Lesley's Life Log

Breastmilk Banks

2009-03-26T10:02:00.002-05:00

I just read the most heartwarming story of a woman who gave birth to triplets very prematurely. Two of the babies died right away and one of the babies held on for 6 months:( ... Through this all, she pumped her breastmilk for her surviving babe - 56 gallons in those 6 months!!! She ended up donating it to one of the human breastmilk banks in this country. What a wonderful gift she gave to so many babies and mothers out there! Please read the article to hear her wonderful story and to learn more about breastmilk banks and the wonderful work they do: http://www.oprah.com/article/omagazine/200903_omag_milk_bank/1

Myths about Breastfeeding

2009-03-17T14:15:00.002-05:00

As brought to you by ProMoM:
Breastfeeding Myths and RealitiesBy Leslie Kincaid Burby fo
r ProMoM

This information is furnished to you by ProMoM, Inc. as a public service.It is in no way intended as medical advice, or meant to replace the services of a licensed medical professional.

Myth #1: Breastfeeding ruins the shape of your breasts

Reality: This is simply not true. As soon as a woman becomes pregnant permanent changes occur in her breasts. Even if she doesn't carry to term, or chooses to abort, her breasts will never be the same as they were before she became pregnant. Whether or not she then goes on to breastfeed will not effect her future breast shape one way or another. Heredity plays a large role in this matter, as does excessive weight gain or loss. It is helpful to maintain the tone of the muscles that support your breasts, and avoid large and sudden weight gains or losses, pregnancy-related or otherwise.

Myth #2: Small-breasted women won't have enough milk

Reality: The size of your breasts, either large or small, has nothing to do with the amount of milk they will produce. Almost all women who are getting plenty of liquid, adequate rest and relaxation, and lots of physical contact with their babies will produce enough milk. In fact, many women who believe they are not producing enough milk are mistaken. It is surprising how much milk a tiny baby can consume in a short amount of time. The number of wet and soiled diapers being produced every day is a fairly accurate indicator of how much milk the baby is getting. 6-8 wet cloth diapers (5-6 soaked disposables), and at least 2-5 bowel movements per day indicate that your baby is getting plenty of milk. Once the newborn stage is over, the number of bowel movements may decrease.

If your baby seems lethargic, seems to have poor skin tone or is not wetting and soiling an adequate number of diapers, this is cause for concern. If you believe you are having trouble with your milk supply, contact a lactation consultant, or a supportive physician. It is always better to be safe than sorry.

Remember, the more the baby nurses, the more milk your breasts will be stimulated to produce. If you begin "supplementing" your supply with artificial milk, your breasts will not receive adequate stimulation and your milk supply will decrease.

Myth #3: Breastfeeding influences a baby's future sexual orientation.

Reality: Not true. The misconception that breastfeeding could in some way determine whether a child will grow up to be heterosexual or homosexual is tied to the mistaken idea that breastfeeding is in itself a sort of sexual activity. It is not. Breastfeeding is a nutritional and nurturing act that helps children grow up to be healthier and more self-confident, whatever their sexual preference turns out to be.

Myth #4: Today's artificial breast milk is just as good as the real thing.

Reality: Even though modern formulas are considerably better than some of the old fashioned ones, they can never replicate mother's milk. In the first place, human milk contains live cells and human hormones that are impossible to obtain from the milk of another species. Furthermore, formula companies admit that they don't yet know all of the ingredients in human breast milk. Every few months these companies come up with something different to try to add in. If you choose to breastfeed you can be confident that all the necessary nutrients, immunities, hormones and as yet undiscovered beneficial elements will be present in the right amounts. On the other hand, research shows significant risk in the use of artificial milk.

Myth #5: Breastfeeding takes more time than bottle-feeding.

Reality: This statement is usually made in reference to nighttime feedings. If a mother sleeps with or next to her baby, nighttime feedings are much easier than they are for bottle feeders. All you have to do is open your nightgown and roll over. Even if the breastfeeding mother does not sleep with her baby, it is certainly less time-consuming to go pick up the child and offer the breast, than to get up, go the kitchen, open a can of formula (or mix up a batch from powder), turn on the stove to boil water to heat the formula, put the formula into a bottle, warm the bottle in the hot water, wait several minutes, then finally return to the crying child, pick up the child and offer the bottle. Of course, at this point it is tempting for an exhausted mother or father to prop up the bottle and leave the baby alone to finish it. This is an extremely dangerous thing to do as the baby can easily choke on the liquid, or spit up and choke on that. Also, it leads to baby bottle caused tooth decay.

It is true that you may have to feed a bit more frequently if you breastfeed because breastmilk is more easily digested than formula. Of course that easy digestibility translates into less time dealing with colic, diarrhea and other digestive ailments. Also, breastfed babies are far less likely to contract colds, ear infections, and asthma. Formula feeding mothers need to factor in extra time for trips to the store to buy supplies, as well as possible extra trips to the doctor's office. (See ProMoM's "101 Reasons To Breastfeed Your Child", #58).

It is also a fact that in the early months, unless you express breastmilk, you will be the only person able to provide nutrition to your baby. Formula feeding mothers can have other caregivers give some or most of the feedings. However, breastfeeding offers a new mother an amazing chance to bond with her child, as well as all the health benefits that formula and bottles cannot provide. It may be helpful to remember that your baby will only be completely dependent on you for a very short amount of time in the course of your relationship together.

Nursing can give you a chance for a much needed relaxation break, and time to re-connect with your baby. Try to savor these special moments.

Myth #6: You can't get pregnant if you're breastfeeding.

Reality: True and false! Breastfeeding is only an effective form of birth control (98%) during the first 6 months, and is only effective during this period if the baby is receiving nothing but breast milk on demand. No supplements, no solids, no water, and no pacifiers! The chance of pregnancy increases greatly when the baby begins sleeping through the night, starts eating solids, and/or when the mother resumes her menstrual cycle. If you truly do not wish to become pregnant again yet, it is wise to use an additional method of birth control.

Myth #7: You must wean if you get pregnant.

Reality: There is no particular reason why a woman who is enjoying breastfeeding one child should wean that child when she learns that she is expecting another, unless she has a history of preterm labor. Some women continue to breastfeed throughout a pregnancy and then go on to "tandem" feed. This phrase refers to the practice of breastfeeding more than one child simultaneously. Some children do wean themselves once their mother becomes pregnant, possibly because her milk supply drops, or they detect a change in the taste of the milk which does not please them. Some women choose to wean because they find breastfeeding during pregnancy too physically or emotionally fatiguing. Other women describe enjoying the relaxation breaks that an ongoing breastfeeding process requires of them, and feel it contributes to the enjoyment of their new pregnancy. See La Leche League's information on breastfeeding during pregnancy.

Myth #8: You can't breastfeed after a caesarian section birth.

Reality: It is entirely possible to breastfeed after a c-section. Many women describe really enjoying being able to perform this natural act after going through a very medically oriented birth. It is important to nurse in way that does not put pressure on the incision sight. The "football hold" position is particularly helpful, as is a good nursing pillow. Ask the hospital staff for help, and consider calling a lactation consultant or your local La Leche League if you're having difficulty.

Myth #9: Your milk will "come in" immediately after you give birth.

Reality: First of all, the substance produced by your breasts immediately after a birth is called colostrum. It is yellowish and stickier than mature milk, and full of nutrients and immunities for the newborn baby. However, amounts of colostrum vary from mother to mother, and you may not produce very much. This is normal.

After colostrum the breast then begins to produce transitional milk, which is whitish-yellow, and more abundant. Gradually, over the next week or two, the transitional milk begins to change to a thin, bluish-white mature milk. Your milk production is directly linked to how often and how effectively your baby is suckling. If your transitional milk does not come in after 30 - 40 hours it is a good idea to contact a lactation consultant or La Leche League, especially if the hospital staff is advising you to give formula or water.

Myth #10: Your mate will find you less attractive if you breastfeed.

Reality: It is possible that your mate may have some trouble adjusting to thinking of your breasts as sources of nourishment as well as of sexual stimulation. On the other hand, many partners find that a woman who is fulfilling this new part of her womanly potential is particularly exciting. The idea of the bountiful breast filled with the milk of life can be very powerful. If your mate does feel uncomfortable with this, however, it may be helpful to join a support group with other couples so that he/she may become more familiar with these new images, and begin to understand that they are normal and healthy.

Myth #11: Breastfeeding is painful

Reality: Many women experience no pain or difficulty at all when they start breastfeeding. For some, the first week or two may include some slight discomfort and pain. However, excruciating, or ongoing pain is not normal.

Usually, it is caused by incorrect positioning or latch-on technique, and can be cleared up with one or two visits from a lactation consultant. This pain can often be avoided if the mother does some reading, and/or attends a class about breastfeeding, and/or attends a class about breastfeeding before giving birth.

Visiting several La Leche League meetings while you are still pregnant is also a wonderful way to observe successfully breastfeeding mothers, as well as to network with other new parents. La Leche League has a peer counseling program in which you can receive help from other experienced mothers in the early days of your nursing relationship.

Do request any assistance you can from trained hospital staff while you are still in recovery. Sometimes these services are not volunteered, and you will not receive them unless you request them. Also, Ask about the availability of a lactation consultant before you make your choice as to which hospital or birthing center you are planning to use.

Myth #12: You can be arrested for breastfeeding in public.

Reality: In the United States, you cannot be arrested for breastfeeding your child any place a woman would normally be. Such places include beaches, pools, restaurants (at the table), park benches, and parking lots, among others. You cannot be forced to remove yourself to a bathroom, closet, or vehicle. If anyone tries to tell you otherwise, you should feel free to refuse to comply, and inform them of your rights. Obviously, places like the men's bathrooms are off limits, since it's not a place women are supposed to be. Who would want to breastfeed there anyway?

Myth #13: You can't breastfeed if your plan to go back to work or school.

Reality: If you're planning to return to work or school, there are several different ways to approach the situation without weaning your child. First of all, it may be possible to schedule your work with a lunch break during which you may return home, or go to your child's daycare center to nurse. Alternatively, your caregiver might bring the child to your work place.

If these situations are not possible to arrange, there are now wonderful and relatively inexpensive pumps (compare them with the price of buying formula) available to the public. Or, you may prefer to rent a pump. In some cases, insurance companies will even cover the cost of a pump rental or purchase because it will save them money in the long run to have healthier babies on their plans.

Using a good quality electric pump it is possible to pump 8-10 ounces of milk in 15 minutes. Battery pumps are also available, and they can be used in a vehicle or in a restroom. It may take longer for newer mothers, and you should plan to pump at least every 4 hours. Beware of cheap low-grade machines, some of which are manufactured by formula companies. They can cause soreness, and probably will not pump sufficient quantities of milk. Remember that pumping is a learned art, and may take time to get perfected. If you do not receive the amount of milk you anticipated, try again, or try a different pump. (See ProMoM's "Breastfeeding and Returning to Work" and La Leche League's information on working and breastfeeding.)

