Mother’s Pregnancy Weight Linked to Child’s Obesity
More than 26 percent of American adults were obese as of 2009—compared with less than 20 percent in 2000, according to a new report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And the number of U.S. states with more than 30 percent of their population topping a body mass index (BMI) of 30 tripled between 2007 and 2009. With this accelerating epidemic, researchers are looking for clues beyond daily diet and exercise to explain our propensity for extra poundage—and many are finding evidence in the very first stages of life.
A growing number of analyses have found a convincing link among a heavier mother-to-be, increases in her baby’s birth weight, and the child’s later risk of obesity. In many past observational studies, however, basic genetics or environmental factors could be blamed for this association.
A new study of 513,501 mothers and 1,164,750 of their children born across 15 years aimed to take genetics out of the equation by assessing maternal and infant weight only for those women who had more than one child. “By making comparisons of two or more infants born to the same mother, we were able to factor out the role of genetics,” says David Ludwig, an associate professor of pediatrics, director of the Obesity Program at Children’s Hospital Boston and co-author of the new study.
Women who gained more than 24 kilograms during a pregnancy (which occurred in about 12 percent of pregnancies) added an average of 147.4 additional grams to their baby’s birth weight than those who gained about 7.5 to 10 kilograms. In other terms, pregnant women who gained 22.5 kilograms had double the risk of having an infant with a high birth weight compared with those who only gained about nine kilograms. And every kilogram gained during pregnancy increased a baby’s weight by about 9.5 grams, according to the analysis, which published online August 4 in The Lancet.
Being heavier at birth increases the odds that an individual will be overweight or obese as a child—as well as an adult. And the excess weight has been linked to a range of chronic conditions, including asthma, diabetes and metabolic syndrome (a group of metabolic risk factors).
Although previous studies had correlated high BMI moms with heavier babies, “the direct effects of excessive weight gain on the fetus have never been conclusively demonstrated,” notes Ludwig, who worked on the study with collaborator Janet Currie, a professor of economics at Columbia University.
The importance of grams
The ill effects of undernourishment on fetal development have been well documented. A pregnant woman who does not get ample calories for her and her fetus increases the risk the baby will have stunted physical growth, poor cognitive development, and be more susceptible to diseases. The health risks of too many calories, however, are just beginning to come to light.
To be sure, a heavier fetus will tilt the pregnant mother’s scale slightly, and the amount of weight typically put on my moms gaining too much during pregnancy far exceeds the additional ounces their babies typically take on.
Nevertheless, although 0.2 kilogram of additional baby fat might not sound like much, in the context of a three- to 3.5-kilogram infant, every 0.03 kilogram changes the odds ratio, according to Ludwig.
Other research indicates that infant birth weight is also heavily determined by a woman’s weight even before she becomes pregnant. A study published in June in the European Journal of Pediatrics reported that being overweight or obese before getting pregnant meant that a mother’s future child was 1.4 times more likely to be overweight or obese by age four. “It means preconception health screening and intervention for overweight and obese [women] is extremely important,” says Panagiota Kitsantas, an assistant professor of biostatistics and epidemiology at George Mason University’s Department of Health Administration and Policy and lead author of the June paper.
Although her investigation did not specifically look at women with more than one child and thus could have been colored by other genetic and environmental factors, Kitsantas says that the results from her work and The Lancet report are complementary. “Both studies pointed to one direction: mothers’ body weight affected their offspring’s weight.”
Underlying changes
Extra birth weight might not be the only change many of these infants face. Excessive maternal weight during pregnancy is also likely changing the metabolic and hormonal environment of the developing fetus, Ludwig says.
Even if an infant has a few extra ounces due to a mother’s excessive gestational weight gain, “the infant developed in a metabolically abnormal intrauterine environment,” Ludwig explains.
Excessive caloric intake by a pregnant woman can stimulate the overgrowth of fetal tissues, change hormonal balances, alter metabolic pathways, “and perhaps even structures in the brain that regulate appetite and metabolism,” he says. And those changes might stay with an individual for life.
Many adults have a difficult time losing weight and keeping it off, and if the body is predisposed to putting on the pounds, fighting obesity on both individual and societal levels will be even more challenging.
