What's your blood type and what was labour like?

[RetroHippy]

At my 25 week check today the mw commented that I am A+ and it was a good blood type as in her personal experience A+ves have quick labours.

She was referring to her experience on the wards, just wondering what your experiences are and if they back up her findings? I'm intrigued!

A+

Labour 1: 12 hours start to finish
Labour 2: 7 hours start to finish

Both "uncomplicated" (but bloody hurt).

Anyone calculating averages, here?

Published in neurology: blood type AB is linked with increased risk of memory loss when older:

www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/282051.php

Blood type does indeed seem to be associated with different health outcomes in various spheres.

Will one of you midwives please do a proper study on this then we can confirm/bust this myth once and for all?!

By the way, to whoever said 'someone would have funded a study by now' that's utter bollocks. Who would have funded it? Its interesting but doesn't really change much. There's no drug for it. No incentive to study it.

coraltoes mass empirical observation is a great way to form scientific hypotheses. It is not "bullshit opinion", it is an observation. It does however need to be looked at rigorously before it becomes an accepted scientific fact.

I agree with wanttosqueese about someone looking into it. It might not change much very quickly but a) it might inform which mothers are suited to which type of birth (amongst many many more important factors), and b) if the mechanism by which faster births happen safely is tracked down then that could have enormous implications for childbirth for all.

You could probably collect some halfway decent pilot data here, now.

-Blood group

-Duration (defined as definite first contraction to moment of birth, or something) of first labour

-Interventions and pain relief during first labour (coded into meaningful categories)

Record this for a few hundred women, and do a few stats (I'll do those, if you want . Love a bit of that...)

A+
Ds1 had an abruption, bled and contracted before having to be induced by drip. Did arrive in 4 hours after that but was intense and I thought I was going to die. At 33+5.
Ds2 was induced again, arrived 4 hours later but required episiotomy and ventouse, thought I was going to die again...

Not sure about this theory hmm...

Meant to say ds1- bled and contracted for two days before induction...

Maybe one of the midwives here could give it to one of their students to do? (with help from clock!)

Yes, but you couldn't do it from this thread as it is self selected from the title: you would need to pick a thread about something else to have a more randomised selection, and then contact the posters and ask for blood group and labour times. Or YY a midwife could presumably look through a year's worth of data and produce a table of some sort (??)...not sure if that would require the mothers' consent though as it is using data collected for one purpose, for another purpose, so might pose a problem with the DPA.

A+
1st labour 45.5 hours
2nd labour 2.25 hours
3rd labour 5.25 hours

Surely if someone was to do a study they would also have to take into account, pelvis size and estimated baby size, position and movement of stbm in Labour.
And prep done before also, Eg in last to months spending time on hands a knees to help persuade baby in the right position so's not back to back when born as this can be the cause of long and sometime complicate births. There are so many outside factors to take into account here too. A true controlled test would be x amount doing the same before and during Labour with simular pelvic measurements and baby size estimates. Even then I think the results would vary.
Personal think its pot luck. You can do all you can to make the Labour run smoothly and still end up with completion. Or nothing at all and have an amazing birth.
I like this threadbut seems to of got abit serious (including my post now)

Not sure about the + or - but I am such a stereotype!

A blood group (my mum):
Baby 1 = 8hour labour
Baby 2 = 2 hour labour

O blood group (me):
Baby 1= 3 day labour and emcs
Baby 2 = 11 hour before they got worried and did a kellands forceps

Also I am the only redhead in the family. I threw up / dry retched with every pain relief method going so couldn't use gas and air. When we did antenatal classes, the midwife wouldn't believe me when I could feel the tens machine at 1.5 out of 10 on the dial. She got cross and blindfolded me (!) and asked me to tell her when it was off or on. Got it right every time! Haha.

Surely all the A+ women would be going private anyway, being so wealthy and all.

Clock, you are exactly the type of person I hoped would show up! Go on, analyse this lot... Technically as the thread title didn't mention blood group it wasn't directed at any particular scenario (though might be once you'd read the OP). If you just take first labours too it's a little more reliable.

Surely there's a statistics calculation that will account for uneven group sizes, hip difference etc? In theory any hip size difference would be evened out across the groups. Wish I remembered anything from my psych degree.

AB+

1st: 36 hours
2nd: 94 mins
3rd: 40 mins

Don't think there are enough posts with actual durations to analyse properly yet!
Yes, if enough people responded, we should be able to get around the unequal group sizes (and differences between groups which aren't associated with blood group). Wouldn't be perfect by any means (can't verify who's responded, whether it's accurate, whether it's the same person 171 times, etc., what kinds of bias exist in who chooses to respond), and couldn't be "real research", but could potentially form a damn good basis to inform actual studies for someone (especially if midwives are saying this in clinical practice - needs testing!).

Surely as long as the differences between groups are random, and the groups are large enough, then they won't matter?

Then, if you do find a link with A+ blood type and quick labours, you look for the explanation eg might well be that A+ blood type is associated with bigger hips, or higher hormone production, or smaller babies, or earlier labour, or whatever. It will presumably not be the blood group itself making the labour faster but a trait associated with that blood group...

Oh, I can easily believe that blood group might have something to do with conception or memory or anything where complex genetic and immune/autoimmune process which are as of yet very poorly understood are involved.

My understanding of labour was a much more biochemical and mechanical one: hormones, then lie/position/presentation of the baby and its effect on the cervix.

And still, how does it account for different labours for the same woman?

Naw, still don't buy the theory

O+ (but with anti s)

1st 4 hours
2nd 2 hours
3rd 90 minutes

A-
1st 19 and a half
2nd 2hrs
3rd around 6 ish I think

It's an interesting thread nonetheless, but I too find it worrying that women are hearing old wives' tales in antenatal clinics and labour wards.

It reminds me of the 'dark ages' when shoe size (of mother, not baby!!) was considered relevant and everyone got it written on their notes. And there I was in 1990 the morning after the night before (aka my first caesarean - done for prolonged labour - though I DID become fully dilated eventually ) and the consultant asking me and the woman in the next bed about out shoe size. We confirmed we both had large feet and he scratched his head and said he couldn't understand why we'd had problems then. I said 'Do you think maybe it's a lot of nonsense then?' and got a patronising smile from all on the ward round. Within years the whole theory had been discredited and by my later pregnancies in the late 1900s shoe size was never asked about.

BTW am I the only person on here who had VBAC after 2 caesareans?

I'm A+
Never heard that theory.
My labour was induced, responded well to pessary, within 2hours. Delivered by emergency Caesarean section at 9.5cm dilated after 36hours.... Reasonably quick labour for first

I'm O-
1st- 7 hours, waterbirth, gas and air, small tear (1 stitch).
2nd- 2 hours, planned waterbirth at home, 9lbs baby- no stitches!

Not true in my case! Old wives tale I think!

O+

I'm not really sure as had to be induced and had pre eclampsia so had to have CS. Contractions were a biatch though. :o

A-

One v bad and two good.