Background
Fetal growth and birth weight are determined by a complex interaction among several maternal, pregnancy-related, and fetal-related factors. Extreme pre-pregnancy body mass indexes (BMIs), insufficient or excessive gestational weight gain (GWG), imbalanced nutrition, alcohol consumption and smoking, maternal diabetes and hypertension, multiple pregnancies, and preterm birth have all been associated with abnormal size of newborns [
1‐
5].
Appropriate GWG has been investigated based on pre-pregnancy BMI, and several organisations have proposed GWG guidelines [
6,
7] for pregnant women to lower their risk of giving birth to newborns of abnormal size or birth weight. Similarly, the energy requirements for pregnant women have been investigated based on their pre-pregnancy BMI and stage of pregnancy [
8,
9]. Findings indicated that additional energy is needed during pregnancy to support fetal growth, the incremental increases in the sizes of the maternal tissues, and changes in maternal energy metabolism. Thus, recommendations have been published [
10,
11] for the intake of extra energy to meet the increased demand, depending on pre-pregnancy body weight and the intensity of physical activity. However, the relationship between maternal energy intake and fetal growth is unclear. Some investigators [
12‐
14] found no associations between energy intake and fetal growth and birth weight. However, they do document positive associations between GWG and maternal energy intake and birth weight. Awareness of gaining weight may influence the food consumption of a pregnant woman and hence the newborn birth weight [
15]; however, it is more likely that energy consumed during pregnancy is deposited in the maternal and fetal tissues and perceived as GWG [
8,
9]. Thus, it is plausible that the effects of energy intake on fetal growth and birth weight may be mediated by GWG, which has not been investigated previously.
Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate how energy intake during pregnancy and GWG are associated with birth weight and distinguish between the direct association of energy intake and indirect association mediated by GWG. Furthermore, we aimed to evaluate how different levels of energy intake affect birth size (determined by weight for gestational age at birth) in a cohort of singleton pregnancies from the Japan Environment and Children’s Study (JECS) [
16].
Results
Of the 97,182 eligible pregnancies reviewed, 7365 were excluded because they met the predetermined exclusion criteria. Thus, 89,817 (92.4%) mother-child pairs of live-born non-anomalous singletons remained for analyses (Fig.
1). The mean (standard deviation) that participants completed FFQ was 27.9 (6.5) weeks. The mean birth weight in the low, moderate, and high energy intake groups and in the entire study population were 3016 (402.9) g, 3034.7 (399.6) g, 3046. 4(401.1) g, and 3032.3 (401.4) g, respectively. Of the 89,817 women assessed, 6767 (7.5%) and 9010 (10.0%) gave birth to SGA and LGA infants, respectively. The proportions of SGA births were 8.1, 7.4, and 7.2%, and those of LGA births were 9.7, 9.8, and 10.6%, respectively, in the low, moderate, and high energy intake groups.
Table
1 reports descriptive statistics of participants according to the levels of energy intake. Younger, nulliparous women who did not exceed high school, and women who had extreme pre-pregnancy BMIs, reported less activity, and gained less weight during pregnancy were more prevalent in the low energy intake group than in the other groups. In contrast, parous women who reported being active during pregnancy and gained greater weight were more frequent in the high energy intake group. Table
2 presents the estimated linear regression coefficients for the association between energy intake during pregnancy and birth weight and the portion of the associations mediated by GWG. It shows that, relative to the low energy intake group, mean birth weights were increased by 13.43 g and 23.76 g in the moderate and high energy intake groups, respectively. The results also show that GWG mediated a significant portion of the effect of energy intake on birth weight; the proportion mediated by GWG was 58.4 and 68.5% in the moderate and high energy intake groups, respectively. Table
3 presents relative risk ratios and risk differences for SGA and LGA births. Compared with the moderate energy intake group, the risk of SGA birth was significantly higher in the low energy intake group (adjusted RRR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.04–1.19), whereas the risk of LGA birth was significantly higher in the high energy intake group (adjusted RRR: 1.09, 95% CI: 1.03–1.16). It also shows that, compared with the moderate energy intake group, the low energy intake group had seven more women per 1000 women with an SGA birth, whereas the high energy intake group had eight more women per 1000 women with an LGA birth. Table
4 shows the characteristics of women according to their inclusion status in the analyses. The included and excluded groups largely resembled each other; however, the excluded group had a higher proportion of younger women, those who did not exceed high school, and those who engaged in a job that required moderate physical activity. A higher proportion of the excluded women gained more weight than recommended but had a higher proportion of SGA births than that for the included women.
