Strollerderby : studies

They Say - Older Fathers Spawn Dumber Kids

Brett Singer — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 16:00:00 GMT

A study conducted in Australia has found that "Children of older fathers appear to perform less well in intelligence tests during infancy and childhood." Children with older mothers, however, score higher on the same tests.

Hmmm...

So if dad is old, the kid is dumber. If mom is old, the kid is smarter.

Now, it should be pointed out that "dumber" and "smarter" are not really the correct terms. We're talking about intelligence tests, which may or may not be a good indicator of actual smartiness. The data that the Aussie researchers used is "from intelligence tests taken by 33,437 children who were born between 1959 and 1965 in the United States." I don't know about you, but I think my kids are smarter than I was at their age. So I'd like to see results based on more recent humans.

Scientists theorize that the reason for the "older dad = lower scores, older mom = higher scores" result is... drum roll, please... mutated sperm.

Yes, gray-haired daddies, your sperm is mutates as you get older! What does that mean? I have to admit that I have no idea. By "mutation" do they mean "dumber"? I guess they do.

In case you can't tell, I don't take much stock in this. For some reason I find it difficult to take science of this sort seriously. What's the point? Let's say there were lock solid proof that having kids past a certain age meant that said kids would only be able to achieve a certain level of intelligence. Would people use that as a reason not to have kids? I doubt it. So why do the study? Why not spend time on something more important, like space travel?

And when they say "mutation," I think of the X-Men. Let's find a way to have that mutated sperm lead to super powers! Isn't it about time science started doing something useful?

Source: Reuters

Image: SXC

4 Year Old Brings Pot To School, School Bans Backpacks

TV Is Neither Good Nor Bad For Babies

George W. Bush Visits Texas Elementary School

Photo - Obama Shocked by Schoolkids

They Say: Kids Might Not Doom a Marriage

JeanneSager — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 22:02:00 GMT

Good news parents! A new study says the old studies that blamed our marital discord on our decision to have kids were one parent hooey, one part truth.

In other words - twenty-five separate studies that said the quality of marriage drops significantly after "baby makes three," were too vague. They lumped us all together.

The hooey? University of California at Berkeley researchers Philip and Carolyn Cowan, will soon make a presentation to the Council on Contemporary Families asserting that never before did researchers account for the parents who had an accidental pregnancy or who had disagreed before conception about whether both spouses actually wanted children.

Think about it. If one parent wants kids and the other doesn't, shouldn't it stand to reason that the arrival of said kid is going to make one spouse unhappy? And one unhappy spouse generally makes for an unhappy marriage. Say the Cowans, "couples who planned or equally welcomed the conception were likely to maintain or even increase their marital satisfaction after the child was born."

The problem with most studies are the broad, sweeping generalizations, and parenting studies are no different. A rock-solid marriage will likely struggle after the birth of a child - parents are sleepless, therefore parents are stressed. Throw in say a sick child or a job loss (we have a lot of those these days), and who knows what might happen. But is that the fault of having kids? No. It might be kid-related, but not the fault of the decision to procreate or adopt.

In my personal experience, I know parents who had the "oops pregnancy" and rushed to get married who have now found the marriage is on the rocks. I also know a couple who were divorced within two years of their son's birth because they had an oops pregnancy during marriage - and he wasn't crazy about it. But my colleagues here on the 'derby say they know couples who were fine . . . until they had the second child. That's when life went haywire and the divorce man cometh.

So what to do, what to do? In her New York Times op-ed on the subject, Stephanie Coontz refers to psychologist Joshua Coleman suggestion: the airline warning to put on your own oxygen mask before you place one on your child also holds true for marriage.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Image: ThePetitionSite

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

U.S. Children's Health - Biggest Study Ever

SunnyChanel — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 00:14:00 GMT

Autism, asthma, birth defects, childhood disorders; all scary and all are on the rise. Thing is, there doesn’t seem to be a clear cut answer to why these maladies are affecting more and more babies and kids each and every year. The biggest suspect? The environment. Scientists are going to try their darndest to find some answers to this mystery and prove or disprove this assumption and are about to launch the largest study on children of the United States ever. They have begun signing up mothers-to-be in North Carolina and New York to participate and are looking for women who are newly pregnant or are planning on becoming pregnant soon. In the spring, they’ll be looking for recruits in California, Pennsylvania, Utah, South Dakota and Minnesota with a total of about 100,000 participants.

The scientists will study the newborns from birth (or conception) until they turn twenty-one. The moms-to-be will be required to give various samples of their blood, hair, urine, drinking water, and house dust and will have to participate in various interviews. After the baby is born, the child’s house will be environmentally examined and the baby’s health will be carefully tracked.