Researchers are still working to understand just how some of these pathways and hormones can influence disease risk, primarily through animal studies in the lab. And until more chemical links are found, a direct cause-and-effect relationship cannot be established, Kitsantas notes.
She applauds the new work, noting that Ludwig and colleagues used apt statistical models to try to avoid confounding effects and excluded subjects with other risk factors such as gestational diabetes or extremely high birth weight. Kitsantas is not entirely convinced, however, that genetics can be erased from the picture, and asserts that more lab work remains to be done to parse out nature, nurture and nutrition.
Prepregnancy health
Not every baby born on the heavy side will battle obesity or related chronic diseases. But, Ludwig points out, “on a population basis, [increased birth weight] is shifting risk upward.”
The amount of weight pregnant women are putting on has been growing—as has their prepregnancy weight in the past few decades, Ludwig notes. Alongside that trend are signs that average birth weight is also headed upward.
“If we don’t stop the vicious cycle at some point, we’ll just keep going and going,” Kitsantas says. If female babies are born more prone to obesity, the likelihood of their gaining too much weight before or during pregnancy increases, thus putting their offspring at greater risk.
Even though the specific mechanisms at work remain poorly understood and there is still not enough evidence to draw a cause-and-effect conclusion between maternal weight and a child’s risk for obesity, Kitsantas says that is not reason enough to delay action. “We really have to jump in based on the findings we have to create specific interventions to fix the problem.”
Ludwig acknowledges that the challenge of getting Americans to stay fit is great but says that changing the habits of mothers-to-be might be a little easier. “Women tend to be especially motivated during pregnancy because it’s not just their health [that is] at stake—it’s their children’s,” he notes. “Almost every mother instinctively wants to give their children a healthy start in life.”
And, along with physical activity, food quality is just as important as quantity, he says. “The higher quality of diet consumed, the easier it is to maintain a health body weight,” says Ludwig, who has been working on a new study comparing the effects of two different diets on maternal and infant health. “The best time to begin obesity prevention efforts for the next generation is actually prior to birth,” he says.
Kitsantas extends that recommendation, suggesting that all women of childbearing age establish healthy lifestyle habits and healthy weights: “The sooner the better,” she says.
The Cosmetic Story : Personal care products
by Annie Leonard
Director, the Story of Stuff Project
As a mother, I want to be sure that the shampoo, sunscreen, bubble bath and other personal care products my daughter uses are safe. If I stick to products in the children’s aisle at the drugstore — stuff that’s made and marketed specifically for kids — those should be OK, right?
The labels are reassuring: “Gentle.” “Pure.” “Natural.” “Free of Harsh Ingredients.” “Recommended by Pediatricians.” “Dermatologists Approved.” And of course, “No More Tears.”
But when you turn the bottles around, get out a magnifying glass and read the fine print on the back (and get online to do some research) it’s a different story: sodium laureth sulfate, diazolidinyl urea, ceteareth-20, PEGs, quaternium-15 — all these are typically contaminated with cancer-causing chemicals like formaldehyde or 1,4 dioxane.
Carcinogens in baby shampoo? Are you kidding me?
I asked some scientists what was going on, and what they told me was scary, and not just for our children. It turns out the average American bathroom is a minefield of toxic chemicals. Sunscreens, lipstick, moisturizer, shaving cream — many cosmetics and personal care products for babies, kids, moms and dads contain chemicals linked to cancer or other health problems like learning disabilities, asthma and even damaged sperm.
I got so mad about this I joined with the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics to make a new video, The Story of Cosmetics.
It turns out that while you and I can choose to buy the safer products made by responsible companies, the really important decisions don’t happen when we take a product off the shelf. What counts is when companies and government agencies decide what should be allowed on the shelves.
Here’s just some of what I learned while making The Story of Cosmetics:
- All those sudsy products like shampoos and body washes that contain sodium laureth sulfate have as a byproduct 1,4-dioxane, a known carcinogen that’s suspected to also cause kidney, nerve and respiratory problems. Unlike many other countries, the U.S. government does not limit formaldehyde, 1,4-dioxane, or most other hazardous substances in personal care products. As a result, independent lab tests found these chemicals in dozens of brands, including Johnson’s Baby Shampoo and Sesame Street Bubble Bath. The companies claim that the chemical levels aren’t large enough to worry about, but I’d prefer not to have any cancer-causing chemicals in my daughter’s shampoo — or mine.
