Suri Cruise is nearly two and a half years old. Heaven knows you couldn't forget that if you tried. And while she has more fashion sense than pretty much any other tot on the planet, there is one thing that seems to still give us all pause. No, it's not how her celebrity parents could have actually spawned her, nor is it how much is spent keeping her best-dressed and -tressed. Nah--it's that thing where she's still carrying around a baby bottle.
Yes, still. It seems like this first made the news when Suri was more than a year old and still using a bottle. Like sippy cups are so great. Now she's making headlines again for still sporting the baby bottle--when she's not even really a baby. My question is this: what is the big deal? My kid is nearly seventeen months old and he still occasionally uses a bottle. We've tried really hard to break him of the habit, but, for a while, he simply eschewed the sippy cup. He could use one, sure, but he couldn't get the same amount of milk from the sippy as from the bottle. So, we let him roll with it. Eventually, he switched over to predominantly using the sippy.
I know there are standards and practices for how we're supposed to raise our children. I know that guidelines have been set to help us make our way through this crazy maze called parenthood. But with issues as large as world hunger, violence, abuse and immunizations out there for us to tackle, why does anyone give a rat's butt about whether or not Suri Cruise still uses her baby bottle? I feel sorry for Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes--they're busy people who are trying to raise a kid and have full-time jobs too. it ain't easy. And not every kid fits the model she's supposed to. Is it really the end of the world if Suri still uses a bottle?
Being overweight is tough for a kid. There are many options toward weight loss, but some are more (or less) appealing than others. For many, over the years, the weight-loss camp has been a dream. But, while "fat camp" is almost as American as apple pie, it's now going the way of many other American dreams--it's too darned expensive to attend. Like any other camp, weight-loss camp costs money to run and maintain. With more than nine million children who are considered obese in this country, such camp can seem like a knight in shining armor for families struggling to get their kids' weight under control. The weight-loss camps, while they can be affective, are far from free. Few to none accept insurance.
The government generally offers no more assistance than insurance companies. Instead the children rely on their essay writing skills and other means to win scholarships to attend. Yes, even weight loss camp is something only possible for the rich. Corporate sponsorship is one way to help get kids who can't afford the often more than $1,000-a-week pricetag what they need. Advocacy groups are being formed, such as the Childhood Obesity Treatment in Action. Some tax deductions are coming into play, and some insurance is starting to cover a portion of the cost--mostly in the cognitive behavior area.
But is it enough? Rarely. And financial cost is to say nothing of the emotional cost to the children, who are often left with either feeling exploited by their situation--their essays and their experiences become the property of the camp, who share that information freely with the media in hopes of growing the industry--and/or have to deal with life after camp, which can be even harder than before they found their salvation. While most children lose some portion of their body weight at the camps, few manage to keep it off after returning to the real world.
Whether you are heading to the beach, the park or just hanging out in the back yard, great snacks are an essential ingredient to a fun day. But spending hours in the kitchen preparing for your outing can spoil the fun before it has even begun. Simple snacks like fruit, chips and sandwiches are fine, but why not whip up something a little more special next time you are packing your picnic basket?
Cheaper than buying prepared foods from the store and quicker than you would think, The Observer has a list of 101 picnic recipes that can be put together in 20 minutes or less. Not all are kid-friendly (curried egg salad) and some sound downright strange (cold pizza and lemon), but all are unique and a lot more interesting than plain old potato salad and ham sandwiches.
I've bookmarked the page and will definitely reference it the next time we head out to the beach. What about you? Do you have your own crowd-pleasing picnic basket favorite?
In a draft report recently issued, the Federal Drug Administration has concluded that Bisphenol A is safe --at least when used in food containers. Commonly known as BPA to consumers, the chemical can be found in all sorts of children's products as well as cars, plastic food containers and lining aluminum cans.
This most recent study was one of two funded by the industry itself. Gee, of course any study funded by the industry that stands to make money off it is going to come out with data supporting a chemical's safety. There rationale is that people are exposed to so little of it that it won't do them harm. In other studies BPA has been found in 93% of testees' urine and has been known to cause cancer and behavioral disorders in lab animals. The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) supports the findings as well.
Opponents of the decision say the study agencies don't have enough data to support their findings that BPA is safe. The country of Canada has banned the use of BPA and products containing the chemical, and national retail chain giants Wal-Mart and Toys R Us are set to remove all children's merchandise containing the chemical from their shelves as of January 2009.
I was pretty much a klutz growing up. In fact, I still am. But I'm not obese (although in the last two months of my pregnancy I do feel rather large!). Is there any real connection between the two? Perhaps so, if we're to believe the findings of another recent study.
