Neuron Mommy

We have all heard the alarming statistics of obesity rates in this country, and the subsequent deleterious health risks.  And there are harmful effects of obesity on the brain.  Studies have also shown that obese children are more likely to have lower IQ's (Olsson and Hutling, 2010), lower cognitive function and greater behavioral problems (Miller et al., 2006), greater risk for developing pseudomotor cerebri (buildup of pressure by fluid around the brain, aka idiopathic intracranial hypertension) and last but not least, brain lesions similar to what is observed in Alzheimer's patients (Miller et al., 2006). In 2010, a study was published in Diabetologia stating that obese adolescents with type 2 diabetes had impaired performance on learning and memory tasks compared to just obese cohorts.  MRI scans also showed reduced white matter (tissue where messages pass from one area of the brain to another). ...have I scared you enough?!  Here is a good article detailing how obesity effects a child's body:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/childhoodobesity/obesityeffects.html

Hope is on the horizon...

A researcher (Dr. Echon) with the San Antonio-based Social & Health Research Center was awarded a huge grant (a la $2 million) to study the caloric intake of 5 elementary schools.  The schools were chosen based on the high rates of obesity and diabetes, so lower-income schools.  It is estimated that 33% of children living in Bexas County (San Antonio/surrounding areas) are obese.  Yikes!

Dr. Echon said the aim is to inform the parents of these children how many calories their darling buds of joy are consuming.  So, in a nutshell, here is how it works.  Kids are assigned a bar code for their tray. Once they have ordered all of their food, a camera at the cashier station will snap a picture of said food.  Once the child hands in the tray, another camera snaps a photo of the remaining food.  A computer program then analyzes the remaining food for calorie and nutrient consumption. Parents will then receive a copy of the data.  The data will also be used to analyze what food kids are choosing to eat. No photo will be of any child, just the food.

With all of the information about how obesity negatively effects kids, from psychological to physical to actually altering brain plasticity, programs like this really need parental support.  In addition to signing the permission slip to let these programs occur, parents need to improve the quality of food for their children.  I live in the suburbs, therefore I am a bit jaded because all I see when I go to the grocery store are, lets just say, very rotund individuals.  Grocery carts filled with processed foods, sodas, cookies, high-sugar cereals...but very little fruit, veggie, etc.  If you are an adult and you want to be the size of a small aircraft carrier, more power to you (not really, but you are an adult).  But, for your kids sake, for the sake of their potential future investment into society, care enough to make sure these kids are getting proper nutrition.  They deserve the right to learn the best they can and not be hindered by a poor diet that leads to obesity and the deleterious physical and mental consequences.

Now go eat an apple!


Works cited:

http://diabetes.webmd.com/news/20100803/brain-abnormalities-in-obese-kids-with-diabetes

Since Conner was born, I have gradually been switching to more natural, homemade cleaners for my house and laundry.  I never thought I would make my own all purpose cleaner, fabric softner, etc. but, alas, I do.  The impetus was from two issues that kept bugging me.  First, have you looked at the back of most of  your cleaning products?  There are some pretty scary chemicals in there.  It seems like everyday more and more research comes out revealing how these chemicals aren't as benign as we once thought.  They are getting into our water systems and our environment.  The same can be said for a lot of cosmetic products like lotion, face soap, make-up, and (gasp!) baby products!  So, I am going to focus on the baby products and what the research says about some of the common ingredients found in most baby care products.

So, let me start by saying that the scientist in me trusts that enough research has been on these different chemicals and additives to say that they are relatively safe.  I mean, when I was a baby, baby powder and lotion, baby bath products, wipes, and disposable diapers were used with no thought to whether they were "chlorine free", paraben free, SLS free...But are they as safe as we consumers assume?  Are these preservatives and additives, used as anti-microbials and to lengthen shelf life, actually not good for our babies and kids?

Here is what I found using a website that is an excellent database for scientific articles and research (pubmed). I have provided a link to it at the end of this posting in case you want to check out any research.