- Protecting yourself from the sun shouldn’t be dangerous. But a number of common sunscreen chemicals are linked to cancer, and may also disrupt estrogen and thyroid hormones. Well over half of all sunscreens contain the potential hormone disruptor oxybenzone that readily penetrates the skin and has been found in the bodies of 97% of Americans tested by the Centers for Disease Control.
- Dabbing on a little bit of lipstick seems harmless enough – if you don’t mind a little lead. Tests commissioned by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics found lead in almost two-thirds of top-selling red lipsticks. Highest lead levels were in top-selling brands L’Oreal, Maybelline and Cover Girl. Lead, a proven neurotoxin for which there is no safe level of exposure for children, was also found in every brand of kids’ face paints tested.
You’d think the government would be working to keep hazardous chemicals out of cosmetics. Think again. The Food and Drug Administration doesn’t assess the safety of personal care products or their ingredients. Since the federal cosmetics law was written more than 70 years ago, the FDA has banned just eight out of the 12,000-plus ingredients used in cosmetics. The FDA doesn’t even require all of the ingredients to be listed on the label.
Instead, the government lets the cosmetics industry set up its own committee to self-police its products – and compliance with the committee’s “recommendations” is voluntary. The cosmetics industry is making the rules and deciding whether or not to follow them.
Women, parents, workers, people all over the country are demanding that Congress overhaul the outdated cosmetics law to give the FDA the power to make sure that our personal care products are safe. And Congress has heard them.
Today, Reps. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) are introducing the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010, which would close the gaping holes in federal law. It would phase out the most dangerous chemicals, set up a system to assess cosmetic ingredients for safety, require companies to be transparent about what’s in their products, and provide adequate resources for the FDA to do its job. It will also help small businesses in the cosmetics industry meet the new regulations, while spurring the development of greener chemicals that will help companies compete for customers who value safety and openness. 
As you can imagine, the personal care product industry isn’t so excited about this. The big cosmetics companies have already spent millions of dollars trying to defeat real reforms and proposing meaningless alternatives. Pass The Story of Cosmetics around to family and friends and together, we can tell the industry it’s time to come clean.
Source: www.huffingtonpost.com and www.storyofstuff.org/cosmetics
Robert Kennedy Jnr Dicussion Vaccines Effects on Children
This is a hard hitting look at vaccines and their effect on your children’s health. Are we getting the full in formation from the companies and authorities that provide the drugs and the information.
Artificial Sweeteners Linked to Pre-term Delivery
Of all the foodstuffs that have limited nutritional value and the potential to cause harm, I put soft drinks near the top of the list. The sugar contained in regular beverages has been linked with a range of adverse effects on health including weight gain, metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. And artificial sweeteners such as aspartame also appear to have considerable potential to harm human health.
One time when the hazardous effects of foodstuffs has particular relevance is during pregnancy. Foods and drink provides the basic building blocks of the growing foetus, and at the same time can exert toxic affects that can affect the pregnancy and future health of the child. I was interested to read a study published this week which looked at the relationship between soft drink consumption and pregnancy outcome in almost 60,000 Danish women [1]. The pregnancy outcome assessed in this study was ‘pre-term delivery’ – defined as delivery before 37 weeks of gestation (normal gestation is 40 weeks).
For sugar-sweetened beverages, there was no relationship between level of consumption and risk of pre-term delivery (in other words, higher levels of sugary soft drink consumption were not associated with an increased risk of pre-term delivery).
It was a different story for artificially sweetened drinks though:
Compared to those drinking no artificially sweetened drinks, those having 1 or more servings of artificially sweetened drinks a day were found to be at a 38 per cent increased risk of pre-term delivery. Consumption of 4 or more servings a day was associated with an increased risk of 78 per cent.
