechanics.

I also agree with norinew that it's much easier to care for someone else than to care for yourself. Which means your self-care is probably going to decline after having a baby. If there's something you need, anything, do it before you have a kid. If you wait until afterwards, it's not likely to happen (says the woman who never did get a crown put on after a root-canal).

[Duck Duck Goose]

Which means your self-care is probably going to decline after having a baby. If there's something you need, anything, do it before you have a kid. If you wait until afterwards, it's not likely to happen.

Amen to this. Babies and preschoolers are incredibly demanding, of both your physical energy and your psychic energy. You basically put your life on hold until they start kindergarten, or at least preschool.

I wasn't able to focus on losing the cumulative three-pregnancy weight (and on getting some clothes that didn't shriek "I'm a Mom and I have no time to shop") until my youngest (of three) was in preschool, and the two older ones were of course in school every day. Then I had time and energy to think about me. But up until that time, it was "Lord, just help me get through this day"--and sometimes "this next hour"--every day. You grab whatever food is handy as you swing through the kitchen, or wolf down a plateful of whatever you fixed for the kids. If you think of it, you take a vitamin.

And gym time, treadmill time, even just walking in the park time? No way, not with little kids, not unless you make a concerted effort to find either a babysitter or a Mother's Day Out program. And then the temptation to just go home and go back to bed for a couple hours, instead of working out, can be overwhelming. Or you go shopping for a couple of blissful hours. Or to the library. Or sit down and watch a video. Or maybe you just clean the house without Little Helpers underfoot. There are just a myriad of things to do with that two hour time slot, and unfortunately "working out" tends to get prioritized lower than, say, "Cleaning basement".

[Risha]

The main health issue I think you need to worry about is blood pressure - it tends to go up in pregnancy. You might need to factor into your plans, thinking about whether you'd cope (financially, mentally, whatever...) if you had to give up work and go on bedrest half way through your pregnancy. Is your blood pressure linked to your weight? If so, that's a good reason to lose as much of it as you can.I have no real reason to believe that my blood pressure is not linked to weight, though I also have a family history. I'm sure that losing weight could only help it, either way. I was already in my latter 200s before it became an issue, so I probably wouldn't have to get all the way down to normal weight for it to help.

1) Apart from "Issue 1" and "Issue 2", is your husband on board? Enthusiastic about the idea? If those issues went away tomorrow, would he be saying "go for it?" Or are the issues a good excuse not to talk about any other reasons he might have for having reservations? It's worth waiting some for the sake of you both being ready for it - parenthood is hard on dads too!I... think so, but am not 100% sure. We've had some prolonged discussions on the topic, but we always got stuck on number one and two. It's hard to know if that's covering anything else that he's not willing to discuss yet.

2) You mention you're a vegetarian. How's your iron? You want plenty of iron and calcium in your system in your system when you're pregnant - those little foetuses burn through the stuff real quick.I'm not actually a vegetarian, just someone who eats mostly that way by choice. I have fish, pork, or beef a few times a week. My father has been one since before I was born, and is a total health freak, so I grew up as a weekend vegetarian and never managed to get out of the habit of eating healthily.

One of my uncles just came up with Hemachromatosis a few weeks ago, actually. :smack: Which means that I have the rx for tests in my purse waiting for an afternoon off. I rather doubt that I have it, though, as none of my previous normal blood tests have shown a problem. It's just a caution thing.

[WhyNot]

I think we're focusing on the obesity not to pick on you, but because it's the one sticking point in your OP that you, personally, can do something about. Your husband's reluctance? Nothing you can do about that, really. Not sure if you can afford it? Well, realistically, neither is anyone - even rich people suffer devastating financial accidents. But not being in good physical shape? Ah, THERE'S something that you and only you can do something to change. While it's going to take some time to change, in the meantime you sock away some extra money and hope your husband comes around. (Or that the extra money you've saved and your obvious care and dedication to the proposition - as evidenced by all the hard work you've done getting in shape - might help to convince him that the two of you can handle it.) So there are at least two reasons to wait - your husband doesn't want this yet, and you're probably not best phsically equipped at the moment - and one reason that can only improve with time - making a bigger nest egg so you can choose to spend more time with your baby. In a balance sheet with all that, a maternal age of 34-35 is not a problem.