This lofty study has been in the works for about a decade and is now just coming to fruition. They’re hoping to have the first set of results in 2012 with data on birth defects and premature births and data on early childhood issues/disorders within five years.
Here’s hoping some answers are found. It’s a shame it’s taken ten years to make this happen, we probably would have had some clues sooner than later. But with the funds necessary and the complexity of such a big study, it doesn’t come as a surprise it did take a decade to happen.

Do you blame the environment?

Source

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

Should Smoking Be Banned In Cars With Kids?

Brett Singer — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:00:00 GMT

So. We have third-hand smoke. It's bad. And so on. More fuel for anti-smoking activists. And when someone says, "We're protecting helpless children!" that makes it harder to argue that they are intruding into our personal lives. Right?

A town in Washington State (can't ban smoking in D.C. – Obama's a smoker!) is considering a bill that would ban smoking in cars with children.
From the AP: "A member of the Tobacco Advisory Board of Pierce County, Leonard Sanderson, told The Olympian the proposal would make it a secondary offense, meaning smoking drivers could be ticketed if they were pulled over for another offense, such as speeding."

I was surprised to learn that California, Arkansas, Louisiana and Maine have all made smoking in cars that have kids in them against the law.

Here's the problem. There's no doubt that smoking around children is bad for their health. I get it. But unless you make smoking illegal (not gonna happen), how is this not a privacy violation? You can't drink and drive, but that's all the time, not just around children. Talking on a cell phone while driving has been deemed dangerous, so most states have laws that say you have to wear a headset. Driving without a seatbelt is dangerous, so if you don't wear a seatbelt, you get a ticket. And so on. None of those laws, however, are specific to children.

Does the law apply to your own children? What about other people's kids? Can you smoke in the car when there are no kids there? Now that we know about third-hand smoke, won't the little tykes be at risk anyway if they ride in a car that was, at one time or another, smoked in? And at what age is it safe to be exposed to second-hand smoke?

And how about bacon, or other smoked meats? Those aren't good for children, right? I mean, come on.

(In case you were wondering, most of that was me going off the deep end for comic effect. Thank you. Tip your waitresses.)

I think it would be great if nobody smoked. It's unhealthy, creates enormous costs for health insurers as those smokers age, and there's the second-hand, third-hand, and fourth-hand (just wait, it'll happen) smoke to contend with. It's a bad habit. But it's still legal. Until it isn't, this seems like an unreasonable law, like the one about smokers not being allowed foster children (which, considering that some kids are writing letters to woo potential foster parents, seems like an unfair restriction).

What do you think? Is this too much of an invasion of privacy? Or does it not matter if it's to "protect our children"?

Source: AP via nwsource.com

Image: Church Times

On Jett Travolta, Howard Stern Gets It Right

Grieving Chinese Parents Not Allowed To Sue

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

They Say -- Vaccines Work

Newbery Winners Decrease in Diversity in Recent Years

Kid Woos Prospective Foster Parents With Letters

Third Hand Smoke Can Harm Your Kids

Brett Singer — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:00:00 GMT

Do you smoke, or do you know someone who smokes? Do you think your kids will be OK as long as they don't smoke around them?

Well, you're wrong.

Everyone knows about second-hand smoke. It's easy to avoid – just don't spend time with smokers when they are, in fact, smoking. However, there's a new danger – third-hand smoke. This new term, coined by doctors from Boston's MassGeneral Hospital for Children, describes, "the invisible yet toxic brew of gases and particles clinging to smokers’ hair and clothing, not to mention cushions and carpeting, that lingers long after smoke has cleared from a room."

And it gets even more fun: "The residue includes heavy metals, carcinogens and even radioactive materials that young children can get on their hands and ingest, especially if they’re crawling or playing on the floor." Cuz kids never play on the floor.

Dr. Philip Landrigan of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York added, "simply closing the kitchen door to take a smoke is not protecting the kids from the effects of that smoke." See, that much I think people knew. But that gross lingering scent that clings to your clothes and hair after you spend time at a bar that still allows people to puff away freely? Who knew that was dangerous too?

So what to do? Avoid smokers? Avoid rooms where smokers have been? Don't go anywhere that smokers congregate? Live in a literal bubble?

I've found that avoiding smoke is fairly easy, but I do know people who smoke. And they smell like it. The fact that's more than just gross might make me think twice before I let them in my house to sit on my furniture. That should be a fun conversation.

Source: NYTimes

Image: MSNBC

Who Buys The Baby Products In Your House?

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

They Say -- Vaccines Work

Grieving Chinese Parents Not Allowed To Sue

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

Brett Singer — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 20:00:00 GMT

Sometimes I read a news story and feel like I'm actually reading The Onion. Does that ever happen to you?

For example: this report from Japan that finds a link between middle school students and teen sex. Basically, middle schoolers who do not partake of the most important meal of the day are more likely to get a head start on making the out-of-wedlock beast with two backs. (That's an unnecessarily silly way of saying "having sex.")

