Strollerderby : they say

They Say: TV Impairs Kids' Speech

Madeline Holler — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 17:34:00 GMT

Here's one for the No Need to Panic files: TV impairs speech development.

A new study shows that for every hour a child spends in front of the television, parents speak 770 fewer words. That's both when the parents are watching the show with the child and when they've just plopped the kid in front of the set to take a shower. Also, when the TV is just on in the background.

So why shouldn't we panic?

Earlier studies show that babies who watch a lot of TV catch up to their more sanctimonious peers by 16 months.

Results of this study appear in the June issue of Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. Researchers looked at 329 children, ages 2 months to 4 years, whom they rigged up with digital recorders one day per month for an average of six months. The number of words heard and spoken were counted. Analysts compared the number of words exchanged while the TV was one against the number while the TV was off. On average, adults speak more than 900 words per hour when the TV is off.

Good information and probably not all that surprising, considering most people's experiences when, let's say at a party, the TV goes on. All eyes turn to the plasma screen.

One of the lead researchers, Dimitri Christakis of the Seattle Children's Research Institute, said while this doesn't exactly show that TV is harmful, it also shows it's not helpful, which is one reason the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends against TV for kids younger than 2.

Commenting on the study, Victor Strasburger, a professor of pediatrics at the University of New Mexico, leaves us with this guilt-inducing advice:

"We need to avoid parking babies in front of screens," Strasburger says. "Parents need to realize they need to be the primary entertainment for their babies. Parents are movie stars when their kids are babies. It doesn't last long."

Sure. But sometimes, super star Mom or Dad needs to take five in the Green Room, you know?

They Say: Formula Not Necessarily Fattening. But!

Oldest Mum Gives Son a Young Name

They Say: We Don't Know How the Hell to Treat Pregnant Women

Police Discover Girl Raised by Dogs

Sonogram Cufflinks for Father's Day ... or a Pro-Life March

Photo: futureofchildren.princeton.edu

They Say: Staying Together for the Kids? Don't

JeanneSager — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 15:01:00 GMT

How many times have you heard someone in marital distress say they're just trying to make it through for the kids? Might want to give them a hug next time and tell them they shouldn't worry about it.

A new study has found what plenty of kids of bitter, bickering parents already knew: staying together for the kids doesn't work.

Looking at teens from almost two thousands households and tracking them through to their early thirties, the study out of Cornell University in New York linked "exposure to parental conflict in adolescence . . . with poorer academic achievement, increased substance use and early family formation and dissolution, often in ways indistinguishable from living in a stepfather or single-mother family."

Again, not totally surprised here. But it's an important finding FOR parents who have long sought comfort as they navigate the difficult road of divorce. The dissolution of a relationship is almost never easy, and blame is quite often the name of the game. When kids are involved, the ante is upped as couples have to factor in more than just the two people in the marriage itself.

Studies have already found that divorce does not change the way a person parents. If you're doing a good job before the split, there's no reason to think you'll fall down on the job after the decree becomes final.

Parents should also take a long, hard look at their kids pre-split. Poor behavior that parents have often associated with post-divorce stress has been found to be something parents were overlooking in the midst of their marital discord. It was already there. The good news? Researchers say it doesn't actually get worse.

At the end of the day, I could never tell someone, "hey, yeah, get divorced." That's a very personal decision. But knowing you're worrying about your kids in the process means you're already far ahead of a lot of parents.

Image: OrlandoNest

They Say: Formula Not Necessarily Fattening. But!

Madeline Holler — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 17:22:00 GMT

Researchers studying the influences of body composition in early childhood found that, indeed, babies who were breastfed longer had a lower fat mass that could not be accounted for by genetic differences or height.

But the study isn't another "Breast is Best" pitch.

Just as influential, researchers found, was a child's weaning diet -- both those being weaned from the breast and those being weaned from formula.

Kids who had the better diet during weaning -- you know the drill, more fruits, veggies, whole grains and lean proteins -- also had greater lean mass by the time they were four years old.

At first blush, you kind of want to say, "duh. More veggies, less fat." However, (shout out to Hanna Rosin!) while the findings are evidence supporting some claims that breastfeeding reduces the risk of obesity in babies, they also show you can undo the breastfeeding bennies rather quickly by going from num-nums to three meals a day of chicken nuggets and Goldfish crackers.

And also, good nutrition is good nutrition, no matter what you ate in your first year of life.

This is the first study to look beyond ounce-for-ounce comparisons of milks and their influence on baby/toddler body fat. Instead of breast vs. bottle, it's fruit vs. Fruity Pebbles.

Oldest Mum Gives Son a Young Name

They Say: We Don't Know How the Hell to Treat Pregnant Women

Police Discover Girl Raised by Dogs

Sonogram Cufflinks for Father's Day ... or a Pro-Life March

Photo: ehow.com

They Say: We Don't Know How the Hell to Treat Pregnant Women

Madeline Holler — Fri, 29 May 2009 20:28:00 GMT

You already know this but a surprising number of medical professionals don't: pregnant women aren't just fat versions of average women (who, themselves, aren't just mini versions of men). Which means you can't necessarily medicate a pregnant women like you would any other woman, who you can't just medicate like any ol' guy.

That's before you even consider the consequences of passively medicating a growing fetus.

This, it turns out, presents a problem that researchers are only now beginning to look into. Given shifts in the pregnant woman's metabolism, among many other changes, it's any doctor's guess as to what and how much medication to prescribe to pregnant women who are battling cancer, depression, or the flu -- not to mention WMD-type viruses.