Phthalates are mainly used in plastics to increase flexibility and resilience. Parabens are chemicals used as preservatives in cosmetics and medicines. The first thing I noticed when I searched "phthalates and paraben exposure" was 11 articles.  I am sure if I would have been more specific I would have found a plethora of articles.  I decided to focus on 2 different review papers.  For the non-scientist folks, a review paper simply means the author (s) have compiled the latest and most comprehensive research/studies to write an overall assessment of the actual literature.  In other words...they didn't actually conduct any, some, or all of the studies.  Instead, they are providing a nice overview of the research findings. The first review is by Crinnon, 2010, titled "Toxic effects of the easily avoidable phthalates and parabens".  The second review is by Witorsch and Thomas, 2010, titled "Personal care products and endocrine disruption: A critical review of the literature".

So here goes...

The review by Crinnon finds concludes that there is concern over the use of phthalates and parabens.  Here is a breakdown of his review:


Phthalates:
18 billion pounds are produced every year and are found in detergent, shampoo (including BABY), cosmetics, lotion (including BABY), plastic bags, household furniture, food packaging, cleaning supplies, CHILDREN'S TOYS (the list goes on).

1) Animal studies
          -prenatal exposure to males results in testicular abnormalities
2) Human studies
          -in utero exposure has been found to increase mood disorders, inattention and aggression in males
           and females
          -exposure in young females linked to earlier onset of sexual development and breast development
          -exposure in young males linked to testicular dysfunction and formation, infertility
          -exposure in adults linked to obesity, asthma, allergies, breast cancer (controversial), tumors, etc.
Parabens:

They can be found in shampoos, commercial moisturizers, shaving gels, personal lubricants, topical/parenteral pharmaceuticals, spray tanning solution, makeup, and toothpaste. They are also used as food additives. (Wikipedia). Parabens mimic estrogen activity and can interfere with mitochondrial function.

1) Animal studies
          -weak estrogen activity
          -2 studies by Burdock Group Consultants found parabens to be absolutely non-toxic (more on this
            below).
2)Human studies
          - (possibly) linked to breast cancer in females
          -linked to infertility in males

Here is what Witorsch and Thomas say in their review:
"In conclusion, although select constituents exhibit interactions with the endocrine system in the laboratory, the evidence linking personal care products to endocrine disruptive effects in humans is for the most part lacking".

Phthalates:
1) Animal studies
          -in utero exposure causes demasculinizing characteristics in male rats, similar to testicular dysgenesis
          syndrome in humans
          - however, this effect was not found in mice or primates
      
Parabens
1) Animal studies
         -studies have not linked parabens and endocrine disruption
2) Human studies
         -studies have not linked parabens and endocrine disruption


So here are my thoughts:
The review by Crinnon lists research articles to back up his conclusions.  However, I did notice he published his review in the journal Alternative Medicine Review, whose main purpose is "for sharing information on the practical use of alternative and complementary therapies".  Therefore, I think his conclusions might be a bit biased.

The review by Witorsch and Thomas was very science based, and I didn't go into great detail of every finding because it was very lengthy.  What struck me about their review was that most of the studies in humans sang the same tune..."exposure to phthalates is within the regulatory amounts".  So it is not that we aren't actually getting exposed, but that our exposure falls within "safe limits".  Most of the animal and human studies concluded the same thing...yes, we are exposed to parabens and phthalates, but the amount needed to actually cause deleterious effects to humans is way higher than any amount we are actually exposed to.

Um, yeah, not so much.

Here is my main problem with Witorsch and Thomas' very exhaustive review of the scientific literature.  Saying something is "within safe exposure limits" or that we would have to consume astronomical amounts to see effects is misleading.  Phthalates and parabens are in EVERYTHING!  We are not talking about just baby shampoo, or medicine, or lotion.  It is everything plastic.  Look around your house right now...plastic, plastic, plastic.  Plus, I understand the argument that with shampoo, we aren't absorbing much because it gets washed off.  Um, ok, well how about the fact that all of those chemical are going down the drain, and into the water supply?  You know, dental fillings used to contain mercury.  I guess the idea was that it was "within the safe exposure limit" of mercury.  Now they are removing those fillings because, guess what, mercury in any amount is bad.