What exactly inspires a study like this one? Were researchers conducting interviews with sexually active middle schoolers in the morning hours and thought that they looked a little hungry? Not exactly. The survey isn't talking about sexually active middle schoolers. That would be creepy. It specifically found that the "average age of first-time sex for those who said they ate breakfast every day as a middle school student was 19.4, while for those who skipped breakfast, the average age was 17.5."

It gets better. I'm going to quote this line because it may be one of the greatest sentences in the history of journalism: "The average age of first-time sex was lower for those who found their mother annoying." (See what I mean? Doesn't that sound like it should have been in The Onion?) Those who "said they disliked their mother" starting gettin' it on at the age of 16, on average. Folks who "appreciated their mother" didn't lose their virginity until the ripe old age of 19.

No word on whether or not girls with "daddy issues" were slutty, or whether or not sibling rivalries were the main cause of homosexuality. (I'm kidding, of course. But if that's the next survey this association conducts, I won't be all that shocked.)

Kunio Kitamura, executive director of the Japan Family Planning Association, conducted the survey. The quotes attributed to Kitamura are hopefully the result of a poor translation from Japanese: "The fact that people can't eat breakfast may show something about their family environment. Before blaming individuals for having sex at an early age, it may be necessary to look into the sort of homes they are from." In other words, it's not your kids' fault they're having sex. It's because the muffins were stale that morning. Oh, and you're a crummy parent. And your kids don't respect you as a mother. Or all of the above.

Hey, here's an idea. How about studying the TYPE of breakfast consumed? That is, are middle schoolers who consume mostly oatmeal in the morning more or less likely to engage in sexual activity before they turn 18 than children who eat pancakes? And what about if they have bacon with their pancakes? And why stop at breakfast? What about lunch? Does french fry consumption increase or decrease the likelihood of future sexual activity?

So if you don't want your kids to start having sex too young, make sure they eat breakfast. In middle school.

Ah, science. We have come so far. And yet, not so far at all.

Source: Reuters

Image: tamarackwv.com

No Christmas Specials for Some Jewish Kids

Nature Lovers Also Annoyed About Children's Dictionary

Grieving Chinese Parents Not Allowed To Sue

They Say -- Vaccines Work

Brett Singer — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 14:00:00 GMT

We do a lot of stories on Babble about the potential dangers of vaccines, and about people who are trying to raise awareness of those dangers. Nothing wrong with that. But sometimes it’s a good idea to show the other side of things.

A recent article in U.S. News and World Report points out that deaths from measles declined by 74 percent from 2000 to 2007. The article actually used the word "plunged", which for once was not hyperbole. A 74 percent drop is big. The data comes from a U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report, which stated that "the number of deaths fell from 750,000 to 197,000." In some countries (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and Sudan) the drop was as high as 90 percent.

Now here's a stat to make you cringe – "worldwide child deaths from measles have dropped to 9.2 million," according to Ann M. Veneman of UNICEF.

What's cringeworthy about that? Later in the same article, Veneman puts it another way: "It is estimated that 500 children a day die of measles. This is an unacceptable reality when there is a safe and effective and inexpensive vaccine to prevent the disease." Unacceptable? No kidding.

While there are very few measles deaths in the United States, the disease is on the rise here, with 130 cases reported in 2008. Says U.S. News and World Report: "Almost half of these cases were among children whose parents declined vaccinations."

I wonder about that last line. "Almost half" implies that more than half of the cases were from vaccinated children – right? Which would seem to conclude that the vaccine is less than perfect. But let's look at it another way – the more parents refuse to allow their children to be vaccinated, the more measles cases there are, and so on. Is there a point when the potential dangers of vaccines outweigh the potential risks?

I feel strongly that the devil lies in the details – for example, is it possible to make vaccines without mercury, one of the substances many people feel is dangerous? Rather than a "vaccines or no vaccines" debate, we could have a debate about the particular vaccine itself. But that doesn't make for an easy headline.

The link to the U.S. News and World Report article was suggested by a commenter on this post by Hannah about a toddler who died after an MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccination. The parents blamed the vaccine for the 18 month old's death; the coroner's report later found "no link" between the tragic death and the vaccine. While stories like these can inspire parents to refuse to get their children vaccinated (regardless of what the coroner's report said), it is worth remembering that vaccines have enormous benefits as well as risks.

Source: U.S. News and World Report (Thanks to commenter gpgirl for the link.)

Image: helpyourautisticchildblog.com

Defying Doctors, Parents Blame Toddler's Sudden Death on MMR Vaccination

No Christmas Specials for Some Jewish Kids

Grieving Chinese Parents Not Allowed To Sue

They Say – Raise Kids Who Care

Boy Saves Brother's Life With Bone Marrow

They Say – Most Toys Are Toxic

Brett Singer — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 00:30:00 GMT

NYPIRG, which is an acronym for "New York Public Interest Research Group" and not an ancient Hebrew word meaning "bummer", tested a bunch of toys for toxic materials. And they found nothing wrong! Right?