fessie just listed some concrete complications of obesity during pregnancy and early motherhood. In addition, an obese woman is much more likely to require a c-section for actual medical reasons - most of those emergency c-sections, which are riskier medically than planned ones. In fact, c-sections are so much more needed in obese patients that some doctors say it's obesity, and not overcautious doctors, that is causing our c-section rate to go through the roof in this country: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=61932

They and their babies are also much more likely to suffer complications and die or face long term disability from those c-sections. Think about your body mass and how much more anesthetic you'll require than a thinner woman. Your baby, at 9ish pounds, is also getting more anesthetic than the thinner women's 9 pound baby. That's not good for APGAR scores or antenatal prognosis. Mechanically, cutting through those extra layers of fat takes longer, increasing the time of the operation (which in turn increases chances of infection, anesthetic dose and reaction possibility, etc.). They often have to make a larger cut, which increases the number of staples, the area that can get infected, the number of muscle fibers severed, which makes recovery harder. You're more prone to blood clots, which can cause embolism or strokes.

Now let's say you're lucky and you don't have to be c-sectioned. Instead you get the vaginal birth of your dreams. Except you'll likely need to be induced - again, that pesky estrogen masks the hormone signal telling your uterus to start contracting to open the cervix. A pitocin drip, while it's not the end of the world, is also no freakin' fun. It hurts a lot more than a natural labor. But the more important thing is that labor is like running a marathon. I know it looks like you just lay there gasping, but remember you're gasping because a huge portion of your muscles are contracting really strongly, and holding that contraction for a minute or more, and then doing it again three minutes later - for 18 hours or more. And AFTER that, the actual pushing starts! Could you lift a watermelon onto a countertop and then put it back down on the floor every three minutes for 18 hours straight, no breaks, and then carry two watermelons while running around the block for an hour? Labor is more work than that. It's simply unlikely that you've got the physical strength and stamina to do it without spiking your blood pressure (c-section), being so exhausted at the end of it that you can't push (c-section), or pushing weakly, causing the baby's heart rate to drop (c-section).

No, a c-section isn't the end of the world. Any way a healthy baby gets here is worth celebrating. But see above re: complications more likely to you and your baby in an emergency c-section.

I'm not saying you have to lose all your excess weight to make things safer for you and your baby. I got pregnant at a good 60 pounds over my ideal weight, and it did make things harder and a little more risky - but not as hard and risky as if I'd been 150 pounds over my ideal weight.

Pregnancy is also hard on your bones, your joints, your ligaments, your circulatory system - and those are probably taxed to their breaking point in your body. Being fat and pregnant was just a whole lot harder physically than when I was thin and pregnant. I only got to my fifth month with my second pregnancy, and I had trouble moving comfortably - with my thinner pregnancy, I was limber and moving boxes and shoveling snow the day I delivered at 9 months!

Obesity can cause huge breastfeeding problems. Again, that estrogen screws things up for you with prolactin production, so your milk supply suffers. I know I've posted about my nursing/pumping problems before, so I won't bore you with the details. Chances are very good that my obesity contributed a great amount to those struggles. One thing is certain - my nipples and areolas were simply too large for my daughter to get into her mouth and make a good latch. Now, I don't know a whole lot about nipples, so maybe just because you're overweight doesn't mean you have large nipples, but mine grew with my weight gain and with my pregnancy, so it's a distinct possibility.

If I had to do it over again, I would have put off getting pregnant for a year and gotten myself into a better shape first - not ideal shape, but better. At least I would have been in a better position to deal with the complicated micropreemie mess that I faced after my emergency c-section, and if I had an exercise program in place already, I might not have gained so much weight AFTER my pregnancy (yeah, I gained 12 pounds while pregnant and probably 50 afterwards, due to stress, crappy hospital food, eating for comfort and trying to make more milk.)

[fessie]

Oh, man, ligaments - I forgot about that. I was 60 lbs overweight when I got pregnant, too (I'm down about 15 lbs from my pre-pregnancy weight now).

OK, in order to let the baby out, your pelvis loosens up. It's a gradual process, started for me about 4 months in. And while your pelvis is getting looser, all your other joints stretch, too. Extra weight is really painful at that point -- imagine a machine held together with rubber bands that just got looser. Extra weight stacked on top of that machine stretches everything further, and it hurts.

Putting on pants was the worst, I could not simply lift my foot without a lot of pain in my hip and back.

Fortunately, it magically went away as soon as they gave me the spinal, and it never came back.

People think pregnancy is just a bump on your tummy - in reality, your whole body is pregnant. Even your hair (which gets thicker - one of the nice side-effects) (and then all that extra hair falls out post-partum).