So-called ‘epidemiological’ studies of this nature cannot be used to conclude that artificially sweetened drinks cause pre-term delivery. However, as the authors of the study point out, length of gestation may be affected by exposure to methanol [2,3]. Methanol is a known nerve toxin, which can be metabolised in the body to form formic acid (another never toxin), as well as formaldehyde (which is what is used to preserve dead bodies). It’s also a constituent of aspartame (the most ubiquitous artificial sweetener).
It’s unlikely that we’ll ever know if artificial sweeteners worsen pregnancy outcomes. However, given their ability for a myriad of toxic effects within the body, my advice would be to avoid them like the plague (pregnant or not).
References:
1. Halldorsson TI, et al. Intake of artificially sweetened soft drinks and risk of preterm delivery: a prospective cohort study of 59,334 Danish pregnant women. Am J Clin Nutr 30 June 2010 [epub ahead of print]
2. Burbacher TM, et al. Chronic maternal methanol inhalation in nonhuman primates (Macaca fascicularis): reproductive performance and birth outcome. Neurotoxicol Teratol 2004;26:639-50
3. Trocho C, et al. Formaldehyde derived from dietary aspartame binds to tissue components in vivo. Life Sci 1998;63:337-49
Pesticides In Kids Linked To ADHD
|
Researches Advice – Buy Organic And Wash Produce
Exposure to pesticides used on common kid-friendly foods — including frozen blueberries, fresh strawberries and celery — appears to boost the chances that children will be diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, new research shows.
Youngsters with high levels of pesticide residue in their urine, particularly from widely used types of insecticide such as malathion, were more likely to have ADHD, the behavior disorder that often disrupts school and social life, scientists in the United States and Canada found.
Kids with higher-than-average levels of one pesticide marker were nearly twice as likely to be diagnosed with ADHD as children who showed no traces of the poison.
“I think it’s fairly significant. A doubling is a strong effect,” said Maryse F. Bouchard, a researcher at the University of Montreal in Quebec and lead author of the study published Monday in the journal Pediatrics.
The take-home message for parents, according to Bouchard: “I would say buy organic as much as possible,” she said. “I would also recommend washing fruits and vegetables as much as possible.”
Diet is a major source of pesticide exposure in children, according to the National Academy of Sciences, and much of that exposure comes from favorite fruits and vegetables. In 2008, detectable concentrations of malathion were found in 28 percent of frozen blueberry samples, 25 percent of fresh strawberry samples and 19 percent of celery samples, a government report found.
ADHD affects 4.5 million U.S. kids
Bouchard’s study is the largest to date to look at the effect of pesticides on child development and behavior, including ADHD, which affects an estimated 4.5 million U.S. children. About 2.5 million kids take medication for the condition, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Bouchard and her colleagues measured levels of six pesticide metabolites in the urine of 1,139 children ages 8 to 15 selected from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey between 2000 and 2004. The study included 119 children who were diagnosed with ADHD.
Unlike other studies of pesticides’ impact, Bouchard’s sample provided a glimpse into average insecticide exposure in the general population of children, not a specialized group, such as children of farmworkers. Because certain pesticides leave the body after three to six days, the presence of residue shows that exposure is likely constant, Bouchard said.
She found that kids with a 10-fold increase in the kind of metabolites left in the body after malathion exposure were 55 percent more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD. Because the researchers didn’t review the kids’ diets, they couldn’t say why some children had such high levels of pesticide residue. Children are at greater risk from pesticides because their young bodies are still developing and may not metabolize chemicals as well as adults’.
The most alarming finding was a near-doubling in odds of ADHD diagnoses among kids with higher-than-average levels of the most common of the six metabolites detected. Kids with high levels of dimethyl thiophosphate were 93 percent more likely to have the disorder than children with with undetectable levels of the marker.
The research may add to anxiety about ADHD, which has no known cause, said Dr. Andrew Adesman, chief of developmental and behavioral pediatrics at the Steven and Alexandra Cohen Children’s Medical Center of New York.
“It does seem to suggest that at non-extreme or more typical levels, there does seem to be some increased risk,” said Adesman, who is on the professional advisory board for Children and Adults with ADHD, an advocacy group.
Pesticides prey on nervous system
Boucher studied organophosphate pesticides, which account for as much as 70 percent of the pesticide use in the U.S. They work by interfering with the nervous systems of insects, but have a similar effect in mammals, including humans. Most people in the U.S. have residues of the products in their urine.
Cheminova, the Danish firm that is the leading manufacturer of malathion in the world, declined to comment on the conclusions of the new research. Diane Allemang, vice president for global regulatory affairs, said she hadn’t seen the study.
Parents of children with ADHD, however, said Bouchard’s work will give them one more thing to worry about.
“We’re all completely obsessed with food,” said Jamie Norman, 32, of Freeburg, Ill., whose 6-year-old son, Aidan, was diagnosed with ADHD six months ago.
The stimulant medication Aidan takes, Adderall XR, depresses his appetite, so Norman said she’s always trying to find good foods that he’ll want to eat. Other parents of kids with ADHD choose to use diet, not medication, to control the disorder and they’re constantly monitoring food, too.
News that some of the best foods for kids might be tainted with something linked to ADHD is worrisome, Norman said.
“I’ve known for some time that strawberries, in particular, contain high levels of pesticide, but as far as frozen fruit, I don’t give that a second thought,” she said.
Buy organic, make sure to wash
The best advice for parents — and anyone who wants to avoid pesticides — is to choose foods least likely to contain them. The Environmental Working Group, a consumer advocacy organization, advises shoppers to buy organic versions of a dozen fruits and vegetables that grow in the ground or are commonly eaten with the skin, because they’re most likely to be contaminated.
Make sure to wash all fruits and vegetables under cold running tap water and scrub firm-skinned produce with a brush. Be sure to rinse frozen fruits and vegetables, too.
But don’t wash produce with soap. The Food and Drug Administration says that could leave behind residues of detergent, yet more chemicals that everyone would do best to avoid.
Calpol or Not Calpol, That IS the Question? Part 2
The season of flu (and fear of swine flu) is upon us. But before you reach for this sticky pink cocktail dished out by doctors and parents as a cure-all for children, think again…
Many doctors will tell you that at least 95 per cent of childhood illnesses are self limiting. In other words they will heal by themselves and do not require any medical intervention. Of course prevention is an important part of health care, but just-in-case medicine, given without any clinical basis, can make symptoms worse and produce a whole range of new and even more debilitating side effects.
Good examples of this idea abound in our approach to common experiences such as fever, earache and coughs.
Fever often develops during an infection. Although we generally think of fever as a bad thing, fever enhances the inflammatory response of the body, and certain components of the immune system work optimally at increased body temperature. Also fever helps to limit the growth of some germs that cannot grow well at higher temperatures.
Suppressing fever with medicines like Calpol interferes with this essential mechanism.
For children, fever can serve another important function. Our children are not born with mature immune systems and fever is one way of activating and ‘educating’ the immune system to respond when needed. Because of this, temperatures up to 39 C (102 F) don’t usually provide sufficient grounds for action unless your child is prone to convulsions.
There is even research to show that warm sponging can be just as effective at reducing skin temperature as paracetamol.
Other ingredients
Calpol of course doesn’t just contain paracetamol. It is a veritable cocktail of sweeteners, flavourings, preservatives and colourants to make the product appealing and palatable to infants. These additives include strawberry ‘flavouring’ and carmoisine (E122- suspected carcinogen, banned in Austria, Japan, Norway, Sweden and the US) to produce its pink colour.
It also contains, Maltitol (a mild laxative), glycerol (E422 – large quantities can cause headaches, thirst and nausea), sorbitol (E420 – large quantities can cause stomach upset), the paraben preservatives methyl parahydroxybenzoate (E218 – suspected hormone disrupter and allergen), propyl parahydroxybenzoate (E216 – suspected hormone disrupter and allergen), ethyl parahydroxybenzoate (E214 – suspected hormone disrupter, banned in France and Australia), and a thickener xanthan gum (E415 – no known adverse effects).
Being such an interesting E-cocktail, it’s not surprising that it can cause allergic reactions (such as skin rashes and hayfever-like symptoms), tiredness, unexpected bleeding or tendency towards bruising as well as headache, nausea.
Using paracetamol to treat fever may also result in your child having a seemingly endless round of colds, since the body’s natural fever reaction was not allowed to kill the virus causing the illness leaving your child to be reinfected again and again.
