Showing posts with label Physical Development. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Physical Development. Show all posts

Saturday, April 10, 2010

Cute on the Brain

Baby faces light up reward centers of our brains.
by Carlin Flora.


Any infant left on a doorstep can safely bet that whoever finds her will be compelled to protect her. Nature cleverly designed babies to be super cute: They would be too much of a drag to care for otherwise.

As zoologist Konrad Lorenz first pointed out, we adults seem to respond favorably to the typical infant facial structure—disproportionately large heads and eyes, small noses, and chubby cheeks (modeled here by my delightful neighbor.)

A new study out of the University of Oxford used brain imaging to reveal a glimpse of the biological basis of our collective cooing over babies: Morten Kringelbach and Alan Stein showed that a brain region associated with our emotional responses to rewarding stimuli lights up within a mere seventh of a second in response to pictures of babies, but not in response to shots of adults.

Another recent brain imaging study published in Biological Psychiatry shows how mothers' brains light up differently in response to images of their own babies crying and laughing than to images of other peoples' babies. While we're all predisposed to feel warm and loving toward infants, each one has a particularly vigilant advocate in his or her mother.

These discoveries could eventually help researchers treat mothers who have trouble responding to their infants' cues, including those who suffer from postpartum depression, which affects about 13 percent of new moms.

As we've covered here, grown-ups who never outgrow that babyish look keep eliciting protective responses from others. Leslie Zebrowitz, professor of psychology at Brandeis University and expert on snap judgments, has shown that baby-faced men are seen as innocent and weak. Some, such as Eminem, compensate by building up tough-guy images.

A baby who responds with a smile or laugh is even more captivating than one who simply looks cute. Which is why I can't resist wrapping up with this tape of a hysterical Swedish tyke:


Friday, March 26, 2010

Physical Development – What to Expect in Months 9-12

Growth:
Parents often find themselves wondering how their baby’s overall growth compares to other babies. However, it is more important to assess a baby’s growth based on her own track record. Provided your child is following a steady pattern on her growth chart, she is likely doing well.

That being said:

  • Babies of this age will have grown about 10 inches in length since birth.
  • Typical head growth is about 0.25 to 0.5 inches per month.
  • Babies’ weight gain will slow down at this age. Many babies will triple their birth weight around their first birthday.
Physical Appearance:
Your baby will still melt your heart with that “baby look”- the large head, short arms and legs, and the full pot belly. However, you might notice as her mobility increases and she builds more muscle that she leans out slightly. At this age she might sport a mouthful of teeth or still may be all gums.
Gross Motor Skills:
Suddenly, your baby is amazing you (and quite possibly exhausting you) with how much she can move on her own accord. Her newborn reflexes have diminished, and she’s showing increased control over her gross motor movements. Additionally, she might impress you with:
  • Moving from the stomach to a seated position
  • Pulling up
  • Creeping or crawling
  • Cruising furniture
  • Standing up unassisted
  • Walking
Fine Motor Skills:
Similarly, your little one is illustrating increased dexterity as her fine motor skills refine. Her ability to pick up small objects between their thumb and finger is cause for you to be very aware of potential choking hazards. Additionally, she may be able to use the same skill to feed herself finger foods.

Her fine motor abilities are also increasing her ability to entertain herself. With a little effort, she might work to reach and pick up an object. For objects completely out of reach, she should be able to let you know what she wants by pointing or gesturing.

Sensory Development - Taste and Smell:

Her sensory skills - sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch, are a pairing of both physical and cognitive development. The senses that were in place before her birth have each refined and improved over the past months.

Her well-developed sense of smell is often used in conjunction with her sense of taste. She may show strong preferences for certain flavors and odors. Research shows that infants exposed to a full range of foods and flavors at this age are shown to have lower rates of obesity and accept diverse flavors later in life.

Sensory Development - Touch and Hearing:

Her sense of touch, one of the most highly developed of her senses since birth, continues to progress. She can sense pain and discomfort, changes in temperature, and assert preferences for textures.

From the physical standpoint of sensory development, she should be able to hear their name and react to simple requests. She should enjoy the sound of her own babbling voice and perk up at the sound of other's voices. Toward the end of this age range, she should begin to repeat sounds and words that she hears.

Sensory Development - Sight:

Her sight, which was the weakest of senses at birth, is now nearly as strong as an adult's in the areas of clarity and depth perception. While she prefers to look at objects nearby, she can see objects across the room. As far as color, the color she now sports is apt to stay the same with only subtle changes.




Physical Development During Baby's First Year

Newborn Physical Development from 0 to 3 Months

Those first three months of your baby's life will likely seem like a whirlwind. When you pause to look at how far your baby's physical development has come in that time, you'll likely notice these developmental markers:
  • Roughly a 30% increase in body weight and a 20% increase in length.
  • Though she cannot reach out and intentionally grasp a toy, she will become aware of her hands.
  • Ability to recognize her primary caregiver's scent.
  • Though she doesn't have any depth perception to judge how near or far objects are, she can see objects 8 to 15 inches away with clarity.
  • Keen responses to touches and textures which she finds soothing.

Always remember to be cautious when comparing your baby's physical development to other children at any age. There is a wide range of "normal."


Physical Development from 3 to 6 Months


During 3 to 6 months of age, your baby will continue to make strides in her physical abilities and skills. Some highlights include:
  • Doubling her birthweight.
  • Supporting her weight on both arms as she lifts her chest and head from the floor.
  • Rolling over back to front.
  • Sitting up with support and possibly unsupported.
  • Passing toys from one hand to the other and banging them together.
  • Following objects with her eyes and judging accurately how near and far away they are.
  • Turning her head in the direction of noise.
  • Enjoying the sound of her own babbling voice.

Physical Development from 6 to 9 Months

As she or he grows during months 6 through 9, you'll noticed marked gains in her mobility, hearing, and eyesight. Be looking for these benchmarks:
  • Reaching for toys in front of her while sitting up completely unsupported.
  • Rolling over back to front and front to back.
  • Crawling.
  • Advancing dexterity in manipulating objects with her hands.
  • Exhibiting taste preferences.
  • Seeing about as clearly as an adult.
  • Recognizing simple words and phrases.

Physical Development from 9 to 12 Months

The final three months of your baby's first year will provide many exciting photo opportunities. As she or he advances through these months you can expect her or his to:
  • Triple her or his birthweight and grow in length by about 10 inches.
  • Stand up unassisted.
  • Cruise furniture and perhaps walk.
  • Hear and see as well as an adult.

Saturday, March 13, 2010

Co-sleeping


Why Do Some People Choose to Cosleep?

Cosleeping supporters believe — and some studies support their beliefs — that cosleeping:

* encourages breastfeeding by making nighttime breastfeeding more convenient
* makes it easier for a nursing mother to get her sleep cycle in sync with her baby's
* helps babies fall asleep more easily, especially during their first few months and when they wake up in the middle of the night
* helps babies get more nighttime sleep (because they awaken more frequently with shorter duration of feeds, which can add up to a greater amount of sleep throughout the night)
* helps parents who are separated from their babies during the day regain the closeness with their infant that they feel they missed

But do the risks of cosleeping outweigh the benefits?
Is Cosleeping Safe?

Despite the possible pros, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) warns parents not to place their infants to sleep in adult beds, stating that the practice puts babies at risk of suffocation and strangulation. And the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) agrees.

Cosleeping is a widespread practice in many non-Western cultures. However, differences in mattresses, bedding, and other cultural practices may account for the lower risk in these countries as compared with the United States.

According to the CPSC, at least 515 deaths were linked to infants and toddlers under 2 years of age sleeping in adult beds from January 1990 to December 1997:

* 121 of the deaths were attributed to a parent, caregiver, or sibling rolling on top of or against a baby while sleeping
* more than 75% of the deaths involved infants younger than 3 months old

Cosleeping advocates say it isn't inherently dangerous and that the CPSC went too far in recommending that parents never sleep with children under 2 years of age. According to supporters of cosleeping, parents won't roll over onto a baby because they're conscious of the baby's presence — even during sleep.

Those who should not cosleep with an infant, however, include:

* other children — particularly toddlers — because they might not be aware of the baby's presence
* parents who are under the influence of alcohol or any drug because that could diminish their awareness of the baby
* parents who smoke because the risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) is greater

But can cosleeping cause SIDS? The connection between cosleeping and SIDS is unclear and research is ongoing. Some cosleeping researchers have suggested that it can reduce the risk of SIDS because cosleeping parents and babies tend to wake up more often throughout the night. However, the AAP reports that some studies suggest that, under certain conditions, cosleeping may increase the risk of SIDS, especially cosleeping environments involving mothers who smoke.

CPSC also reported more than 100 infant deaths between January 1999 and December 2001 attributable to hidden hazards for babies on adult beds, including:

* suffocation when an infant gets trapped or wedged between a mattress and headboard, wall, or other object
* suffocation resulting from a baby being face-down on a waterbed, a regular mattress, or on soft bedding such as pillows, blankets, or quilts
* strangulation in a bed frame that allows part of an infant's body to pass through an area while trapping the baby's head

In addition to the potential safety risks, sharing a bed with a baby can sometimes prevent parents from getting a good night's sleep. And infants who cosleep can learn to associate sleep with being close to a parent in the parent's bed, which may become a problem at naptime or when the infant needs to go to sleep before the parent is ready.

Making Cosleeping as Safe as Possible

If you do choose to share your bed with your baby, make sure to follow these precautions:

* Always place your baby on his or her back to sleep to reduce the risk of SIDS.

* Always leave your child's head uncovered while sleeping.

* Make sure your bed's headboard and footboard don't have openings or cutouts that could trap your baby's head.

* Make sure your mattress fits snugly in the bed frame so that your baby won't become trapped in between the frame and the mattress.

* Don't place a baby to sleep in an adult bed alone.

* Don't use pillows, comforters, quilts, and other soft or plush items on the bed.

* Don't drink alcohol or use medications or drugs that may keep you from waking and may cause you to roll over onto, and therefore suffocate, your baby.

* Don't place your bed near draperies or blinds where your child could be strangled by cords.

Transitioning Out of the Parent's Bed

Most medical experts say the safest place to put an infant to sleep is in a crib that meets current standards and has no soft bedding. But if you've been cosleeping with your little one and would like to stop, talk to your doctor about making a plan for when your baby will sleep in a crib.

Transitioning to the crib by 6 months is usually easier — for both parents and baby — before the cosleeping habit is ingrained and other developmental issues (such as separation anxiety) come into play. Eventually, though, the cosleeping routine will likely be broken at some point, either naturally because the child wants to or by the parents' choice.

But there are ways that you can still keep your little one close by, just not in your bed. You could:

* Put a bassinet, play yard, or crib next to your bed. This can help you maintain that desired closeness, which can be especially important if you're breastfeeding. The AAP says that having an infant sleep in a separate crib, bassinet, or play yard in the same room as the mother reduces the risk of SIDS.
* Buy a device that looks like a bassinet or play yard minus one side, which attaches to your bed to allow you to be next to each other while eliminating the possibility of rolling over onto your infant.

Of course, where your child sleeps — whether it's in your bed or a crib — is a personal decision. As you're weighing the pros and cons, talk to your child's doctor about the risks, possible personal benefits, and your family's own sleeping arrangements.

Retrieved March 13, 2010 from http://kidshealth.org/parent/pregnancy_newborn/sleep/cosleeping.html#

By Yap Peck Shing, T2

Got Milk? How?



We put it in cereal. We drink it with cookies. And we eat tons of foods that are made from it, including yogurt, cheese and even some crackers, breads and granola bars. For most of us, milk is a staple that would be hard to live without.

Thousands of years ago, though, only babies drank milk — and that milk came from their mothers. Now, scientists are investigating the beginnings of mankind’s long-lasting love for daily products. They are looking back thousands of years, to the days when people first squeezed milk out of cows and other animals for use as food and drink.

Tracking down the first milk drinkers could give insight into some bigger questions. For example, why do so many people today still get sick from drinking milk? In some countries, almost nobody can digest dairy products.

The work could also help explain major events in human history. Before refrigerators and grocery stores kept a steady supply of fresh food around, dairying probably transformed societies.

“If you can have an animal supply nutrition without killing it, that’s a real step in agriculture,” says Richard Evershed, a chemist at the University of Bristol in the United Kingdom. “That’s spectacular in terms of human nutrition.”

As easy as milk is to find these days, though, its history is challenging to piece together. Like detectives, researchers are tackling the milk mystery in more ways than one.

They are analyzing ancient milk scum on extremely old pots. They’re tracking down the genes that allowed people to digest milk, which is surprisingly hard for many people to stomach. They’re even looking for clues in the buried bones of cows, sheep, horses and other milk-making animals.

“Milk was probably the world’s first superfood,” says Mark Thomas, a scientist at University College London who studies how genes have changed throughout history. The advantages of being able to drink it, he adds, “are just out of this world.”

Thanks, moms

To most people, milk comes in a carton. But milk originally comes from the bodies of mammals. Human as well as other mammal mothers, including dogs, cats, pigs and mice, produce milk to feed their babies.

Mammal babies, including goats, get milk from their mothers. Human mothers also provide milk to their very young children, but most people get milk from the store.

Mammal babies, including goats, get milk from their mothers. Human mothers also provide milk to their very young children, but most people get milk from the store.

isaact/iStockphoto

Most of the milk in U.S. grocery stores comes from cows. In other countries, it is common to drink the milk of sheep, goats, camels, even horses. Each type of milk has a different flavor. Some types are easier to stomach than others.

Evershed recently sampled milk from horses in Kazakhstan. “It was the most disgusting drink I’ve ever tasted,” he says. “I just didn’t like it.”

Unlike meat, milk does not require that an animal be slaughtered. But the first dairy farmers had to figure out for themselves how to turn wild animals into ones that could be raised in captivity. Then, they needed to herd the animals, care for them and continue to milk them even after the animals’ babies grew up.

Another complication: Milk drinking doesn’t come naturally to older kids and adults. Milk contains a type of sugar called lactose. In order to turn lactose into energy, our bodies need an enzyme called lactase. Enzymes are proteins that help the body do its work.

Like other newborn mammals, baby humans have plenty of lactase, which allows them to gulp down their mothers’ milk. After age 2 or so, though, lactase levels drop.

Without lactase, people can get very sick from dairy products. Symptoms include gas, stomach cramps and severe diarrhea. The condition is called lactose intolerance.

None of our early ancestors could digest milk as adults because their bodies never had to — milk drinking simply wasn’t an option. As people began to extract milk from animals, though, some people developed the ability to keep drinking it throughout their lives.

That biological switch proved to be a huge boost toward survival. Milk is full of calories, fat, protein, calcium and other nutrients. For ancient man, it would have been a valuable and steady source of food.

Scientists now know of a milk-related mutation in our genes — the chemical instructions for life that we carry in almost every cell in our bodies. People who have a mutated form of one particular gene can drink milk just fine. People without the mutation tend to get sick from milk.

“The ability to digest milk, Thomas says, “has been incredibly important for people’s survival for the last 8,000 to 10,000 years. We still just don’t know why.”

The first milk drinkers

To figure out where, and possibly why, milk drinking started, some scientists have been looking at who has the milk-digesting mutation today. Patterns are striking.

Most adults in Northern and Central Europe are able to digest milk — and they do. Cheese, butter and other dairy products are popular in countries such as Sweden, Denmark, Germany and England. Because European settlers dominated North America, most people here can handle milk just fine, as well. That may explain why ice cream is such a popular dessert in the United States.

In much of Africa, Asia and South America, on the other hand, people tend to avoid dairy products because they lead to diarrhea and other stomach problems. (That’s why you won’t typically find cheese on the menu at a Chinese, Japanese or Ethiopian restaurant.) Native Americans are also unable to digest lactose.

Based on these genetic patterns, scientists have long thought that milk drinking started in Northern Europe, where dairy is an institution and the milk-digesting mutation is everywhere.

The different circles of color on this map of Europe show where lactose tolerance—the ability for older children and adults to drink milk without it causing illness or discomfort—developed in a particular area. The red area in the center shows where lactose tolerance most likely developed (each dot shows a place where computer simulations produced results very much like real-world conditions).



The different circles of color on this map of Europe show where lactose tolerance—the ability for older children and adults to drink milk without it causing illness or discomfort—developed in a particular area. The red area in the center shows where lactose tolerance most likely developed (each dot shows a place where computer simulations produced results very much like real-world conditions).

Yuval Itan, Adam Powell, Mark G. Thomas



A recent study painted a different picture. With a computer model, Thomas and colleagues looked at the spread of the milk-drinking mutation, farming and other related factors. Working backward, the scientists concluded that the first milk-drinkers lived in Central Europe around what’s now Hungary about 7,500 years ago. The practice didn’t start farther north, as scientists had thought before.

Around that time, a farming culture called the Linearbandkeramik also sprouted in the area that’s now Hungary. The culture spread quickly over the next few hundred years into most of northwestern Europe.

Milk drinking, Thomas says, was probably responsible for the success of the Linearbandkeramik. And milk-drinking Linearbandkeramik may have transformed Europe.

“They probably shaped the language and cultural map of Northern Europe over the last several thousand years,” Thomas says. “We now think the ability to digest milk was crucial to [their] spread.”

Dairy before milk

The story doesn’t start or end there. It’s now clear that people ate dairy foods before they actually drank milk.

Over the last decade, Evershed has analyzed pottery remains from many hundreds of ancient vessels at dozens of sites in Europe.

His group has also identified dried-up milk fat on the oldest pottery shards ever found, dating back 9,000 years from an area outside Europe, in the Middle East, called the Fertile Crescent. The region now includes Iraq, Syria and Israel. It’s probably where people first domesticated animals.

In fact, milking may have started even earlier than that. Although archaeologists haven’t found older pottery remains, scientists do have evidence that early sheep herds were mostly female. That might mean that the herd was used for milk, rather than meat. It’s the females, after all, that produce milk.

Despite those clues, Thomas — who has pulled genetic material out of the bones of early European farmers — has found no sign that people had the gene mutation for digesting lactose before 7,500 years ago.

So, why were people milking animals if they couldn’t digest the milk?

It turns out that fermenting and processing milk into yogurt, cheese and other products removes much of the lactose. Even people who are lactose-intolerant can often eat these foods without getting sick.

Dairy foods last longer than milk without spoiling. And fermenting, for instance, is not hard to do: In a hot country, people would have just needed to leave milk in a pot outside for most of the day to turn the milk into a nutritious, digestible yogurt.

“We are now pretty convinced,” Thomas says, “that the ability to digest milk came after the skills necessary to produce it.”

From when and where, to why?

Now that scientists know more about when and where milking started, they are struggling to explain why people started drinking milk in the first place.

Among a variety of theories about milk, Thomas likes the idea that animals provide a steady supply of it. Crops boom and then bust. Meat comes with finality: the end of an animal’s life. But on the other hand, as long as you keep feeding and milking a cow, her milk keeps coming.

There would have been other advantages, too. Milk is cheap. It’s nutritious. And it harbors fewer dangerous bacteria compared with liquids like river water, which could have made people terribly sick.

Investigating milk, scientists say, is a great way to help people connect with their food and where it comes from. In a recent presentation for schoolkids, Evershed included a poster of someone squeezing milk from the udders of a cow into a pot.

“It was a lovely picture,” Evershed says, and the image was symbolic, too. “It brought home man’s intimate relationship with animals and the way we live with them and rely on them. The supermarket makes you forget that.”


Retrieved March 13, 2010 from http://www.sciencenewsforkids.org/articles/20100120/Feature1.asp

By Yap Peck Shing, T2

Alternative for breast feeding



Breastfeeding has been a part of our culture since human existence, so why does it seem so difficult? Most soon-to-be-moms fantasize about the sweet, quiet moments that they will share with their precious bundle as they suckle at her breast, but moments after birth they find that the breastfeeding experience does not come as natural as was thought, but is a learning experience. Due to excruciating, long labors; post-partum depression; decisions to return back to work and many other problems that mothers are facing, some are turning to other feeding options.

breast-pumping-the-alternative-feeding-option.jpgIs this such a bad decision? Perhaps 30 or 40 years ago, when the fad of breastfeeding was not in, the only option was to use formula. However, we are very fortunate to have many feeding options to keep our beautiful newborns healthy, plump and happy: breastfeeding, formula, exclusive pumping, supplementing breast milk, supplementing formula, and many other combinations. But, why is it that we are instantly, right after the birth of our newborn, only given two options (breastfeeding and formula)? It is very rare for someone in our society, especially the medical community, to give you the option to pump, let alone give you a good explanation of how it works, the advantages and disadvantages, or recommend a good pump to use.

Today, our society pressures mothers to breastfeed because of the many benefits that have been proven. This pressure entails bringing baby to breast exclusively, and though this is an incredible way to create bonding with your baby while providing the best milk for your little one, this pressure can be detrimental to some mothers. Guilt, depression, inadequacy, anger, and many other emotions are felt by many mothers who feel this pressure, but are unable to successfully complete the beautiful fantasy of rocking quietly in a serene environment as baby suckles at a contented mother’s breast. Yet, instead of admitting that bringing baby to breast exclusively is not for every mother, and helping those discover the many other options, we impatiently thrust a can of formula in the confused mother’s arms.

Most of these mothers do not selfishly decide that their newly born child just does not deserve their time and sacrifice of bringing the baby to breast, it is usually quite the contrary. There are numerous reasons why a mother is unable to successfully bring baby to breast exclusively:

* baby is not nursing well (sleepy, low blood sugar, jaundice);
* baby is not able to nurse at all (premature, illness of mom or baby);
* mom or baby has surgery;
* postpartum depression.

And these are only a few of the many reasons that a mother is not capable of bringing baby to breast exclusively.

How many of these mothers are informed that they can still give their sweet babies their own perfect milk right from mom? Pumping has actually been around since the late 1700’s, with a glass bowl and brass syringe. Yet, the pumps of eras past are put to shame by the incredible breast pumps of today. You can choose from many different brands, styles, and usage requirements. Though it is not one of the first thoughts that come into one’s head when thinking of feeding options, there are many moms who breast pump exclusively, and are very proud of it.

There are many opponents of breast pumping who may inform others of the disadvantages, such as finding hours a day to do the pumping, risk of decreasing milk, or inconvenience of making and warming bottles. Yet, many mothers who find that the only way to provide their own milk to their infants is by breast pumping would argue that, although these are problems that need to sometimes be overcome, there are still many more benefits.

One benefit may include the emotional stability that some mothers experience when others are able to feed the baby while they get some extra sleep, the confidence of actually seeing how much milk the baby is consuming, or not becoming frustrated from latch-on problems, sore nipples, and biting. Another benefit is the financial cost, which is pretty minimal compared to the excessive prices of baby formula. Some babies may benefit from the length of time mothers will continue to pump as opposed to bringing baby to breast exclusively. Though 70% of mothers begin to breastfeed their baby in the hospital, only 36% continue to breastfeed their baby by 6 months, according to a study conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. This decrease can be contributed to mothers returning to work, the desire to begin to sleep longer periods of time, and many other reasons. However, because of the many benefits pumping moms encounter, these are also some of the reasons that they are able to continue to give their babies breast milk longer. One of the most important reasons to breast pump is the ability to help others in need. Many mothers who become experienced at pumping find that they are able to pump far more milk than their baby is consuming. For these fortunate mothers, they are able to share their milk with the milk banks across the U.S., which pasteurize and distribute the milk to sick and premature babies. This is one of the most satisfying and heart-felt advantages of breast pumping.

So, again, with the great advantages of breast pumping, why are we not promoting it as a major feeding option? We need to take it upon ourselves to educate others of the incredible benefits of breast pumping. Some very simple things that mothers can do to assist with breast pumping becoming a feeding option can be talking with other mothers, informing pregnant women about breast pumping as a feeding option, or asking your OB/GYN or baby’s pediatrician about their views of breast pumping. Those dedicated to making breast pumping a feeding option may contact government officials or charities to assist new mothers with funding for breast pumps, learn more and educate others about the wonderful services of breast milk banks, or get involved with educating the medical community about breast pumping and the benefits to both baby and mother.

One day, hopefully in the near future, mothers will be asked how they feed their baby, and instead of receiving strange looks when they profess that they exclusively pump, they will be greeted with a welcoming, “So do I! What type of pump do you use?”

Retrieved March 13, 2010 from

http://www.babiesonline.com/articles/baby/breastfeeding/breastpumping.asp



By Fong Khai Yan, T2

Friday, March 5, 2010

Baby Development – Mozart Therapy: A Sonata a Day Keeps the Doctor Away

By Colleen Hurley, RD, Certified Kid’s Nutrition Specialist

Parents and researchers alike have known for some time that music is both a great learning tool and lots of fun. Music has been thought to boost brain power from babies to college students, as a controversial 1993 study found college students improved IQ scores by listening to 10 minutes of Mozart; sending parents everywhere to the music store. Although that study was found to inconclusive, a recent study brought Mozart’s music back into focus but this time for premature babies.

Conducted by Tel Aviv University, the study revealed that 30 minutes of exposure to Mozart’s music per day caused preterm infants to expend less energy resulting in less calories needed to grow rapidly. This was compared to when infants were not “listening” to the music.

One of the main priorities for doctors treating preemies is to get the baby up to an acceptable body weight so that the infant can be sent home from the hospital. In addition, premature babies are exposed to a host of bacteria and illness while in the hospital and a healthy body weight protects the babies from future problems.

The study was conceived through an international project by United States based consortium NIDCAP, whose purpose is to create a set of best practice standards for the health and well-being of neonates. Several environmental factors have been proven to affect the health of premature infants including tactile stimulation and room lighting. This study, however, was the first to quantify the effect of music on newborns. Researchers measured the physiological responses to 30 minutes of Mozart’s music and compared the infants’ energy expenditure pre and post music listening finding significantly less expenditure after the music, which could ultimately lead to faster weight gain.

Researchers theorize the music makes the babies calmer possibly due to the repetitive melodies of Mozart’s music in particular, which bears a stark contrast to other great classical composers. Israeli researchers planned to continue the study to find the long term effects using different types of music including rap, pop, ethnic, and of course classical music as well as surveying mothers to discover what types of music their infant was exposed to in the womb. The correlation between infant brain development and Mozart has been around for many years with a variety of ‘Baby Mozart’ CD’s still on the market, however, many of the myths of this positive association have been debunked. Research has shown that babies do benefit from listening, and singing along, to a variety of musical styles.

Credits to Lew Hui Teng, T3

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Calories in food

Obesity in kids has reached epidemic levels. Experts estimate that 15% of kids are overweight and another 15% are at risk of becoming overweight. And two thirds of these overweight kids will become overweight adults.

Although a lack of physical activity and poor eating habits are a big part of this rise in childhood obesity, another big problem is that many children are simply getting too many calories, which are then turned into extra fat.

Although you usually shouldn't have to count calories each and every day, it can be helpful to know where the calories your child is getting are coming from. This is especially important if your child is already overweight.

Kids and Calories
In learning about calories in food, you are really just trying to make better choices between high calorie foods and healthier alternatives. Still, it can help to understand how many calories your child actually needs each day.

In general, kids who are:
• 1-3 years old need about 1300 calories each day
• 4-6 years old need about 1800 calories each day
• 7-10 years old need about 2000 calories each day

This Calorie Calculator can help you figure out how many calories your child needs each day, including for teens, and based on their activity level.