[Ceejaytee]

I think you should wait. I had my kids at 37 and 40. You have some health problems you should work on. High blood pressure is a problem when you're pregnant. If it would help to lose some weight, you should. I was 5'1" and 170 when I got pregnant the first time, and about 180 the second time. You don't have to be perfect, just at a weight that's low enough to help with some of your other medical issues.

The risks of having a baby with Down's does increase when you're older, but that risk is still low and there are tests you can take to check. I've seen women who really freak out about not having kids by their early 30s, and then I tell them that I had my kids at the same ages my grandmother had hers. It was weird to have kids at 37 and 40 in the 1940s, but she did okay, and so did I. So will you.

[Risha]

High blood pressure is extremely dangerous during pregnancy, and is one of the reasons for prematurity (and worse complications). My blood pressure shot up at the end, and I had gestational diabetes (which is common with twins). I had terrible edema even after the kids were born, I was all swollen and had to lay on my left side for days. It's hard to take care of a baby when you're not well. Ouch! That sounds like a very unfun pregnancy and aftermath. :( At least you had the twins to make up for it after all of that!

And then having a baby in the house means being on your feet. A lot. When they're walking, it's even worse - somebody has to follow after them. Kids don't respond to verbal commands, you have to get up and remove them or take away the temptation. And everything is a temptation. Somebody has to be able to get on the floor with them, because babies spend hours on the floor - which also means someone has to keep the floor clean, spotlessly clean.

They need fresh air, too, they need to go to the park, you have to stay with them as they wander around, you have to push them on the swings forever. You have to carry them, too, or at least get them in and out of the stroller, which means squatting and bending.Fortunately, while I'm not going to be running any marathons (or half marathons!), I don't have any problems doing the above. A puppy and three cats don't require quite that much care, but it's not an insignificant amount either, and I haven't run into any problems keeping up/hoisting them around/etc.

[WhyNot]

Fortunately, while I'm not going to be running any marathons (or half marathons!), I don't have any problems doing the above. A puppy and three cats don't require quite that much care, but it's not an insignificant amount either, and I haven't run into any problems keeping up/hoisting them around/etc.
:eek:

:eek:

:eek:

(She did NOT just say what I thought she said, did she?)

Honey (yes, that was condescending, I apologize), you need to go borrow a baby or two - by the way, your chances of twins goes up with obesity, too - and keep them for the weekend. And don't get no namby-pamby houseplant 5 month olds - go get yerself a couple of sturdy 18 month old walker-runners who are incapable of understanding our Earth logic and then tell me how much work a puppy and three cats are.

(And are you ready to get rid of two or more of your animals if your baby develops allergies? Houses with more than two animals (or less than two animals, oddly enough) produce very high rates of children with allergies, asthma and recurrent bronchitis.)

[kimera]

You know, when I attempted to go vegetarian I started gaining a lot of weight and losing a lot of energy. I have several friends who are med students and vegetarians and they told me when you don't eat enough protein with the other stuff you can gain a lot of weight. After I adjusted my diet I still had problems (although not as much) and after talking to some other individuals I've come to the conclusion that vegetarian diets just don't work well for some of us. I'd suggest seeing a dietitian if you can for help.

[Risha]

I wouldn't normally bother posting this, but since I got kind of wound up last night, my disappearing from the thread might be taken the wrong way!

I won't be answering everybody, as you guys are replying pretty quickly at this point and it's taking forever per post (since I started with the hard ones :D ). I'll still answer of course if it's something that I can add to or clarify my personal situation. Just take it that your advice and knowledge has read, being seriously considered, and appreciated! Oh, and I know this is GQ, but your personal stories are very helpful too, so thanks for those as well.

Oh, and norinew, I didn't get your email. I checked, and apparently I had my profile set to my work address (I'm home today). I might pop on later on today if something happens at work, but otherwise I'll answer you tomorrow. Or if you have your note hanging around a "Sent" folder or something, you can resend - I just changed to my home email.

[Sarahfeena]

I had that ligament problem fessie mentioned when I was pregnant with my second baby, who was just born a couple of months ago. Didn't have it with my first, and no one seems to know why. I'm an older mom (40), so I'm kind of tired & achy anyway, and during the latter half of my pregnancy, my hips and groin hurt BAD. I could hardly get out of bed in the morning, although it felt better after I moved around a little.