E122 and E218 can lead to hyperactivity, and the Hyperactive Children’s Support Group identifies them as likely causes of mysterious and sudden cases of ADHD-like hyper-activity.
Is neurofen better?
So is Calprofen, the childrens’ neurofen suspension, a better option? Not really. The manufacturers of Nurofen, the UK’s best selling adult ibuprofen, list the following adverse effects in their packaging:
Stomach discomfort or pain, nausea, stomach ulcer with or without bleeding, black tarry stools, worsening of asthma, unexplained wheezing or shortness of breath, liver and kidney problems, headache, dizziness, hearing disturbance and rarely skin rash, itching, peeling, easy bruising and facial swelling.
Putting it in a lower dose in a sweet syrup, with a reassuring picture of a happy baby on the packaging, may not be enough to protect your child from such effects. In fact in the US concern was heightened in 2003 when an 11 year old girl developed Stevens Johnson Syndrome – a devastating inflammatory disease that can result in serious gastrointestinal problems, blindness and death – soon after being given a children’s ibuprofen for a mild fever.
In 2008 a jury decided, bizarrely, that although manufacturers Johnson & Johnson failed to adequately warn of risks of contracting Stevens-Johnson syndrome on the label, this lack of adequate warning did not make the manufacturers liable for the girl’s blindness.
Nevertheless the Stevens Johnson syndrome foundation still insists that the number of reported cases of ibuprofen-related SJS has risen in recent years.
Watch and wait
The medical model of care is action oriented. It pursues germs and suppresses symptoms with single-minded determination. When learning how to take care of their children, parents are encouraged to take this model on board.
The idea of ‘watch and wait’ caring is still not widely encouraged. Not surprisingly, when faced with the combination of medical opposition to a watch and wait approach and the blind panic whipped up by the media about things like swine flu, many parents end up toeing the line. Calpol is dispensed and all is right with the world – until of course it isn’t.
To be health conscious is to understand that there is always ‘something going around’ which is ‘probably a virus’. There are viruses and bacteria in us and around us all the time.
The virus that causes flu or measles may be inside you or your children right now. But you are not ill because your immune system is working efficiently. What makes your child susceptible to these things – allergies, run-down immune system, diet, sleep, emotional distress – is the real question and all play a part in susceptibility to infection and in the course of healing.
Addressing these things first, before you reach for the Calpol, is the most important part of prevention and combined with cuddles, kisses and patience is probably the best way to ensure the speedy recovery of a child with a cold.
by Pat Thomas
Calpol or not Calpol That is the question? Part 1
The season of flu (and fear of swine flu) is upon us. But before you reach for this sticky pink cocktail dished out by doctors and parents as a cure-all for children, think again…
Practically speaking, swine flu is not all that different from seasonal flu in symptoms and treatment. And children aren’t at any particularly increased risk, above that they face from normal flu, but somehow the word ‘swine’ before flu has got parents in a panic – fuelled by the media – and feeling more helpless than ever.
Enter Calpol, uncritically accepted by parents – and bizarrely by doctors too – as a kind of sticky pink magic bullet for whatever ails your child. As far as we at the Ecologist know, Calpol is not a cure for swine flu but you wouldn’t know if from the conversations floating around on parental e-forums:
‘Not much we can do, except keep shovelling in Calpol and keep an eye on them’.
‘I called the doctors and was told to give him Calpol and call back in the morning’.
‘They told us there [at the A&E] to carry on with Calpol, it most likely is swine flu and that we can put the Tamiflu in her strawberry milk’.
No wonder profits are soaring.
In the UK the whole of the children’s medicine category is currently worth £137 million a year and is predicted to grow by more than £20 million in the next five years. This growth is apparently due to a greater emphasis on parents self-selecting over the counter (OTC) medicines to treat children’s minor ailments.
The sickness business
Calpol, the number one selling children’s medicine, has a commanding 70 per cent share of the ‘pain and fever’ sub-market, which accounts for around half of the total children’s medicine market.
This lofty position, according to former manufacturers Pfizer (the medicine is now marketed by McNeil Healthcare UK), is testament to Calpol’s ‘heritage and commitment to meeting the changing needs of twenty-first century parents’.