Table 1
Participants’ characteristics according to level of energy intake during pregnancy
| Mean (SD) |
Energy intake, kcal/d | 1682.1(536.6) | 1144.9(200.2) | 1623.3(126.5) | 2304.1(382.5) |
Maternal age, year | 31.2(5.0) | 30.6(5.2) | 31.4(4.9) | 31.6(4.9) |
Pre-pregnancy BMI, kg/m2 | 21.2(3.3) | 21.3(3.4) | 21.2(3.2) | 21.3(3.3) |
GWG, kg | 10.3(4.0) | 10.0(4.1) | 10.3(3.9) | 10.6(4.0) |
Gestational age, weeks | 38.9(1.4) | 38.9(1.4) | 38.9(1.4) | 38.8(1.4) |
Birth weigh | 3032.3(401.4) | 3016.1(402.9) | 3034.7(399.6) | 3046.4(401.1) |
| Number (%) |
Maternal age |
Up to 25 years | 11,952(13.3) | 5103(17.0) | 3650(11.8) | 3199(11.1) |
26–35 years | 58,970(65.7) | 19,237(64.1) | 20,643(66.8) | 19,090(66.1) |
36 or more years | 18,892(21.0) | 5694(19.0) | 6619(21.4) | 6579(22.8) |
Missing | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
Pre-pregnancy BMI, kg/m2 |
Underweight, < 18.5 | 14,451(16.1) | 5006(16.7) | 5006(16.2) | 4439(15.4) |
Normal weight, 18.5–24.9 | 65,772(73.2) | 21,609(72.0) | 22,829(73.9) | 21,334(73.9) |
Overweight and obese, ≥25 | 9551(10.6) | 3400(11.3) | 3074(9.9) | 3077(10.7) |
Missing | 43(0.1) | 20(0.1) | 5(0.0) | 18(0.1) |
GWGb |
Low | 15,917(17.7) | 5942(19.8) | 5471(17.7) | 4504(15.6) |
Appropriate | 41,932(46.7) | 13,958(46.5) | 14,631(47.3) | 13,343(46.2) |
High | 30,238(33.7) | 9566(31.9) | 10,162(32.9) | 10,510(36.4) |
Missing | 1730(1.9) | 569(1.9) | 650(2.1) | 511(1.8) |
Parity |
Nullipara | 36,240(40.4) | 14,055(46.8) | 12,334(39.9) | 9851(34.1) |
Multipara | 53,577(59.7) | 15,980(53.2) | 18,580(60.1) | 19,017(65.9) |
Educational level |
High school or less | 32,419(36.1) | 12,225(40.7) | 10,396(33.6) | 9798(33.9) |
Vocational school/College | 37,680(42.0) | 12,015(40.0) | 13,099(42.4) | 12,566(43.5) |
University or higher | 19,395(21.6) | 5668(18.9) | 7311(23.7) | 6416(22.2) |
Missing | 323(0.4) | 127(0.4) | 108(0.4) | 88(0.3) |
Occupation during pregnancyc |
Non-employed | 29,422(32.8) | 9461(31.5) | 10,290(33.3) | 9671(33.5) |
Low physical job | 33,884(37.7) | 11,021(36.7) | 12,065(39.0) | 10,798(37.4) |
Moderate physical job | 18,254(20.3) | 6608(22.0) | 5855(18.9) | 5791(20.1) |
High physical job | 3971(4.4) | 1500(5.0) | 1313(4.3) | 1158(4.0) |
Missing | 4286(4.8) | 1445(4.8) | 1391(4.5) | 1450(5.0) |
Physical activity level (MET-min/d) |
Low | 30,351(33.8) | 10,704(35.6) | 10,507(34.0) | 9140(31.7) |
Moderate | 27,981(31.2) | 9362(31.2) | 9970(32.3) | 8649(30.0) |
High | 27,312(30.4) | 8547(28.5) | 9089(29.4) | 9676(33.5) |
Missing | 4173(4.7) | 1422(4.7) | 1348(4.4) | 1403(4.9) |
Smoking during pregnancy |
Yes | 4052(4.5) | 1549(5.2) | 1184(3.8) | 1319(4.6) |
No | 85,049(94.7) | 28,217(94.0) | 29,508(95.5) | 27,324(94.7) |
Missing | 716(0.8) | 269(0.9) | 222(0.7) | 225(0.8) |
Drinking alcohol during pregnancy |
Yes | 2521(2.8) | 698(2.3) | 875(2.8) | 948(3.3) |
No | 86,679(96.5) | 29,100(96.9) | 29,852(96.6) | 27,727(96.1) |
Missing | 617(0.7) | 237(0.8) | 187(0.6) | 193(0.7) |
Nausea and vomiting |
Yes | 74,316(82.7) | 24,778(82.5) | 25,688(83.1) | 23,850(82.6) |
No | 15,200(16.9) | 5144(17.1) | 5125(16.6) | 4931(17.1) |
Missing | 301(0.3) | 113(0.4) | 101(0.3) | 87(0.3) |
Chronic diseasesd |
Yesc | 2453(2.7) | 843(2.8) | 857(2.8) | 753(2.6) |
No | 85,858(95.6) | 28,710(95.6) | 29,476(95.4) | 27,672(95.9) |
Missing | 1506(1.7) | 482(1.6) | 581(1.9) | 443(1.5) |
Receipt of health guidance |
Yes | 9528(10.6) | 3307(11.0) | 3236(10.5) | 2985(10.3) |
No | 9528(10.6) | 3307(11.0) | 3236(10.5) | 2985(10.3) |
