As promised, I paid a visit to A Pea in the Pod while holiday shopping, and I am happy to report that Heidi Klum's line of maternity clothing is as practical as it is beautiful. I bought the black evening dress pictured in my last blog post, as well as a pair of denim leggings from her line. I have never worn skinny jeans before, but these are flattering and comfortable—the fabric is very stretchy. What's even better about the jeans is that unlike every single other pair of maternity jeans I own, they actually stay up! This is accomplished, I think, by three features: the stretchiness and fit of the leggings, the contour of the waistband, and the extra strip of carefully contoured elastic sewn onto the inside of the jeans. It's nice not to have to face the alternative of either hiking up my jeans every few minutes (even the "secret belly" pants require constant adjustments) or having a case of plumber's bum. These should be featured on History Channel's "Engineering Marvels" series, as far as I'm concerned! :-)
The only downside is that her clothing is a bit pricey, so you may want to check out the sale rack (where I found my leggings!), or see if you can find gently used pieces on eBay.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
New Breastfeeding Study: Start Introducing Solid Foods Earlier
A new study on breastfeeding suggests that giving infants only breast milk during their first 6 months may not be best for their health:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110114/ts_afp/healthchildrenresearchbritain
Ten years ago, based in part on studies done in developing countries, the World Health Organization recommended that babies be fed exclusively breast milk for the first 6 months. This practice was thought to give rise to fewer infections and growth problems. Apparently, however, what is best for baby's health depends to some extent on whether the baby is growing up in a developed country; when the baby lives somewhere with access to better quality food, it is better to start to introduce other foods sooner - doing so seems to make make anemia and the development of allergies less likely! Researchers in Sweden confirmed the link between allergies and late introduction of foods other than breast milk: they found that early onset celiac disease increased after a recommendation to delay introduction of gluten until age six months, "and it fell to previous levels after the recommendation reverted to four months". This makes sense in principle, too, given that the body seems to learn from what it is exposed to early in life what is foreign and what is not. (For this reason, children who grow up in a household with pets are less likely to have dander allergies, for example.)
As interesting as this study is, almost equally interesting is the response to it: one breastfeeding advocate challenged the findings not on any kind of scientific grounds, but because it "plays into the hands of the baby food industry". Whether or not it does, what does this matter if exclusively breastfeeding longer really does contribute to nutrition deficiencies and the development of allergies in the child? (As my husband commented, this is akin to opposing the development of an AIDS vaccine because it would benefit the pharmaceutical industry.)
On this issue, as with many issues having to do with birth and with child care, too often the question is which answer is consistent with one's uncritically accepted broader ideals, not which answer is actually right (let alone whether one's broader ideals are). A person's views on birth, child care and parenting, are almost always tied to his or her most fundamental ideas - about what it is to be human, what parenting requires, what raising a baby to be a healthy well-adjusted person means and requires, gender roles, and even about the value of modern medicine and technology more generally. For this reason, it's harder to get people like the breastfeeding advocate quoted above (or the doctors who treat pregnancy as a medical problem) to really consider the facts in their full context and reevaluate their judgments accordingly. In this case, it would mean considering introducing solid foods before 6 months. One thing that remains uncontroversial, however, is the health benefit, in terms of boosting the baby's immune system, of breastfeeding for newborns; the results of this study do not speak against the established health benefits of breastfeeding, just in favor of also introducing foods other than breast milk a little earlier in the baby's life.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110114/ts_afp/healthchildrenresearchbritain
Ten years ago, based in part on studies done in developing countries, the World Health Organization recommended that babies be fed exclusively breast milk for the first 6 months. This practice was thought to give rise to fewer infections and growth problems. Apparently, however, what is best for baby's health depends to some extent on whether the baby is growing up in a developed country; when the baby lives somewhere with access to better quality food, it is better to start to introduce other foods sooner - doing so seems to make make anemia and the development of allergies less likely! Researchers in Sweden confirmed the link between allergies and late introduction of foods other than breast milk: they found that early onset celiac disease increased after a recommendation to delay introduction of gluten until age six months, "and it fell to previous levels after the recommendation reverted to four months". This makes sense in principle, too, given that the body seems to learn from what it is exposed to early in life what is foreign and what is not. (For this reason, children who grow up in a household with pets are less likely to have dander allergies, for example.)
As interesting as this study is, almost equally interesting is the response to it: one breastfeeding advocate challenged the findings not on any kind of scientific grounds, but because it "plays into the hands of the baby food industry". Whether or not it does, what does this matter if exclusively breastfeeding longer really does contribute to nutrition deficiencies and the development of allergies in the child? (As my husband commented, this is akin to opposing the development of an AIDS vaccine because it would benefit the pharmaceutical industry.)
On this issue, as with many issues having to do with birth and with child care, too often the question is which answer is consistent with one's uncritically accepted broader ideals, not which answer is actually right (let alone whether one's broader ideals are). A person's views on birth, child care and parenting, are almost always tied to his or her most fundamental ideas - about what it is to be human, what parenting requires, what raising a baby to be a healthy well-adjusted person means and requires, gender roles, and even about the value of modern medicine and technology more generally. For this reason, it's harder to get people like the breastfeeding advocate quoted above (or the doctors who treat pregnancy as a medical problem) to really consider the facts in their full context and reevaluate their judgments accordingly. In this case, it would mean considering introducing solid foods before 6 months. One thing that remains uncontroversial, however, is the health benefit, in terms of boosting the baby's immune system, of breastfeeding for newborns; the results of this study do not speak against the established health benefits of breastfeeding, just in favor of also introducing foods other than breast milk a little earlier in the baby's life.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Should you worry about that New Year's Eve sip of bubbly?
Many women entirely abstain from alcohol during pregnancy and worry about the possible fetal effects of any alcohol they consumed before they knew they were pregnant. Their caution and concern may seem well-placed; studies that show that excess alcohol consumption during pregnancy can cause low birth weight, cognitive impairment, behavioral problems, or even full-blown fetal alcohol syndrome. The effects of heavy drinking during pregnancy are uncontroversial and are very serious to the health of the developing fetus, not to mention that anyone with binge drinking tendencies or a bottle-of-Jack-per-week habit is obviously ill-suited to be a parent for other reasons.
If heavy drinking causes serious effects, doesn't it make sense to assume that even light drinking has some detrimental effects? In short, no. Obviously, the fact that excessive ingestion of any substance can have serious consequences doesn't necessarily mean that there are any risks to occasional, moderate ingestion of the same substance. For example, although cyanide is lethal in sufficient doses, no one swears off eating apples because their seeds contain trace amounts of cynaide - the amount found in the seeds is so insignificant that accidentally swallowing the seeds has absolutely no detrimental effect.
Thus, it is perhaps not surprising that new medical research shows that light drinking during pregnancy - i.e. having 1 or 2 drinks per week - has no discernible affects on your developing baby. Researchers followed the children of women with different drinking habits (those who abstained entirely during pregnancy, those who had 1-2 drinks per week and those who were heavier drinkers) until the children were 5 years old, and found that light drinking during pregnancy had absolutely no detrimental effect on children's cognitive abilities or behavioral tendencies. (Light drinking by the mothers at first actually seemed to have beneficial cognitive and behavioral effects on their children, until researchers controlled for the income and education levels of the mothers.)
For a decent layperson's summary of the study, click here. To read the abstract and access a link to the full text of the study, in all its technical detail, click here. (Note: the full text of the study can only be accessed through a university library or with some other kind of subscription to the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.)
In short, the problem with studies of the fetal effects of the consumption of just about anything during pregnancy is that they tend to focus on pregnant women who ingest a lot of the substance. This makes it difficult for pregnant women to know what commonly ingested foods and medicines may be entirely safe in moderation. This kind of study, with its focus on moderate alcohol consumption, is thus a valuable find (even if it is, unfortunately, retrospective regarding pregnant women's alcohol consumption). It finds no evidence that light alcohol consumption during pregnancy causes any harm to the developing fetus, so have a glass of wine on date night if you'd like, and don't sweat that New Year's Eve toast!
If heavy drinking causes serious effects, doesn't it make sense to assume that even light drinking has some detrimental effects? In short, no. Obviously, the fact that excessive ingestion of any substance can have serious consequences doesn't necessarily mean that there are any risks to occasional, moderate ingestion of the same substance. For example, although cyanide is lethal in sufficient doses, no one swears off eating apples because their seeds contain trace amounts of cynaide - the amount found in the seeds is so insignificant that accidentally swallowing the seeds has absolutely no detrimental effect.
Thus, it is perhaps not surprising that new medical research shows that light drinking during pregnancy - i.e. having 1 or 2 drinks per week - has no discernible affects on your developing baby. Researchers followed the children of women with different drinking habits (those who abstained entirely during pregnancy, those who had 1-2 drinks per week and those who were heavier drinkers) until the children were 5 years old, and found that light drinking during pregnancy had absolutely no detrimental effect on children's cognitive abilities or behavioral tendencies. (Light drinking by the mothers at first actually seemed to have beneficial cognitive and behavioral effects on their children, until researchers controlled for the income and education levels of the mothers.)
For a decent layperson's summary of the study, click here. To read the abstract and access a link to the full text of the study, in all its technical detail, click here. (Note: the full text of the study can only be accessed through a university library or with some other kind of subscription to the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.)
In short, the problem with studies of the fetal effects of the consumption of just about anything during pregnancy is that they tend to focus on pregnant women who ingest a lot of the substance. This makes it difficult for pregnant women to know what commonly ingested foods and medicines may be entirely safe in moderation. This kind of study, with its focus on moderate alcohol consumption, is thus a valuable find (even if it is, unfortunately, retrospective regarding pregnant women's alcohol consumption). It finds no evidence that light alcohol consumption during pregnancy causes any harm to the developing fetus, so have a glass of wine on date night if you'd like, and don't sweat that New Year's Eve toast!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)