WRONG.

A third of the 1,500 toys NYPIRG tested contained "'medium' to 'high' concentrations of toxic chemicals." Oh, but they didn't test any cool toys that you might actually want to buy. Right?

WRONG!

The Disney Fairies Fold Out Chair and Sleeping Pad had "dangerous levels of mercury and bromine," according to published reports.

Well I’m fine because I stick with more traditional wooden toys from brands like Melissa & Doug. Those are OK.

WRONG!

NYPIRG tested Melissa & Doug's Beginner Band Set, whose label declares that the toy wooden instruments "are handmade, non-toxic and exceed U.S. standards." Those Grinches at NYPIRG found "high levels of lead and arsenic." This toy, as well as the Disney Chair/Pad, were found on the shelves at a Toys R Us in Manhattan. Fun!

Now, I'm not trying to make light of this situation. But it really feels like the only way to fully avoid nasty substances to do is not buy anything. I mean, if you can't trust Melissa & Doug, who can you trust? (This may not be an issue, since, as Madeline put it, nobody's buying anything this year anyway.)

I should also state clearly that I am only reporting what NYPIRG found. I have no direct knowledge of the levels of toxins in any toy made by Disney, Melissa & Doug, Irving & Wendy, or any other manufacturer or individual, known or unknown, on planet Earth or planets yet to be discovered.

NYPIRG suggests that parents visit HealthyToys.org before they shop. Of course, that won't help if no one has tested the toy that you want to buy. But I suppose it's a start.

Still, I'll ask the parent gallery – when you shop for toys, do you think about whether or not they contain potentially harmful substances? For some reason I think most parents (and this is just off the top of my head, I haven't asked anyone other than me) are more inclined to avoid potentially nasty stuff in food or food receptacles, such as BPA-free baby bottles. Will BPA-free toys be next?

Source: Metro

Image: Amazon.com

Are You Cutting Back This Holiday Season?

Morning News: Congresswoman Slams Down the Phone on Obama ... Twice! (also some toy news)

Babble's Ultimate Holiday Gift Guide

Mini Baby Sculptures Not Edible, Selling Like Hotcakes

Make Your Own Religious Doll (maybe these are non-toxic)

Denis Leary Puts Autism Comments In Context

Autistic Girl Kicked Out Of Girl Scouts

Brain Wave Study Sheds Light On Autism

Brett Singer — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:30:00 GMT

Interesting news item from The Discovery Channel (via AP) -- "unique brain wave patterns" have been found in children with autism.

Using an imaging helmet that resembles a big salon hair dryer, researchers discovered what they believe are "signatures of autism" that show a delay in processing individual sounds.
That delay is only a fraction of a second...[but] Imagine if it took a tiny bit longer than normal to understand each syllable. By the end of a whole sentence, you'd be pretty confused.

I find this fascinating. More importantly (yes, I acknowledge that there are things in this world more important than what I personally find intriguing), these findings could help parents of autistic immensely. Doctors could potentially discover and diagnose the disorder "in children as young as age 1", according to the article. That would enable parents to begin a treatment program much earlier than usual.

It's all very sci-fi looking – check out the photo. The article says that the device looks like a "salon hair dryer", but I think it looks more like something out of the X-Men. Anyway, I love trumpeting technological advances that are used to help parents and children. It's a reminder that tech isn't all about video games and cellphones that make pancakes. (Apologies to the late George Carlin, from whom I borrowed that line about pancakes. Mmmm... pancakes...)

I'd be curious to hear from anyone with more knowledge of autism than I (doctors, parents) if this treatment sounds promising, and/or if this is something that you have heard about, and whether or not you feel it will be helpful. It certainly sounds to me like it could.

Source: AP via Discovery.com

Autistic Girl Kicked Out Of Girl Scouts

Conjoined Twin Surgery: One Lives, One Dies

High School Student in Hospital After Scavenger Hunt

Rare Condition Makes Boy Look Like Werewolf

They Say: Prenatal Folic Acid Not So Good After All

JeanneSager — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 17:57:00 GMT

Am I the only one who is starting to feel like scientists flip a coin every day to decide what's good for our kids? The latest flip flop hits those prenatal ~~horse pills~~ vitamins every mother tries to force down throughout her pregnancy.

Turns out that folic acid we always thought was so necessary for their development? This week, they're saying we probably should hold off about three months. Stay tuned (these things are subject to change).

The study out of Norway has some heft to it. Researchers followed thirty-two thousand kids over a period of three years and found moms who took folic acid during the first three months of gestation were more likely to have a baby with respiratory issues all the way up to the eighteen-month mark. The kids were also twenty-four percent more likely to land in the hospital because of their wheezing.

