"low Birth Weight" Paradox Question

I didn't get the info on this website, there are websites dedicated to the subject, it's in wikipedia, it's all over.

I know smoking while pregnant is risky, that was not my question.

There is a physiological/statistical phenomenon called "lbw paradox", try it on google search. I'd post a link but I dont know how.

I've read about it on a few websites, but I don't understand if what is being said is that lbw babies born to moms who smoke have the same survival rate, or just slightly lower.

It is called a paradox for a reason and the reason is that...

1. Statisticly babies who have moms that smoke have less of a chance at surviving.

2. Statisticlly babies who are born "lbw babies" have less of a chance at surviving.

- now here is the paradox-
and i'm not sure if I understand

3. Statisticly babies who are lbw, but who also have moms that smoke have the same chance at survival as otherwise healthy babies(?)


I dont know if its the same chance, I was hoping someone might've read the same thing and could clarify it for me.

I will sub-quote/para-phrase the pages I read in that it was said that lbw babies who have moms that smoke cigarettes seem to be at an advantage to lbw babies who don't smoke. Thus it is called a paradox

the part I dont understand is if the survival rate is equal.

Anyone who has read and understands please post a reply.

Thanks

Ok here it is...

Eb.Niehs.Nih.Gov/bwt/subcpara.Htm

that wasn't too hard

I don't even understand the point in posting about this.
Not trying to be rude, adamblacksheep. But it seems irrelevent.
The statistics don't matter.
Just don't smoke if you don't want a lbw baby.

I am not posting "about" this...I'm asking about this and I have reasons for wanting to know.

I'm not trying to figure out if pregneant women should risk smoking, because sometimes the infant is ok even tho it is small.

Who said anything about that?

Women who smoke lower the over all perinatal survival rate of the babies they are with, I am not saying otherwise, I am not trying to find a loophole, what is giving any of you this opinion.

Fine yes! Don"t smoke while youre with child.

That is a good idea.

Now my question is this. (to anyone who is not opinionated but informed or who would take the time to use the adress or the search engine to inform themselves...)

it seems to be a fact that babies who are 2000g. To 3000g. Are at a lower risk if they have moms who smoke than babies of the same weight who do not have smoking moms.(i do not think if the mom starts to smoke because the baby she is with is small, the same is true), but the literature dosn't say weather they are at the same as average weight babies or slightly lower or what, or if it does I am not seeing it, so could some one please explain?

Thanks

Opinionated?

Perhaps your source is unreliable.

Here is one of the address once again for anyone interested in reading before posting..

Eb.Niehs.Nih.Gov/bwt/subcpara.Htm

I don't have "a" source, I have several...

If you think the webpage i've provided is bunk, than I implore you to use you're search engine.

Enter in "lbw paradox" this is what the actual phenomenon is titled in the medical world.

Yes, opinionated is what it is called when you make comments from a place of inexperience or with out informing your self...

I'm not asking you, I specificlly said,


anyone who knows or would care to read it.

But you can be bothered to post a statement for no reason, just for the sake of posting??

I am asking here because I thought this was a forum for people to discuss physiology, health, epidimology etc.

Turns out to be a buncch of locker room quacking, so this place is what it has become, but I think these forums were established for people who have genuine medical questions

A yahoo search on lbw paradox brings up 7 web pages, but some look like they could be from the exact same 'source'.

Since you have been so handy at researching this, maybe you already have your answer...

Whats up with you people? Why are you so offensive and nasty, all i'm doing is asking a question?

Try a google search, it's also in wikipedia etc..

Anyway I have researched it myself to the extent that I can, i've read it several times over but as said the facts seem vague to me so I came to this "medical questions forum" to see if anyone knew anything about it. I didn't ask anyone to do it for me.

If you don't know then why are you posting here just to be meen?

Some one said

"idon't think any of us care"

some one is so lonley that they saw some meager activity in one of the forums titled, "a question she dosn't care about", some one is lonley because she exhibits anti-social behaviour,

You have called me opinionated and 'meen'. and, to clarify, you did ask us to research it for you by posting the link and then telling us if we chose not to read the 'research', then we should not respond.