If none of these possibilities work for you, you might consider nursing when you are at home and having a caregiver provide a bottle of artificial milk when you are at work. This method should be approached very carefully, however, to avoid depleting the mother's milk supply and endangering the health of the infant.

Myth #14: Night nursing causes dental problems.

Reality: Generally, the worries about babies getting cavities through nighttime milk consumption arise from the practice of leaving babies to sleep with bottles of formula or juice. When this is done harmful bacteria have unlimited access to these sugary mediums and will thrive in the baby's mouth. The acids excreted by the bacteria cause tooth decay. Such decay has been seen occasionally in breastfed babies if these children happen to fall into a small category of people with easily decayed teeth. For most children night nursing will not be a problem.

One advantage that the human nipple provides over an artificial one is that it delivers the milk further toward the back of the mouth, past the teeth. Artificial nipples deliver the milk into the front and middle of the mouth where it can cause decay. Also, the human nipple does not continue to drip milk when it is not being sucked. In contrast, bottles will drip milk all night if left in the bed with the baby. Reminder: no baby should ever be left alone with a propped up bottle!

If you notice anything strange looking happening to your child's teeth consult a breastfeeding supportive dentist for help. There are many articles on this subject available through La Leche League.

Myth #15: Breastfeeding will ruin your sex-life.

Reality: Some people fear that the intimacy that a mother maintains with her child through breastfeeding will displace her needs for intimacy with her partner. This is partially due to our society's viewing of the female breast as a sex organ, rather than a source of nutrition. There is no reason that a breast can't perform both functions. In fact, whether a woman chooses to breastfeed or not, she may find her libido considerably diminished for weeks or months following a birth. It is unrealistic and unfair to expect any new mother, breastfeeding or not, who is recovering from a birth, who is either nursing or bottle-feeding around the clock, getting up at night to diaper, rock and sooth the baby, cooking, cleaning, chauffeuring, etc. to have much interest in sex! If she has an extra half hour in the evening she will probably choose to use it to sleep! Any tasks that her mate can assist her with will contribute to the deepening of their relationship. If a breastfeeding mother' partner is respectful of the importance of the breastfeeding relationship, and able to assist with things such as diaper changes and nighttime parenting duties, the new mother's sexuality will gradually resurface.

Myth #16: You have to have a good diet or your milk won't nourish the baby properly.

Reality: Surprisingly, new studies have shown this to be untrue. Even women who are getting poor nutrition can usually produce adequate quality milk. However, they may not be able to produce as much of milk as women who are eating well. Needless to say, it's best to eat right during pregnancy and while you're breastfeeding. Occasional lapses, however, are nothing to worry about.

Myth #17: Breastfeeding makes you fat.

Reality: Breastfeeding will certainly not prevent you from getting back to your pre-pregnancy weight. In fact, breastfeeding uses an extra 300 to 500 calories every day. It's up to the mother how many of those calories she chooses to obtain through eating additional food or through burning off her available body fat. It is wise to lose weight gained during pregnancy gradually whether or not you choose to breastfeed. It may take some women longer than others, and it is important to remember that your body has been through a lot, and is still working hard to provide nourishment for your baby. You should not be losing more than a half a pound to a pound per week or you may affect your milk supply. This is a time to be kind to yourself!

Myth #18: Breastfeeding deprives your mate and other friends and family of their chance to
bond with the baby.

Reality: There are lots of ways to bond with a new born. Soothing, rocking, diapering, and burping the new baby are only a few of these activities. Anyone can participate in them without depriving the child of it's optimal nutrition and nurturing. One wonderful book on this subject is Becoming A Father, by Dr. William Sears, MD.

Myth #19: Breastfed newborns need vitamin and mineral supplements.

Reality: Not true. No vitamin or mineral supplements should be given to breastfed babies until at least six months. New studies are currently being conducted as to whether or not such supplements should be given after six months. Historically, before such supplements were invented, many breastfed babies survived and thrived for the duration of breastfeeding, which could last to three years or older. This is not to say that supplementation is not a good idea after a certain age. It is simply not yet clear what that age is. At least until your baby is 6 months old, you can be assured that your breastmilk will provide for all of her nutritional needs.

Myth #20: You can't take any medication while you're breastfeeding.

Reality: While there are a few medications that should absolutely not be used during the breastfeeding portion of a woman's life, most can be taken safely. It is important that your doctor checks actual research rather than simply relying on the standard instructions that are issued with the prescription. Most prescription drugs instructions automatically caution against being taken by pregnant or breastfeeding mothers. This warning is issued to prevent liability, and is often overly cautious. It's also a good idea to ask your doctor about non-prescription drugs. Some of them are not appropriate for nursing or pregnant women. The Nursing Mother's Companion, by Kathleen Huggins contains a general reference section on which medications are compatible with breastfeeding. A more up-to-date resource is Medications In Mother's Milk, by Dr. Tom Hale, PhD.

Myth #21: Breastfeeding ties you down.

Reality: It is true that breastfed babies are dependent upon their mothers for their nutrition. This does not mean that a breastfeeding mother must remain housebound and attached to her baby 24 hours a day. After you have recovered from the birth, it is not only possible but usually a lot of fun to take your baby with you on errands, visits to friends, walks in the park and other outings. Now that it has been clearly established that women have a right to breastfeed in all public spaces, and with the advent of excellent breast pumps, the possibilities for nursing mothers to fully participate in activities outside the home are almost unlimited. It is also nice not to have the added burden of caring around all that formula paraphernalia. If you choose to express some of your milk ahead of time you can easily spend time apart from your baby without relying on artificial substitutes.

Obviously, taking your baby with you on outings will probably mean you'll be nursing him or her in front of others, and maybe in public. Some women "feel funny" about nursing in front of strangers, or even friends and family members, probably because the sight of a nursing mother is not something they themselves are used to seeing. As countless mothers will attest, however, it's rare that anyone will stare or say something to you while you're breastfeeding; more likely they'll just look the other way, or not even notice that you're nursing! Breastfeeding in public can be very discreet, especially if you wear clothes that are specially designed for nursing mothers.

In general, the more natural your attitude the less you'll notice the reaction of others. If you are hesitant about breastfeeding in public, just remember - it's what breasts are made for, and, like so many other things, the more you do it the easier it will be.

Myth #22: After a year, breastmilk loses all it's nutritional value.

Reality: I have a good friend whose mother tormented her by insisting that if she continued to breastfeed her 9 month old daughter she would starve the baby. This belief is a total myth, as is evidenced by the recently released guidelines of the American Academy of Pediatricians, which recommend breastfeeding for at least one year. While many people are now aware that breastmilk is the perfect, complete source of nutrition for babies under 6 months of age, not everyone is aware that breastmilk continues to provide perfect nutrition as long as the mother continues to breastfeed. Breastmilk tailors itself to the needs of a child from birth until weaning.

There is no need to worry that at some point the milk will become worthless. It will always contain valuable nutrients, hormones, and immunities. It will always be easier to digest than the milk of another species. As you gradually add new foods to your child's diet, you can be assured that your child is getting excellent nutrition, even on those days when she may choose not to eat much solid food at all.

Myth #23: Serious athletes can't breastfeed.

Reality: A professional ballet dancer once explained to me that she had to stop nursing after one month because she'd wanted to start taking dance classes again. She believed that she would be unable to do jumps, and that her milk would "go sour" from the exercise. In fact, both of these ideas are myths. While it may be uncomfortable to run, dance, or perform strenuous physical activity with very full breasts, it is certainly possible to nurse or pump prior to engaging in such activities. Exercise does not "sour" your milk. Immediately following a vigorous exercise session the lactic acid content in you milk may increase and slightly alter the taste of your milk.

However, within an hour or two the lactic acid passes out of the milk again, leaving it tasting just fine. Also, some researches suggest showering off after a workout to get rid of salty tasting sweat. And remember, it's wise to start back to a previously established exercise regimen gradually, whether the new mother is breastfeeding or not.

Myth #24: Adoptive mothers can't breastfeed.

Reality: As surprising as this may seem, you do not have to give birth to a child to produce milk. Many adoptive mothers have successfully developed their ability to produce milk through pumping, putting the baby to their breast and allowing it to suckle, and use of a supplementary feeding system designed to give the baby artificial milk until the mother can begin to produce her own. In some cases only a little milk will be obtained. In others, the majority of the baby's nutrition can be provided from the adoptive mother's body. The La Leche League site has many interesting articles on this issue.

Myth #25: After menopause you can't breastfeed.

Reality: Interestingly, women can continue to produce milk after they are no longer fertile, and have been known to do so into their 80's! There is no change in the quality of the milk, and many wet nurses have continued to practice their profession well past menopause.

Myth #26: Breastfeeding clothes and pumps end up costing as much as formula.

Reality: First of all, you don't need any special clothes or paraphernalia to breastfeed successfully. Yes, if you plan to pump you should buy or rent a good, reputable model. Yes, you'll need storage bags and bottles, although you'd need even more to formula feed. Yes, it's nice to have a few specially designed nursing tops, bras and a nursing pillow. Re-usable nursing pads are also helpful, and disposable nursing pads are nice the first few weeks.

However, even with these items taken into consideration, they do not come close to the expense of formula. Plus, there are all the added medical expenses you may have to deal with if you formula feed. Also, when you breastfeed you can re-use most of the items you purchase for one child with the next. With formula, it's just as expensive every time.

It is also possible to purchase sewing patterns and make your own nursing clothes and baby sling if you want to, or create your own pads out of cotton diapers. A t-shirt with a convenient slit cut in the middle can provide extra coverage under any pull-up or button down blouse. Nursing bras are great, but for many women a front closing cotton bra works just as well. Use your imagination!

Compare:

Cost of no-frills style breastfeeding

No pump, no special clothes, etc.Total: $0.00

Optional breastfeeding expenses:
Pump: $200*
Bras(2): $60
Pads (re-usable): $12
Tops(2): $50
Dress(1): $60
Nursing Pillow: $35
Total: $417 (A one-time expense!)

*NOTE: You save an additional $160 if you use a good manual pump like Isis (increasingly popular with new mothers, especially ones that do not have to work out of the house) rather than a professional grade one like the Pump-in-Style (also very popular, especially for working mothers).

Approximate formula expenses:
Formula: $1,200 (Approximate average)
Added medical expenses: $1,500 **
Total: $2,700 (For just one year!)

That adds up to a difference of $2,283. Wow! And remember, you can use those nursing clothes again, then consign them or pass them on to a friend. With formula, it's just as expensive with every child.

These figures don't take into account possible future orthodontic problems, or other more serious adult disease issues associated with bottle feeding (see ProMoM's "101 Reasons To Breastfeed Your Child"). Of course, the real bottom line is that no price can be put on the special intimacy that exists between a nursing mother and child!