Also, if you do a wikipedia search, you find that the evidence that parabens are non-toxic comes from a consulting group.  I don't know anything about them, and I am sure they are great scientists.  But from what I gathered from their website, industries go to them and they "offer customized solutions for your FDA compliance needs"...just sounds iffy to me...However, they do mention that phthalates are being removed from products because of health concerns.

Now I don't want to come across high-handed here.  I am a practical gal.  I realize that we have regulatory agencies that test the effectiveness and safety of all things to ensure they are ok to use.  But there are also countless examples when we find out that these chemicals/products aren't actually good for us.

So I guess my question is...why use these products?  Why take the chance?  I would love to hear from some moms out there that disagree with me.  Maybe I am viewing this too singularly?

I would like to provide a link to a recent blog I was fortunate enough to come across.  Not only is this blog a great tool for homemade, eco-friendly, and frugal living, the author seems so warm and genuine (and pretty!). Here is her article on the very topic of what we put on our bodies and our babies.  The list of ingredients on Johnson's Baby lotion is eye-opening.
http://homemademothering.com/2010/05/my-favorite-skin-care-ingredient.html

Well...what do you think?  Are we making too much of this?  Have they found these chemicals/ingredients to be safe?  Or are we sacrificing our health for the sake of a longer shelf life?


Works Cited:
PubMed  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/guide/

It has been way too long since my last post.  Conner is now 26 months old, and we have recently added a new addition to our family, Violet, who is 3 months old.  Life is busy but oh so good!

I have practiced yoga for about 5 years now.  I am sure everyone knows the benefits, but for me it goes a bit deeper.  It is almost like my body needs it!  I am a much more balanced and centered wife, Mommy and person when I run and do yoga. 

When I was pregnant with Violet, I practiced prenatal yoga.  I can't say enough about the benefits...increased flexibility, relief from back pain and tightness in the shoulders, etc.  Anywho, after my daughter was born I got right back into it.  I happened to google "baby yoga" after seeing a news segment a while back about baby yoga.  I purchased "Itsy Bitsy Yoga: Poses to Help Your Baby Sleep Longer, Digest Better, and Grow Stronger" by Helen Garabedian.  I love, really love, this book.  It is so easy to read and the pictures are so easy to follow.  The poses are really common sense, and nothing that is at all challenging.  Mainly it uses a Hatha approach of stretching and increasing flexibility. 

So this got me thinking...many studies have shown the positive physical and cognitive effects of yoga for adults. Can baby yoga provide the same effects?

This is a direct quote from Itsy Bitsy Yoga:
              "...Itsy Bitsy Yoga can promote better sleep, improved digestion, ease gas pain and colic, stimulate 
               neuromuscular development, and boost the immune system".

Now my only real complaint about this book is the lack of scientific references for these claims.  So off I went in search of some.

Sadly, I really didn't find any scientific articles per se.  But then again, how would one measure this stuff?

What I did find were numerous articles from accredited yoga instructors.  Basically they all say the same thing.  Based on their own experience teaching and practicing baby yoga, it will improve respiration, digestion, circulation and increase immune function.  In addition, it promotes healthy brain development, motor coordination, and decreases anxiety and stress.  In other words, it relaxes the baby :)

I think the most important benefit of baby yoga is the bonding.  The baby gets so much attention from the parent. 

So, although there isn't much in the way of actual scientific research, I would say that it is not a far stretch to assume that the most of the claims made by baby yoga advocates are pretty true.  For adults, yoga most certainly improves flexibility, muscle and motor coordination, decreases anxiety and stress, and a whole host of other improvements.  So why not be as beneficial for babies/toddlers/kids?  I have practiced baby yoga with Violet for about 2 months now.  What I can say is how happy she is when we practice.  I spend about 10 minutes with her and at that moment nothing else exists.  I wouldn't trade these moments for anything.  I do think she benefits from the poses, stretching, etc.  Mainly, I think she benefits from the undivided attention I give her during this time.  I am not trying to multi-task, or check my e-mail, or make dinner.  I am bonding with my baby.  We are relaxing and cooing and it is the best feeling in the world!  Namaste :)

Oh-and I have every intention of purchasing the Itsy Bitsy Yoga for Toddlers and Preschoolers for Conner!