Here's an example of the problem the pregnant body presents: the American College of Obstretrics and Gynecology recommends giving patients amoxicillin during an anthrax scare. But how much? Who the hell knows!

From Time:

But an obstetrics researcher in Seattle recently concluded there's no way to give a pregnant woman enough of the antibiotic to be effective. Kidney function is so revved up during pregnancy that even in high doses, amoxicillin is excreted before it can work its magic. Think of it as trying to fill a bathtub with the drain open, suggests Jason Umans, an internist and maternal-fetal pharmacologist at Georgetown University. "In emergencies, you always hear, 'Treat the pregnant women first!'" he says. "The joke should be 'Yeah, how?'"

The good news a few dozen doctors, ethicists and government officials have launched a movement of clinical research they're calling the Second Wave (the first was when officials realized women are mini-men in terms of medicine, or, anything else). They're hoping to gather more data so that doctors no longer have to wing it with their expecting patients.

But what about the baby!!!!! Settle down, these, pioneer researchers say.

"Everyone thinks, Oh, my God, research on pregnant women! All kinds of ethical flags go up," says Ruth Faden, director of the Berman Institute of Bioethics at Johns Hopkins University. "We don't have to start with high drama." There's enough "low-hanging fruit," she says, "that we could keep lots of medical researchers busy for a long time."

In fact, two-thirds of women take up to five drugs during pregnancy and through labor. But only a dozen are FDA approved for pregnancy and those are all stuff for the labor and birth like induction meds and the epidural. The ones for high blood pressure or diabetes are any doctor's educated guess.

What was your experience with meds during pregnancy? Did you and the doc just make it up as you went?

Sonogram Cufflinks for Father's Day ... or a Pro-Life March

They Say: Moms Don't Care if Boys Get Fat

3 Generations, 3 Boys, All Born May 11

Married vs. Single Moms: Who's Got it Easier?

Michael Pollan Doesn't Know if He was Breastfed!

Photo: Time.com

They Say: Just Get the Epidural Already

JeanneSager — Fri, 29 May 2009 18:01:00 GMT

Oh no they didn't!

A bunch of Swedish medical researchers have come out with a study that calls BS on the natural birth community. Basically, they say, get the epidural.

Full disclosure here - after hours of saying, "no, no, I can do this," I got the epidural. But before you call this one a victory for those of us who love us some painkillers, I don't see what was so scientific and exacting about this study.

They took one thousand moms-to-be and split them in half. One set went though classes on natural birth, learning breathing exercises and other natural methods to get them through the pain of labor. The other half got the "drugs are good" talk from their instructors. But once they got to the hospital, the numbers of women who said "get me drugs" was about even out of the two groups.

The scientists say this means the drugs work better.

I agree. For SOME people. Because if you ask any mom who made it through natural childbirth drug-free by choice, she didn't NEED the drugs. Ask a mom who chose the epidural (hello, over here, raising my hand)? She's going to tell you she DID NEED the drugs.

Can you tell either one she's wrong about her own body? Didn't think so.

Because it's totally subjective folks. We all have different pain thresholds. My brother broke his arm when we were kids and all he said was "ow," a few times. I broke my foot (well, he broke my foot), and I was whining about it for weeks. Walk into a pre-school, and you'll see the same thing. Two kids collide face first, and one bursts into tears. The other brushes herself off and runs off to play.

I'm also not ready to write off all breathing techniques for the reduction of/help with pain. Because as most pregnant women know, you don't get an epidural the moment your first contraction starts, and they don't last through the entire process (yes, folks, we do feel it when we're giving birth - they are not the wonder drug those who haven't had one think they are, or at least mine wasn't). Ever gotten a massage where the therapist told you to take long, deep breaths while they worked on a particularly tight knot? Or even just banged your knee particularly hard and had to breathe through it?

Unless this study is going to encourage health insurance companies not to play games over the rights of a woman to have an epidural (which, believe me, they will challenge - when the only anesthesiologist on call doesn't take your insurance, they don't have to pay the doctor, despite your NEED for that needle), what purpose does this serve?

Image: BBCNews

They Say: Moms Don't Care if Boys Get Fat

Madeline Holler — Wed, 27 May 2009 19:01:00 GMT

A study that set out to determine whether restricting what and how much your child eats would eventually lead to obesity (it doesn't; more on that in a second) uncovered a dirty little secret:

Moms care more about keeping their daughters skinny than letting their sons get fat.

That actually came as no surprise to me and probably not you either. We've all witnessed something like this: people admiring a "growing boy" as he shovels it in at Thanksgiving, but eating in silence (or looking away) as the family's teen girl heads back for another round of desserts.

From eScienceNews:

"Our findings mirror those of other studies that have found that parents are much less likely to recognize or be concerned about the overweight status of sons compared to daughters," says [lead author Kyung E. Rhee, MD, MSc, a researcher with the Weight Control and Diabetes Research Center at The Miriam Hospital]. "These behaviors may represent a sensitivity to societal values that girls should be slim while boys have a physical or social advantage in being larger."

Anyway, the study, which appears in the journal Obesity, is good news for parents who never really bought into the idea that kids can exercise portion control when facing an open bag of cookies.

Instead, researchers learned that controlling what and how much your kids eat between the ages of 4 and 7 leads to a healthier BMI between 7 and 9 years old. (No word on whether these restrictions lead to eating disorders, but, hey! At least the kids aren't fat!)