Or maybe it is just a testament to parent’s general feelings of fear and vulnerability when their kids get sick.
The Calpol range has grown considerably in recent years to include not just the original infant suspension (which contains paracetamol as its active ingredient and is now also available as handy Calpol Infant Suspension Sachets). It now includes Calprofen (with ibuprofen as its active ingredient) as well as Calpol Six Plus Fastmelts (melt in the mouth paracetamol for the over 6s) as well as Calcold (contains paracetamol and diphenhydramine), Calcough Chesty (contains guaifenesin) and Calpol Night (contains paracetamol and diphenhydramine).
Worrying research
So, there’s something for everybody. And if it brings down fever and gives parents a better night’s sleep what’s the harm?
Well, late in 2008 a paper published in the respected medical journal The Lancet challenged many parent’s perceptions of the harmlessness of Calpol. Researchers who analysed data on more than 200,000 children found strong links between their exposure to paracetamol as infants and the development of asthma, eczema and other allergies at age 6-7.
In fact using the drug in the first year of life increased the risk of hay fever and eczema at the age of 6 and 7 by 48 per cent and 35 per cent respectively.
The more paracetamol a child had in the early years of life, the higher the risk. Thus children under 12 months who were given a paracetamol-based medicine at least once a month more than tripled the chances of suffering wheezing attacks by the age of 6 or 7. The researchers noted that increased use of paracetamol – because of earlier fears about giving children aspirin – could be a factor in worrying rise in rates of asthma in many countries.
Fever phobia
The problem is that because it is so widely available, and recommended by everyone for everything, we don’t tend to think of Calpol as medicine. Parents are not encouraged to be thoughtful or frugal in their use of Calpol.
Nor are they encouraged to understand the basic mechanisms of illness with which medicines like paracetamol interfere. In particular parents’ fever phobia is something that urgently needs to be addressed
by Pat Thomas
How Food Affects Your Children’s Behaviour
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=2963728494205235281&hl=en#
Some great information on how food is definitely affecting your and your children’s behaviour. This powerful message may help you and give you some answers. It is indepth, but an important message none the less from a Dr who has studied the effect of food on our brains for over 30 years.
What makes men stupid?
“Some people think having large breasts makes a woman stupid. Actually, it’s quite the opposite: A woman having large breasts makes men stupid.”– Rita Rudner
I remember a time I was chatting with a woman I was very interested in. My heart was racing, I was sweating profusely, and the room was spinning uncontrollably. Suddenly a group of friends came over and asked me to introduce them to the girl I was talking to. With all eyes on me, I remember turning to look at my best friends in the entire world and realizing, much to my horror and embarrassment, that I couldn’t remember any of their names!
I have discussed this phenomenon with my male and female friends (they report similar experiences). Why do I suddenly turn into a completely different person, unable to think clearly? And more importantly, why does this only happen when I talk to females?
A hot off the press article in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology may finally shed some light on these questions.
Johan C. Karremans and colleagues at Radboud University of Nijmegen in The Netherlands tested the prediction that mixed-sex interactions temporarily cause a decline in cognitive functioning.
In two studies, they had participants interact with a stranger of either the same or opposite sex and complete a cognitive task both before and after the interaction.
In their first study, 40 male participants tended to perform worse on a cognitive task (requiring the constant updating of working memory) following the mixed-sex interaction compared to the same-sex interaction. Interestingly, this effect held independent of whether the participants were romantically involved or single. Also, this effect was even stronger when the male participant reported higher attraction to the opposite-sex person they were interacting with.
In their second study, the researchers had 53 male and 58 female college participants interact with each other, instead of using a confederate for the interactions (like they did in the first study). Men (but not women), likewise, displayed a decline in performance on a different, very cognitively demanding task, requiring both task-switching and inhibition. Also, just like the first study, this effect held independent of whether the participant was currently in a relationship. Additionally, Men (but not women) reported higher levels of impression management in mixed-sex interactions relative to same-sex interactions.
It should be noted that there was evidence that women’s cognitive performance did tend to decline after mixed-sex interactions if they reported having a relatively strong goal to impress the opposite-sex other.
All together, these results suggest that there may indeed be something special about mixed-sex interactions that impair cognitive functioning.