I think the thing I would do if I were in your position is wait a little while...not too long, but don't panic, you are still pretty young. You still have time to try to make your current health situation a little better, without waiting until you are as old as I am to have a baby. I am in pretty good physical condition, but I could tell that even the 3 years since my last baby has taken a bit of a toll on my body. WhyNot is right about the toll being a mother takes, too. It is extremely exhausting...you are lifting and carrying all the time (and they get HEAVY before you can stop completely...I still lift my 3-year-old up all the time, because she is too short to climb into our car easily, for example). Plus, you never get any sleep. So the best thing you can do right now, I think, is to get yourself into the best shape you reasonably can before you get pregnant.

[Risha]

Honey (yes, that was condescending, I apologize), you need to go borrow a baby or two - by the way, your chances of twins goes up with obesity, too - and keep them for the weekend. And don't get no namby-pamby houseplant 5 month olds - go get yerself a couple of sturdy 18 month old walker-runners who are incapable of understanding our Earth logic and then tell me how much work a puppy and three cats are. :rolleyes: You don't seriously think that I've never babysat, do you? I'll see your couple of 18 month-olds and raise you two five year olds and a three year old while also caring for an infant with severe disabilities.

Yes, I know the pets thing doesn't compare. I simply offered a concrete example of why I know that my body doesn't have a problem running after small creatures attempting to escape.

(And are you ready to get rid of two or more of your animals if your baby develops allergies? Houses with more than two animals (or less than two animals, oddly enough) produce very high rates of children with allergies, asthma and recurrent bronchitis.)It's the same risk everyone with a pet takes when they have children. I don't think I'm special that way. :dubious:

[fessie]

We just got rid of one of our 3 cats, who seems to have been throwing more allergens than the others. And just for extra fun - now I'M allergic to them, too! Didn't used to be. Now I have asthma.

Risha, it's not that you don't have babysitting experience, because it's not the tasks themselves that are difficult. It's that it never.fucking.stops. THAT is what's so exhausting.

[Sarahfeena]

:rolleyes: You don't seriously think that I've never babysat, do you? I'll see your couple of 18 month-olds and raise you two five year olds and a three year old while also caring for an infant with severe disabilities. Well, geez, Risha, she was only responding to what you said. If you had said "I've taken care of 2 five year olds and a three year old while also caring for an infant with severe disabilities, and haven't run into any problems keeping up/hoisting them around/etc." I doubt WhyNot would have commented as she did.

[Sarahfeena]

Risha, it's not that you don't have babysitting experience, because it's not the tasks themselves that are difficult. It's that it never.fucking.stops. THAT is what's so exhausting. That's an excellent point, too. The second I sit down, someone needs something that requires me to get up, and it usually involves some kind of physical labor.

[Risha]

Well, geez, Risha, she was only responding to what you said. If you had said "I've taken care of 2 five year olds and a three year old while also caring for an infant with severe disabilities, and haven't run into any problems keeping up/hoisting them around/etc." I doubt WhyNot would have commented as she did.Point taken.

[WhyNot]

Well, geez, Risha, she was only responding to what you said. If you had said "I've taken care of 2 five year olds and a three year old while also caring for an infant with severe disabilities, and haven't run into any problems keeping up/hoisting them around/etc." I doubt WhyNot would have commented as she did.
You're right. I might have questioned how long she had done so, because, as fessie says, it's the neverendingness that really gets to you, but I wouldn't have been quite so incredulous in my response. Kids=/=pets, even a lot of pets.


Point taken.
Thanks.

[norinew]

Oh, and norinew, I didn't get your email. I checked, and apparently I had my profile set to my work address (I'm home today). I might pop on later on today if something happens at work, but otherwise I'll answer you tomorrow. Or if you have your note hanging around a "Sent" folder or something, you can resend - I just changed to my home email.
Yeah, I had it sitting in my "Sent" folder, so I just forwarded it to your home addy.

[norinew]

I might have questioned how long she had done so, because, as fessie says, it's the neverendingness that really gets to you
A-freakin'-men! I'm the youngest of five girls, and my oldest sister is 13 years older than me. I was only 8 when she had a baby. My other sisters followed suit, three of them having two kids, one of them only having one. Anyway, by the time I had my first baby, at age 25, I thought I knew how to parent, because I knew how to bathe, feed, burp, soothe, discipline, etc. I'd done a lot of babysitting over the years. However, once my oldest daughter was born, and after a while, I realized, hey, this is 24 hours a day for the next 18 years!! I almost had a nervous breakdown!