Over the years, folic acid intake by pregnant moms has been liked to everything from a decrease in the incidence of spina bifida to a possible decrease in cancer in kids. I've known moms who started taking prenatal vites months before they even began TRYING for a baby because they wanted to have a healthy folic acid build-up in the body. And I'd imagine you'd be hard-pressed these days to find a prenatal vitamin that DOESN'T have folic acid built in (thank you March of Dimes).

So what's a mom to do? Would you say the benefits outweigh the risks? Or should we just stay tuned for the other flip flop to drop?

Image: MLive

Too Much Deodorant Kills Twelve-Year-Old

Juno Goes to Washington? Congress' First Unwed Mom

They Say: Forward-Facing Stroller's Bad for Baby

A Genetic Test That Predicts Kids' Athletic Futures

They Say: Get Some Sleep or Die

Brett Singer — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:00:00 GMT

CNN says that you need at least 7.5 hours of sleep every night. Otherwise you are "at greater risk of heart attack, stroke, and sudden cardiac death than their peers who get more shut-eye."

Do these people have kids?

In my case, I rarely get 7 hours every night. By the time the kids are asleep, I usually have other things to do, and then most mornings I need to get up and get everybody ready. Since I work at home, I can sometimes squeeze in a nap which helps to balance things out.

I'm not saying this is a good thing. I'm not one of these "I'll sleep when I'm dead" people. I like sleeping. I'd rather get more sleep but between parenting and working, 7.5 hours a night doesn't always happen.

How much sleep do you get? Is it enough?

source: CNN

image: Napping at Red Lights (which is a great title for a blog)

Disney Pulls Hannah Montana Diabetes Episode

Why Do People Still Hand Out Unwrapped Halloween Treats?

Guy Changes Name to Captain Fantastic

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

I can tell how much you orgasm because of how you walk

Brett Singer — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 18:30:00 GMT

Let's say a guy tells a group of female college students that he can tell how often they've had orgasms by watching them walk. That guy would likely get a smack for that, right?

But if he's a SCIENTIST… well, that's different.

"A new study found that trained sexologists could infer a woman's history of vaginal orgasm by observing the way she walks. The study is published in The Journal of Sexual Medicine."

Oh! Only TRAINED sexologists. Not those UNtrained sexlogists. (I think every male on the planet qualifies as an "untrained sexologist.")

"Led by Stuart Brody of the University of the West of Scotland in collaboration with colleagues in Belgium, the study involved 16 female Belgian university students. Subjects completed a questionnaire on their sexual behavior and were then videotaped from a distance while walking in a public place. The videotapes were rated by two professors of sexology and two research assistants trained in the functional-sexological approach to sexology, who were not aware of the women's orgasmic history.

"The results showed that the appropriately trained sexologists were able to correctly infer vaginal orgasm through watching the way the women walked over 80 percent of the time. Further analysis revealed that the sum of stride length and vertebral rotation was greater for the vaginally orgasmic women. 'This could reflect the free, unblocked energetic flow from the legs through the pelvis to the spine,' the authors note."

So they videotaped college girls walking and then determined that the way they walked revealed fascinating details about their sexual experiences. Are these guys geniuses or just too nervous to actually get into porn?

I realize I'm not a scientist, but did the Beavis and Butthead Foundation fund this study? "Hey Beavis… heh heh heh heh… I bet I can tell you how many times that chick O'ed by the way she walks…" "Dude, you can't even spell orgasm." Heh heh heh heh…

image: some blog

Source: Science Daily via Morning News

Important news stories depicted by five year olds

The Gruesome Origins of Five Fairy Tales

Queens woman pregnant with sextuplets

Ninja Assassin Dad Lays Parenting Tracks

My Daughter Wants A Penis

New Study States Kids Spread the Flu - Duh!

Morning News: Fully Caffeinated With a Hint of Sarah Palin

They Say: Kidnapping? It's on the Increase ... But Not Really

Jen Chaney — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 17:28:00 GMT

The lead of this story at MSNBC is alarming. I quote:

"More new babies are being kidnapped from public places — homes, parking lots and shopping malls — even as improved awareness and better security have cut the number of newborns snatched from the nation’s hospitals and health centers."

Makes you nervous, right? Well, the situation is not quite as frightening as that sentence makes it sound.

The American Journal of Nursing says that the number of infants kidnapped by non-family members from homes and public places has doubled, based on data from two studies: one that covers the years 1983 to 1992 and a second that deals with 1993 to 2006. Those same studies indicate that the number of hospital abductions have decreased by half. But here's the crucial part: The total number of kidnappings that occurred between '93 and '06 is ... 126. 86 of those fell in the private homes/public places category, 40 were in medical facilities. So these are not big numbers. And since the first study only covers nine years and the second focused on 13, the notion that one trend doubled and the other decreased does not seem to be supported by an apples to apples comparison.