Even more myths and realities can be found here, here, here, and yet more here.
**(According to Aetna employee research results)
Breastfeeding Myths and Realities
By Leslie Kincaid Burby for ProMoM

Transitioning

2009-02-23T13:08:00.001-06:00

How to Tell if Your Toddler is Ready to Sleep in a Bed
Most parents have fond memories of cosleeping and enjoy it, but at some point, it has to end. The transition will go more smoothly if your toddler is as ready as you are. Here's how to tell if it's time for a toddler bed.
http://www.associatedcontent.comarticle/650663/how_to_tell_if_your_toddler_is_ready.html

I am frustrated right now

2009-02-20T15:49:00.002-06:00

Currently, the North Dakota House and Senate are considering a bill on breastfeeding. If it passes both and becomes law, ND will be the 2nd to last state to have such a law on the books. West Viriginia is our only company so far. So I should be happy that ND is finally getting with it, right? Well, I was until the Senate started messing with the language of the bill, AGAIN! And, now the bill has passed, so its up to the House to fix it again and send it back. Ugh, what a process.

When it was first introduced, it was a great bill. It would let women breastfeed in public without breaking indecency laws and make it discriminatory to bar breastfeeding women from businesses. It also included incentives for employers to create breastfeeding friendly policies. However, now it reads like this:

"If the woman acts in a discreet and modest manner, a woman may breastfeed her child in any location, public or private, where the woman and child are otherwise authorized to be."

The bolding is mine for emphasis. Here's the problem with adding the "discreet and modest" wording: This gives the interpretation of whether the mother is being "discrete" over to anyone but the mom trying to feed her child. It is vague and subjective and basically gives anyone legal standing to kick a nursing mother out of a public place (the exact thing the bill was trying to prevent, in part) by saying that the mom was not being discreet.

Also, they took out all the wording giving incentives to businesses to allow women employees breaks to pump or breastfeed the children. So, it is a much weaker, less helpful bill as it is right now.

I live just across the border, so I decided to email all the legislators in this area along with those that serve my home town. I actually received a reply email from one of the my hometown legislators very quickly which was very nice. I wish I had gotten ahold of him before the bill passed, though. So, here is the letter I sent the legistlators:

"Dear Representative _____________,

Hello. My name is Lesley ********* ****** and I am originally
from *****, ND. My parents are ******* and ******** of ********. I
am a UND graduate, and I currently reside in *******, MN.

When my husband and I moved back to the ND/MN area last fall, I was excited to be closer to home. However, I was discouraged when I looked up the breastfeeding laws in ND and found that there weren't any on the books. For the past 9 years I have lived in Kansas and Missouri while attending graduate school in clinical psychology at the University of Kansas. My son, Nicholas, was born 2 years ago, and the breastfeeding laws in those states made me feel secure that I could not legally be discriminated against for breastfeeding him in public. I did, unfortunately, receive some disapproving stares and snide comments from time to time, but knowing that I could not be kicked out of a restaurant or another public place because of my breastfeeding made me feel more secure in meeting his need to be fed as it arose.

I was excited when I heard that new legislation on breastfeeding was being
proposed in ND recently. However, I was very surprised to find that the breastfeeding bill has now been changed to state that only if the mother is DISCREET is it acceptable for her to breastfeed in any location that the mother and child are allowed to be. Adding this word angers and scares me to nurse in our state more than not having a law. Every mom I know attempts to always be discreet, but there are still times when the act of nursing may violate someone's view of discretion. Honestly, some people are so put off by and disapproving of breastfeeding that they would still find fault with a mother breastfeeding in their presence. By adding the word, "discrete" lawmakers will have opened the door for people to use this law against women breastfeeding in public.

Who would decide whether it is discreet? Only if they are covered up with a blanket? Only if the baby doesn't squirm or unlatch? Only if there is no one nearby? My son never wanted to be covered with a blanket while nursing, went through stages when he was distracted by every noise around him, and always wanted to nurse for comfort when he was stressed by new situations or overwhelming places (which often would include new public places). Would my attempts at providing the "gold standard" and God-intended food for my son be seen by some as obscene? Yes, even though I did everything in my power to be discreet, there have been some in my midst that were offended. This leaves it up to the employer, restaurant patron, church member, etc. to say "I was offended so she must stop feeding her child". The fear of not only that disapproval, but the embarrassment of being kicked out of a public place, or God forbid, being charged with public indecency or lewdness, is unfortunately reinforced by the introduction of the word "discreet" into the legislation. With that word in place, the legislation becomes too vague and subjective and so becomes moot and worthless, maybe even harmful. The law was supposed to support and encourage breastfeeding in our state, not give naysayers legal reason to ban breastfeeding.
I am asking you to please take out the word "DISCREET" or do not
pass this law.

Thank you for your time and consideration."

I borrowed some of the wording from a friend's letter (with permission) but much of it is my own and it is all true.

I wish ND would have the wisdom and guts to pass decent breastfeeding laws like Minnesota has. Here's how their's read:

Minn. Stat. Ann. § 145.894 directs the state commissioner of health to develop and implement a public education program promoting the provisions of the Maternal and Child Nutrition Act. The education programs must include a campaign to promote breastfeeding.

Minn. Stat. § 145.905 provides that a mother may breastfeed in any location, public or private, where the mother and child are authorized to be, irrespective of whether the nipple of the mother's breast is uncovered during or incidental to the breastfeeding.

Minn. Stat. § 181.939 (1998) requires employers to provide daily unpaid break time for a mother to express breast milk for her infant child. Employers are also required to make a reasonable effort to provide a private location, other than a toilet stall, in close proximity to the workplace for this activity. (SB 2751)

Minn. Stat. Ann. § 617.23 specifies that breastfeeding does not constitute indecent exposure.

So, let's see public education program, protection to mothers breastfeeding in public, exemption from indecency laws, and employer support provisions. Nice. Some states, like Kansas (where I formerly resided), also exempt breastfeeding mothers from jury duty.

So right now I am hoping and praying that our representatives will hear the voices of many of their citizens and will do the right thing. I'm saying my prayers...

A wonderful article on VBAC's

2009-02-20T13:42:00.002-06:00

If you are a woman who has had a cesarean section birth, or know someone who has, here is a wonderful article from TIME magazine about VBAC's (vaginal birth after cesarean). It explains how even though VBAC's are generally safer than repeat ceseareans, many doctors and hospitals are refusing to do them now due to ligitation fears and malpractice insurance rates. Very sad. But if women know this information and push for VBAC's, maybe things will change again. Please read on: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1880665-2,00.html#?iid=perma_share

For more information and support regarding VBAC's, check out ICAN (International Cesarean Awareness Network), an nonprofit organization with local support groups in some areas: http://www.ican-online.org/

Here's the video I promised

2009-01-28T14:28:00.004-06:00

Nicky showing off his ABC skills:

Another reason HFCS must go!

2009-01-27T13:07:00.002-06:00

Well, now HFCS has been found to be contaminated with mercury. Wonderful! Like the junk wasn't problemsome enough before?! Ok, I guess if avoiding diabetes and obesity weren't enough motivation for people to avoid this junk, maybe this will do it. And maybe, just maybe, the outcry will get the food companies to start taking it out of the myriads and myriads of food products its in right now. I can wish...

Anyway, check out the article on it on The Ethicurean.

And thanks, Chelsea, for sharing the article with me!

Breastfeeding protects against neglect

2009-01-26T11:33:00.001-06:00

New research finds breastfeeding stops neglect
January 26th, 2009 in Medicine & Health / Research

(PhysOrg.com) -- When a mother breastfeeds she is essentially protecting her child from herself, according to UQ researcher and developmental paediatrician, Dr Lane Strathearn.

By linking data from the Mater-University of Queensland Study of Pregnancy - Australia's largest longitudinal study tracking mothers and their children - with reports of maltreatment recorded by the Department of Child Safety, Dr Strathearn found mothers who breastfed were less likely to neglect their children.

"Mothers who didn't breastfeed were almost four times more likely to be reported for maternal neglect than mothers who breastfed for four of more months," he said.

"For mothers who breastfed for less than four months, the risk was about 2.3 times."

In what is believed to be the first population study to provide statistics on the rate of child abuse in Australia, seven percent of children were identified as victims of maltreatment.

Of the 7223 children in the birth cohort, 512 were confirmed cases of maltreatment, with the mother identified as the perpetrator 60 percent of the time.

While it was impossible to conduct a randomised trial, Dr Strathearn said breastfeeding offered a realistic explanation.

"The difficulty with this research subject is that you can't randomly assign a woman to breastfeed her baby and another one not to, so there's always potential for bias," he said.

"But, these results make sense biologically because breastfeeding is associated with oxytocin release, and we know from animal studies that oxytocin is produced in the brain and helps activate areas of the brain that are involved in maternal care and behaviour.

"There are some other functional MRI studies which show how an intranasal dose of oxytocin actually affects how the brain responds to stressful or anxiety-provoking situations and increases trust in a dyadic exchange between two people.

"There are all these results from placebo-controlled trials which provide evidence that oxytocin does result in changes in social behaviour, and so I think this study fits in nicely with that other research."

While the biological function of oxytocin offered a logical explanation, Dr Strathearn said the physical bond created between the mother and baby during breastfeeding could also be a contributing factor.

"I think for a long time we've thought anyone can feed the baby as long as it's expressed breast milk," he said.

"But this is saying well hold on, it's not just the milk, it's that relationship that's important.

"Breastfeeding may simply promote that interpersonal bond between a mother and her baby - the physical touch, the holding, the eye-to-eye contact.

"It ensures that physical touch occurs in an attuned way, but I would imagine a similar result for any mother who has that same one-on-one contact while they're feeding on a regular basis."

The study will be published in the February issue of medical journal, Pediatrics. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/

Provided by University of Queensland
http://www.physorg.com/news151931908.html

Studies link maternity leave with fewer C-sections and increased breastfeeding

2009-01-26T11:23:00.001-06:00

Studies link maternity leave with fewer C-sections and increased breastfeeding

January 5th, 2009 in Medicine & Health / Health

Two new studies led by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, suggest that taking maternity leave before and after the birth of a baby is a good investment in terms of health benefits for both mothers and newborns.

One study found that women who started their leave in the last month of pregnancy were less likely to have cesarean deliveries, while another found that new mothers were more likely to establish breastfeeding the longer they delayed their return to work.

Both papers were part of the Juggling Work and Life During Pregnancy study, funded by the Maternal and Child Health Bureau of the U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration and led by Sylvia Guendelman, professor of maternal and child health at UC Berkeley's School of Public Health. The research takes a rare look into whether taking maternity leave can affect health outcomes in the United States.

"In the public health field, we'd like to decrease the rate of C-sections (cesarean deliveries) and increase the rate of breastfeeding," said Guendelman. "C-sections are really a costly procedure, leading to extended hospital stays and increased risks of complications from surgery, as well as longer recovery times for the mother. For babies, it is known that breastfeeding protects them from infection and may decrease the risk of SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome), allergies and obesity.

What we're trying to say here is that taking maternity leave may make good health sense, as well as good economic sense."

The study on the use of antenatal leave - time off before delivery with the expectation of returning to the employer after giving birth - and the rate of C-sections is the first examination of birth outcomes in U.S. working women, the researchers said. It will appear in the January/February print edition of the journal Women's Health Issues.