In one of my previous posts, the Extreme Male Theory of Autism, I touched on the possible link between Autism and various chemicals, specifically BPA (bisphenol A). Now you can’t walk into a store and not see a TON of items listed as BPA-free, especially baby items. So this got me thinking, is BPA really all that bad? Or are we just making a huge deal out of a small amount of research that, when you get down to the nitty gritty, doesn’t really apply to human exposure to BPA. I found a great article from November 2009 posted in the National Research Center for Women & Families that summarizes a lot of scientific findings nicely.

So what is BPA? Bisphenol A (BPA) is an organic compound used to make plastic items such as baby bottles, food storage containers, water bottles, and coats beverage/food containers. BPA is also a known endocrine disruptor (just means it can disrupt the body’s natural hormone functions). One problem with BPA is that more leeches out into our food/beverages as we heat the plastic. Consequently, babies and infants tend to be on of the highest exposure groups. But the skeptical scientist in me stops here and realizes that water, if you have too much, can be bad for you too. So are we causing unnecessary concern over small amounts of BPA? Well, not really.

There have been numerous scientific reports and I will break them down as succinctly as possible. Here are some listings of what BPA has been shown to affect in both animal and human studies:

BPA affects on fetuses/infants/kids:
- the prostate gland, brain, and behavior
- early puberty in girls, interferes with estrogen

BPA and women:
-linked to miscarriages
-insulin resistance (a risk factor for Type II diabetes)
-increased formation and growth of fat cells (which can lead to obesity)

BPA and men:
-(exposure to BPA via work conditions) greater erectile dysfunction, ejaculation and diminished sex drive

BPA and animal studies:
-in rats, a significant increase in precancerous lesions in the mammary glands and prostate
-early onset of puberty in rats receiving doses comparable to what humans would be exposed to
-hyperthyroidism in (especially female) cats (remember the cans are coated with BPA)
-in mice and rats there was an increase in hyperactivity and brain activity
-in nonhuman primates BPA was linked to cognitive issues that could possible contribute to deficits in
learning and memory

BPA in cell lines:
-cancer cells exposed to BPA showed a decreased response to chemotherapy

As a side note, BPA was approved by the FDA for use. However, as the article states,

“according to a publication of the American Chemical Society, the national professional association for chemists, 153 government-funded BPA experiments on lab animals and tissues found adverse effects while only 14 did not”.

This prompted more studies looking at BPA exposure and its effects on humans. A subsequent study (Lang et al., 2008), found that heart disease and diabetes were linked to higher levels of BPA in humans.

Canada, and most (if not all) of Europe has already banned BPA. In the U.S. it was recently announced that there will be increased funding to further study the effects of BPA. And as we can all attest to, BPA has already been removed from many, many products.

So I guess the moral of the story is this…BPA clearly has some pretty toxic effects. What is most alarming is that these deleterious effects occur in the range of our exposure. In our family, we buy as many BPA-free products as possible, as long as it is financially sound and reasonable.

What are your thoughts?

Article Cited and Referenced:
http://www.center4research.org/BPA.html
Diana Zuckerman, PhD, Paul Brown, BS, and Laura Walls, BA. Are Bisphenol A (BPA) Plastic Products Safe for Infants and Children? National Research Center for Women & Families, November 2009.

Lang I.A., Galloway T.S., Scarlett A. et al. (2008). Association of Urinary Bisphenol A Concentration With Medical Disorders and Laboratory Abnormalities in Adults. Journal of American Medical Association 300(11),1303-1310.