I guess these figures are interesting, but I hate coverage of studies like this because it tends to sound more alarming than it needs to. The truth is -- and the story says this, too -- that infants are rarely abducted in this country. It happens fewer than 10 times a year. It's good to be aware of the trends so we can all be vigilant, but after getting past the first graph, most will quickly realize this is nothing to get too freaked about.

The most interesting fact in the study is that the typical kidnapper is usually a woman who has lost a baby or is unable to conceive. And, as we've reported before in this very blog, the abductors often pretend to be nurses or caregivers. No wonder the Journal of Nursing is concerned about this issue.

They Say: no link between autism and measles vaccine

Brett Singer — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 17:30:00 GMT

This news is unfortunately not likely to solve anyone's questions about whether or not vaccines are a cause of autism.

"Dr. W. Ian Lipkin of Columbia University, collaborating with a team from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Trinity College in Dublin, tackled the hot-button question: whether the MMR vaccine causes autism.

"'We are persuaded there is no link,' said Lipkin, director of the center on infection and immunity at Columbia's Mailman School of Public Health in Manhattan."

HOWEVER…

"The study was not designed to address other rumored theories of autism's cause, such as thimerosal, the much-debated mercury-based preservative in some other vaccines, Lipkin said."

Now, as usual, the devil is in the details. The 1998 study that linked MMR vaccines to autism was based on a whopping 12 children. I'm no scientist (nor have I played one on TV) but that doesn't sound like a very large sample base.

For this new study, "Lipkin and colleagues searched for traces of genetic material linked to the virus in intestinal tissue taken from 25 children with autism and gastrointestinal problems. They compared the samples to those from 13 children without autism but with intestinal problems. In 24 of the group of 25 and in 12 of the 13, there was no evidence of viral persistence, leading researchers to conclude the vaccine did not cause autism or gastrointestinal problems." So it’s a larger group of kids. Not that many, but on the surface it sounds more valid.

HOWEVER…

Why not do a study on thimerosal, which contains, as Jenny McCarthy calls it, "frickin' mercury"? Wouldn't that be, like, actually useful?

In theory, this study will put to rest parents' fears about this particular vaccine. Of course, as the great Homer Simpson once said, communism works -- in theory. In other words, I doubt this news will do anything to change anybody's mind one way or the other.

source: Newsday

image: timesonline.typepad.com

Creepiest spam message ever: "we have hijacked your baby"

Retarded movie boycott

Upcoming Sesame Street Guests

Warner Bros. sues over Hari Puttar film

Revenge of the Baseball Gods-Little League Scandal Revisited

Do kids do better on tests if they get paid?

Palin family online - real or fake?

Sarah Palin, Sportscaster

Man ejected from Yankee Stadium for lack of patriotism

McCain, Palin oppose teen pregnancy aid and sex education

Nasty Surprise in McDonalds Burger

Children opposed to healthcare (Onion Video)

Brett Singer — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 17:00:00 GMT

You know, so often with issues that face our society, we fail to ask: what about the children?

Healthcare is a hot-button issue in the upcoming Presidential election. The Onion presents reports on a study that shows that kids, when asked if they would like to go to the doctor more often, respond "NOOOO!!!!!" in overwhelming numbers. "The vast majority of children," they say, "do not want healthcare."

This is, of course, a joke. But it rings true, especially the closing line of the video.

Egyptian woman gives birth to septuplets because she wanted a boy

5 reasons it's a good thing I had boys

Is 'Nothing But Tears' Shampoo a Good Idea?

S&M Barbie

Baby Penis Album only five bucks

Bored games

Like father like son

Oy vey, Miley showed her tuchas again

Hunka hunka burnin Barbie

Upcoming Sesame Street Guests

10 Things Adults Don't Mind (that Kids Try to Avoid)

More Kids Stuff I like that my kids don't care about

5 things that would make parents' lives easier

It all started when Mary needed a laxative

Czech Law Forces Pregnant Teens Out of School

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 22:34:00 GMT

The legal system is no friend to pregnant teens in the Czech Republic, according to the Prague Daily Monitor. Because Czech law only permits gifted or handicapped students to follow individualized study plans, pregnant teens must either take a full high school course load throughout their pregnancies or discontinue their studies until they are able to do so—which, with a newborn at home, may not happen for a long time, if at all.

Czech police also aggressively investigate cases of underage intercourse, whether or not it’s consensual. The case of one 13-year-old girl will be under investigation as soon as she gives birth, with her 17-year-old partner facing up to four years of prison.

Considering the unfortunate situations these young parents-to-be find themselves in, Czech sexologists recommended increasing sex ed. in schools and in families, saying that better informed girls are more likely to use birth control and to have fewer sexual partners.