According to a new report on Reuters, there is a growing pool of evidence suggesting such a link between children with poor cognitive function and adults with type 2 diabetes or who are obese. A study of British children between the ages of seven and eleven (that started in 1958) yielded the results: those with the worst congitive skills were also the most likely to be obese later in life. Researchers were quick to point out these children were no larger than the rest of the kids at the time, meaning weight was not to blame for their being clumsy.
In fact, factors such as body mass at childhood and social class were both taken into account and adjusted. The findings were still solid. So what causes the link (if indeed there realy is one)? Well, that is the question, isn;t it? Researchers considered smoking during pregnancy a possibility as well as children not getting enough exercise during childhood--which is critical to developing fine motor skills.
Several studies in a recent New York Times article entitled "Honey, I Plumped the Kids" seem to be pointing in that direction. As we all know by now, human beings are getting bigger--and by bigger, I really mean fatter. In 2005 it was estimated there were 400 million obese people on the planet. Yes, 400 MILLION. And, in what is a recent phenomenon, some of those obese people happened to be women who then became pregnant and gave birth. The result? Well, if the studies are to be believed, a pregnancy for an obese woman can lead to her children being obese as well.
Similar news to this has been circulating for some time now. It's also no news that being obese, whether or not you're pregnant, can have dramatically harmful results. Cancer, diabetes and heart disease are just a few of the pleasantries headed your way if you happen to be obese. But, what does being obese mean for your unborn child? In one of the studies cited in the Times article, women who gave birth to children before they had surgery to correct their obesity were more likely have an obese child; once the women had the surgery, the children they later bore tended to not be obese. Hence, the obesity doesn't on the surface seem to be due to genetic predisposition, but rather to the mother being , well, fat.
One theory as to why this is concerns the fact that people have access to an overabundance of sugar and fat. As a direct result, so do their fetuses. In another study pregnant female rats were allowed to have as much as they wanted of either human junk food or regular old rat food. Those who had access to the junk food ate 40% more food than their rat-chow eating buddies. The baby rats born to the junk food rats were more inclined to eat such food and were more likely to be overweight as a result of consuming too many calories.
So what does this mean for all us preggies out there? Perhaps that we should listen to our doctors and cut back on the sugar and fats. Pregnancy cravings aside, the article and the studies make a good case for being even more healthy when you're pregnant--for you and your baby.
As I sit here, my head pounding, my nose stuffed up, my throat dry and sore, my legs aching and a cough that's keeping everyone awake at night, I think fondly of the days when I was single and without kids and never, ever got sick. Tales of Koalas and Rhinos and Giraffes are not the only things my Jared and Sara are bringing home from zoo camp -- and it's only going to get worse when they're back in school.
There are, however, things you -- and your little ones -- can do to limit your exposure. First off, wash your hands. More importantly, teach your kids to wash their hands. Having them recite the alphabet or sing a song while they wash can help make sure they do it long enough. They also need to wash often -- before they eat, when they get to school, after touching just about anything. The more they wash, the fewer germs they bring home, share with siblings, or put in their mouths.
(Click the photo to see which celebs might be "pregorexic")
It seems like it should be common sense. Don't diet while pregnant. Yet for many moms these days that seems to be the trend. Many of them are successful at it--but at what cost to their unborn children? In the United States as well as in the UK, pregnant women are succumbing to what is being termed "pregorexia," wherein the consume as little as possible during pregnancy to avoid weight gain. Experts agree this is harmful to both mother and unborn child. Fetuses get their nutrients straight from mommy; when she doesn't supply enough, like with calcium, they get it from her bones. If they can't get the nutrient from the mother, they suffer--kids are born prematurely, with a low birth weight and an increased risk of spina bifida all from mothers being underweight during pregnancy.
In Hollywood, the recent barrage of women giving birth would have have us think they were barely pregnant at all. Most of them gain hardly and weight and sport only the tell-tale bump. Almost as soon as they've given birth, they return to their pre-pregnancy weight, which was scandalously low in the first place. Some, like Nicole Kidman, have even drawn harsh rumors that she was never even pregnant at all--after seeing her less than a month post-baby her body was scarily small, prompting the media to generate the notion that her sister, who'd basically remained under cover during the pregnancy, was the one actually carrying the baby.
%Gallery-29681%
With all these Hollywood celebrities maintaining tiny frames while they attempt to bring another human being into the world, it's hard to not feel the pressure to be thin in our own lives. Forget the fact that it's pure misogyny at work, isn't it also the worst thing in the world to deprive not only yourself but your unborn child of vital nutrients and sustenance? Experts suggest that women of normal weight (meaning not underweight nor overweight) gain between 20-25 pounds during a pregnancy. That number was recently lowered from the old notion of anywhere from 25-35 pounds (and in some cases 40). instead of worrying about gaining too much weight, shouldn't we be more focused on getting our children--and ourselves--the nutrition needed to be happy and healthy?