Well we are back on the topic of boobs...well, more specifically, breastfeeding.  You may recall from a previous post, "Hooray for Boobs", I laid out some very important contributions breastfeeding has on IQ.  In addition, in "If You're a Picky Eater and Ya Know It, Clap Your Hands", I also talked about how genes play a role on the like or dislike of certain foods by kids. Well gosh darn, I came across an article (2007) that studied a mother's diet while breastfeeding and how it may contribute to the foods her kiddo is willing to try.  According to researchers at the Monell Chemical Senses Center, eating certain foods while breastfeeding will likely result in your kid enjoying those same foods.  I think we all know that once a baby is moved onto solid foods, repeated exposure to foods will increase the chance that the baby will accept it, and we all know that greater consumption of fruits and vegetables packs many, many health benefits.  This current study assessed 45 infants (20 of whom were breastfed) who had only been exposed to cereal.  One group received green beans for 8 consecutive days while the other group received green beans and peaches on alternating days.  All infants were assessed on their acceptance of green beans and peaches before and after the study.  Results suggests that, unlike formula fed (which is not a knock against those who formula feed), babies accepted peaches more if their mothers ate peaches and breastfed.  This was not found with green beans.  And why you ask?  Good question!  The researchers found that breastfeeding mothers consumed green beans way less than peaches, and way less than the recommend amounts for green vegetables.  Therefore, the results indicate that if the mothers would have consumed more green beans and/or green vegetables, the breastfed infants would have also accepted green beans more readily.

I do have one issue with a finding in this study.  The lead scientist states "Babies are born with a dislike for bitter tastes"...apparently they need to read my blog!  Studies indicate that a babies like or dislike for bitter tastes is GENETIC!  If Mom and Dad both have the gene that encoded for bitter taste YO BABY NO LIKEY BROCCOLI.  ( Wow I am so dorky...you don't even want to know how long I laughed at that...again).  But if Mom and Dad or just Mom/Dad don't have the gene that encodes for the bitter taste, an infant will be more likely to accept green or bitter foods.  However, as I stated in the "Picky Eater" blog, environment does play a role too.  If you are picky because you THINK you don't like a certain food, or whoever prepared it for you didn't need to be in the kitchen, your kids can/will model your behavior.

Another interesting point of this study is that the researchers also found that the facial expressions made by babies did not always parallel with their acceptance of the food.  They concluded that infants have an innate mechanism for displaying facial expressions for certain foods, which many not indicate their actual like or dislike of the food.

So the take-home message is that boobs rock!  If you breastfeed, you have the ability to influence what foods your baby will like.  How cool is that?!  Therefore, breastfeeding mamas should make sure to eat a wide variety of fruits and vegetables, not only for their babies benefit, but for themselves as well.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071203090135.htm

Er, what? Now before you think I have lost my marbles and forgot that the song is actually "I'm walking on sunshine", rest assured I have not. And you are welcome for now having that song stuck in your head :)

My in-laws just came for a visit and we were discussing the fact that Conner is crawling and cruising his little tushie off. However, he is not walking yet. Now I know he just turned 1, but I am sure every parent is excited around the 1st birthday because that is when you start expecting the little wabbly legs to walk. Or so I am told. In our discussion, my in-laws (Pam and Rich) mentioned that there is a link between intelligence and prolonged crawling. The longer a baby crawls is apparently linked to their intelligence. WHAT? So I had to do some investigating.

I tried to find a lot of information about this topic, but surprisingly found little. It seems that the main person behind this theory is Glenn Doman, a childhood educator that specializes in right-brain training (whatever that means). He is also the author of How To Teach Your Baby To Be Physically Superb. Here is a great quote from the article summarizing what Doman contends:

"...crawling forwards is an essential skill to master. Doman claims that crawling stimulates the brain to develop convergence of vision - and that as a result, people who skip this phase as babies may find it extremely difficult to learn to read and write as children. In addition, children who missed out on crawling may suffer from speech problems, he says - because the same part of the brain controls both functions"

Now I will admit that I have not read his book. I have noticed that he gets a lot of good reviews and has written a number of books. So I can't really critique his book and I am sure it has plenty of scientific research to back up his assertions. But I do take some issue with the claim that learning to read/write and speech are controlled by the same part of the brain. I think that is way way oversimplified. Any of my fellow neuroscientists feel free to chime in if I am wrong.