Looking on the bright side, the Prague Daily Monitor reminds its readers that teen pregnancy rates in the Czech Republic remain very low—unlike in "other countries like the United States."

Photo: supernannyrules.com

Watermelon the same as Viagra – maybe

Brett Singer — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:30:00 GMT

I can see the commercial now: Bob Dole staggers in, explaining to America that he, too, has had issues with E.D. "Bob Dole is all man. But sometimes even Bob Dole has trouble with E.D. That's why Bob Dole eats lots and lots of watermelon! That's why on this July 4th, Bob Dole is going to pitch a tent!" He winks. "And Bob Dole ain't talking about camping…"

Bhimu Patil, a researcher at the hilariously named "Fruit and Vegetable Improvement Center" at Texas A&M University, says that "Watermelon has more citrulline in the edible part than previously believed." (I wonder if he spent time gnawing on the rind before he figured this out.) Citrulline is an amino acid that can become arginine, which is another amino acid. "This is a precursor for nitric oxide, and the nitric oxide will help in blood vessel dilation." In other words, BOING!

(Or you could just look at pictures of boobs. Whatever works.)

Of course, Patil doesn't know quite how much watermelon one should eat. Scarfing down 10 watermelon balls (heh heh – Beavis, he said "balls") would give a person "about 150 milligrams of citrulline," but Roger Clemens, a professor of pharmacology at USC, cites one study that found "volunteers who drank three 8-ounce glasses of watermelon juice daily for three weeks boosted their arginine levels by 11%." (Roger Clemens, the former major league pitcher who is well versed in both drugs and erections, was not interviewed for this article.)

Bottom line? It appears to be much ado about melon. There's not much to back up this theory other than, you know, it's the sort of news that can get attention near July 4th. Still, even the naysaying researchers agree that it's fine to enjoy as much watermelon as you like, as long as you don't think it's going to, you know, get you going down there. But it couldn't hurt, right?

image: thestandingroom.com

Parent/Kid: 10 July 4th Activity Ideas

Kitchenista: Red, White and Cool

Political Nanny: Boobs for Obama and (Un)Covering the Body Politic

They Say: Our Kids Are Anxious

Adrienne Martini — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:30:00 GMT

Ready for this week's sobering data? The average kid today is more anxious than a 1950's kid who is also a psychiatric patient.

According to this 2000 study, the 1980s were a boom time for anxious kids. And the trend hasn't decreased, which stands to reason if these anxious kids are now having kids and passing the anxiety along because they don't realize how anxious they are.

Frankly, just thinking about that -- given that I was a kid in the 1980s -- makes me anxious.

The question, of course, is why this is happening. Don't we know so much more about raising children than our parents did? Aren't we more financially secure? Don't we lavish our kids with so much more of everything than we were lavished with?

The answers the researchers came up with may surprise you.

Photo credit: Victor Bezrukov

Reese Witherspoon=Uber-Mom?

Brett Singer — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 22:10:00 GMT

Towards the end of the press release for a recent survey published by Coldwell Banker and BabyCenter ("Moms Today"), we are told the following: "13 percent of moms think Reese Witherspoon is the quintessential Modern Mom."

I have no problem with Reese Witherspoon, but what exactly makes her a "quintessential Modern Mom"? (For the record, I didn't add the emphasis on the word "quintessential.") The fact that she's divorced? Rich? Won an Oscar? Of the next two famous moms mentioned, Jennifer Garner (12 percent) has spent a lot of time in public with her offspring. But Brooke Shields (10 percent) had a very public thing with Tom Cruise when he got mad at her for having the nerve to take anti-depressants to treat post-partum depression. (To be fair, Tommy C did eventually apologize for that.) So I would have thought Brooke would've taken the top mom spot, but no.

Statements that rank parents using words like "quintessential" always seem strange to me. "Who would you most like to be for a day?" or "Which mother do you think is a good role model?" -- neither question is Earth-shaking but at least they make sense.

One positive thing I suppose is that none of the celeb-mothers listed are train wrecks, a la Britney. Which celebrity parent(s) do you like?

image: Wikipedia

Daily Duh: Less junk food leads to weight loss

Brett Singer — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:00:00 GMT

This is a new occasional feature where I'll highlight studies that seem to confirm the obvious.

In Philadelphia, land of the cheese steak, five elementary schools participated in a program where candy and soda were eliminated from the vending machines, and kids were rewarded with raffle tickets for "making healthy food choices." And guess what? If kids eat less sugary snacks, they gain less weight. Astonishing stuff, this.

One interesting finding was that kids spend $2 per day on snacks that add up to about 600 calories, presumably of the junk food kind. Those things come from the corner store, where there may not be a lot of options besides Drake's cakes. The group that conducted the study, The Food Trust, says that they are "working with" local shops to get them to stock more fruit, vegetables and water. Because storeowners love it when people who aren't their customers tell them what to sell.