Missing | 1626(1.8) | 510(1.7) | 610(2.0) | 506(1.8) |
Table 2
Estimated linear regression coefficients for the associations between energy intake during pregnancy and birth weight, and for the effects mediated by GWG
| Coefficientsa | 95% CI |
Energy intake levelb |
Low | Ref. | |
Moderate |
Total effect | 13.43 | 7.99–18.86 |
Direct effect | 5.59 | 0.15–11.02 |
Indirect effect | 7.84 | 5.92–9.76 |
Proportion mediated by GWG | 58.4% | |
High |
Total effect | 23.76 | 18.20–29.32 |
Direct effect | 7.50 | 1.92–13.08 |
Indirect effect | 16.27 | 14.31–18.23 |
Proportion mediated by GWG | 68.5% | |
Table 3
Relative risk ratios (RRR) and risk differences (RD) for abnormal birth sizes according to the level of energy intake during pregnancy
Small-for-gestational age |
Energy intake level |
Low | 2428 (8.1) | 1.11 | 1.04–1.18 | 1.12 | 1.04–1.19 | 0.007 | 0.003–0.012 |
Moderate | 2272(7.4) | Ref. | | Ref. | | Ref. | |
High | 2064(7.2) | 0.98 | 0.92–1.04 | 1.00 | 0.93–1.07 | −0.001 | −0.005–0.004 |
Large-for-gestational age |
Energy intake level |
Low | 2908(9.7) | 0.99 | 0.94–1.05 | 0.97 | 0.91–1.02 | −0.004 | − 0.009–0.001 |
Moderate | 3041(9.8) | Ref. | | Ref. | | Ref. | |
High | 3061(10.6) | 1.09 | 1.03–1.14 | 1.09 | 1.03–1.16 | 0.008 | 0.003–0.013 |
Table 4
Participants’ characteristics according to inclusion status in the current study
Total, Number (%) | 97,182 | 89,817(92.4) | 7365(7.6) |
| Mean (SD) |
Maternal age, year | 31.1(5.1) | 31.2(5.0) | 30.3(5.4) |
Pre-pregnancy BMI, kg/m2 | 21.2(3.3) | 21.2(3.3) | 21.3(3.4) |
GWG, kg | 10.3(4.9) | 10.3(4.0) | 10.7(11.2) |
Birth weight, g | 3026.3(415.2) | 3032.3(401.4) | 2953.2(553.2) |
| Numbera (%) |
Maternal age |
Up to 25 years | 13,416(13.8) | 11,952(13.3) | 1464(19.9) |
26–35 years | 63,497(65.3) | 58,970(65.7) | 4527(61.5) |
36 or more years | 20,264(20.9) | 18,892(21.0) | 1372(18.6) |
Pre-pregnancy BMI, kg/m2 |
Underweight, < 18.5 | 15,680(16.2) | 14,451(16.1) | 1229(16.9) |
Normal weight, 18.5–24.9 | 70,990(73.1) | 65,772(73.3) | 5218(71.7) |
Overweight and obese, ≥25 | 10,387(10.7) | 9551(10.6) | 836(11.5) |
GWGb |
Low | 17,246(18.2) | 15,917(18.1) | 1329(19.1) |
Appropriate | 44,904(47.3) | 41,932(47.6) | 2972(42.8) |
High | 32,887(34.6) | 30,238(34.3) | 2649(38.1) |
Educational level |
High school or less | 34,503(36.4) | 32,419(36.2) | 2084(38.6) |
Vocational school/College | 39,886(42.0) | 37,680(42.1) | 2206(40.8) |
University or higher | 20,509(21.6) | 19,395(21.7) | 1114(20.6) |
Occupation during pregnancyc |
Non-employed | 31,192(34.1) | 29,422(34.4) | 1770(29.4) |
Low physical job | 36,271(39.6) | 33,884(39.6) | 2387(39.6) |
Moderate physical job | 19,862(21.7) | 18,254(21.3) | 1608(26.7) |
High physical job | 4232(4.6) | 3971(4.6) | 261(4.3) |
Smoking during pregnancy |
Yes | 4362(4.6) | 4052(4.6) | 310(5.6) |
No | 90,285(95.4) | 85,049(95.5) | 5236(94.4) |
Drinking alcohol during pregnancy |
Yes | 2672(2.8) | 2521(2.8) | 151(2.8) |
No | 91,982(97.2) | 86,679(97.2) | 5303(97.2) |
Chronic diseases |
Yesd | 2678(2.8) | 2453(2.8) | 225(3.2) |
No | 92,702(97.2) | 85,858(97.2) | 6844(96.8) |
Newborn weight for age |
SGA | 7471(7.7) | 6767(7.5) | 704(9.6) |
AGA | 79,958(82.3) | 74,040(82.4) | 5918(80.5) |
LGA | 9744(10.0) | 9010(10.0) | 734(10.0) |
Discussion