I have seen babies that crawl "normal", crawl on their butts, or skip crawling all together. And lets not forget that there are some babies that walk by 9 months, and some by 18 months. So to any parent or grandparent out there...did you notice any differences in reading and writing abilities and the length of crawling/onset of walking? I will address this issue more once I have read the book, but for now I thought it would be cool to get some anecdotal input.


http://www.articlesbase.com/babies-articles/crawling-is-it-important-398848.html

Recently, a friend from high school generously gave me the intro DVD for "Any Baby Can Read". I must confess that I am really excited to see what it is about. And she feels that it was beneficial. But the neuroscientist in me wonders if, well, any baby can, in fact, read? If I haven't already mentioned it, I highly, highly recommend "What's Going on in There? How the Brain and Mind Develop in the First Five Years of Life", by Lise Eliot. Even if you aren't well versed in science jargon, this book is really easy, informative and well researched. The book gives a great overview of the stages of brain development of the visual, auditory, motor and language systems, just to name a few. And after reading this book, I realize that there are stages that babies learn, and there is really no way past those stages. For example, although there is an age range for babies to begin crawling, it is really based on how fast that portion of their motor system develops. Nothing you do can really make them crawl faster. So it is interesting that there is a program which claims it can teach a baby to read, well before most kidlets become "readers".

First let me start by explaining what "Any Baby Can Read" contends their product can do:

"A baby’s brain thrives on stimulation and develops at a phenomenal pace…nearly 90% during the first five years of life! The best and easiest time to learn a language is during the infant and toddler years, when the brain is creating thousands of synapses every second – allowing a child to learn both the written word and spoken word simultaneously, and with much more ease.

Dr. Titzer says the current practice of starting to teach reading skills in school is too late and children benefit greatly from getting a much earlier start since a child basically has only one natural window for learning language -- from about birth to about age four. During this period it is easier for a child to learn any type of language including spoken, receptive, foreign and written language. The earlier the child is taught to read the better they will read and the more likely they will enjoy it.

Studies prove that the earlier a child learns to read, the better they perform in school and later in life. Early readers have more self-esteem and are more likely to stay in school. Meanwhile, a national panel of reading specialists and educators determined that most of the nation’s reading problems could be eliminated if children began reading earlier."

Sounds good, eh? But let us take a look at these claims.

They are correct that when a baby is born, he/she has all of the neurons (cells in the central nervous system) in place, however, synapses (parts of the neuron that communicate to other neurons) are overproduced, called synaptogenesis. The reason for synaptogenesis is that experiences drive changes in the brain. An infants/toddlers brain is like a blank canvas (if you will) and is completely open to new experiences (words, colors, sounds, etc). As the infant/toddler experience their world, their language, their environment, the synapses that are not needed prune back. However, there is absolutely no scientific evidence that kids can learn language and reading simultaneoulsy just because synaptogenesis is occurring.

The next claim that "starting to teach reading skills in school is too late and children benefit greatly from getting a much earlier start since a child basically has only one natural window for learning language" really has no basis. It is true that there is a sensitive developmental window for language (not reading) development. If a child is deprived of language during this period, no matter what you do later, that child will never acquire language. But, reading is not like that. There is no "sensitive" window for reading. If there was, illiterate adults would not be able to learn to read, and they clearly can. I understand that they are saying that these kiddos learn best when they pair language and reading, but this argument really doesn't show that.

This claim really gets me going! They claim that "Studies prove that the earlier a child learns to read, the better they perform in school and later in life". Really? And where exactly are your citations for these studies? Most studies don't show findings so clear, cut and dry. There are a lot of variables to consider when it comes to reading and the effects on later school performance. Do these early readers come from smarter, better educated parents? Do they have a more stable, nurturing environment? Have they been read to from very early in infancy? Do their parents read frequently? Genetics? Environment? You get the picture.

In all honesty, I think what gets me a bit worked up about these products is they play into that natural, and ever-present voice we all have as parents. You know, the one that contanstanly makes you wonder if you are doing all that you can for your kidlet. We all want to have the brightest, smartest, etc. kids because that means they will go on to have productive lives and be contributors to society. And if "Any Baby Can Read" doesn't do what it claims, but at the end of the day encourages quality time spent between parent and child, then to me, that is what it is all about. But I think you can do that for free ;)

So all in all I will give it a try. And if Conner does well, that is great. But I also think that the claims they make are lacking scientific proof (at best) and conflates language acquisition with reading.