The researchers analyzed data from 447 women who worked full-time in the Southern California counties of Imperial, Orange and San Diego, comparing those who took leave after the 35th week of pregnancy with those who worked throughout the pregnancy to delivery. Only women who gave birth to single babies with no congenital abnormalities were included in the analysis. They adjusted for sociodemographic factors such as income, age and type of occupation, as well as for various health measures such as high blood pressure, body mass index, amount of self-reported stress and average number of hours of sleep at night.

Using a combination of post-delivery telephone interviews and prenatal and birth records, the researchers found that women who took leave before they gave birth were almost four times less likely to have a primary C-section as women who worked through to delivery.

The study authors pointed out that the United States falls behind most industrialized countries in its support for job-protected paid maternity leave. The federal Family and Medical Leave Act provides for only unpaid leave of up to 12 weeks surrounding the birth or adoption of a child.

The bulk of studies on leave-taking and health outcomes from other countries suggest that taking leave prior to birth can be beneficial. The authors point to a macroanalysis of 17 countries in Europe that linked failure to take such leave with low birthweight and infant mortality. Rates of pre-term delivery were lower among female factory workers in France if the women took antenatal leave, and a study conducted in several industrialized countries found that paid leave, but not unpaid leave, significantly decreased low birthweight rates.

According to the U.S. Census, among working women who had their first birth between 2001 and 2003, only 28 percent took leave from their jobs before giving birth while an additional 22 percent quit their jobs. Twenty-six percent of women took no leave before birth.

"We don't have a culture in the United States of taking rest before the birth of a child because there is an assumption that the real work comes after the baby is born," said Guendelman. "People forget that mothers need restoration before delivery. In other cultures, including Latino and Asian societies, women are really expected to rest in preparation for this major life event."

The authors added that financial need may also deter women from taking leave in the last month of pregnancy. Only five states - California, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island - and the territory of Puerto Rico offer some form of paid pregnancy leave, and none offer full replacement of the woman's salary.

The study on maternity leave and breastfeeding is in the January issue of the journal Pediatrics. Using data from 770 full-time working mothers in Southern California, researchers assessed whether maternity leave predicted breastfeeding establishment, defined in this study as breastfeeding for at least 30 days after delivery. Phone interviews were conducted 4.5 months, on average, after delivery.

In this study, women who had returned to work by the time of the interview took on average 10.3 weeks of maternity leave. Overall, 82 percent of mothers established breastfeeding within the first month after their babies were born. Among women who established breastfeeding, 65 percent were still breastfeeding at the time of the interview.

Researchers found that women who took less than six weeks of maternity leave had a four-fold greater risk of failure to establish breastfeeding compared with women who were still on maternity leave at the time of the interview. Women who took six to 12 weeks of maternity leave had a two-fold greater risk of failing to establish breastfeeding.

Having a managerial position or a job with autonomy and a flexible work schedule was linked with longer breastfeeding duration in the study. After 30 days, managers had a 40 percent lower chance of stopping breastfeeding, while those with an inflexible work schedule had a 50 percent higher chance of stopping.

Overall, the study found that returning to work within 12 weeks of delivery had a greater impact on breastfeeding establishment for women in non-managerial positions, with inflexible jobs or who reported high psychosocial distress, including serious arguments with a spouse or partner and unusual money problems.

"The findings suggest that if a woman postpones her return to work, she'll increase her chances of breastfeeding success, especially if she's got a job where she's on the clock and has less discretion with her time," said Guendelman. "Also, women who are in jobs where they have more authority may feel more empowered with how they use their time."

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends that babies be breastfed for at least the first year of life, and exclusively so for the first four to six months.
According to the AAP, increased breastfeeding has the potential for decreasing annual health costs in the U.S. by $3.6 billion and decreasing parental employee absenteeism, the environmental burden for disposal of formula cans and bottles, and energy demands for production and transport of formula.

The study authors noted that just having maternity leave benefits offered by an employer was not helpful in breastfeeding establishment unless the leave was actually used, indicating the importance of encouraging the use of maternity leave and making it economically feasible to take it.

"These new studies suggest that making it feasible for more working mothers to take maternity leave both before and after birth is a smart investment," said Guendelman.

Source: University of California - Berkeley
http://www.physorg.com/news150346721.html

Too Funny! Wonder how this would go over here?

2009-01-26T11:17:00.002-06:00

New Breastfeeding Campaign Turns Heads
Group introduces unique ad campaign
By SAJID FAROOQ
Updated 11:42 AM PST, Sun, Jan 25, 2009

A new campaign in Marin County has cutouts of breastfeeding women displayed in public spaces.

No it's not time to change your glasses. You really are seeing more women breastfeeding in public.

A new public awareness campaign will have cutouts of women breastfeeding in public places.
The woman standing by the mailbox has been breastfeeding for hours. Same with the lady sitting on the bench. They, and two of their friends, are going to be breastfeeding all over Marin County, Calif. in the coming weeks.

But if you look closely you might notice that looks can be deceiving.

A series of life-sized photographs of women breastfeeding their babies, cut-out and plastered on poster board, is all part of an eye-catching campaign to encourage and promote the acceptance of breastfeeding in public.

“Breastfeeding is recognized as the standard for infant feeding by all major health organizations,” said lactation consultant and coalition member Susan Martinelli. “Mother’s milk provides the best nutritional, immunological and emotional nurturance for the normal growth and development of babies. No manufactured formula offers anything close.”

The life-like cutouts of the “women and their babies will make their debut this week at The Village shopping center in Corte Madera, near a children’s play area.

Marin Breastfeeding Coalition, an advocacy group, has launched the campaign to raise breastfeeding awareness and support.

During a recent test run in San Rafael, the cutouts drew dozens of gawking eyes and confused second looks. Each cut-out figure is holding a card which reads, “When breastfeeding is accepted, it won’t be noticed.”

The Marin Breastfeeding Coalition said it would love for everyone to notice the campaign and to question why they were even paying so much attention to a breastfeeding mother in the first place.

The group wants the public to know that breastfeeding in public is perfectly acceptable and that it is actually protected by law.

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/around_town/the_scene/Lactating-Women-Getting-Second-Looks-in-Marin.html

Nicky is Blowing My Mind

2009-01-07T13:52:00.004-06:00

With his alphabet skills! The kid has somehow learned all but 5 of 26 of his letters! And 3 of those 5 he just mixes up and sometimes gets right and the other two he just has a hard time saying. I am so surprised because we sing the alphabet song a bit but really, I have not been working on it with him at all.

You know how he learned them? I swear it was the little preschool computer my MIL bought him last Xmas. For the most part, he was just using it to copy Mom and Dad typing on their computers, but in the last few months he's figure out the Letters and Numbers function where he pushes a key and the computer says the letter and 2 words the begin with that letter. Nicky basically repeated what the computer said. Computer: "B.....butterfly......banjo..... Please press a button!" Nicky: "B!!!!!!" and then presses another button, and so it continues. Cute, but I didn't realize he was actually putting it all together and learning the letters! Between that and his Leap Frog alphabet magnets that he uses the same way, he taught himself the alphabet. He's walking around pointing out letters and naming them wherever he goes. Crazy!

It miffs me a bit that an electronic toy was a more efficient teacher for my child than I was but, really, it worked because Nicky was working at his own pace and because of his own interest. Completely self led learning. So cool!

I am so surprised since Nicky is still having so much trouble with pronunciation and his vocab is not that great, but both are getting so much better every single day now. He is really taking off:) And I feel like all I really need to do it get out of his way, LOL. I keep trying to explain to my impatient husband that so much of child development is preprogrammed and biological and each kid has his/her own pace. As parents, we need to follow their lead. They will show us what they are interested in and what they want to work on and what they are still struggling with and need more time to master. Each kid will have different skills they excel in and others they lag a bit behind on. The range of what is "normal" development is so wide and varies so much between each kid.

Nicky is also working on his numbers and shapes and colors. He's got counting 1 to 5 down now (up from 1 to 3) and tries to get to 10 but often gets fouled up in the order. He likes the concept of counting (1, 2, 3, 4, 5!!!!!!) more than identifying the written numbers themselves. His favorite color seems to be yellow right now and its the color he identifies correctly the most often, but he really doesn't have colors down yet. Shapes he's bit farther on. He identifies ovals and circles and stars and sometimes squares but has troubles with rectangles and triangles but part of that is not being able to pronounce those words. He really has trouble saying 3 syllable words. Same thing with 3 word sentences so I guess that makes sense. He usually shortens both to 2 words or 2 syllables. Now, if I break down the word and have him repeat each syllable, he can pronounce all 3 most of the time, but still can't put them together.

Like I said, though, he's making so much progress! He loves reading books, and he is really showing a love for learning and doing new things. Its so much fun! He loves the pull-apart board books on numbers, shapes, and colors that I bought a long time ago at Target in the dollar bins. You can't beat that! And they are small and fit in the diaper bag. Nice!

We've spent the last 2 weeks traveling and visiting family for the holidays and he is really thriving on all the social interaction. He's still a little social butterfly:) I have noticed a jump in his vocabulary just in the past week alone here at my parent's house (we're hanging out for a week here while I work on my dissertation). He's even been sitting up in his sleep and saying words or just talking in his sleep. Too funny!

Nicky really moves faster than I do. No surprise there, he's 2, right?! But really what I mean is that his personality is very social and active and he doesn't like to stick with one activity for too long before trying something new, even for a 2 year old. He also really likes to be out and about. This can be hard for his homebody mama. So, for the new year, I have resolved to get us out of the house on a more consistent basis and to get Nicky the social interaction he craves more often. I have no idea how I'm gonna juggle this with my dissertation work, but I'm gonna work on it because he clearly needs it. I know I could probably use more social interaction, too, since I really really miss all my friends down in KC and all the activities and get togethers Nicky and I had down there before me moved.

I'll have to get a video up of Nicky identifying his letters for you all to enjoy:)

My kid cracks me up!

2008-12-16T09:44:00.002-06:00

Nicky just made me laugh again. We were sitting in the recliner togther and out of the blue he says, "Duck!" I ask him why he said duck. And he replies, "Because!" That was the first time he's used that word. He went on to mumble something else but I couldn't understand him. Funny little guy.

Consider Signing this Petition

2008-12-09T13:48:00.002-06:00

A message from The United States Breastfeeding Committee:

Dear Friend:

We hope you will take a moment to help put breastfeeding on the agenda of the new administration: to ask President-Elect Obama to place a high priority on breastfeeding as an essential public health issue. There is virtually universal agreement among health care experts that, with rare exceptions, breastfeeding is the optimal method of feeding all infants, sick as well as healthy, preterm as well as full term. In addition to the myriad health benefits provided to mother and infant, breastfeeding provides significant economic and environmental benefits for families, employers, and society by reducing health care expenses, eliminating the need to purchase expensive formula, and reducing absenteeism from work to care for sick infants. Learn more about the benefits of breastfeeding.

The United States Breastfeeding Committee has created a petition to the President-Elect, urging him to take several actions to protect, promote, and support breastfeeding.