The relationship between maternal energy intake and birth weight is often overlooked because it is mediated by GWG. In this Japanese cohort of non-anomalous singleton pregnancies, energy intake during pregnancy was positively associated with birth weight. Specifically, we observed absolute mean birth weight increases of 19 g and 30 g when moving from low energy intake to moderate and high energy intakes, respectively. This association persisted after adjusting for pre-pregnancy BMI, smoking during pregnancy, gestational age, and other established confounding factors. Notably, a significant portion of the association was mediated by GWG. Previous studies [
12‐
14] have not investigated this relationship, and GWG may have obscured the associations between energy intake and fetal growth and birth weight in those studies. Moreover, the characteristics of participants and the method of handling energy intake values may partly explain the differences in findings between studies. Factors such as pre- and peri-conceptional nutritional status of participating women, different dietary patterns and energy composition, and the exclusion or inclusion of preterm births into the study might determine the observed association between maternal energy intake and birth weight. Measuring energy intake as ordinal categories, as done in this study, allows effects that would have been smaller and not obvious on continuous measurement to be captured. Mediation analysis showed that GWG mediated a significant portion of the associations between energy intake and birth weight. This mediating role of GWG can be understood from the biological relationships between GWG and energy intake and birth weight. Energy intake during pregnancy is deposited in maternal and fetal tissues and is recognised as GWG [
8,
9]. A GWG of 12.5 kg, for example, equates to approximately 0.9 kg of protein, 3.8 kg of fat, and 7.8 kg of water [
8], and is a reflection of fetal weight together with the incremental increases in the sizes of the maternal tissues and volumes of amniotic fluid and blood [
9].
During pregnancy, energy intake in both extremes increases the risk of abnormal fetal size. In our cohort, when compared with the moderate energy intake group, the low intake group had seven more women per 1000 women with an SGA birth, whereas the high intake group had eight more women per 1000 women with an LGA birth. We observed that, compared with the moderate energy intake group, the mean daily energy intakes in the low and high intake groups were 478 kcal lower and 681 kcal higher, respectively. One could argue that this difference is clinically significant. Pre- and peri-conception nutritional statuses influence the development of the placenta and mechanisms for balancing energy requirements between mother and fetus [
31]. Changes in dietary habits after conception tend to be small and generally reflect pre-pregnancy intake [
32]. In undernourished women with minimal energy reserves, insufficient energy intake may trigger an energy partitioning effect within the placenta. This causes a reduction in the transfer of nutrients to the fetus and subsequent restricted fetal growth. In the present study, the proportion of women with an inadequate GWG was highest in the low energy intake group. Weight gain below the recommendation may be a sign that energy intake was not meeting demand. These women might have used maternal fat and protein stores to support fetal growth, thus the lower weight gain. Also, they may compete with their fetuses for energy, thereby reducing their birth weight. In contrast, the high energy intake group had the highest proportion of women with an excessive GWG. These women might have ingested energy in excess, thus the larger newborns.
