Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g5fl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-29T21:21:14.412Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Serum prolactin levels in undernourished Indian lactating women

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

Veena Shatrugna ,
Namala Raghuramulu  and
Krishnamurthy Prema
Veena Shatrugna
Affiliation:
National Institute of Nutrition, Indian Council of Medical Research, Jamai-Osmania (PO), Hyderabad – 500 007, India
Namala Raghuramulu
Affiliation:
National Institute of Nutrition, Indian Council of Medical Research, Jamai-Osmania (PO), Hyderabad – 500 007, India
Krishnamurthy Prema
Affiliation:
National Institute of Nutrition, Indian Council of Medical Research, Jamai-Osmania (PO), Hyderabad – 500 007, India
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. Serum prolactin (PRL) levels, both basal and post-suckling peak, were estimated in fifty-seven lactating women.

2. Basal PRL levels were significantly higher in all lactating women irrespective of the duration of lactation as compared to the levels in non-pregnant, non-lactating women.

3. There was a significant positive correlation (r 0·69, P < 0·001) between the basal PRL levels and the post-suckling peak values.

4. After 8 months of lactation, peak post-suckling, PRL levels were not significantly different from basal values.

5. Basal PRL levels were significantly lower (P < 0·05) in mothers whose infants were being supplemented.

6. PRL levels were not related to the mother's nutritional status as determined by body-weight.

7. The findings suggest that high PRL levels during lactation prolong the duration of lactional amenorrhoea and hence the relative infertility.

Type
Papers of direct reference to Clinical and Human Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 48 , Issue 2 , September 1982 , pp. 193 - 199
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1982

References

REFERENCES

Bonte, M. & Van Balen, H. (1969). J. Biol. Soc. sci. 1, 97.Google Scholar
Chen, L. C., Ahmed, S., Gesche, M. & Mosley, W. H. A. (1974). Pop. Stud. 28, 277.Google Scholar
Delvoye, P., Badawi, M., Demaegd, M. & Robyn, C. (1978). In Progress in Prolactin Physiology and Pathology, p. 213 [Robyn, C. and Harter, M., editors]. Amsterdam: Elsevier/North Holland Biomedical Press.Google Scholar
Gioiosa, R. (1955). Am. J. Obstet. Gynec. 70, 162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lunn, P. G., Prentice, A. M., Austin, S. & Whitehead, R. G. (1980). Lancet i, 623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNeilly, A. S. (1979). Br. med. Bull. 35, 151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perez, A., Vela, P., Masnick, G. S. & Potter, R. G. (1972). Am. J. Obstet. Gynec. 114, 1041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Population Reports. (1975). Pop. Rep. Ser. J. no. 4.Google Scholar
Prasad, K. V. S., Rao, B. S. N., Sivakumar, B.Prema, K. (1979). Contraception. 20, 77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prema, K., Madhavapadi, R. & Ramalakshmi, B. A. (1981). Nutr. Rep. Intr. 24, 893.Google Scholar
Prema, K., Naidu, A. N. & Neelakumari, S. (1979). Am. J. clin. Nutr. 32, 1298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prema, K., Naidu, A. N., Neelakumari, S. & Ramalakshmi, B. A. (1981). Br. J. Nutr. 45, 461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinha, Y. N., Selby, F. W., Lewis, U. J. & Vanderlaan, W. P. (1973). J. Clin. Endocr. Metab. 36, 509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyson, J. E., Carter, J. N., Andreassen, B., Huth, J. & Smith, B. (1978). Fert. Ster. 30, 154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyson, J. E., Hwang, P., Guyda, H. & Friesen, H. G. (1972). Am. J. Obstet. Gynec. 113, 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, R. G., Rowland, M. G. M., Hutton, M., Prentice, A. M., Muller, E. & Paul, A. (1978). Lancet ii, 178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar