Strollerderby : research

They Say: Episiotomy Rate ... Cut!

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

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

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

Another reason?

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

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

From Medscape:

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

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

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

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

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

They Say: Hard Times, More Pregnancies

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

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

Photo: limbsandthings.com

They [Didn't] Say: Not Even a Drop of Alcohol

Miriam Axel-Lute — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:30:00 GMT

Oh the pull of the easy, dramatic headline.

Lauredhel, over at Hoyden About Town, has two interesting, detailed posts up recently about the, shall we say, divergance between what a scientific study and a set set of agency guidelines, respectively, actually say, and what's been been reported about them. It's all Aussie, but I know the same things happen here (and presumably booze and pregnancy aren't that different down under, physically).

In the first, she takes apart a study that finds an increased risk of pre-term birth for binge drinkers (shocking, I know) and, with very slim margins of confidence, women who drink heavily in the first trimester and then stop (but not, interesting, those who keep going. It would be interesting to come up with a mechanism for why that would be). It does not find an increased risk for light drinking. Also, much of its data appears to be pretty tentative.

But the coverage of it says the report states that "abstinence is still the safest option" (It might be. I did. But the report says no such thing) and also gets the data about the trimesters wrong. Laurdehel takes both the original study and the coverage apart in minute detail.

In the second, quite similarly, she notes some health guidelines that, based on no new evidence, reverse their previous stance that a light amount of drinking is OK while breastfeeding and start suggesting abstinence, though retaining a level-headed description of what would constitute a cautious approach to alcohol and lactation. The coverage (1) implied that there was some new evidence that it's more dangerous than previously believed and (2) never even mentioned the existence of the more nuanced guidelines.

It's easy to pick on journalists, sometimes too easy, but it's also necessary sometimes, because they have all the same cultural biases and habits (like infantilizing women and being alarmist about pregnancy) as everyone else.

Photo by timomcd.

More by this author:

They Say: Alcohol Tastes Better If You Get It First in the Womb

Miriam Axel-Lute — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:30:00 GMT

Perhaps I can blame the fact that I can't take the bitterness of beer on my mother. It seems that on top of all the known hazards of drinking while pregnant, it also just might give your kid a taste for booze.

Emphasis on the might. This is one of those studies that should be taken with a grain of salt, as it was done on rats and the pregnant rat moms were basically kept drunk much of the time, not just allowed to sneak a glass of wine now and then. (While I'm all about not being alarmist, I hope there's no one out there who thinks a constant BAC of .15 during pregnancy is acceptable.)

With those caveats in mind, the results: baby rats born to alcohol-soaked mothers were distinctly more interested in licking alcohol-covered feeding tubes than the controls. Shocking, no? They were also more willing to lick a non-alcohol bitter substance, making the researchers figure the efect of fetal alcohol exposure on taste in particular is to reduce the resistance to bitter flavors.

I have to say, I think it's a stretch to go from here to surmising that this is why fetal alcohol exposure is linked to higher rates of alcohol abuse at 21. Is "it's an acquired taste" really that much of a barrier if the other conditions for abuse are in place? Wouldn't it just drive you to sugary, non-bitter drink and worse hangovers? (Or conversely, if other risk factors for abuse aren't present, is liking the taste enough to make you abuse it?)

Photo by Chris Owens.

More by this author:

Survey Time: Infant Feeding Choices

Miriam Axel-Lute — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 21:00:00 GMT

Jennifer Fegan-Szala, a doula and certified professional midwife from upstate New York, is looking for mothers to complete a survey for her midwifery degree thesis.

It's not the happiest topic in the world: the correlation between infant feeding choices and childhood sexual abuse (as in the mother having a history thereof, not the feeding choices causing abuse). I assume—though like a good reseacher, she doesn't say—that her hypothesis is that those with a history of abuse might be more likely to avoid breastfeeding.

In any case, it seems like it's a good question to be asking, and it's a short, easy survey. She wants to hear from bio moms who both do and don't have a history of abuse, and who made any range of feeding choices, so the field is fairly wide open. Click a few boxes for (social) science!

More by this author:

They Say: When Parents Smoke, Kids Smoke

KeriF — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 22:28:00 GMT

If you smoke around your kids, your kids are more likely to smoke when they're older, according to a new study by the Harvard School of Public Health. But there's hope. According to Dr. Stephen E. Gilman, co-author of the study, "that risk goes away if parents quit."

The younger the children are when their parents smoke, the more likely the kids are to smoke. Kids under 12 were 3.6 times as likely to smoke as children of non-smokers. But teens over 13 were only 1.7 times more likely to smoke as their peers.

I was a smoker myself, child of two heavy smokers. I fit the mold of this study pretty well: my parents smoked when I was young, though I didn't start smoking myself until my late teens. (What can I say? I'm an idiot.)

But I also know a lot of people (say, I don't know, my sister) who were absolutely disgusted by smoking and turned completely away from it due to extensive early exposure to it.

Of course, whether or not your parents smoke isn't the only factor. Researchers noted that everything from the media to genetic susceptibility can be factors in determining whether or not you're going to smoke.

And, of course, whether or not you're an idiot.

They Say: Apple Juice a Day Keeps Alzheimer's Away

JeanneSager — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:09:00 GMT

I was feeling good about dosing my daughter's apple juice now and again with corn syrup when she was feeling a little, well, backed up - until Shannon came along with her post on mercury rising.

If you were with me on that one, keep reading.

There's still good news - our kids are getting apple juice. And apple juice, researchers have found, may delay the onset of Alzheimer's.

Two cups of apple juice (or, for kids like mine who have half juice/half water, more like four cups) were found to do the trick in a study by researchers at the University of Massachusetts Lowell. The juice (and it had to be apple, not apple pear or pomegranate peach) stemmed production of beta amyloid, a protein fragment found in the brains of most folks diagnosed with Alzheimer's. The experiments were all done on mice, which performed better in maze trials when they received a steady supply of apple juice.

And think of it this way - the more apple juice they drink, the better they poop. So no more corn syrup!

Image: FindMeaCure

Is It Ethical for Scientists to Use Their Kids as Test Subjects?

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 22:10:00 GMT

Here’s a reason for wanting a baby that you don’t hear everyday: “I really want to study him and do experiments with him.” This was the thinking of Dr. Sinha, an MIT neuroscience professor, upon the birth of his son.

According to the New York Times, Dr. Sinha is just one of many scientists using their kids as test subjects in large part because “children make reliable participants in an era of scarce research financing.” Is this creepy or just practical?

Numerous kids of scientists have been instrumental in research on everything from brain scans to the effects of media on children. In an extreme example, scientist Deb Roy recorded nearly 70 percent of his son’s waking hours for the first three years of his life in order to study language development.

Many scientists argue that using their own children as subjects proves the safety of the experiments: why would they put their own kids, whom they love above all else, at risk? Furthemore, review boards establish rules for safe experimentation, including a prohibition on videotaping toilet training, which could prove embarrassing later.

I understand this argument, and don't doubt that well-meaning scientists would never willingly put their children at risk. However, I do question the ways experimenting on children can affect parent-child relationships. So does Robert M. Nelson, the director of the Center for Research Integrity at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “The role of the parent is to protect the child,” he said. “Once that parent becomes an investigator, it sets up an immediate potential conflict of interest.”

Like most parenting issues, this question defies a black-and-white answer. Some grown children of scientists look back on their time as test subjects as a fun way to bond with their parents, while others remember the experiments as stressful, colored by an uncomfortable need to please their parents.

Do you think there’s a surefire way to predict whether experiments with children will be harmless or harmful? If not, is it wrong for scientists to use their children in the service of scientific inquiry?

Photo: New York Times

Survey Time: How Will Becoming a Mother Change You?

Miriam Axel-Lute — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 17:30:00 GMT

If you're chomping at the bit to fill out The Birth Survey, but are still pregnant, you don't have to wait to scratch your itch to contribute to the greater body of knowledge about parenting, motherhood, and people's weird, weird brains.

Just hop over to The Motherhood Project and fill out the first of a pair of surveys that aim to uncover things about the "process of becoming a mother and how it may inform a woman’s identity, relationships, spirituality, and mental health." They'll want to you to come back after the birth and fill it out again, to see how it's changed. (And that'll be a good reminder to go fill out The Birth Survey too. Just saying.)

The Columbia U doctoral students doing the research say the online survey should take about 30 to 60 minutes. If you're in the first trimester, they ask that you wait until the second or third (but you can sign up for a reminder).

Photo by psd.

More by this author:

They Say: Smoking While Pregnant Makes Kids Aggressive

Brett Singer — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 15:00:00 GMT

I thought it was generally acknowledged that it was a bad idea for women to smoke while pregnant. A new study provides another reason: the kids could end up aggressive. The likelihood of aggressive behavior increases if the family makes less than $40,000 per year. This is according to a study conducted by Canadian doctors that was published in the academic journal Development and Psychopathology.

To clarify, "aggressive behavior" – or "behaviour", as they call it, since some people have to spell things differently – is that which the mothers characterized "as quick to hit, bite, kick, fight and bully others." (I guess spitting is OK. Throwing things, perhaps?) The children studied were between 18 months and three and a half years of age.

"Mothers-to-be whose lives have been marked by anti-social behaviour have a 67 percent chance to have a physically aggressive child if they smoke 10 cigarettes a day while pregnant, compared with 16 percent for those who are non-smokers or who smoke fewer than 10 cigarettes a day. Smoking also seems to be an aggravating factor, although less pronounced, in mothers whose anti-social behaviour is negligible or zero."

Other factors contributing to aggressiveness in preschool kids, sayeth the study: "mothers who are younger than 21, who smoke and who coerce their children to behave." Also, "children from families who earned less than $40,000 per year were at an increased risk for aggressive behaviour." Which I guess means that families earning less than $40,000 are more likely to have aggressive children whether mom puffs or not. But the aggressiveness INCREASED in those families if mom smoked, and DECREASED if she didn't.

Are you bored yet?

Here's my issue with studies like this. We know smoking while pregnant is a bad idea. (Like playing piano in a marching band, as they say on The Animaniacs.) So what exactly is the point of this study? What did we find out, that families with less money and a mother with a nicotine addiction are more likely to have children who exhibit "aggressive behaviour", as defined by a certain specific "behaviours"? So what? How about a study that looks at methods that might help those kids deal with their aggression?

Reading this study makes me feel very aggressive. I need to go bite something. But since my mother doesn't smoke, I'll just bite into a sandwich.

Source: Science Daily

Image: Church Times

Third Hand Smoke Can Harm Your Kids

They Say -- Kids Who Skip Breakfast and Hate Mom Have Sex Sooner

They Say -- Vaccines Work

Mom Shoplifts Parenting Book With Kids in Tow

They Say: Medidation May Help Ease Kids' ADHD

Toddler Injured in Xmas Tree Fight Between Mom and Grandma

Study Finds Girls "Prefer Chatting" to Being Physically Active

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 23:00:00 GMT

New research has found that women of all ages are less active than men. Observing schoolchildren at play, researchers have concluded that girls would rather socialize than play sports.

While I don't doubt the study’s findings that men are more physically active than women, I have some reservations about the explanation that girls simply like to sit around chatting, while boys like to run around and get dirty.

Until I graduated high school, I considered myself the least athletic person I knew. It was a big joke among my friends that any activity requiring physical exertion was off bounds for me. But once I realized that being active did not have to mean doing Indian sprints at Varsity field hockey practice, I became very athletic. I now bike everywhere, do yoga, dance, hike, surf, and run.

I certainly didn’t shun sports because I “prefer to chat.” But a casual observer could easily have drawn this conclusion from watching me on the sidelines during gym class, laughing with a girlfriend instead of trying to get in on the athletic action. The truth is, I was too intimidated to participate in traditional team sports, since I seem to have inherited a gene which makes me physically incapable of throwing and catching a ball. Even the sports that I did enjoy—gymnastics and track—were unappealing to me because I had no interest in competing. I just wanted to move around and have fun.

Perhaps it’s not girls’ natural inclinations that make them less active than their male counterparts, but rather the way sports are taught in school.

Photo: The Telegraph

They Say: Baby Signing Does Work

Miriam Axel-Lute — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 18:30:00 GMT

It's pretty darn preliminary, but two recent bits of research indicate that yes, babies who are taught sign language might be able to communicate earlier in a way that makes life easier for them and their parents.

As reported on Science Blogs (hat tip: Jake), the first of the studies involved two babies and graphed their process learning a sign ("please" in one case, "more" in the other), and then showed that they could use it "in the real world" with people other than the researcher. It was interesting to me that one of the kids had Downs (she was a few months older, but it was still interesting to note that she learned the sign just as fast). I know sign is used extensively with developmentally delayed adults, so it makes sense to be including it here. I'm glad they aren't waiting until a million tests have been done on "normal" kids, which often seems to be the experimental pattern.

The second study measured the decrease in crying/whining in two pre-verbal kids who were taught signs for the things they usually cried about. The crying went down as the signing went up. Of course there's a huge flaw in that one, as Dave Munger points out in his post: Along the way, the adults stopped responding to the crying and only responded to the sign. But not responding to the crying could have made it decrease all on its own.

I look at that this way though: Crying is not actually bad behavior in a pre-verbal kid, it's a form of communication. So I wouldn't want to "train" them out of it without giving them an different way to communicate. If you can give them a sign instead, then you're ahead of the game. So the results of that study, not matter what it's actually measuring, are still hopeful.

I'm inclined to believe sign is useful, of course, just based on my own experience. My kid talked pretty early, but I still wouldn't have wanted to give up the communication we had in the months before that when she could tell us a handful of things like "more" and "water" and "windy" and "Daddy." It was so much better than having no clues except facial expressions and crying volume.

All in all, we would need research with much larger sample sizes to prove anything, but since there's no particular down side to teaching a few signs (or even full-fledged ASL) to a baby, any indication that it's helpful should be good news to parents eager to get a little communication going.

Photo by gfpeck.

More by this author:

They Say: Fat-Eating Pregos Make for Fat-Loving Kids

JeanneSager — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 20:39:00 GMT

Tired of hearing your mom comment on the size of your butt? Tell her it's her fault. A new study published in the Journal of Neuroscience says women who indulge in fat-laden foods during pregnancy are setting the stage for parenting a child who will constantly struggle with his or her weight.

Researchers say the developing fetus' brain is essentially being hard-wired to crave fatty foods as their moms eat for two . . . or four. The study was performed on rats rather than humans, but it makes good sense. What are kids eating when they're inside us? Exactly what we're eating. So wouldn't it make sense that they'd develop a taste for those foods?

My father used to joke that he considered leaving my mother if she served one more plate of spinach during her pregnancy (she had to get that iron somehow), and wouldn't you know it - one of my favorite foods is a nice big chunk of spinach pie oozing with feta and wrapped in delicate phyllo dough.

Although my propensity to pop M&Ms would point to plenty of desserts served after those spinach-rich dinners . . .

Image: Raising Kids

They Say: Lead Bullets Make Game Risk for Pregnant Women, Kids

They Say: Text Messaging Can Fight Childhood Obesity

Save Money: Kids Eat Free at Restaurants . . . Well, Some of Them

They Say: Women Have More Cooties Than Men

Madeline Holler — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 23:01:00 GMT

The bad news? A new study has concluded that women have a bigger variety of bacteria on their hands.

The worse news? Men and women have more bacteria on their hands than the researchers had expected to find. Gross!

From USA Today:

The researchers aren't sure why women harbored a greater variety of bacteria than men, but they suggested it may have to so with the acidity of the skin. ... [M]en generally have more acidic skin than women.

Other possibilities are differences in sweat and oil gland production between men and women, the frequency of moisturizer or cosmetics applications, skin thickness or hormone production...

What's really weird is individuals had few types of bacteria in common. So we've all got our own special cooties. And the difference between the bacteria on one person's right hand vs. that same person's left hand were quite different.

Oh, and handwashing doesn't kill all or even most bacteria. But still, keep doing it.

Photo: USA Today

What Do You Do When Your Kid is an Extreme Partisan?

Kelly Mills — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 16:25:00 GMT

This has been the most emotionally charged election I can remember since, well, ever, and it makes sense that the kids would pick up on that. But Slate's Emily Bazelon asks, what do you do when your children's political allegiances are extreme? She covers a Halloween experiment in which kids chose candy from either side of a porch: The Obama side--marked with a large sign and life-size cutout--and the McCain side, with corresponding signage and cutout. The blue neighborhood kids gave Obama 78 percent of the vote.

But when offered two pieces of candy at the Obama side versus four at the McCain side, support for Obama only dropped by ten percent. The kids were pretty fixed in their political ways, even though their vote obviously didn't "count" (hmm, like the electoral college.) And Bazelon notes that her sweet kids threw around the word "traitor" to candy defectors. And, she observes, with kids who are reared on lots of lessons in tolerance, it may be that McCain is one of the few people they can clearly think of as a bad guy.

It makes me just slightly uncomfortable to see children actively campaigning, if only because you know that until a certain age, the opinions they express are not likely their own. Then again, isn't it our job to pass on our values, political or otherwise? And I've seen this "death and destruction to candidate so-and-so" in my area too, from young children who just seem to want to be able to freely bash a clear villain. What about your kids? Does it bother you?

Take Your Kids To Vote...NOW!

Witch Tricks Obama Kids on Halloween

Palin Mocks Autism Research

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 17:30:00 GMT

No one should be too surprised at this point to hear that one of McCain’s top advisers referred to Sarah Palin as a “whackjob.” Or that Alaska’s largest newspaper enthusiastically endorsed Barack Obama for president. But it remains fun (in that stomach-churning way) to take a peak at some of the myriad reasons why Palin is widely disliked and distrusted even among her own people.

Take fruit flies, for instance. In Palin’s recent speech on special needs children, one of her more awkward blunders pertained to earmarks:

"Where does a lot of that earmark money end up, anyway? [...] You've heard about, um, these -- some of these pet projects they really don't make a whole lot of sense, and sometimes these dollars they go to projects having little or nothing to do with the public good. Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not!"

As the Huffington Post points out, fruit flies have been essential to autism research, showing that a protein called neurexin plays a huge role in proper brain functioning. Considering that this speech was supposed to be about helping special needs families, it’s truly baffling why Palin would have chosen to bash research that is widely known to be integral to understanding and treating autism.

Furthermore, fruit flies are the basic research tool of modern genetics, as anyone who has taken a biology class knows. To sneer at such research displays either extreme stupidity or a dangerous lack of concern for the opinions of the vast majority of her would-be constituents.

Photo: wizbangblog.com

Palin: Women Who Don't Support Other Women Go to Hell

Palin Speaks Out on Special Needs Trusts

Dudes for Palin: Vote for the Hot Chick!

RNC Mailer Could Give Your Kids Nightmares

Anti-Palin Ad Targets Parents

Two Years, Six Months, and 25 Days Before the Romance Dies

Kelly Mills — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 20:31:00 GMT

You were wondering when your marriage would all go to hell? There's this study saying the average lifespan of the "honeymoon" phase is two years, six months, and 25 days. Oooh, everyone set your calendar with a reminder. "I know there's something happening this weekend, what was it? Oh yeah, that's the day our marriage will become drudgery and crap."

But what exactly marks the end of the sweet love? It sounds like the researchers define this as effort. They say on average, this is the time when most guys start leaving socks on the floor and the toilet seat lid up, and the women stop wearing make-up and climb into sweats instead. Romantic dinners are a thing of the past, and the third anniversary isn't even celebrated. Oh, and you hardly (sniff) cuddle any more.

You know, the whole thing sounds a kinda stereotyical and lame to me. Marking marital closeness by female appearance effort and male hygiene effort... Eesh. Not surprisingly, this study was detailed in the Daily Mail. But anyway, I have a solution: Don't get married. Just live together, and you can completely avoid the whoooole thing.

Baby Planners: Who Needs 'Em?

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:58:00 GMT

During your pregnancy, would you have paid $250 to have someone walk you through Babies R’ Us, pointing out the must-have products? Or $500 to have someone plan your baby shower? How about $200 to have your home babyproofed?

These are just some of the services offered by baby coordinators, the latest advent in the commercialization of parenting. While I am all for easing the stress that can come with expecting a baby, I am definitely NOT for teaching mothers that having disposable income is the only way to do this. Shouldn’t friends or family be the ones helping parents-to-be make these important decisions? Or, perhaps more importantly, shouldn’t expectant parents learn to trust their own parenting instincts?

I worry that baby planning promises to be just one more trend that will make mothers feel not good enough—“You mean you didn’t hire a baby planner?!”

And in case the commercialization factor doesn’t bother you, perhaps the sexist element will: many baby planning companies also offer “daddy preparation.” Because those silly men don’t know a thing about babies!

Photo: The Boston Globe

They Say: Cell Phones Don't Break DNA

Miriam Axel-Lute — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 16:37:00 GMT

Should I relax about my daughter's fascination with my cell phone?

It seems highly likely that the data in a recent major study from Medical University of Vienna showing that cell phone radiation broke DNA (i.e. caused genetic mutations) was fabricated. It was just too close to the data from another study, and the blindness (where you aren't told which samples are which to avoid bias in what you expect) was explicitly compromised, with codes the technician wasn't supposed to have written down all over her notebooks.

There is, understandably, something of a hue and cry, with some researchers fighting back and saying the accusations of fabrication are coming from people linked to the telecom companies.

But what I found most interesting was this comment, which says the whole question may be a distraction. There are a whole lot of awful things people who work with microwave radiation worry about, says the commenter—blindness, tissue damage of all sorts—but DNA breakage isn't one of them. So debunking this study may kind of be like saying "Lead paint doesn't cause diabetes!" It doesn't really answer the question about whether you want a cell phone sitting next your kid's head for extended (or not so extended) periods of time.

My daughter isn't old enough for me to actually consider getting her one yet—for those of you with older kids, how have you made the call?

Photo by derek olson.

Cell Phones More Dangerous than Cigarettes

More by this author:

J.K. Rowling Takes Copyright Lessons from Professor Umbridge

Girl Talk May Fuel Anxiety

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 20:30:00 GMT

Naturally you want your children to have strong friendships, people they can trust to help them navigate social and emotional concerns. But there may be such a thing as too much talking.

Psychologists call it “co-rumination:” the tendency to dwell on a personal problem with a friend, seeking empathy and validation of your feelings. Anyone who’s responsible for paying a teenage girl's phone bill is probably more than a little familiar with this type of conversation: do you think he likes me? Is so-and-so mad at me? Should I break up with him?

As this tendency has started to figure more heavily into female friendships with the advent of MySpace, Facebook, cell phones, and email—which mean that the majority of friendships can be based on chatting or gossip, rather than activities—researchers have started to wonder if it’s such a healthy way for friends to relate with one another.

Indeed, several studies of third, fifth, seventh, and ninth graders have shown that co-rumination can lead to increased anxiety and depression in girls, at least in the short term. Obsessing about a problem with a friend can make that problem seem bigger than it is—and worries can be contagious: if my best friend is so concerned about how many times a week her boyfriend calls her, maybe I should be, too.

Researchers found that emotional conversations did not affect boys negatively, perhaps because they occur less often or because the tone is different. Boys may be more likely to focus on solutions to problems instead of just venting them, which psychologists say is the most effective way to converse.

One way parents can help their daughters avoid this self-perpetuating cycle of anxiety, obsession and validation, and hence more anxiety is to encourage your children to come to you for advice, so they get the perspective of age at least some of the time. Any other tips for parents to help their daughters most effectively deal with emotional upsets?

Photo: New York Times

They Say: Parents Know Nothing About Babies

Adrienne Martini — Sun, 04 May 2008 21:00:00 GMT

Pop Quiz, Hotshot:

1) Should a 1-year-old child be able to tell between right from wrong?

2) Should a 1-year-old child be ready to begin toilet-training?

These questions were part of a survey given by researchers to 10,000 U.S. parents of 9 month olds. On the 11 item quiz, one-third of those asked couldn't answer four questions correctly.

And their inability didn't seem to be related to mere testing anxiety. These parents had no idea what they could realistically expect from their children. This ignorance isn't without harm. Researchers conclude that low parenting knowledge of what babies can actually do is having a negative impact on how parents behave with their kids.

In case you were wondering, both questions have the same answer: No.

Should an "Overweight" Beauty Pageant Contestant Be a Role Model for Young Girls?

Kelly Mills — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 21:02:00 GMT

Monica Grenfell is horrified. Why? Well, see, this year's Miss England contest has a fairly unique finalist: Chloe Marshall, a size 16 (about a size 14 in U.S. sizes.) Seventeen-year-old Marshall has been quite outspoken about wanting to be "an ambassador for curves" and demonstrate to young girls that it isn't necessary to be a size zero. She says she eats healthy food and exercises regularly. Grenfell, however, is a dietician and she hopes Chloe doesn't win. "It would send an appalling--and very dangerous--message to other young women that it's OK to be fat." She adds that Chloe is a terrible role model and says charmingly, "Who on earth does she think she's kidding? What she's demonstrating isn't bravery but a shocking lack of self-control. Instead of flaunting her figure, Chloe ought to own up to the truth. She is fat and she got that way by over-eating." Nice.

Grenfell makes the point that we don't have an anorexia epidemic, we have an obesity epidemic, and that the last thing girls need to hear is that it's okay to be overweight because it puts you at risk for health problems like Type 2 diabetes and heart attacks. Mmm hmm. Well, we could debate that one all day, but there is certainly no consensus among researchers that obesity itself is the cause of the problems. In other words, the real issue is poor eating habits and a lack of physical activity, not the weight itself. And we certainly have a plethora of extremely thin role models for girls right now, role models whose bodies are not a realistic goal for many of the most active, healthy-eating girls in the world.

But beyond that, do girls really need the message that a diversity of shapes and sizes are lovely? You've probably already guessed what I think about that. Hell yes. And while we may not have an anorexia "epidemic" (curse that word) the extremely adverse health effects of eating disorders are well-documented. And by the way, most eating disorder stats only deal with the most obvious examples, while plenty of researchers are discovering that even young girls are using extreme measures to try and get thin, often unsuccessfully, with lord knows what long-term health consequences. I guess that's why I think Monica Grenfell should go f*ck herself for tearing into a brave teenage girl, and while I don't love beauty pageants, I'll be cheering for Chloe.

The words every woman longs to hear: are you through yet?

Brett Singer — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 16:00:00 GMT

A survey has concluded that men with QDS (Quickie Dickie Syndrome) are doing just fine, thank you. The "optimal" time for intercourse is -- wait for it -- between three and thirteen minutes.

That's quite a range if you think about it, especially for parents. Three minutes, you can do your business while the kids are getting dressed for school. Finding thirteen minutes is much more difficult.

I'm not knocking anyone for the length of their "act" -- far from it. Once children are in your house, anytime you can find, you take. (Which is I had a little trouble buying this story.)

The researcher, Eric Corty ("who, it must be noted, is male" says the article -- nice) conducted his study to help couples "relax a little bit." Because obsessing over the length of your coitus is verrrry relaxing.

image: flickr.com

And apologies to Steve Martin, from whom I paraphrased the title of this post.

Raising a Little Smartypants

Adrienne Martini — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 19:01:00 GMT

Want your kids to grow up with a brain in their head? The trick isn't to keep them away from TV or feed them all organic produce. Nope, the key to smart cookies is to avoid telling the kids that they are smart.

