Neuron Mommy

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.

Today Conner had his 9-month wellness check-up. First, I can't believe he is already 9 months old! Time has flown (well at times it doesn't feel that way). So there we were, Conner, Mommy and Dr. Aggie (see previous post to know why we refer to him as Dr. Aggie :D). Now Dr. Aggie is incredibly nice. He answers my weird off-the-wall questions (and I can definitely bring the weird). But when he starts to question me about Conner's developmental milestones I feel...well for those of you that know me well, I am quite a competitive person. In fact, I have been referred to as "Monica" from Friends (despite the fact that I am nothing like her!). Ahem. Moving along, so he starts to ask if Conner is doing this, that and the other. And I find that for most of the questions my answer is "um, no, not yet". So now I feel like a loser. It must be my fault that Conner isn't pulling himself up to stand using the furniture. No, no, no, Mommy or Daddy have to stand him up, then he can hold himself up using the coffee table. Or that he isn't crawling, cruising, walking, riding a bike, composing music to make Mozart jealous (deep breath!). But I left there thinking that not all babies develop at the same pace and I am not a big ass loser (well at least not in this realm). But I met a good friend for a baby date at Austin's Children's Museum. They have "baby bloomer" day and OMG it was a blast! So there we are, cute babies and all, and over crawls this really beautiful little girl. So the mom and I start talking and when she informs me that her daughter is Conner's age that same feeling of loserhood comes back. Now I know not to compare babies...but damnit I can't help myself! Of course as soon as they started the sing-along and Conner looked at me with this "Mommy I love you and thank you for bringing me here" look (yes people...that was what he was thinking!)...all those feelings of loser-hood went away. Instead I just felt so blessed that I have a healthy little boy who will develop all of these milestones when he is good and ready!

So Moms...did you feel the competitive streak? Did you overcome it?

My brilliant father-in-law, Rich, sent me a fabulous e-mail asking if there were any books about what babies need to be taught on a month by month, then year by year basis. I have read "What's Going On In There? How the Brain and Mind Develop in the First Five Years of Life" by Lise Eliot (and I highly highly recommend this book, even if you are not of a science persuasion). But this aforementioned book does not really go into great depths about what to teach an infant/toddler, based on what they can developmentally grasp. Instead Dr. Eliot simply, but accurately explains how the brain develops. However, I would love to know what are the best age appropriate toys/activities. I know that anyone can walk into Target and buy a toy based on age. However, I am not convinced that this is necessary. Some of the toys Conner has found to be entertaining (and I am sure educational) have been items from around the house (i.e. that our wooden cooking spoon, when banged against a tupperware container, makes a noise).

I have found a bunch of websites that basically just say talking and reading to your baby is the best thing to do. Does anyone know of a book that has great suggestions for how to stimulate and encourage age appropriate development? Any input would be very much appreciated.

Also, Conner has become a bit bored with his current selection of toys and we need to invest in more. Any suggestions for toys/activities we can buy that an almost 9 month old would love?

And if there are no books...hmm...I have always wanted to write a book...but must must must finish grad school first!

Hi everyone!
Well I thought I would give a bit of an update on Conner. Ladies and gentlemen...(drum roll please)...we have a tooth! And boy oh boy is he not having any fun. Of course I can't blame him. If I had a hard object made up of calcium and phosphorus (and other mineral salts) ramming its way out of my gums, I don't think I would be too hot to trot either. But he is handling it like a little trooper. He has also started "backward" crawling. From what I gather, this precedes crawling forward. He also seems to be very very aware of his environment. He has always been a very curious, observant baby, but now it is as if he is going through a developmental stage and he is becoming more cognitively enhanced. So what that last sentence really means is...his sleeping is interrupted and WE ARE TIRED! But this is just an awesome journey and I love watching him learn and absorb the world!

My next blog entry will be more in line with neuronal/cognitive development. I am going to do an entry on spanking. So tune in...