Last week, a group of breastfeeding mothers and their supporters gathered in an H&M clothing store in downtown Vancouver for a nurse-in. The protest was prompted by the experience of Manuela Valle, who recently attempted to breastfeed her two-week-old child in that store, only to be told that she could not. The store clerk told Valle it was their policy to prevent customers from being offended and suggested that Valle feed her baby in a special fitting room, out of the sight of others. Valle was not happy. "I told them I would publicly campaign against their policy because it is wrong and discriminatory. It punished me for breastfeeding by putting me in seclusion and thus confirmed the idea that public breastfeeding is offensive and shameful."
Valle kept her word and on Thursday, a group of women, children and fathers packed the store to draw attention to the situation. One of the organizers of the event, Veronica Polanska, says the protest wasn't specifically aimed at H&M, but at any business that would suggest that nursing a child in public is shameful and should be hidden.
"It's about every business, whether it's an airline or whether it's a restaurant, whether it's a pool ... it doesn't matter where it happens, it's not acceptable.
Considering that an estimated 90 to 95 percent of Canadian mothers breastfeed their babies, it is no wonder that the issue has been officially addressed by the British Columbia Human Rights Commission. In 2000, they issued a policy and procedure manual that says public facilities are to accommodate lactating women and specifies that mothers are allowed to breastfeed or express milk in public places.
I guess it is going to take a more than a policy and procedure manual to convince certain people that breastfeeding is not sexual, offensive or in any way inappropriate. Just what will it take?
Budget tightening has forced many sleep-deprived parents to forgo that delicious morning Starbucks and brew their own non-frothed coffee at home. But good news for sleep-deprived parents: the Seattle-based company has just unveiled a nationwide promotion to help get coffee back into the weary hands of the people help and boost their own sales at the same time!
Any morning Starbucks purchase allows customers who return that afternoon bearing the earlier receipt, to purchase a grande-sized iced drink for the discounted price of $2. The promotion was offered earlier in Seattle, Chicago, and Miami with great success.
As with all good things, this will come to an end September 2nd, which is just enough time to get you good and addicted to that afternoon hit of caffeine.
I'm willing to take that risk, though. Ice vanilla lattes, yum!
When Leo and Kelley Durant lost one of their twins after a premature delivery, they could have easily and understandably turned inward and focused only on raising Cameron, their surviving son. But instead, Kelley wanted to do something in honor of her daughter, Ressa. So she started pumping her extra breast milk and donating it to a local milk bank.
Kelley just dropped off her last delivery of donated milk, which put her total amount donated at an unsurpassed 100 gallons, enough to feed a baby for 17 months. Kelley said that she wanted to do it to help babies who are born prematurely or who are sick, and that she hopes to be able to donate again in the future.
Any mom who has had the pleasure to be acquainted with a breast pump will understand exactly how big of a sacrifice Kelley, especially, and her family have made. What a wonderful way to honor her daughter. Women who are interested in donating their breast milk can do so through international organizations such as Give Milk, or domestically through a local milk bank.
Is hiding vegetables in your kids' food wrong? What if that's the only way to get your child to eat something green (that isn't a booger)? One cookbook author strongly disagrees with the notion that it's ok to sneak healthy foods into unhealthy ones, and she's aiming to do something about it. On her blog and in her new cookbook, anyway. Tanya Steel is the author of the newly published "real food for healthy kids." She's also a "food professional." She and co-author Tracey Seaman instead focus on glorifying vegetables and trying to make them more appealing rather than sticking them in a brownie. According to Steel, who has a good point, why would we want to send the message to our children that brownies are GOOD for you, when in fact we have an obesity crisis on our hands in the United States?
Steel acknowledges that not all children are that easy to coax into eating anything green. She also demures that it can be difficult to work your way back up the beaten path of feeding your kids things that aren't as healthy because you've run out of options of what they'll actually eat. I can empathize with this problem. We recently ended a bout of our son refusing to eat ANYTHING other than Cheerios. Sure, they're healthier than pork rinds, but I didn't spend my entire pregnancy eating broccoli only to have my kid refuse to even look at a vegetable.
Steel offers suggestions to help steer kids in the right direction. She suggests offering kids "no thank you bites" to get them used to a new food and making sure to set a good example by eating healthy foods yourself. She also, of course, promotes her healthy eating cookbook. "real food for healthy kids" may not be The Joy of Cooking that Steel claims (whimsically) it is, but I'm sure there's something in that cookbook, as with any book designed with kids in mind, to offer nutritious alternatives for our children.
What do you think? Is deception the only way to get a vegetable-refuser to consume some legumes? Or is it best to just keep trying to offer different kinds of vegetables in the hopes that eventually you'll see change?
The research has made it pretty clear -- breakfast really is the most important meal of the day. The name alone explains why; breakfast "breaks" the "fast" of the long night sleeping. Your body didn't need fuel while it was sleeping, but now that you're up and ready to face another day, it does.
Researchers recently examined the connection between breakfast and alertness among teens. This study is timely, with back-to-school right around the corner. What they found was that breakfast does make teens feel more alert as they head off to school. But even more interesting was that boys reported an additional benefit -- an improved mood. Breakfast, for boys at least, seems to put a positive light on the day.
Busy weekday mornings make it difficult to ensure that everyone gets a nutritious breakfast. For inspiration, visit Family Fun's back-to-school breakfast page, and if you have a child who's reluctant to eat in the morning, Kids Health has some age-appropriate information to help you explain to them why they should.
Officials in the UK have chosen to ban the word "obese" from letters being sent to parents about their children's weight. Instead the parents of these children will receive a letter saying such children are "very overweight." The move is being called both "prissy" and "namby pamby" by Tam Fry, a member of Board of the National Obesity Forum. Namby pamby? Regardless of what you call it, Fry feels a better approach is to just come clean with parents.
In the United States, we've tried to ban the word "fat" and have replaced it with the word "obese." This may or may not be having much of an impact on our nation or our youth as our waistlines continue to get bigger (while our wallets become smaller!). One person I know quite well, however, was in denial about his weight as a teenager until he saw a doctor write the word "obese" on his report during the physical he was required to get before he left for college. That person, at that exact point, took charge of his weight and his life.
%Gallery-28708%
As for the UK, Primary Care Trusts, or PCTs, are being guided to measure children's height and weight at ages five and eleven. Parents can choose not to participate, and so can their children. In the event that both do choose to participate, the measurements will be sent by letter to the parents and not the children. Naturally, a good portion of the obese children are not participating in the measurements, thereby negating the attempt to correct the situation. Children as little as seven years of age are being diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes, which was unheard of in the UK a decade ago.
What do you think? Should we go back to calling people fat? Should we call them obese? Should we only be telling their parents? Is there a good approach to any of this? I'd have to go with a quote from Aaron Neville on this one: Tell it like it is.
Well, to quote the ten-year-old me, who really enjoyed the kids meal versions of those restaurants: DUH! Items on the kids menu noted and tested were, for example, country fried chicken from the Chili's menu and the "Wacky Pack' from Sonic containing a grilled cheese, fries and a slurpie. Ok, two things. One, how is it that ANYONE serves this stuff to their kids for dinner? And, two, how could it not be apparent that things like country fried chicken are fattening and full of calories? You don't have to be FROM the country to know that anything "country fried" ain't that good for you.
Of the thirteen chains and 1,474 meal combinations possible, 93% of the meals exceeded 430 calories, one third of the daily calories suggested for children between the ages of four and eight. Sonic, KFC and Jack in the Box responded that they are striving to include healthier options for kids meals. This is coming from the people who chose to offer soda and cheetos as part of a kids meal om the first place. The report provides all the more reason to eat in. Money is tight in this economy, and, yes, even I give in to the temptation of eating or ordering out, but I do so knowing the caloric cost. Making things at home is cheaper and gives you more control of what goes into a dish and into your kids' stomachs. And, honestly, a lot of times it's tastier too.
Whether you are heading to the beach, the park or just hanging out in the back yard, great snacks are an essential ingredient to a fun day. But spending hours in the kitchen preparing for your outing can spoil the fun before it has even begun. Simple snacks like fruit, chips and sandwiches are fine, but why not whip up something a little more special next time you are packing your picnic basket?
As I sit here, my head pounding, my nose stuffed up, my throat dry and sore, my legs aching and a cough that's keeping everyone awake at night, I think fondly of the days when I was single and without kids and never, ever got sick. Tales of Koalas and Rhinos and Giraffes are not the only things my Jared and Sara are bringing home from zoo camp -- and it's only going to get worse when they're back in school.
Last week, a group of breastfeeding mothers and their supporters gathered in an H&M clothing store in downtown Vancouver 
Budget tightening has forced many sleep-deprived parents to forgo that delicious morning Starbucks and brew their own non-frothed coffee at home. But good news for sleep-deprived parents: the Seattle-based company has just unveiled a nationwide promotion to help get coffee back into the weary hands of the people help and 
Is hiding vegetables in your kids' food wrong? What if that's the only way to get your child to eat something green (that isn't a booger)? One cookbook author strongly disagrees with the notion that it's ok to sneak healthy foods into unhealthy ones, and she's aiming to do something about it. On her blog and in her new cookbook, anyway. Tanya Steel is the author of the newly published "
Officials in the UK have 