**SIGN THE PETITION TO PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA**

In the coming months, our leaders will be focused on our economic and financial future. This time of crisis also presents an opportunity to remind them that working mothers are an essential part of our nation's economic security, just as the health of our children is a critical part of our future. A full three-quarters of mothers are now in the labor force. As government and employers cut back in response to the recession, many more families are struggling to cover the rising costs of health care, groceries, and other necessities. We need your support to ensure that in these troubled economic times, all women and families can access the resources and support they need to do what's best for their babies.

Demonstrate your support for breastfeeding by signing the petition now. And please don't forget to forward this message far and wide so as many people as possible get a chance to sign on too. Every signature counts. Sign on here: www.usbreastfeeding.org/obamapetition

Thank you!

This Makes Me Want To Puke

2008-11-18T11:26:00.002-06:00

This stupid ad really pisses me off! It had to have been written by a man who has never even attempted babywearing, because it is SO.OFF.BASE. Anyone who knows anything about babywearing and has done it knows that it is EASIER than simply carrying the baby around. The carriers are actually designed to distribute the baby's weight across more of your body than just your arms! The only time they ever cause pain is when they are being worn incorrectly, like when they don't fit (I've worn ones that were too big for me and that's the only time I've had pain) or weren't put on the right way. In fact, my favorite baby carrier is called the Ergo because it is ergonomically designed. That thing rocks! I can still carry my 28 pound toddler in it on my back.

And the voice and tone of the woman in the ad - how immature and valley-girlish did she sound?! Is that how people see moms? Its insulting!

Not that I use Motrin anyway, but now I never will. A bunch of other moms are up in arms about this ad, too, so Motrin has pulled it from their website but the print ad is already in production. I hope said print ad is less offensive than the tv one. Anyway, you might want to check out the other comments left on this video on Youtube.

Paper vs. Plastic? Neither!!

2008-11-06T09:42:00.000-06:00

Patience During Stalled Labor Can Avoid C-Sections

2008-11-05T10:21:00.004-06:00

Very cool research results from UCSF. As a friend pointed out, though, would most hospitals be patient enough to wait out a few hours if a woman's labor stalls? Or would they pump her full of pitocin which would likely cause more mega contractions and stress the baby out and cause a C-section again? Using artificial pitocin is not the break the woman's body needs to turn the baby or get the baby into the right position - in fact, it most likely would completely interfere with those things. Since most hospitals and OB's are totally pitocin-obsessed, I doubt this study will be taken to heart and applied in a way that might help:( But still, interesting stuff and good info for mamas out there who have had C-sections due to stalled labor before so they know what to do during subsequent pregnancies and labors. Or for the preggos or future preggos out there, remember this during your labor. Your body might just need a break during your labor. If your labor stalls and the baby is doing fine, trust your body. It might be working on something:) Read on...

Patience during stalled labor can avoid many c-sections, UCSF study shows

31 October 2008

Source: Kristen Bole
kbole@pubaff.ucsf.edu

415-476-2557

Pregnant women whose labor stalls while in the active phase of childbirth can reduce health risks to themselves and their infants by waiting out the delivery process for an extra two hours, according to a new study by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco.

By doing so, obstetricians could eliminate more than 130,000 cesarean deliveries – the more dangerous and expensive surgical approach – per year in the United States, the researchers conclude. The study examined the health outcomes of 1,014 pregnancies that involved active-phase arrest – two or more hours without cervical dilation during active labor – and found that one-third of the women achieved a normal delivery without harm to themselves or their child, with the rest proceeding with a cesarean delivery.

The findings appear in the November, 2008 issue of “Obstetrics and Gynecology,” the official journal of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).

While ACOG already recommends waiting at least two hours with adequate contractions in the setting of no progress in active labor, it is routine practice in many clinical settings to proceed with a cesarean for “lack of progress” before those ACOG criteria have been met, according to Aaron Caughey, MD, PhD, an associate professor in the UCSF Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and senior author on the paper.

“One third of all first-time cesareans are performed due to active-phase arrest during labor, which contributes to approximately 400,000 surgical births per year,” said Caughey, who is affiliated with the UCSF National Center of Excellence in Women’s Health. “In our study, we found that just by being patient, one third of those women could have avoided the more dangerous and costly surgical approach.”

The cesarean delivery rate reached an all-time high in 2006 of 31.1 percent of all deliveries, according to the UCSF study. Arrest in the active phase of labor has been previously shown to raise the risk of cesarean delivery between four- and six-fold.

“Cesarean delivery is associated with significantly increased risk of maternal hemorrhage, requiring a blood transfusion, and postpartum infection,” Caughey said. “After a cesarean, women also have a higher risk in future pregnancies of experiencing abnormal placental location, surgical complications, and uterine rupture.”

The ten-year study identified all women who experienced what is known as active-phase arrest during their delivery at UCSF from 1991 to 2001. The study only included women with live, singleton deliveries who were delivered full-term.

The researchers examined maternal outcomes such as maternal infection, endomyometritis, postpartum hemorrhage and the need for blood transfusions. It also examined the infant’s Apgar score, rates of infection and frequency of admission to the neonatal intensive care unit, among other health indicators.

The study found an increased risk of maternal health complications in the group that underwent cesarean deliveries, including postpartum hemorrhage, severe postpartum hemorrhage and infections such as chorioamnionitis and endomyometritis, but found no significant difference in the health outcomes of the infants.

It concluded that efforts to continue with a normal delivery can reduce the maternal risks associated with cesarean delivery, without a significant difference in the health risk to the infant.

“Given the extensive data on the risk of cesarean deliveries, both during the procedure and for later births, prevention of the first cesarean delivery should be given high priority,” Caughey said.

Co-authors on the paper were Dana E.M. Henry, MD; Yvonne W. Cheng, MD, MPH; Brian L. Shaffer, MD; Anjali J. Kaimal, MD; and Katherine Bianco, MD, all from the UCSF Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

Funding for these studies came from research funds from the National Institutes of Health for Henry and Kaimal. Caughey is supported by a National Institute of Child Health and Human Development grant and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

UCSF is a leading university dedicated to promoting health worldwide through advanced biomedical research, graduate-level education in the life sciences and health professions, and excellence in patient care. For further information, please visit http:///.

Children See, Children Do

2008-11-03T14:14:00.001-06:00

Because Sometimes We Parents Misunderstand Each Other

2008-10-27T10:13:00.008-05:00

Oh, how many times have I heard other mothers or fathers referencing that "crazy" mom or less often, dad. You know, that overprotective, overly controlling parent who make everything "too hard" or who does "too much." Heck, I know I have unthinkingly made that snap judgment before or heard a parent judge another this way without saying anything. I also have no doubt that others have placed that label on me a few times. I hope this article helps parents understand each other, even if they have different parenting strategies and philosophies from each other, without rushing to snap judgements like placing the "crazy mom" stereotype on someone. We all could stand to be a little more open minded and try to understand each other a bit more instead.

That Crazy Mother

by Peggy O'Mara, Publisher/Editor, Mothering

You know her. She's that woman over there with the unkempt look, the disheveled hair, the strident voice. She's the one who's a little too involved with her child, a little too interfering. Maybe a bit too controlling. She's that crazy mother.

What is it about becoming a parent that turns a reasonably polite, discreet woman into a guerrilla warrior for her child? And why is it that no matter how righteous the cause, whenever we assert ourselves on behalf of our children we must be prepared to do battle with the crazy mother stereotype within ourselves and in the minds of others?

With the current prominence of the Children's Defense Fund and other groups that help children, child advocacy is coming of age. Our statement of purpose for the magazine includes "Mothering is ... a fierce advocate of the needs and rights of the child ... " As a magazine, we can maintain some distance from the issues of child advocacy that we cover, issues in which the child's side of the story often is not well understood or not reported. As parents, however, it takes real strength of character to be advocates for our children, especially at times when we are either embarrassed or angered by their behavior or at a loss to understand it.

Even when we don't understand the behavior of our children, they still deserve respect and advocacy. Our well-meaning but sometimes insensitive friends may confuse us and make us feel crazy when they set standards for our children's behavior or ask repeated intimate questions about their private habits.

Sometimes we find ourselves in social situations that require impossible compliance by our children or are not appropriate for their developmental stage. At these times we may appear crazy and overprotective to others when we shield our children from experiences we judge to be questionable.

Those of us who have been led by our children into extended breastfeeding and family sleeping wonder how something that works so well can be considered so crazy, and yet we feel crazy when we talk about these things to those who don't understand. Sleep deprivation, concerns for social deviation, and fear of child ruination are the stuff of the new parent's initiation. We must do our own thing with our families in order to create the definitions of a new family. We are supposed to be crazy, to be different. As young adults we do things differently than our parents. As new families we do things unique to our union. Those who are willing to be unique in a culture are sometimes looked upon as crazy.

The needs of infants and toddlers are so obvious, and they are so innocent in their demands, that we feel confident responding to them even if others question us. As our children get older, however, we may not always understand their needs quite as easily, or will sometimes have to make decisions that are unpopular with our children, and may make us look crazy, even to them.

All parents face difficult decisions regarding infant feeding, newborn testing, circumcision, diapers, nightwaking, sleeping, vaccinations, and so forth. Some parents also face special medical situations that require the courage to insist on the integrity of the child's emotional experience in the face of necessary and sometimes lifesaving medical procedures.

Successful advocacy rests on holding a position without being positional. And while we don't always feel we can compromise where our children's needs are concerned, we can develop a capacity to insist on our position without insulting others. We can be persistent. And we can have faith in the best possible outcome, in the biggest possible picture for our child, and for our child's capabilities.

We join with others when we protect our children. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child says, among other things, that "All children's opinions shall be given careful consideration, and their best interests shall be protected."

Being crazy is not just for moms. Crazy dads follow in the same tradition. We're crazy any time we take an unpopular position in a group or support someone or something just because of love.

We're crazy any time we stick up for our children without any evidence. I can't always control the events of my children's lives, but now and then I can get all worked up over them with such righteousness that it's awesome. At those times I realize how fierce and irrational my willingness to defend my children is, how animal-like, how instinctual. One feels in this type of attachment part of the greater good.

It's good to be a little bit crazy. A little bit crazy about your child and willing to get crazy for him or her. I'm sure there's supposed to be at least one, maybe two people who think you are the greatest no matter what. Someone who rushes to defend you without knowing the whole story.

Someone who sympathizes even after knowing it. Someone who is crazy about you. The Crazy

Mother's Club is open to both men and women. You can tell the members by the red badge of courage they wear barely visible on the lapel. You can also tell them by a certain gleam in their eye. They are the parents who are willing to get crazy for love.

Excerpted from: Editorial, Mothering Magazine, No. 78,Spring 1996, Pages 6-7.Mothering Magazine: (800) 984-8116, (505) 984-8116

http://www.naturalchild.org/peggy_omara/crazy_mother.html

March of Dimes Campaign Focuses on Early C-sections and Inductions

2008-10-21T12:16:00.002-05:00

Mothers Launch National Petition for Preemies

Last update: 12:01 a.m. EDT Oct. 17, 2008

HOUSTON, Oct 17, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Mothers are casting their votes for healthy babies and asking all Americans to join them in signing the March of Dimes 2008 Petition for Preemies. They're putting public officials -- and all Americans -- on notice that it's time to focus on the growing problem of premature birth, the leading cause of newborn death.

"My wish is for that day when no new mothers will experience the pain of going home from the hospital and leaving their babies behind," said Susan Aboulhouda, whose daughter Catharine was born 16 weeks early and spent 113 days in a newborn intensive care unit. "That's why I've signed the 2008 Petition for Preemies. This plan will help give all babies a healthy start in life." Catharine, now 6, is the 2008 National Ambassador for the March of Dimes.

The 2008 Petition for Preemies was launched here today at the annual Volunteer Leadership Conference, a gathering of more than 600 March of Dimes volunteers and staff from across the country. Sherri Shepherd of ABC-TV's "The View," one of the volunteers, displayed a new national print public service announcement in which she declares, "My son was born 15 weeks early. I'm signing the Petition for Preemies so that other babies will be born full term."

The Petition for Preemies also is supported by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses, the National Business Group on Health, and more than two dozen other maternal and infant health agencies and concerned business and quality improvement organizations. It can be found at http://www.marchofdimes.com/petition.

"This petition will raise awareness of the growing crisis of preterm birth, which affects more than 530,000 babies each year," said Dr. Jennifer L. Howse, president of the March of Dimes. "It is a true non-partisan vote for babies and will elevate the problem of preterm birth onto the health care agenda of our new president and Congress. We'll let legislators and regulators know how many people signed the Petition in order to help drive policy changes at the federal and state levels to solve this disturbing problem."

The four-point petition calls for hospital leaders to voluntarily review all cesarean-section births and inductions of labor that occur before 39 weeks gestation, in an effort to reverse America's rising preterm birth rate. The review should ensure that all c-sections and inductions meet established American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) guidelines regarding medical necessity of elective procedures.

"Some doctors and patients may inadvertently be scheduling inductions or c-section deliveries early because of an inaccurate assessment of the due date," said Roger C. Young, MD, PhD, professor of Obstetrics & Gynecology and director of the Division of General Obstetrics & Gynecology at the University of Vermont College of Medicine, and a member of the March of Dimes Board of Trustees. "This is a problem because babies born even a few weeks early are at greater risk of serious problems such as respiratory distress, delayed brain development, sudden infant death, jaundice, re-hospitalization and feeding problems."

"Neonatologists and general pediatricians are very good at taking care of premature infants once they are safely delivered, but what we all want is to prevent prematurity from occurring in the first place," said Renee R. Jenkins, MD, FAAP, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics. "We fully support the March of Dimes petition because it makes everyone aware of the risks and consequences of an early birth and supports successful interventions."

"Two probable factors of preterm birth, cesarean sections and induced labor, are on the rise and may be among the many reasons for this concerning increase in early births," said Karen Peddicord, RNC, PhD, interim executive director of the Association of Women's Health, Obstetric, and Neonatal Nurses. "AWHONN is pleased to support the March of Dimes petition initiative and the joint effort to resolve this serious public health issue."

"Modest investments in infant health will pay off many times over in future health and productivity," said Helen Darling, president of the National Business Group on Health. "Employers can play a pivotal role in helping their employees and dependents have the information, resources, benefits and support to have healthy, thriving families. We applaud the March of Dimes for promoting and protecting the health of all children."

In addition to the voluntary review of c-sections before 39 weeks, the 2008 Petition for Preemies also calls for:

-- Expanded federal support for prematurity-related research to uncover the
causes of premature birth and lead not only to strategies for
prevention, but also improved care and outcomes for preterm infants.

-- Policymakers to improve access to health coverage for women of
childbearing age and to support smoking cessation programs as part of
maternity care.

-- Businesses to create workplaces that support maternal and infant health,
such as providing private areas to pump breast milk, access to flextime,
and information about how to have a healthy pregnancy and childbirth.

The Petition will be followed by a March of Dimes Premature Birth Report Card, which will grade the nation and the states on their preterm birth rate. The report card will be released November 12, on the 6th Annual Prematurity Awareness Day.

Preterm birth is a serious and costly health problem that affects 1 in 8 babies born each year in the United States and the rate of preterm birth has increased more than 20 percent since 1990. It is the leading cause of death in the first month of life. One in every eight babies is born too soon each year, Preterm birth costs the nation more than $26 billion a year, according to an Institute of Medicine report released in July 2006.

Babies who survive an early birth face the risk of serious lifelong health problems, including learning disabilities, cerebral palsy ( http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/14332_1208.asp), blindness, hearing loss ( http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/14332_1232.asp) and other chronic conditions such as asthma.

The March of Dimes is the leading nonprofit organization for pregnancy and baby health. Its mission is to improve the health of babies by preventing birth defects, premature birth and infant mortality. For the latest resources and information, visit http://www.marchofdimes.com or http://www.nacersano.org.

Note: C-sections account for nearly all of the increase in U.S. singleton preterm births. Between 1996 and 2004, the number of preterm births increased by 59,057, and 54,405 of those were delivered by cesarean section, reflecting a cesarean-to-vaginal delivery ratio of more than 11 to 1, according to "The Relationship Between Cesarean Delivery and Gestational Age Among US Singleton Births," by Bettegowda VR. et al., published in Clinics in Perinatology, Vol. 35, 2008.

SOURCE March of Dimes
http://www.marchofdimes.com/

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/mothers-launch-national-petition-preemies/story.aspx?guid=%7BE0737563-68E2-4660-9B41-8F9E69222B22%7D&dist=hppr

I Heart Sarcasm

2008-10-16T15:40:00.003-05:00

How to Make Breastfeeding Difficult

Linda J. Smith, BSE, FACCE, IBCLC

1. Tell the mother to "feed on a 4-hour schedule" or "get the baby on a schedule." This results in a low milk supply and a hungry, frustrated baby and frustrated parents. Be sure to blame the crying on breastfeeding. If this doesn't work, warn her to limit the length of feeds, which will accomplish the same thing.

2. Be sure to "get the baby used to a bottle." This can result in a confused baby who refuses the breast. It's also a great way to lower the milk supply and undermine the mother's confidence.

3. Tell her she doesn't have enough milk if:

"The baby wants to nurse again after only 2-3 hours"...OR
"The baby will take 2 ounces of formula after nursing"...OR
"Your breasts aren't full and uncomfortable all the time"

Since milk supply insecurity is the primary cause of lactation failure, this will introduce an element of doubt and fear to the whole process.

4. Tell her she can't or shouldn't nurse if:

"She wants to eat chocolate (or Mexican food or cabbage, etc.)"...OR
"She smokes or wants to take medication"...OR
"She's going back to work/school in a few weeks"....OR
"She wants to go out in public...nursing requires privacy"...OR
"Her breasts are too small (or large)"...OR
"Her mother couldn't"...OR
"She's too nervous"...

Find as many reasons for NOT breastfeeding as you can, and look for ANY reason to interrupt it. Put as much distance between mother and baby as possible.

5. Insist that "Dad should give the baby a bottle or he'll feel left out." This is another good way to minimize the importance of breastfeeding.

6. Tell her it may hurt to breastfeed, and that sore, cracked nipples are normal. Pain is an excellent adverse stimulus. Don't teach her how to position the baby correctly. Do give her a nipple shield, give the baby lots of bottles to disrupt the proper suck, and tell her to rub her nipples with a rough towel to "condition" them. And be sure to tell her every "horror story" you've ever heard about breastfeeding, in graphic detail.

7. Tell her to give the baby formula, glucose water and cereal right from the beginning, to make the baby sleep. This is another good way to insure inadequate milk supply. Tell her that her milk might be too rich or too thin. Try and make her think that formula is the "safer" option, and that there is something wrong with her milk even if she's lucky enough to have enough of it .This will further shatter her confidence.

8. Separate her from her baby at birth, and show by your actions that water, formula, pacifiers, and scheduled feedings are the appropriate way to care for the baby. Since she is especially vulnerable at this time and will follow your example, be sure to tell her how little breastfeeding matters. This will help her distrust her instincts even more.

9. Don't teach her the normal course of infant behavior. Don't warn her about growth spurts and frequency days. Don't call or visit her, and be sure to abandon her in the critical first two weeks. Blame breastfeeding for anything you can think of, and make up reasons to stop breastfeeding if necessary.

10. Give her plenty of formula samples to take home to further weaken her confidence. Make sure the literature you give her has many references to formula, and doesn't tell her how to keep her milk supply up. Make sure she doesn't call a La Leche League Leader, Lactation Consultant, breastfeeding peer counselor, or anyone else knowledgable about breastfeeding.

All these tactics, individually or collectively, will discourage breastfeeding.

(P.S. I wrote "Difficult" one day in October 1986 on an old typewriter, and it’s just as popular now asit was then!)

http://www.bflrc.com/ljs/myths/glct_dum.htm

A conversation I just had with Nicky

2008-09-24T15:50:00.002-05:00

I looked up to find a very naked Nicky handing me the diaper he had just taken off himself. This is a few minutes after me trying to convince him to bring me a new diaper after he had brought it to my attention that his diaper was wet.

"Hey, naked baby, please bring me a diaper. You can't walk around the living room naked. Bring me a diaper!" I said.

Nicky's reply? "No." And then he walked off.

He is still naked. Guess I'll have to go get a diaper myself and do a little bit of persuading:)

Corporal Punishment of Children

2008-09-24T11:44:00.005-05:00

Spare the Rod
Why you shouldn't hit your kids.

By Alan E. Kazdin

Posted Wednesday, Sept. 24, 2008, at 7:09 AM ET

The typical parent, when whacking a misbehaving child, doesn't pause to wonder: "What does science have to say about the efficacy of corporal punishment?" If they are thinking anything at all, it's: "Here comes justice!" And while the typical parent may not know or care, the science on corporal punishment of kids is pretty clear. Despite the rise of the timeout and other nonphysical forms of punishment, most American parents hit, pinch, shake, or otherwise lay violent hands on their youngsters: 63 percent of parents physically discipline their 1- to 2-year-olds, and 85 percent of adolescents have been physically punished by their parents. Parents cite children's aggression and failure to comply with a request as the most common reasons for hitting them.

The science also shows that corporal punishment is like smoking: It's a rare human being who can refrain from stepping up from a mild, relatively harmless dose to an excessive and harmful one. Three cigarettes a month won't hurt you much, and a little smack on the behind once a month won't harm your child. But who smokes three cigarettes a month? To call corporal punishment addictive would be imprecise, but there's a strong natural tendency to escalate the frequency and severity of punishment. More than one-third of all parents who start out with relatively mild punishments end up crossing the line drawn by the state to define child abuse: hitting with an object, harsh and cruel hitting, and so on. Children, endowed with wonderful flexibility and ability to learn, typically adapt to punishment faster than parents can escalate it, which helps encourage a little hitting to lead to a lot of hitting. And, like frequent smoking, frequent corporal punishment has serious, well-proven bad effects.

The negative effects on children include increased aggression and noncompliance—the very misbehaviors that most often inspire parents to hit in the first place—as well as poor academic achievement, poor quality of parent-child relationships, and increased risk of a mental-health problem (depression or anxiety, for instance). High levels of corporal punishment are also associated with problems that crop up later in life, including diminished ability to control one's impulses and poor physical-health outcomes (cancer, heart disease, chronic respiratory disease). Plus, there's the effect of increasing parents' aggression, and don't forget the consistent finding that physical punishment is a weak strategy for permanently changing behavior.

But parents keep on hitting. Why? The key is corporal punishment's temporary effectiveness in stopping a behavior. It does work—for a moment, anyway. The direct experience of that momentary pause in misbehavior has a powerful effect, conditioning the parent to hit again next time to achieve that jolt of fleeting success and blinding the parent to the long-term failure of hitting to improve behavior. The research consistently shows that the unwanted behavior will return at the same rate as before. But parents believe that corporal punishment works, and they are further encouraged in that belief by feeling that they have a right and even a duty to punish as harshly as necessary.

Part of the problem is that most of us pay, at best, selective attention to science—and scientists, for their part, have not done a good job of publicizing what they know about corporal punishment. Studies of parents have demonstrated that if they are predisposed not to see a problem in the way they rear their children, then they tend to dismiss any scientific finding suggesting that this presumed nonproblem is, in fact, a problem. In other words, if parents believe that hitting is an effective way to control children's behavior, and especially if that conviction is backed up by a strong moral, religious, or other cultural rationale for corporal punishment, they will confidently throw out any scientific findings that don't comport with their sense of their own experience.

The catch is that we frequently misperceive our own experience. Studies of parents' perceptions of child rearing, in particular, show that memory is an extremely unreliable guide in judging the efficacy of punishment. Those who believe in corporal punishment tend to remember that hitting a child worked: She talked back to me, I slapped her face, she shut her mouth. But they tend to forget that, after the brief pause brought on by having her face slapped, the child talked back again, and the talking back grew nastier and more frequent over time as the slaps grew harder.

So what's the case for not hitting? It can be argued from the science: Physical discipline doesn't work over the long run, it has bad side effects, and mild punishment often becomes more severe over time. Opponents of corporal punishment also advance moral and legal arguments. If you hit another adult you can be arrested and sued, after all, so shouldn't our smallest, weakest citizens have a right to equal or even more-than-equal protection under the law? In this country, if you do the same thing to your dog that you do to your child, you're more likely to get in trouble for mistreating the dog.

The combination of scientific and moral/legal arguments has been effective in debates about discipline in public schools. Twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia have banned corporal punishment in the schools. But so far, we have shown ourselves unwilling to extend that debate beyond the schools and into the ideologically sacred circle of the family. Where the argument against corporal punishment in the schools has prevailed, in fact, it has often cited parents' individual right to punish their own children as they, and not educators acting for the state, see fit. The situation is different in other countries. You may not be surprised to hear that 91 countries have banned corporal punishment in the schools, but you may be surprised to hear that 23 countries have banned corporal punishment everywhere within their borders, including in the home.

I know what you're thinking: Are there really 23 Scandinavian countries? Sweden was, indeed, the first to pass a comprehensive ban, but the list also includes Hungary, Bulgaria, Spain, Israel, Portugal, Greece, Uruguay, Chile, Venezuela, and New Zealand. According to advocates of the ban, another 20 or so countries are committed to full prohibition and/or are debating prohibitionist bills in parliament. The Council of Europe was the first intergovernmental body to launch a campaign for universal prohibition across its 47 member countries.

Practically nobody in America knows or cares that the United Nations has set a target date of 2009 for a universal prohibition of violence against children that would include a ban on corporal punishment in the home. Americans no doubt have many reasons—some of them quite good—to ignore or laugh off instructions from the United Nations on how to raise their kids. And it's naive to think that comprehensive bans are comprehensively effective. Kids still get hit in every country on earth. But especially because such bans are usually promoted with large public campaigns of education and opinion-shaping (similar to successful efforts in this country to change attitudes toward littering and smoking), they do have measurable good effects. So far, the results suggest that after the ban is passed, parents hit less and are less favorably inclined toward physical discipline, and the country is not overwhelmed by a wave of brattiness and delinquency. The opposite, in fact. If anything, the results tell us that there's less deviant child behavior.

There could conceivably be good reasons for Americans to decide, after careful consideration, that our commitment to the privacy and individual rights of parents is too strong to allow for an enforceable comprehensive ban on corporal punishment. But we don't seem to be ready to join much of the rest of the world in even having a serious discussion about such a ban. In the overheated climate of nondebate encouraged by those who would have us believe that we are embroiled in an ongoing high-stakes culture war, we mostly just declaim our fixed opinions at one another.

One result of this standoff is that the United States, despite being one of the primary authors of the U.N.'s Convention on the Rights of Children, which specifies that governments must take appropriate measures to protect children from "all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation," is one of only two nations that have not ratified it. The other is Somalia; 192 nations have ratified it. According to my colleague Liz Gershoff of the University of Michigan, a leading expert on corporal punishment of children, the main arguments that have so far prevented us from ratifying it include the ones you would expect—it would undermine American parents' authority as well as U.S. sovereignty—plus a couple of others that you might not have expected: It would not allow 17-year-olds to enlist in the armed forces, and (although the Supreme Court's decision in Roper v. Simmons has made this one moot, at least for now) it would not allow executions of people who committed capital crimes when they were under 18.

We have so far limited our national debate on corporal punishment by focusing it on the schools and conducting it at the local and state level. We have shied away from even theoretically questioning the primacy of rights that parents exercise in the home, where most of the hitting takes place. Whatever one's position on corporal punishment, we ought to be able to at least discuss it with each other like grownups.

Alan E. Kazdin is John M. Musser professor of jpsychology and child psychiatry at Yale University and director of Yale's Parenting Center and Child Conduct Clinic. He is also president of the American Psychological Association and author, most recently, of The Kazdin Method for Parenting the Defiant Child.

Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2200450/

BS in advertising

2008-09-23T08:53:00.004-05:00

Ugh, I am so frustrated. The corn industry is running the 2 commercials below (and others) on TV to try to convince people that there is nothing wrong with high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). People must be finally catching on because they are trying to do damage control. Too bad its a bunch of lies. For those of you who don't know, HFCS is a highly processed sweetner added to everything (really, its in almost all of our processed and baked foods here in the US but not the rest of the world). It is used in place of sugar or another sweetner because it is super cheap. Why? Can you say "corn subsidies?" So one of the reasons we all are getting fat and having insulin problems is because our tax dollars are supporting this junk. Anyway, I've included a funny spoof video and a rebuttal video and article below the dang commercial that explains HFCS and its problems and gives more detail so please read on...

Dramatic Example of How the Food Industry Lies to You About Corn

SweetSurprise.com is run by The Corn Refiners Association, which recently launched a major advertising and public relations campaign to the tune of $20-30 million, designed to rehabilitate the reputation of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). You might have even seen a few of their commercials on TV recently.

This site is nothing but an extension of their deceptive advertising that claims the product is no worse for you than sugar. One of their ads, which shows two women talking, reads:

“My hairdresser says that sugar is healthier than high fructose corn syrup.”

“Wow! You get your hair done by a doctor?”

Not surprisingly, the Corn Refiners Association is running these ads in response to the increasing public perception of the dangers of HFCS. But this “perception” was not instigated by chatty hairdressers with nothing to do but spread their own personal opinions to a captive audience. No. Scientists have linked HFCS to the rampant epidemics of obesity, diabetes and metabolic syndrome in the U.S., and medical researchers have pinpointed various other health dangers associated with the consumption of HFCS compared to regular sugar (which I’ll review below).

The Corn Refiners Association has been trying to counter the seriously bad PR generated by damaging research findings since 2004, but finally realized it could no longer afford to rely on simple grass-roots marketing tactics such as sweet talking nutritionists and doctors.

THAT’S a sign that truthful grass-roots consumer information, such as the information found in this newsletter, is spreading and reaching a much wider audience! Now we just have to maintain the counter-pressure to ensure that people are not deceived AGAIN.

Hopefully we can get the word out about what these ads are really about: money.

Declining Consumption Has Turned Industry Sour… and Desperate

Since the 1970s, the consumption of HFCS in the United States has skyrocketed. Consumption of beverages containing fructose alone rose 135 percent between 1977 and 2001. That is until about 2003.

According to the Corn Refiners Association statistics, the per capita consumption in the United States actually went down from more than 45 pounds per year in 1999 to just over 42 pounds annually 2005. The USDA estimates per capita consumption at about 40 pounds per year as of 2007.

That’s a really good sign for the health of the community, but a bad one for the financial health of the companies that sell HFCS. Hence the multi-million dollar media campaign. In June a nearly $5 billion merger of Corn Products International and Bunge Ltd. signaled that corn manufacturers mean business. Revenues are expected to increase 29 percent in 2008 to reach $4 billion.

High Fructose Corn Syrup is the Number One Source of Calories in U.S. Diet

Although the trend is declining, an average intake of 40 pounds of HFCS per person, per year, is still far too much, if you want to obtain or maintain optimal health that is.

In case you forgot, or never knew in the first place, the number one source of calories in the U.S. is high fructose corn syrup. Let me restate that so you can more fully appreciate the impact of this fact. Dietary fat has 250 percent more calories than sugar, but even with this major disadvantage, the food that most people get MOST of their calories from is HFCS, primarily in the form of soft drinks.

The good news about this shocking fact is that stopping the pernicious habit of drinking sodas is one of the easiest things you can do. You can radically improve your health just by cutting out soda.

I am HIGHLY confident that the health improvement would be FAR more profound than if you quit smoking, because elevated insulin levels are the foundation of nearly every chronic disease, including:

* Cancer
* Heart disease
* Diabetes
* Premature aging
* Arthritis
* Osteoporosis

And that’s just naming a few.

But in addition to being an exorbitant source of excess calories for the average American, there are a number of other things SweetSurprise.com fails to tell you the truth about, as it relates to high fructose corn syrup.

High Fructose Corn Syrup Does NOT Metabolize in the Same Way as Sugar

HFCS is a highly processed product that contains similar amounts of unbound fructose and glucose. Sucrose, on the other hand, is a larger sugar molecule that is metabolized into glucose and fructose in your intestine.

Part of what makes HFCS such an unhealthy product is that it is metabolized to fat in your body far more rapidly than any other sugar, and, because most fructose is consumed in liquid form, its negative metabolic effects are significantly magnified.

Whereas the glucose in other sugars is used by your body, and is converted to blood glucose, fructose is a relatively unregulated source of fuel that your liver converts to fat and cholesterol.

There are over 35 years of hard empirical evidence that refined man-made fructose like high fructose corn syrup metabolizes to triglycerides and adipose tissue, not blood glucose. The downside of this is that fructose does not stimulate your insulin secretion, nor enhance leptin production. (Leptin is a hormone thought to be involved in appetite regulation.)