Japanese pregnant women did not comply with current guidelines on energy intake. Notably, in two-thirds of the pregnant women in our cohort, energy intake was below the recommendations. In our cohort, the estimated daily energy intake during pregnancy was 1682 kcal. In three Japanese prospective studies [
13,
20,
33], it was approximately 1580–1770 kcal. In Japan, the recommended daily energy requirements for 18–29-year-old and 30–49-year-old normal-weight pregnant women with moderate physical activity levels are 2000–2400 kcal and 2050–2450 kcal, respectively [
10]. A possible explanation for the observed lower energy intake is that women of childbearing age in Japan have a strong desire for small body size and some women practise self-judged dieting during pregnancy [
34,
35]. Antenatal dietary counselling has been shown to have a positive effect on the nutritional intake of pregnant women, fetal growth, and newborn birth weight [
36,
37]. In practice, nutritional guidance is directed mainly at preventing obesity-related complications, such as pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, and fetal macrosomia. In our cohort, only 10% of the women reported receiving health guidance. Studies [
38,
39] have reported an increasing prevalence of underweight women of childbearing age and an increased incidence of low-birth-weight infants in Japan. In our cohort, factors, such as younger age, less education, and nulliparity, associated with poor diet quality and less favourable birth outcomes [
3,
29,
30] were more prevalent in the low energy intake group. Furthermore, more women in this group conceived with extreme pre-pregnancy body weights and gained weight below the recommendations. Both SGA and LGA infants have an increased risk of adverse short- and long-term health outcomes [
5,
40,
41]. We suggest that sufficient antenatal education and nutritional guidance be offered to all pregnant women. This promotes an individualised approach to ensuring optimal nutrition and an appropriate GWG, thus better pregnancy and birth outcomes.
Our findings are likely limited to Japanese women, and they may not be directly transferable to other populations around the world, which have much higher rates of pre-pregnancy overweight, obesity, and excessive weight gain. The association between energy intake and birth weight may actually be higher in other populations.
The main strengths of this study include the large sample size, which broadly represents pregnant women in Japan; the prospective design; the comprehensive information about maternal diet; and the wide range of potential confounding factors with small missingness. Since the energy expenditure of pregnant women may influence daily energy intake, fetal growth, and birth weight, we adjusted for physical activity level and occupation during pregnancy (occupational groups stratified by levels of physical activity) in our analysis.
This study also has some limitations. For example, 16% of our cohort was underweight; thus, the findings of this study may not be generalisable to the entire obstetric population. Furthermore, our analysis relied solely on dietary information collected at a single time point during pregnancy. Dietary intake could have changed according to the stage of pregnancy. Considering the various dietary changes, including those caused by the occurrence of nausea and vomiting during pregnancy, evaluating the diet at only one point does not give is not a complete dietary assessment across the entire pregnancy. However, a previous study [
13] reported no significant changes in dietary intake throughout pregnancy in Japanese women. Also, the energy intake estimated using FFQs may not reflect the actual intake [
42,
43]. It is also undeniable that some pregnant women may have underreported their FFQ responses. Nevertheless, the FFQ is a validated tool for grouping pregnant women according to high and low energy intake at the population level [
43], and the present study analysed energy intake as ordinal categories. Moreover, we defined GWG as the last measured weight closest to birth minus the self-reported pre-pregnancy weight. Generally, self-reported weights are susceptible to underestimation, which may influence the calculated GWG. Furthermore, we defined birth size using the neonatal birth weight chart for the Japanese; thus, finding different percentages using other population charts is possible. Finally, there was a probable exclusion of women with less favourable pregnancy and birth outcomes, resulting in a possible underestimation of the risks.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to all the participants in the study. We thank all staff members of the JECS. This study was funded by the Ministry of the Environment, Japan. The findings and conclusions of this article are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not represent the official views of the above government. Members of the JECS Group as of 2021: Michihiro Kamijima (principal investigator, Nagoya City University, Nagoya, Japan), Shin Yamazaki (National Institute for Environmental Studies, Tsukuba, Japan), Yukihiro Ohya (National Center for Child Health and Development, Tokyo, Japan), Reiko Kishi (Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan), Nobuo Yaegashi (Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan), Koichi Hashimoto (Fukushima Medical University, Fukushima, Japan), Chisato Mori (Chiba University, Chiba, Japan), Shuichi Ito (Yokohama City University, Yokohama, Japan), Zentaro Yamagata (University of Yamanashi, Chuo, Japan), Hidekuni Inadera (University of Toyama, Toyama, Japan), Takeo Nakayama (Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan), Hiroyasu Iso (Osaka University, Suita, Japan), Masayuki Shima (Hyogo College of Medicine, Nishinomiya, Japan), Youichi Kurozawa (Tottori University, Yonago, Japan), Narufumi Suganuma (Kochi University, Nankoku, Japan), Koichi Kusuhara (University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Kitakyushu, Japan), and Takahiko Katoh (Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan). We also acknowledge all members of the Environmental Medicine Department of Kochi University for their support.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.