[JXJohns]

Lack of sleep really has not been mentioned too much. You may be in great shape for 350, I know my wife was for our first child. After about two weeks of no sleep lasting more than 2-3 hours, her energy was totaly depleted. Things that she thought nothing of pre-delivery such as getting out of bed, walking to get the mail, thinking clearly about anything, were all quite difficult.

My wife had gastric bypass surgery a year after my first son was born and lost almost 150 lbs before delivering number two. She said she would never ever recommend getting pregnant while being so heavy, the two pregnancies were night and day different.

You can prepare for just about everything post delivery, except for a lack of sleep. It will truly rock your world.

[Sarahfeena]

Lack of sleep really has not been mentioned too much. You may be in great shape for 350, I know my wife was for our first child. After about two weeks of no sleep lasting more than 2-3 hours, her energy was totaly depleted. Things that she thought nothing of pre-delivery such as getting out of bed, walking to get the mail, thinking clearly about anything, were all quite difficult.

My wife had gastric bypass surgery a year after my first son was born and lost almost 150 lbs before delivering number two. She said she would never ever recommend getting pregnant while being so heavy, the two pregnancies were night and day different.

You can prepare for just about everything post delivery, except for a lack of sleep. It will truly rock your world. Thanks for mentioning the lack of sleep. My baby has been waking up every 2-3 hours. Last night, he woke up at 11:30, 2:00, and 5:30. And you are up for at least a half hour to an hour each time. You can't imagine how hard it is to wake yourself up that many times in a night. By the third time, I was crying.

[Mama Zappa]

Coming in a bit late here, but I'll toss in my opinion anyway :)

I went into my first pregnancy about 45 pounds overweight, and my second about 70 pounds overweight (not because of leftover weight gain from pg#1, actually - I had net *losses* both times). I was told that I had a higher risk of caesarian section because of my weight - failure to dilate would be more of a problem. In addition, complications such as gestational diabetes and blood pressure issues (pure hypertension, as well as pre-eclampsia) are more common.

Like you, I had basically no health problems related to my weight before pregnancy. However, my BP was borderline with the first pregnancy, and spiked pretty high with the second one. No gestational diabetes either time, fortunately. I wound up delivering Moon Unit at 34 weeks because of the hypertension - it turned into pre-eclampsia and then full-blown HELLP and the docs decided it'd ruin everyone's day if I croaked, so there I was getting unzipped :eek: And about a year later I did develop full-blown hypertension (common in women who've had pregnancy-induced hypertension). I'm guessing a caesarian section is also trickier because of the sheer volume of tummy they have to go through, though mine wasn't bad at all. Basically, going into a pregnancy as you puts you into a higher-risk category in general.

Anyway... My advice would be that at age 31, while your fertility is gradually decreasing, it won't be plummeting so you have a year or two before you need to worry too much about that. Investigate the hormonal issues (whoever suggested PCOS might be right on target; I'm not up on the diagnostic criteria there) as they'll impede your ability to conceive even if you jump hubby's bones right now. Try to work on the weight/exercise even a bit, and that'll make things easier.

Good luck whatever you decide.

[OslerKnew]

Also coming in a bit late here. Doctor speaking; nearly 24 yrs experience taking care of pregnant women and their families and attending births as a family physician in the US. Morbid obesity, defined by a body mass index (BMI) of greater than 40 is of major concern in the prenatal, labor, and delivery course. A quick calculation reveals that the OP's BMI is 47.5, far above the criteria for morbid obesity. Hence, I'm hearing major alarm bells in this thread from a medical perspective. Obesity is a major menace to our global health; it's not just about being comfortable with who we are, it's not about body image compared to Hollywood ideals, and it's not about casting judgment against those who are obese. The medical fact is that morbid obesity is called that for a reason; there are multiple morbidities (bad outcomes) associated with being so obese. Obesity is a disease, and many in the medical world are just coming to realize that it is a fatal disease - morbidly obese people do not have the same lifespan as those who are not.

That being said, the unique issues involved with pregnancy in the morbidly obese woman are many. Several have pointed out some of these already in this thread, but I will amplify. Complications relative to pregnancy for the morbidly obese woman include the following: subfertility (inability to conceive), higher rates of spontaneous abortion, gestational diabetes, pre-eclampsia, post-term pregnancy, multiple gestations, urinary tract infections, obstructive sleep apnea, longer labors, higher incidence of induced labors, increased need for cesarean delivery (with higher surgical complications), higher chance of shoulder dystocia at birth (baby gets stuck after head delivered which can severely compromise the infant), higher rates of post-partum infection, increased rates of congenital anomalies (birth defects), and ultimately higher rates of maternal mortality (mother dies as direct complication of the events of pregnancy and delivery).