Here's a summary of the study from the LA Times:

Researchers studied 789 boys and girls in nearly equal numbers, calculating changes in their body mass index between the ages of 4 and 7, and 7 and 9, to determine how their mothers' restrictive feeding affected how much weight they gained -- or didn't gain. The data were from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development's study of early child care and youth development.

Mothers were also asked, "Do you let your child eat what he/she feels like eating?" Answers were scored on a four-point scale, from "definitely no" to "mostly no," "mostly yes," and "definitely yes."

They found no correlation between a rise in mothers controlling their kids' eating in the early age range and weight gain in the later range. So it's OK to say, "no dessert tonight!" But spank yourself if you're telling your girl one thing and your boy another.

Married vs. Single Moms: Who's Got it Easier?

Teacher in Affair with 6th-Grader to Host 'Hot for Teacher' Night

India Baby Boom: Surrogate Birth Every 48 Hours

Michael Pollan Doesn't Know if He was Breastfed!

Top 10 Pregnancy and Birth World Records

Photo: agooddietforteens.com

They Say: Another Reason to Vaccinate Your Kid

JeanneSager — Wed, 27 May 2009 14:28:00 GMT

The no-vax movement got more bad news this week with a report in Pediatrics that confirms herd immunity does not keep the non-vaccinated safe.

The study by researchers at Kaiser Permanente Colorado and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health determines kids whose parents opt out on vaccines are twenty three times more likely to develop pertussis than their vaccinated peers.

More commonly known as whooping cough, the incidence of pertussis was rapidly declining in the U.S. from the 1940s through the late nineties thanks to vaccinations. But with parents forgoing the vaccines, the numbers are back up - big time. In 2005 alone, more than twenty-five thousand cases were reported (for comparison check out the numbers in 1976 - only one thousand ten cases in the entire U.S.).

Those numbers should have proven the importance (and efficacy) of the vaccine, but parents have been skipping the vaccine in increasing numbers, or delaying it as part of the system touted by Dr. Robert Sears, a much revered pediatrician by the middle-of-the pack vax crowd. The study at Kaiser found that eleven percent of the kids who contracted pertussis were kids whose parents actually refused the vaccine (which makes a difference - these weren't kids whose parents opted out because of a medical issue that kept them from getting the vaccine).

What a fair number of anti-vaccine parents fail to realize is the problem isn't just the other kids their kids are coming in contact with. Even if the majority of American kids get the vaccine, adults age out of their immunity. Which means unless they head to the doctor for a booster, they're susceptible to the disease, and carriers who could be passing it on to your kids (studies indicate at least one third of pertussis cases were transmitted by mother to child).

And pertussis is not a silly, laugh it off disease. It can kill, particularly infants.

So if herd immunity isn't protecting your kids from pertussis, what else isn't it protecting them from?

Image: LA Times

They Say: Swimming Pools? Yeah, They're Kind Of Gross

Jen Chaney — Sun, 24 May 2009 19:28:00 GMT

Memorial Day weekend is traditionally the kick-off of the summer season at most community pools around the country. But after reading this post, you may be a little less enthusiastic about taking the kids for their inaugural dip.

It may not exactly surprise anyone to learn that swimming pools aren't the most sanitary places in the world. But my eyebrows raised a little when I read this CNN.com story that says a recent study conducted by the Water Quality and Health Council revealed that 17 percent of adults sometimes pee in the pool. Let me get this straight: these are adults who (I.P.) freely admitted to a group that studies water quality that they sometimes let a little leak out when they're practicing their butterfly strokes? That leads me to believe that perhaps even more adults who participated in this survey may do the same thing, but simply weren't honest when asked. Translation: every time you think you're just going swimming, you're actually splashing around in a big, festering, germ-filled community toilet.

Honestly, if the over-21-year-olds can't hold it in, what are the odds that all those water-winged four-year-olds can? (Um ... zero.)

Of course, many of us have long suspected this and we still go swimming all the time anyway. Why? Because it's fun, it's refreshing, we've never gotten ill because of it and, most importantly, if we pretend the pee isn't there, it doesn't bother us. (Denial rules.)

Seriously, once we start focusing too obsessively on all the germs and bodily fluids we can pick up at places like this, I think it's only a matter of time before we wind up in Howard Hughes-ville. The best thing we parents can do is make sure our kids are not contributing to the pool grime, and that the pools they swim in are maintained properly. The CNN story points out the importance of showering before going swimming, for example. And it also notes ways to tell if the pool is clean, like listening for signs that the filtration system is functioning, spotting the presence of a working drain and (this one kind of cracks me up) feeling the tiles and sides of the pool to make sure they are neither sticky nor slippery. Okay, sticky would seem a little strange. But slippery? I'm not sure I've ever touched a wet tile surface that wasn't slippery. Then again, I always assumed that most grown-ups know better than to piss in a pool, so what the heck do I know?

Also, it's probably a good idea to train kids as soon as possible that they shouldn't use the pool as a potty. Heck, if need be, remind some adults, too. Because together, America, we can stop unnecessary peeing in the pool, and ensure that we're all swimming in water that contains slightly less bacteria in the future than it does today.

They Say: When It Comes to Baby Names, We Like 'Em Weird

Jen Chaney — Thu, 21 May 2009 12:32:00 GMT

A pair of psychologists recently did a study that confirms something most of us already know: today's parents like unusual baby names.