Research has shown that praising children for innate qualities that they have little control over -- like being pretty or talented singers or intelligent -- doesn't help them learn how to solve problems. It appears that if they believe that their skill is something they are born with, they tend to just give up when the going gets tough.

However, if you praise the tots for being able to make the effort and solve the problem even when it is hard, they seem to grow up with a robust ability to deal with what's handed to them.

It's a subtle difference, yes, but one that might make a huge difference in a society where everyone has the "talent" to audition for American Idol.

Photo credit: Scientific American

"What Am I A Clown? Do I Amuse You?" No, You Scare Me To Death.

makeitadouble — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 19:28:00 GMT

Coulrophobia, or the fear of clowns, is one of the most searched-for phobias on the internet right behind Lockiocoulrophobia, which is a fear of giving birth to a clown, Claustrocoulrophobia, which is a fear of being trapped in a confined place with a clown and Glossocoulrophobia, which is a fear of speaking in public to an audience of clowns.

Over 1 Billion people on Earth, a number that does not include Russian cosmonaut and outspoken Coulrophobe Michael Tyurin who is currently serving aboard the International Space Station, suffer the crippling paralysis associated with Coulrophobia; symptoms that include panic attacks, shortness of breath, irregular heartbeat, sweating, nausea and feelings of dread. Alright, I may have made up that number up, but here’s one I didn’t make up.

The UK’s leading research agency surveyed more than 250 children ages four to 16, and all, not some and not most but ALL, disliked the use of clowns in hospital décor; the teenagers surveyed even went so far as to say that clowns are scary. The results of this survey (i.e. something all of us already knew) have caused hospitals to seriously rethink decorating children’s wards with paintings of clowns in case 1) they might frighten children 2) the children in the ward were born Post-Vaudevillian era and 3) the children would rather not see paintings reminiscent of a Stephen King dust jacket or Pogo the Clown. Think I’m kidding? There’s a excellent chance I may possibly not be.

Tony "Bluebottle" Eldridge, secretary of Clowns International the Oldest World Clown Association and director of the Clown Museum in London, thinks it would be sad if hospitals no longer had pictures of clowns with which to scare kids. "We live in a world where everything is banned and it has got rather silly." Lamented Bluebottle (is it just me or does anyone else suddenly want a Labatt’s?) Hear Hear Bluebottle! How dare science conduct a survey that proves children are not only afraid of clowns, but afraid of paintings of clowns as well? How dare they then use that research to rid children’s wards in hospitals of all clown imagery? For shame Economic and Social Research Council, for shame.

The good news is this research will not affect my side-business of performing at adult parties as my alter ego Libido the Clown. My specialty is balloon animals with the most popular request being the Trouser Snake. My New Years Eve booking just fell through so if you’re looking for entertainment for your New Years party I can be contacted through the comments section of this post.

(Image Credit: www.sciencefictionfantasyhorror.com)

Want to Breed an Alcoholic? Drink Up While Pregnant

Karen Murphy — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 18:15:00 GMT

I always thought that alcoholism was a genetic thing, an unfortunate trait passed down along with the more benign ones of eye color and height. Having alcoholism in my family, I've been particularly sensitive to that knowledge, and it's something I've even begun to make my older son aware of as he marches along toward puberty.

Apparently, though, it's not that simple.

Nope, new research indicates that if a fetus is exposed to alcohol in the womb and then exposed again as an adolescent, it is set up for full-blown addiction later in life. So if your mom hoisted a few while you were in the hatch and you engaged in some typical teenage hijinx you may as well go meet the nice folks over at AA. Maybe. However, the inclination toward addiction later in life waned if there was no adolescent exposure.

However, before you get all up in arms over this (what??! that half of a beer I had at 5 months pregnant?? that means I've spawned an alcoholic??!!), you should know that all this research was done on rats. With ethanol, not with Guinness. I kind of feel like I've been tricked again with a headline, don't you?

But there's a nice assurance that "there is no time during pregnancy when it is safe to drink", which, uh, sort of conflicts with other research.

So who to believe?

Well, if you're a rat, my advice is don't drink while pregnant.