So, the risks are many, and should not be taken lightly. Some morbidly obese women do fine in pregnancy and have normal, uncomplicated deliveries. But the statistics speak otherwise. Pregnancy, childbirth, and raising children has become a birthright in our society - no one can take that choice away from you, but please, please, please, make that choice wisely.

[lavenderviolet]

Weight problems, irregular periods and a family history of diabetes are all potential warning signs of PCOS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCOS), and even if it's not that, the irregular periods alone are a cause for concern with regards to your fertility.
I just wanted to emphasize this point, since the OP set off my alarm bells for "PCOS" too. I was disturbed to see some people acting so judgemental about the weight issue when PCOS is suspected of causing weight gain in some women.
Sometimes, a woman with PCOS will quickly drop some weight simply by starting on metformin (a drug that helps combat the insulin resistance that often is part of PCOS).
Remember, folks: Everyone's body is different and some people have genuine metabolic or endocrine issues that make it harder for them to lose weight than it is for the average person.
For that reason, I would definitely agree with the idea to consult a doctor to get some blood work done to rule out PCOS so you can get that under control if it turns out you have it.
I also definitely think it would be a good idea to see about getting the high blood pressure under control before you get pregnant, since that may lead to pre-eclampsia (which is potentially very serious).

As for the issue of waiting or not, well, here's my take: Realistically, if you're not willing to have weight loss surgery, the odds are very much against maintaining a significant weight loss for the long haul. All the research I'm aware of shows a very dismal long term success rate for conventional diet plans.
Yes, it would be nice if you could lose 150 pounds and keep it off, but I'm a realist. I used to weigh about what you do (and ended up having the Lap-band surgery to lose weight), so I know perfectly well how hard it is to stay motivated during the long haul it takes to lose 100+ pounds through the traditional "diet and exercise" route, and how very easy it is to put it back on even if you do lose some weight.

So, I don't think you should put off your dream of having kids to lose weight when
realistically that probably isn't going to happen. Instead, I think it would be good to focus on trying to do the best you can to minimize the risks by trying to get into the best shape you can at your current weight: eat healthy (including prenatal vitamins of course!), get your blood pressure controlled, correct any underlying health issues like PCOS, make a point of getting some physical activity in every day, etc.

Even though having kids at an older age works out well more often than not, the risks do start to add up as you get older. While it's well known that the risks of having a child with a birth defect start to *soar* after the age of 35, it starts creeping up every year even at the age of 30.
As the American Academy of Family Physicians (http://www.aafp.org/afp/20000815/825.html) explains it:
The risk of having a child with Down syndrome increases in a gradual, linear fashion until about age 30 and increases exponentially thereafter. The risk of having a child with Down syndrome is 1/1,300 for a 25-year-old woman; at age 35, the risk increases to 1/365. At age 45, the risk of a having a child with Down syndrome increases to 1/30. (By convention, maternal age refers to age at the estimated or actual delivery date.)

My own mother was morbidly obese and had me at the age of 37 without any health issues. The one problem that did keep cropping up, however, was that she was often too tired (and, nowadays, downright disabled) because of the weight and that impeded a lot of "normal" childhood experiences for me.
Overall I've had a good life and wouldn't have chosen a different family, but I think in some ways my life would have been easier if she had been younger when she had me. For that reason, I would say that it may really be for the best if an overweight person has their kids at a younger age rather than putting it off.
Anyway, good luck. :)

[Zsofia]

While everybody has very rightly pointed out how exhausting it is to care for young children, I'd like to emphasize the other side - it's exhausting but it's also really easy to gain weight while you do it. You eat what the kids eat, you run around after them but you don't have the time to take care of yourself too, etc. So you're exhausted and fatter, often, which is a bad combination.

Particularly when you consider that, as an older parent, even though 31 isn't old to start you don't want to drop dead of a heart attack when your kids are in middle school. I mean, you have a serious responsibility to children with regards to your health. My parents were much older when I was born - my mom was 38 and my dad was 48. My dad had two heart attacks before I was 11. Have you ever seen somebody right after they've had quadruple bypass surgery? They look like a corpse. Imagine if you were a kid and that was one of your parents. Think about it.