As USA Today explains, Jean Twenge and W. Keith Campbell analyzed the names on 325 million applications for Social Security numbers, each one filed between 1880 and 2007. Their findings? Fewer moms and dads these days are opting for common baby names; for example, in 1955, 32 percent of boys had a name that ranked among the top 10 most popular in America. In 2007, only nine percent of males had a "popular" name. The same trend held true for girls -- the 1955 popularity percentage was 22 for females, but 8 percent in 2007.

There are many reasons that could explain this. Twenge and Campbell have focused on the obsession with uniqueness in our culture, coupled with a desire to imitate celebrities (who love a weird baby name) and good old-fashioned Baby Boomer and Generation X narcissism. Perhaps coincidentally, Twenge and Campbell have co-authored a book called "The Narcissism Epidemic," a tome that explores the many ways that the rise of the Narcissist in America has impacted our society. I'd plan to read it, but I'm kinda busy these days, staring at my own reflection in a pool of water.

Seriously, Twenge and Campbell raise some good points, but I think they've neglected to acknowledge a factor that I'll call the Jennifer Syndrome. We Xers grew up in a world where every class, from pre-school to grad school, included at least seven girls named Jennifer. I know this because I was one of them. It's the reason I never took my husband's last name after we get married; I got very attached to Chaney because it was the only way my friends could distinguish me from the 875 other Jens, Jennys and Jennifers in their lives.

My point is, you meet enough Jens as a kid, you start to think that maybe you should name your daughter (or son) something that will stand out. Of course, as we parents know, duplication of kid names still exists. The many Jordans, Jacobs, Emmas and Ethans out there attest to that. But if the Twenge/Campbell study -- which will be presented Saturday at the Association for Psychological Science conference -- is valid, then our kids' names are more diverse than ever. Call me a narcissist, but I think that's a good thing.

Related Links:

More Babies Named After Sports Figure than President

Move Over Emily – There’s a New Most Popular Baby Name

They Say: Moms, It's Still Your Fault. Well, Yours and Daycare

Madeline Holler — Wed, 20 May 2009 21:04:00 GMT

Worried that putting your kid in childcare will make her sick, dumb and mean? Add this to the pile of negatives: a new study claims to show early years spent in center-based daycare leads to stressed out life in the early teens.

Wait, wait. You pay extra for the high-quality, extra-certified, Italian-named, fun, fun, loving and fun daycare? Too bad. Doesn't matter. You farmed out the kid. She pays the price as a teen.

So is this good news for moms who stay home? Not exactly.

Because if you're insensitive -- mind you, insensitivity did not get defined -- you've also managed to stress out your kid whether or not he was in center-based daycare.

A brief write-up of the study from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development says researchers observed 1,000 children, ages one-month to mid-adolescence, in and out of their homes. They tested the awakening cortisol levels of the teens, which, when normal, are high in the morning and lower as the day goes on.

The kids who were in daycare and/or had crappy moms awoke with lower levels of cortisol and, therefore, were determined to be stressed.

My poor kids and their future stressed-out teens! They have not only been in various forms of center-based childcare (sometimes called "preschool"!), but their mother has been known to show an insensitive side when stressed, a condition that is clearly the result of her own childhood spent in center-based daycares. The cycle!

How Fertile Couples Outsmarted Wall Street

Top 10 Pregnancy and Birth World Records

Should Healthcare Reform Start in the Maternity Ward?

City's 5th Co-Sleeping Death in 10 Weeks Reported

550-Pound Woman Gives Birth

Issues! 'Parenting' Offers Fake Apology

Photo: truthdig.org

They Say: Episiotomy Rate ... Cut!

Madeline Holler — Mon, 11 May 2009 12:29:00 GMT

Good news for stretched perineum in the greater Boston area! The rate of episiotomy at Brigham and Women's Hospital has fallen dramatically over the last 10 years. Wanna know why?

Well, for one thing, women refused them! (Go childbirth ed., birth plans and big mouths!) Also, certified nurse midwives were influential.

Another reason?

Peer pressure. Younger docs stopped doing them routinely and wouldn't let the older ones either. An article in the 2005 Journal of the American Medical Association, know as the Hartmann study, was particularly influential, as it found no reason for routine snips to the muscular skin that stretches as the baby's head emerges.

The drop in episiotomy had already begun in 1997, the first year of the study. Then, episiotomy was performed on nearly 30 percent of all births at that hospital. The decline continued slowly. But after the JAMA article came out in 2005, the rate dropped a staggering 50 percent. By the end of the 10-year study, which included 61,268 women (singleton births, head-down position, at least 36 weeks gestation), the BWH rate was 6 percent. The national rate was 9.

From Medscape:

The study concluded that local peer pressure and response to significant research, in particular the Hartmann study [the 2005 JAMA paper], contributed to the substantial reduction in rates of episiotomy across patient and provider groups over the 10-year period.

It recognized several other contributing factors, including long-standing CNM service in hospital-based practice, and the addition of CNMs to Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates in 1990. Institution of the Balanced Scorecard was a factor, as was the gradual retirement of older obstetricians trained in routine episiotomy. Younger residents avoid episiotomy, she observed. Dr. Johnson also recognized the obstetric chiefs' making episiotomy a priority in 2002 and noted that labor and delivery nurses were educated about the procedure.

She pointed out that women giving birth also increasingly refused episiotomy.

Midwives performed the fewest episiotomies, followed by female physicians (the study noted that select female physicians performed more than 60 percent of all episiotomies performed by female docs). Older male physicians performed the most episiotomies.