The language used in the story is very interesting when you consider the climate of weight loss. The writer refers to "kids who got fat" and then switches to "obese" and "overweight". This doesn't give you much information. If a kid is 2 or 3 pounds overweight, is that fat? When does overweight become obese? (I personally prefer the term "fatty-boombalatty", but that's just me.)

Getting kids to eat healthy is important, and it certainly would help if the food offered in school were better for you. My school lunch choices were pizza, hamburger, or cheeseburger, all of which came with French fries, or the disturbing looking hot lunch of the day. The fries were -- and this is not a joke -- "vitamin C enriched," which probably was meant to meet some sort of mandate. A study like this at least calls attention to the issue, which is great, but the conclusions aren't exactly earth shaking.

image: Yahoo.com

Phantom Food Allergies?

Amy S.F. Lutz — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 12:00:00 GMT

Every day, I struggle to come up with creative ideas for my daughter Erika's lunch. She started first grade this year at our local public school, which is officially "nut free" - which means not only no peanut butter, but nothing made at a facility that uses nuts in other products (you've all seen the labels). Which pretty much rules out most manufactured cookies, granola bars, and other packaged snack foods. And every day I chasten myself for the resentment I feel towards the young victims of the food allergy epidemic, the fragile immune systems that might erupt with just one whiff of Erika's trail mix. So you can imagine how intrigued I was by an article in this month's Harper's Magazine by Meredith Broussard analyzing the data behind this perceived epidemic and suggesting that in fact food allergies present no greater a threat today than they did when we were kids.

I found this shocking, given the tremendous amount of media coverage this issue has received recently. The Food Allergy & Anaphylaxis Network (FAAN) estimates that 30,000 Americans end up in emergency rooms due to food allergies and that up to 200 of these patients die. Broussard explains that this statistic was extrapolated from a very small study and that, actually, only 12 deaths from food allergies were reported in 2004. Furthermore, there have been no documented cases of children suffering allergic reactions from incidental contact with food. Even the well-publicized 2005 story of the girl who supposedly died after kissing a boy who had recently eaten peanut butter turned out to be wrong - she actually died of an asthma attack brought on by smoking pot.

Broussard doesn't deny that food allergies are real. But she does talk to a statistician from the CDC, who admits that there is no epidemiological evidence to support that food allergies are now any more prevalent or more severe than they have been. More parents today may believe their children are allergic, but that's most likely due to both the high false positive rate common to all allergy tests and the inflammation of public fear by my favorite focus of all conspiracy theories, the big pharmaceutical companies, who naturally support initiatives such as one by FAAN recommending parents carry an EpiPen on them at all times. What has been documented, according to Broussard, is the incredible anxiety children feel who have been diagnosed with food allergies, and how fearful they are of restaurants, supermarkets and any place they may be exposed to allergens. Studies report that these children feel more constrained and endangered than their peers with diabetes and other childhood diseases.

Of course children with food allergies need to take certain precautions. But maybe their parents can stop keeping them home from birthday parties and playdates, just because there might be allergens present. And maybe our schools don't have to be under a constant state of nut lockdown. I know I'm looking forward to the day I can pack a snack other than goldfish in Erika's lunchbox.

Divorced Parents Don't Suck

Karen Murphy — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 20:02:00 GMT

What a relief. Here I've been beating my head against a wall out of guilt and shame over completely ruining my kids' lives, subjecting them to the Pain of Living in a Broken Home, and it turns out I don't have to any more. I can hold my head up as a productive member of society again, me and all the other divorced parents out there, because a new study says we're just as good as married parents.

So there. Nyah.

Seriously, this goes against conventional wisdon, but who am I to doubt the veractity of MSNBC?

It turns out that a whole bunch of data was collected as part of the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NSLCY) in 1994 and 1996, which followed about 5,000 Canadian children living in two-parent households as of 1994 and compared changes in parenting among the 200 households with subsequent divorces and those that remained intact. And what they found was that by and large, parenting practices remained about the same after the divorce as they were before it. In other words, nurturing parents remained nurturing. (Obviously the flip side was true as well, but let's not dwell on the suckiness of parents, even a minority of them)

Parents answered survey questions in three areas, nurturing, consistency, and punishment, and from there the data was evaluated by sociologists at the University of Alberta.

Now, I see a couple of potential problems with this, as overjoyed as I am to know that I no longer suck:

1. How honest are parents in assessing their own parenting practices? We think our fat kids weigh less than they do; are we seeing ourselves clearly?

2. We're only talking 200 divorced households here, which, to me, represents far to small a sample to be very meaningful.

Oh well. Did I really need a study to tell me I don't suck as a parent?

Photo: custodyanddivorce.com