Because insulin and leptin act as key signals in regulating how much food you eat, as well as your body weight, this suggests that dietary fructose may contribute to increased food intake and weight gain.

Additionally, fructose is also known to significantly raise your triglycerides and LDL (bad cholesterol).

Triglycerides, the chemical form of fat found in foods and in your body, are not something you want in excess amounts. Intense research over the past 40 years has confirmed that elevated blood levels of triglycerides, known as hypertriglyceridemia, puts you at an increased risk of heart disease.

New Evidence That HFCS Contributes to Development of Diabetes

Recent research, reported at the 2007 national meeting of the American Chemical Society, found new evidence that soft drinks sweetened with HFCS may contribute to the development of diabetes because it contains high levels of reactive compounds that have been shown by others to trigger cell and tissue damage that cause diabetes.

Chemical tests among 11 different carbonated soft drinks containing HFCS were found to have ‘astonishingly high’ levels of reactive carbonyls. Reactive carbonyls are undesirable and highly-reactive compounds associated with “unbound” fructose and glucose molecules, and are believed to cause tissue damage.

By contrast, reactive carbonyls are not present in table sugar because its fructose and glucose components are “bound” and chemically stable.

Reactive carbonyls are elevated in the blood of individuals with diabetes and are linked to the health complications of diabetes. Based on the study data, the researchers estimate that a single can of soda contains about five times the concentration of reactive carbonyls than the concentration found in the blood of an adult person with diabetes.

Fructose Depletes Your Body of Enzymes, Vitamins or Minerals

Fructose also does not contain any enzymes, vitamins or minerals so it takes these micronutrients from your body while it assimilates itself for use.

Unbound fructose, found in large quantities in HFCS, can interfere with your heart's use of minerals such as magnesium, copper and chromium.

This does not mean you should avoid whole fruit, however, as it contains natural fructose together with the enzymes, vitamins and minerals needed for your body to assimilate the fructose. Eating small amounts of whole fruit also does not provide a tremendous amount of fructose, and is not likely to be a problem for most people unless diabetes or obesity is an issue.

Did You Know? -- Most HFCS is Made From Genetically Modified Corn

Adding insult to injury, HFCS is almost always made from genetically modified corn, which is fraught with its own well documented side effects and health concerns.

GMO corn will radically increase your risk of developing corn food allergies. The problem with corn allergies are that once you have a corn allergy from GMO corn you will have an allergy to even healthy organic corn products.

The Bottom Line

Sodas, of course, are not the only source of HFCS (though they represent one of the main ones). This dangerous sweetener is also in many processed foods and fruit juices, so to avoid it you need to focus your diet on whole foods and, if you do purchase packaged foods, become an avid label reader.

But if you want to drastically improve your health, the answer is plain and simple. To lose weight and reduce your risk of developing metabolic syndrome, diabetes, and heart disease, STOP drinking soda and processed fruit juices that are sweetened with about eight teaspoons of fructose per serving!

Switch to pure water as your beverage of choice and you will be well on your way to better health.

However, like most areas in life, when presented with two poisons, choose carefully.

Even though HFCS is clearly something you want to avoid, it is not as bad as artificial sweeteners, which damage your health even more rapidly than HFCS. (I spent several years researching artificial sweeteners for my book Sweet Deception, which goes into these issues in great detail).

So ideally, you’ll want to avoid ALL sodas, but if you have to choose between soda sweetened with HFCS (regular soda) or artificial sweeteners (diet soda), choose HFCS.

The best and safest sweetener (although illegal to use according to the FDA) would be the herb stevia. For a great recipe for homemade Italian Cream Soda using stevia, see this video and article by Luci Lock.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/09/23/dramatic-example-of-how-the-food-industry-lies-to-you-about-corn.aspx?source=nl

Now, go check you ingredients list on your food! Seriously, this stuff is everywhere and really hard to avoid, especially in baked goods like breads and buns. Weird, huh?

Saying Goodbye to KC...

2008-08-30T11:06:00.004-05:00

Gosh, I am already tearing up! This is going to be a hard post to write...

As Nicky announced in his blog last month, we are moving to East Grand Forks, MN. In fact, Scott started his job there the beginning of this month. Its been hard to have our family separated like that, but we talk on the phone and video cams lots, and Scott was able to fly back to visit last weekend. We were very blessed that our house sold quickly, even in this not-so-great housing market. I could go on and on about the complications and drama that led up to the sale and are continuing as we try to negotiate an earlier closing time on the house we have on contract in EGF, but I won't. Despite all the stress of moving so quickly (we closed on the sale of the house in only 3 weeks!) and the still unknowns with our new home, I am feeling a bit more at peace now that my house is all packed up and ready to go. Yes, I am sitting in a house filled with boxes. Sorta like a ghost house. The only thing that isn't packed up is the computer, my bed, my dissertation stuff, various important files that need to be on hand, our suitcases, and stuff that can't go on the moving truck like candles, cleaning supplies, photos, etc. Oh, and a laundry basket filled with toys and books for Nicky. That basket is really important!

I am hopeful that our transition will be fairly smooth and Nicky, Scott, and I will all settle into our new surroundings as individuals and as a family quickly. But, I have to say, I am nearly heartbroken over leaving Kansas City. I really like this place, but what I really love are all my dear friends I will be missing. I can not put into words who much these people mean to me and the feeling in the pit of stomach when I think about not seeing them often. Many of them are mom and dad friends that I've met since having Nicky and Nicky is friends with their kiddos. I know I am not really "losing" them, but they will be so far away, and the thought of starting over with meeting people in a new place is a little daunting. I just can't imagine meeting people as great as these. I'm trying to approach the move with a positive, hopeful attitude and see it as an adventure and learning experience, though.

To add to my stress, my junky car's air conditioning went out so the ride back to ND/MN is gonna be a little harder. I am going to try to break up the drive a little and drive during the cooler times of the day to make it easier on Nicky and me. We'll see how it goes.

The next week or so will be a transition period. The moving truck arrives on Tuesday and once they have everything loaded, Nicky and I are going to go stay with some friends of ours for a few days. I need some time to settle after the stress of moving/packing is over and it will allow us to say goodbye to our friends. Also, I need to finish up some stuff on my dissertation before leaving town, things that I just couldn't do when moving activities were taking priority in the last month. Its gonna be interesting living out of suitcases in our friends' guest bedrooms and then in Scott's apartment. But, we will survive.

We are moving for a couple of reasons. First, this job should help advance Scott's career, and I am so happy for him for that. Second, it has been hard being so far away from our family and friends back in North Dakota, especially since having Nicky. It will nice to be able to have people visit us more often and us them, and be able to host birthday parties and family get-togethers and holidays. I can't wait to have family at Nicky's 2nd birthday in November. It was really sad for me that none of our fam was able to come down for his first birthday last fall. Now, they have no excuses, ha ha! I am happy that Nicky will be able to get to know his grandparents and have close relationships with them.

Also, we do miss some things about living back in North Dakota. Well, this is technically gonna be Minnesota, but its right across the border so practically the same thing, right? Although KC really still feels like a big small town to me, I know its going to take some readjusting to smaller town life up in EGF. Its just going to be different. I hope we all like it and come to love it.

As tears fall from my eyes, I find solace in the thought that all these great friendships and wonderful people that I've met mean that my time spent here in KC was well worth it!

Here's to old friends and new journeys.

As School is Starting...

2008-08-23T10:26:00.004-05:00

Here is another hilarious story from our friends at The Onion. This may all be sarcastic and meant to make you laugh, but kids, I'm warning you that's its true!!!!! I've been imprisoned in school for 26 years now . Run, kids, run!!

6-Year-Old Stares Down Bottomless Abyss Of Formal Schooling
August 15, 2008 Issue 44•33

CARPENTERSVILLE, IL—Local first-grader Connor Bolduc, 6, experienced the first inkling of a coming lifetime of existential dread Monday upon recognizing his cruel destiny to participate in compulsory education for the better part of the next two decades, sources reported.

"I don't want to go to school," Bolduc told his parents, the crushing reality of his situation having yet to fully dawn on his naïve consciousness. "I want to play outside with my friends."

While Bolduc stood waiting for the bus to pick him up on his first day of elementary school, his parents reportedly were able to "see the wheels turning in his little brain" as the child, for the first time in his life, began to understand how dire and hopeless his situation had actually become.

Basic math—which the child has blissfully yet to learn—clearly demonstrates that the number of years before he will be released from the horrifying prison of formal schooling, is more than twice the length of time he has yet existed. According to a conservative estimate of six hours of school five days a week for nine months of the year, Bolduc faces an estimated 14,400 hours trapped in an endless succession of nearly identical, suffocating classrooms.

This nightmarish but undeniably real scenario does not take into account additional time spent on homework, extracurricular responsibilities, or college, sources said.

"I can't wait until school is over," said the 3-foot-tall tragic figure, who would not have been able, if asked, to contemplate the amount of time between now and summer, let alone the years and years of tedium to follow.

The concept of wasting a majority of daylight hours sitting still in a classroom when he could be riding his bicycle, playing in his tree fort, or lying in the grass looking at bugs—especially considering that he had already wasted two years of his life attending preschool and kindergarten—seemed impossibly unfair to Bolduc. Moreover, sources said, he had no idea how much worse the inescapable truth will turn out to be.

Shortly after his mommy, homemaker Ellen Bolduc, 31, assured him that he would be able to resume playtime "when school lets out," Connor's innocent brain only then began to work out the implication of that sentence to its inevitable, soul-crushing conclusion.

When pressed for more detail on the exact timing of that event, Mrs. Bolduc would only reply "soon." At that point, the normally energetic child grew quiet before asking a follow-up question, "After [younger sister] Maddy's birthday?" thereby setting the stage for the first of thousands of rushing realizations he will be forced to come to grips with over the course of his subsequent existence.

Madison Ellen Bolduc was born on Sept. 28.

After learning that the first grade will continue for eight excruciating months beyond that date, it was only a matter of time before Bolduc inquired into what grade comes after first grade, and, when told, would probe further into how many grades he will have to complete before allowed to play with his friends.

The answer to that fatal question—12, a number too large for Bolduc to count on the fingers of both hands—will be enough to nearly shatter the boy's still-forming psyche, said child psychology expert Eli Wasserbaum.

"When you consider that it doesn't include another four years of secondary education, plus five more years of medical school, if he wants to follow his previously stated goal to grow up to be a doctor like his daddy, this will come as an interminably deep chasm of drudgery and imprisonment to [Connor]," said Wasserbaum. "It's difficult to know the effect on his psychological well-being when he grasps the full truth: that his education will be followed by approximately four decades of work, bills, and taxes, during which he will also rear his own children to face the same fate, all of which will, of course, be followed by a brief, almost inconsequential retirement, and his inevitable death."

"Even a 50-year-old adult would have trouble processing such a monstrous notion," Wasserbaum added. "Oh my God, I'm 50 years old."

The first of Bolduc's remaining 2,299 days of school will resume at 8 a.m. tomorrow. On the next 624 Sundays, he will also be forced to attend church.

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/6_year_old_stares_down_bottomless