Anybody give birth at BWH? Did you have an episiotomy? Midwife? Select female doc? Old dude?

They Say: Hard Times, More Pregnancies

Doc Doesn't Just Support -- He Recommends -- Circumcision

They Say: Today's Kids are Rude, Here's Why

Photo: limbsandthings.com

They Say: Hard Times, More Pregnancies

Madeline Holler — Fri, 08 May 2009 12:26:00 GMT

The economy has caused its share of hardships for sure. It's time throw accidental pregnancies onto the pile.

A new survey of more than 1,000 women that was commissioned by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists found the recession has forced many women to give up prescription birth control due to expense or loss of health insurance.

This year, 20 percent of the women surveyed fear they'll get pregnant.

From the LA Times:

"Even 3% is a big number if you look at the entire number of women in that age group," said Dr. Iffath A. Hoskins, vice president of ACOG, who presented the survey results. "We're deeply concerned about the effect of the economy on women's healthcare."

A member of Obama's transition team, Dr. Rebekah Gee, an obstetrician and gynecologist, gets to the real problem. Birth control is expensive in the U.S. and it's not easily accessible.

"Birth control is unacceptably expensive," Gee said. Every dollar spent in the public health sector on contraceptives saves $3 in childbirth and newborn healthcare costs for Medicaid. But not all insurance companies pay for contraceptives, and women spend money and time on doctor's office visits to obtain prescriptions for the most reliable forms of birth control. "There are multiple costs associated with contraceptives that we don't even think about," she said.

What about you? Have you had to skip refills or switch to more affordable BC recently?

A Really Graphic Homebirth

Mattress Ad Features Homebirth

4 Mother's Day Gifts to Let Mom Know She's Haggard

Doc Doesn't Just Support -- He Recommends -- Circumcision

Photo: Nottinghamshire.gov.uk

Doc Doesn't Just Support -- He Recommends -- Circumcision

Madeline Holler — Wed, 06 May 2009 21:26:00 GMT

The debate over circumcision strikes me as one of those arguments where first you come to a decision, then you pull together all supporting/refuting evidence. Those who oppose circumcision wave around reasons like number of nerve endings lost in the surgery, personal decision, barbary. Those who really want their sons to undergo the surgery trot out reasons like tradition, appearance, decrease in AIDS/STDs, penile cancer and so on.

So surely each of us parents of sons have rattling around in the backs of our minds the what-ifs and buyer's remorse of how we treated the days-old baby's foreskin.

Which is why fanatics on either side of the debate make me suspicious. And also how I know that the decision my husband and I made with regard to our third child (first boy ... so close! We almost didn't have to think about it!) was the right one, in that I think with regard to circumcision, as long as the parents are in agreement, you can't go wrong.

All that said, Dr. Edgar Schoen really gets on my nerves. He's the author of a new book, Circumcision, Sex, God and Science: Modern Health Benefits of an Ancient Ritual, that appears to say you'll ruin your boy's life if you don't get him snipped. Among the many problems he'll encounter are bladder infections, STDs and AIDS and the shame of giving a girlfriend cervical cancer. He also brings up cleanliness -- a lifetime of cleanliness! -- and women's preference (undocumented, I might add) as two of the big bennies. Can't you just see the swarm of flies surrounded the in-tact man's crotch?

Dr. Shoen's list of academic accomplishments and professional interests are in researching and performing newborn circumcisions. I'm not saying he can't be objective about it. But I'd say he's on a mission. Lack of foreskin, as I'm sure thousands of circumsized AIDS patients will tell you, doesn't actually innoculate a man from getting the virus. Perhaps it lowers the chance -- the risk is still there. Foreskin or no, all boys (and girls!) should be taught and encouraged to use condoms!

What do you think of a doctor not just saying, "circumcision is harmless!" but saying, "it's better"? Was the circ decision a difficult one in your family?

Partly Private: The Long Journey to a Short Cut

They Say: Today's Kids are Rude, Here's Why

Genius, Kids Aren't Born With It

Surrogate Pregnancy: Who's Next?

Are You Mom, Mommy or Mother?

They Say: Today's Kids are Rude, Here's Why

Madeline Holler — Wed, 06 May 2009 18:27:00 GMT

Here's the argument: today's kids, so coddled by parents who prize a sizable self-esteem above all else, are turning into rude, self-absorbed little jerks who not only don't take "no" for answer, they've never actually encountered the word.

Yes, that sounds about right.

A reporter on MSNBC writes that experts say kids these days are ruder than ever and that it's our fault, we Gen Xers, who were so benignly neglected that we now over-compensate as parents by co-sleeping and baby-wearing and opting out. And that we're so fixated on our children's well-being that we wind up teaching them that other people's feelings are less important than our own, that kids should first make sure they feel good, then (if ever) worry about others.

An expert:

“I see parents ferociously advocating for their children, responding with hostility to anyone they perceive as getting in the child's way — from a person whose dog snuffles inquiringly at a baby in a carriage, to a teacher or coach whom they perceive is slighting their child, to a poor, hapless doctor who cannot cure the common cold,” says [Dr. Philippa] Gordon, [a long-time pediatrician in Park Slope, Brooklyn, an urban New York neighborhood famous for its dense Gen-X parent population]. “There is a feeling that anything interfering with their kid's homeostasis, as they see it, is an inappropriate behavior to be fended off sharply.”

Such parents might be surprised to learn how uncorrelated self-esteem and performance are.

But, another argues, we Gen Xers come by it honestly, since we, according to another expert, are some of the most neglected kids in history. We're apparently healing our wounds through our intensive parenting. Our kids will have what we didn't: demonstrated love and protection.

Another expert lets us off the hook, though. She says that today's culture celebrates negative behaviors and goes on to finger American Idol judges and Bratz dolls as examples of mainstream meanness.

I would have to agree that parents these days can be a little screwed up when it comes to their kids. For example, why didn't the mother whose school-aged boy was chasing other kids with poop on a stick tell him to stop and remind him that poop-on-a-stick is disgusting? I also didn't appreciate the mom who brought her son over and said "he loves to explore," when my husband and I stood stunned that the little explorer was back in our bedroom going through the closet. Huh?

But I'm sure some mom has included me in the "rude kids" pile. I'm verrrrry passive when it comes to kids under 2 years old sharing toys. I know that, developmentally, sharing makes no sense to them. So I tend to tell my under-twos to share, watch them not share, and then get the other kid something else to play with and roll my eyes at said other kid's parent, hoping she'll understand. She usually does.

Also, my stubborn, hair-trigger four-year-old gets so many passes, not because I worry about the fragility of her self-esteem, but because I worry about the fragility of my last nerve. But we don't tolerate kicking seats on airplanes (unless the person in front has leaned back all the way ... that passenger is on his own), or snarky talk to grown-ups. We do table manners. We play to win at Old Maid. We also expect the kids to listen to their teachers and other parents.

We'd like our kids to have a healthy self-esteem, but we're not interested in narcissistic little tyrants. And I say this as a very benignly neglected, latch-key GenXer parent.

Do you think kids these days are rude? (Not yours, of course!) Do you blame culture at all or are parents too permissive? Too focused on their spirited little genius?

4 Mother's Day Gifts to Let Mom Know She's Haggard

Surrogate Pregnancy: Who's Next?

Are You Mom, Mommy or Mother?

Photo: MSNBC

They Say: Breast or Binky? Both.

Amy Kuras — Tue, 05 May 2009 18:35:00 GMT

Nursing mothers everywhere can breathe a sigh of relief: Pacifier use doesn’t appear to hurt breastfeeding at all.

Lactation consultants and other breastfeeding experts tell us that using a pacifier will lead to “nipple confusion” and keep a baby from establishing nursing well. So researchers at the University of Virginia School of Medicine reviewed 29 studies form 12 countries and found no real evidence of a link between pacifier use and problems breastfeeding. They did find that women who used pacifiers for their babies did stop breastfeeding earlier, but pacifier use didn’t appear to be the reason.

I wonder if that’s because women who ignored the advice and used a pacifier anyway (raising hand) were less likely to be breastfeeding zealots anyway?

I used a pacifier with both kids and feel little guilt about it, because quite frankly it helped me breastfeed longer. Both babies went through a phase where they wanted to be on the boob constantly right when I was still adjusting to nursing and had sore and even bleeding nipples and was generally miserable. If I’d had to pacify them with nursing alone I would have said “screw it” and given up. Being able to pop a binky in their mouth so I could get a break and they could get their powerful sucking needs met made everybody happier. And beyond the whole early misery thing, we never had any trouble once we got past the beginning in terms of nipple confusion or anything else.

Now, of course, the issue is going to be getting my son off the binky…but that’s another post.

They Say: Kids Who Watch Adult TV Have Sex Earlier

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Tue, 05 May 2009 15:30:00 GMT

Researchers at Boston Children’s Hospital have found a link between the amount of adult television children watch and the age at which teens become sexually active.

Researchers tracked 754 children between the ages 6 and 18 at two stages in their lives, first to see how much adult television they watched over the weekend as young kids, and later to see the age at which they first became sexually active. According to Science Daily, “The study found that for every hour the youngest group of children watched adult-targeted content over the two sample days, their chances of having sex during early adolescence increased by 33 percent.”

It seems to me that this correlation may have more to do with uninvolved parents than with TV. Any six-year-old who is allowed to watch several hours of adult television in a day is not likely to have parents who will talk to him or her about sex later in life.

This point of view is enforced by a comment made by a lead author of the study, who said, "Television and movies are among the leading sources of information about sex and relationships for adolescents.”

That, to me, is far more disturbing than any correlation established between teen sexual activity and television. If parents and educators were talking to kids about healthy sexual behavior, they wouldn’t be nearly as likely to be influenced by the drunken promiscuity portrayed on shows like The O.C. and Gossip Girl.

I’m certainly no fan of the majority of mainstream television—particularly not as entertainment for six-year-olds—but it would be much easier, and perhaps more effective, to raise awareness about the need for parents to openly discuss healthy sexual behavior with their kids than it would be to substantially shift the entire foundation of popular culture.

It’s high time that more studies on teen sexuality activity focused on parent-child relationships, rather than just on the media.

Photo: saidaonline.com

What Burlesque Can Teach Your Daughter

They Say: Work Stress Makes For Skinny Babies

Madeline Holler — Mon, 04 May 2009 18:29:00 GMT

I would hope that the results of the following study won't be a reason to discriminate against women in stressful or physically demanding jobs. Researchers at the University College Dublin and a French health research organization found that a baby is five times more likely to be born premature if the mother worked at a job under two or more of the following conditions:

Long hours

Shifts

Temporary jobs

Physically demanding positions

Just one of those factors made the baby four times more likely to be small or born early.