But what’s driving these effects? The authors suggest that these effects may be due to self-presentational concerns when interacting with someone of the opposite sex compared to the same sex. Since impression management isn’t easy (it requires careful cognitive control as one is constantly monitoring and modifying one’s behavior), it can be very effortful and cognitvely demanding, thus depleting an individual’s cognitive resources (consistent with Roy Baumeister’s self-regulatory resource model) and therefore can result in declined cognitive performance after the interaction.
As for why effect was most pronounced in men, the researchers cite research that suggests that “compared to women, men are more likely to consider mixed-sex interactions in terms of a mating game.”, and therefore “men in particular might therefore be prone to engage in effortful and cognitively demanding attempts to impress an opposite-sex partner.”
The researchers do offer some alternative explanations for their findings. Perhaps traditional sex roles that emphasize that men are expected to take the initiative in mixed-sex interactions cause men to exert more cognitive resources to act in accord with these expectancies.
This is certainly a possibility, and I think it would be interesting to do more research on what women are actually thinking when they interact with members of the opposite sex compared to what men are thinking. It may turn out that traditional sex roles is the culprit. But then again, it may also turn out not to be the explanation. Indeed, research cited in their paper show that men are more likely than woman to gauge sexual interest, overestimate sexual interest, and activate mating goals when interacting with women.
Another possible explanation is that more cognitive control may be required in opposite sex interactions because people may just have more experience in interacting with people of their same sex. Although, as the researchers note, this explanation does not explain why their effect was especially strong among the men in their sample.
Are there practical implications of these findings? The researchers think so. A perennial debate concerns the merits and disadvantages of single-sex versus coed schools. According to the researchers, it is possible that cognitive abilities may decline in mixed-sex settings, since “Part of boys’ valuable cognitive resources may be spent on impressing their female class members.”
The researchers also see implications for sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is usually seen as the result of men’s biased perception of sexual interest of the female. Their results raise the intriguing suggestion that sexual harassment may also be partly caused by the cognitively depleted effects of a mixed-sex interaction. Indeed, cognitive depletion may cause individuals to distort reality and fail to take in all the cues necessary to accurately gauge sexual interest.
The researchers point out that future research should look at participants who may not be in the prime of their mating effort (e.g., not late adolescents), and look outside the laboratory to see if women show similar cognitive depletion effects as men in more natural environments where they might be more motivated to engage in self presentation (e.g., a bar).
Whatever the causes of the effect, the practical implications, or the future directions, these findings are certainly interesting.
New Research Why Breast Is Still Best!
Study Shows Ingredient in Breast Milk Protects Babies’ Intestinal Health
Researchers from Queen Mary, University of London have found an ingredient in human breast milk helps protect and repair the intestines of newborn babies.
Scientists have recently found that colostrum, the breast milk produced in the first few days after birth contains particularly high levels of an ingredient called pancreatic secretory trypsin inhibitor (PSTI). This ingredient is present in breast milk after this initial period, but the study results showed it to be seven times more concentrated in the samples of colostrum they tested. PSTI is not found in formula milk.
PSTI is normally found in the pancreas and acts as a protective agent from being damaged by the digestive enzymes it produces. Research shows that it plays a similarly protective role in the gut.
In the study, the researchers looked at the effects of PSTI on human intestinal cells. When damage was inflicted on the intestinal cells in the laboratory, the researchers found that PSTI stimulated the cells to move across the damaged area forming a ‘natural protective plaster’. PSTI also prevented further damage by preventing the intestinal cells from self-destructing. Research shows that PSTI could reduce damage by up to 75%.
The team of researchers at Queen Mary, University of London was led by Professor Ray Playford of Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry. He commented:
“We know that breast milk is made up of a host of different ingredients and we also know that there are a number of health benefits for babies who are breast-fed.”
“This study is important because it shows that a component of breast milk protects and repairs the babies delicate intestines in readiness for the onslaught of all the food and drink that are to come.”
“It reinforces the benefits of breast feeding, especially in the first few days after birth.”
Sources:
Marchbank et al. Pancreatic secretory trypsin inhibitor as a najor motogenic and protective factor in human breast milk. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol, 296: G697-G703, 2009