Just because a mom-to-be works long hours or in shifts wasn't enough to show a statistically significant increased risk, but combined with any of the other factors, it was.

So what does this mean for working moms? Should we go back to the olden days when you would announce you're pregnant and immediately resign? Um, no. But how about, for example, giving this cop desk duty until she returns from her maternity leave? And maybe doing the math that it would cost less in the long run to make these accommodations, considering the extra expense of caring for an increased number of premature and low-weight babies.

From the Telegraph:

Dr Isabelle Niedhammer, one of the co-authors of the study, said: "This study underlines that more attention should be given to women's working conditions during pregnancy, and effort should be intensified towards reducing exposure to physical work demands, shift work, and long working hours for pregnant women.

"Special attention should also be given to pregnant women working on temporary contracts," she added.

Do you think work stress or a physically demanding job affected the size and health of your baby?

Nursing Mom Calls for Breastpump Ban

Boy Births More Complicated

Womb Simulator Now Available in U.S.

Photo: Telegraph.co.uk

Let Them Chew Gum: It Makes Them Smarter!

JeanneSager — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:04:00 GMT

It's about time I track down my old high school teachers (maybe they're on Facebook) and get them this new information. A study has found kids who chew gum score higher on math tests because "Teachers observed that those who chewed gum seemed to require fewer breaks, sustain attention longer and remain quieter."

Take that Mrs. Peake - who used to hand out detentions to gum chewers in her classroom.

The study out of the Baylor College of Medicine is small - not just in the sample size but in how much of a difference in scores between chewers and non-chewers (the latter had scores that were lower by three percent), but the crux of the findings make a lot of sense.

Much in the way that smokers say they use cigarettes for stress reduction (not advocating for smoking, just saying), a lot of former smokers say chewing gum helped bridge the gap as they weaned themselves off the smokes. Part of that? The rhythmic chewing helped reduced stress. And kids with less stress perform better on tests.

Baylor's scientists say the chewing may also enhance blood flow to the brain, although how that's linked to academic performance (if at all) has not been determined.

So next time your kid gets written up for chewing gum in class, how about sending this blog post in to his teacher as an excuse?

Image: SundayObserver

They Say: Boy Births More Complicated

Madeline Holler — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 22:27:00 GMT

No, not boys giving birth (anyway, he wouldn't agree). But giving birth to boys is apparently more complicated than giving birth to girls, a new study out of Irsael claims.

These findings lend credence to the old wives tale that I had never before heard, which is that a difficult pregnancy means the baby will be a boy. (Anybody hear that one?)

After looking at 66,000 births, researchers at Tel Aviv University found a slightly greater risk for prematurity or c-section delivery for boy births than for girls. This backed up the findings of study a decade ago, which found males births were a 1.5 times more likely to get stuck in the birth canal.

From the NY Times:

Scientists point out that these findings do not indicate that male births are necessarily “high risk,” just slightly more risky than female births. One reason, it seems, is the larger head size of male babies. But there is speculation that other factors, like higher levels of androgens, may also play a role.

Any midwives, nurses, docs, doulas, etc., etc., have their own intuition on this?

By the way, I've also heard boys grow up and never call home, too. Can someone study that because I just had a son and thinking of that makes me panic.

'The Kinda Sutra': Where Did You Think Babies Came From?

Stay-At-Home Moms are the Best, Aren't They!

Photo: dailymail.co.uk

You Are What Your Mother Didn't Eat

JeanneSager — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 17:34:00 GMT

My mother always told me I was made of spinach - because that's what she ate during her pregnancy. Constantly. To the point where my father threatened not to come home for dinner again, lest he be presented with yet another plate of green stuff coated in cream sauce or sauted in olive oil.

It turns out, I'm only partially right. A new study says the genes of a fetus can mutate in the womb, based on what a mother ISN'T eating.

We all knew pregorexia was bad for baby, but this study points out that it's more than a lack of development that's being caused but actual development in the wrong direction.

The study at the University of Utah looked at pregnant rats to find how a lack of certain nutrients in the womb can create risk factors for certain diseases down the line. A mother rat whose fetus did not get proper nutrition was born smaller than his counterparts but also primed for heart disease, diabetes and other diseases. The researchers hope that this study could hold the key to helping develop a regimen for mothers to prevent health problems down the road for their babies.

Some of this is pretty common sense - you have to pack in the nutrition when you're pregnant (and when you're breastfeeding, natch). But knowing which nutrients are most important could be a lifesaver for moms like me - the moms who threw up for seven months. Did you eat differently when you were pregnant?

Image: CafePress

They Say: Kids Who Smile Big Will Marry Well

Jen Chaney — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 12:02:00 GMT

You may want to look at some of your family pictures after this post. Or, for that matter, dig out some childhood photos of your own.

According to a recent study conducted at Indiana's DePauw University, children who smile brightly in photographs are less likely to get divorced later in life. No, I'm not kidding. The researchers looked at the high school photos of several subjects, ages 21 to 87, and found that those with dimmer grins tended to have at least one broken marriage under their belts. They also found similar results using photographs of kids as young as five.

So let's break this down. In essence, this confirms something that, as this piece in the Telegraph points out, is basic, common sense: happy people tend to have happy marriages. That may be because they are more positive and willing to work at their relationships, or (and this is my hypothesis here) because upbeat individuals attract, and are attracted to, other upbeat individuals.

But what this study doesn't address is the issue of faking. Plenty of people can plaster dazzling smiles across their faces when a photo is being snapped. But that doesn't necessarily mean they are happy people. I guess children are less likely to put on a front, especially when they're very young. But I do wonder how clear-cut the relationship is between a smile and reality.

In any event, if this study really is accurate, it tells us something pretty important about appearances: perhaps you can not only judge a book by its cover, but predict its marital satisfaction, too.

Image: Getty Via The Telegraph

They Say: Because You're Crazy, Your Kids Eat Like Crap

Madeline Holler — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 21:53:00 GMT

Moms, it's all your fault. (Oh, but you knew that already!)

"What now?" you ask. Your personality. It's influencing the way your kids eat.

Results of a study in Norway suggest that mothers with more negative thoughts and feelings are more likely to give their kids unhealthy food. This is the first study to look at children's diets and mothers' psychological and socioeconomic variables.

Ugh. (Hey, kid, wanna Cheeto?)

From Science Daily:

These maternal personality traits fall under a collective name of high negative affectivity (negative emotions). These people often have a lower stress threshold, giving up quicker when faced with obstacles – e.g. in a disagreement – and often experience lack of control of the child.

Bad news, shiny happy people. Just because you're high on life, doesn't mean your kids are eating all their fruits and vegetables. Okay. So quit making the sad sacks feel worse. ('Nother Snickers bar, sweetie?)

Oh, and you with that control-freaky smugness? You're pretty bad, too.

"I think that mothers compensate for this either by trying to force healthy food into their child or hold the sweet-bag strings extra tightly," Ystrøm [one of the reasearchers] continues. "Paradoxically, they try to balance poor control by actually using more control. With force and restrictions they increase desire which quickly results in resistance in the form of tantrums which these mothers are also bad at resisting. Also, earlier studies have shown that controlling behaviour among parents is linked with a more sugar-rich diet among children."

Photo: usmagazine.com

It's NOT Baby Fat

JeanneSager — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 15:28:00 GMT

Think those chubby cheeks are sooo cute? Stop pinching and pull out the scale.

A new study says one in five American four-year-olds is obese. Not chunky. Not husky. Obese.

Sponsored by the National Center for Education Statistics, the study shows a drastically higher problem in minority groups, with thirty-one percent of American Indian children who were obese, twenty-two percent of Hispanics and twenty-one percent of blacks.

By comparison, sixteen percent of white kids were dangerously overweight, and thirteen percent of Asian children were obese. Based on an analysis of nationally representative height and weight data on more than eight thousand preschoolers born in 2001, the study took into account where a child falls on the percentile chart. Those who fell in the ninety-fifth percentile or higher qualified as obese.

Unfortunately, the statistics are not that surprising when you break down the higher numbers of low income families in minority groups - especially living on reservations. Low income families have a pre-disposition toward obesity because of the quality of food they can afford, food that is often carbohydrate rich but lacking in nutritional value. A recent study showed parents in low-income families were also more likely to pass on a habit of over-eating to their children because they look to food as a form of comfort.

It's hard for parents of any income level to distinguish whether or not their kids are overweight, but it's scarier still for parents to face a child as young as four with a weight problem. They're supposed to still have boundless energy at this age, to burn off their food just running like a banshee through the house! And how to tell when a kid is still working off the baby fat?

Just another reason to march them in for the well visit and load them up on the scale.

Image: One Step Ahead

Not Another Tween Beauty Crisis

What Do Madonna and Peanut Butter Have in Common?

Also on Babble:

Off the Charts

Bad Parent: Weight Watcher

Your Kid's Mouth Stinks: Here's Why

JeanneSager — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 21:11:00 GMT

Stressed? Get out the toothbrush . . . and get it out on your kids' teeth. Because a new study says parents who are stressed are more likely to have kids with tooth decay.

Yes, you read that right - parents, our kids will have another thing to complain about in therapy. And at the dentist!

The study actually makes sense if you think about it. Stressed parents have less time to be paying attention to their kids' oral hygiene. Or maybe they're stressed because their kids throw up such a fit in the morning over brushing their teeth?

Either way, scientists at Ohio State University found that while a low income, little education and being single could all add to a parent's stress, those were also the parents whose kids were more likely to suffer from tooth decay. And getting their kids' teeth cleaned or cavities filled was likely to decrease parents' stress.

Which probably only lasts until they get the bill. . .

Image: StartingCavities

For Goodness Sake, Leave Their Tonsils Alone

JeanneSager — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:29:00 GMT

Want another reason not to put your kids under the knife for a tonsillectomy?

Word has it, putting your kids in the hospital so a doctor can cut out those little chunks of lymphatic tissue at the back of the mouth could make them fat. And we're not talking about all that ice cream served up during recovery.

A Dutch study of almost four thousand kids determined that eight year olds who underwent a tonsillectomy when they were younger were at a heightened risk of obesity - regardless of whether doctors had also removed their adenoids. The doctors factored in kids who were already overweight when they were tots (pre-surgery) as a control, and they say they were able to determine the tonsillectomy prompted the obesity.

They're not calling for tonsil surgeries to stop - the numbers performed in the states have steadily decreased since the 1970s anyway. Instead, the researchers call for better nutrition management and education for kids who have had the surgery.

Considering I still have my tonsils, I guess that's one less chance I have to blame my big butt on someone else. Sigh. . . although, I could always blame it on the baby I had three years ago, right? Right?

Image: Kids Health