Calories to Avoid
Although all calories count, they do not all necessarily count equally.
For example, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that most children get about:
• 10 to 12 percent of their calories from protein
• 50 to 60 percent of their calories from carbohydrates
• 30 percent of their calories from fat, with a preference for monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats

Although we all need calories from protein (4 calories/gram), carbohydrates (4 calories/gram), and even fats (9 calories/gram), you should limit the amount of calories your child gets from:
• saturated fats to less than 10% of total calories (about 14g if your child is on a 1300 calorie diet)
• trans fats to less than 1% of total calories
• solid fats (butter, lard, shortening, etc.) and partially hydrogenated vegetable oils
• added sugars (soft drinks, fruit drinks, candy, etc.), which you can usually identify on the ingredients list - sugar, high-fructose corn syrup, corn syrup, molasses, syrup, lactose, fruit juice concentrates, brown sugar, etc.
• low fat foods that are high calorie because of added sugar

Do all of these rules seem a little overwhelming?
If so, you can start off planning your child's meals from the food groups, learn to read food labels, and review the calories in various foods.

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Health

Wednesday February 17, 2010

Bad for babies

THE DOCTOR SAYS By DR MILTON LUM

If you smoke during pregnancy, you’ll be passing on all the toxins from tobacco to your foetus.
NOT many smokers know what they are consuming when they light up a cigarette. The tobacco in cigarettes is usually blended from two types of tobacco leaves, which have about 2.5% to 4% nicotine. The cigarette is designed to deliver a steady dose of nicotine to the smoker.

In addition to the tobacco leaf, the cigarette contains fillers made from other parts of the tobacco plant and they are mixed with various flavours and additives. The additives increase the acceptability of the cigarette to the smoker as well as increase the addictiveness of cigarettes. The additives include sugars, which make it easier to inhale the smoke, and flavourings like mint. Some of these are harmless by themselves but when taken in combination with other substances, they may be harmful.

It is usual for the cigarettes, sold today, to have a filter at the mouth end. The filters, which are produced from cellulose, trap some of the smoke and tar from the inhaled smoke. Claims have been made that filtered brands contain less tar than others. There are also claims that they are safer because of the filters but these claims are poorly substantiated. But the fact remains that there is no such thing as a safe cigarette.

Tobacco smoke

The effects of cigarette smoking depend on the quantity smoked, type of cigarette and how the tobacco is prepared. There are two types of smoke from a cigarette: the mainstream smoke from the mouth end or filter, and the sidestream smoke from the burning tip of the cigarette. When a smoker inhales, the cigarette has been found to burn at 700°C at the tip and 60°C at the core. The tobacco is broken down to produce numerous chemicals, which are released into the atmosphere as invisible gases and particles, with the smoke making up 5% to 8% of a cigarette’s output. The gases include carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, hydrogen cyanide and dimethylnitrosamine. The particles include nicotine, benzene, benzopyrene and tar.

Most smokers are unaware of the uses of some of the gases and particles found in tobacco smoke. Formaldehyde is used to embalm the dead; acetone to remove nail varnish; benzene as a petrol additive; and cyanide in gas chambers during WWII.

Carbon monoxide, a toxic gas found in motor vehicle exhaust fumes, is present in all cigarette smoke. This poisonous gas attaches itself to the haemoglobin in the blood more readily than oxygen, thereby reducing the ability of the blood to carry oxygen. Britain’s Royal College of Physicians has reported a 15% reduction in the oxygen carrying capability of heavy smokers.

Nicotine is contained in the moisture of the tobacco leaf. When the cigarette is lit, the nicotine evaporates and attaches itself to the droplets in the tobacco smoke inhaled by the smoker. It is absorbed very rapidly by the body and reaches the brain within 10 to 15 seconds. Nicotine stimulates the central nervous system and increases the heart rate and blood pressure, resulting in an increased need for more oxygen. Nicotine is a very powerful drug. When 60mg of pure nicotine is placed on an individual’s tongue, it kills within minutes. Nicotine causes addiction in the similar manner as heroin and cocaine. Nicotine deprivation leads to a strong craving, which is accompanied by anxiety, irritability, hunger, restlessness and decreased concentration.

All cigarettes produce tar in varying amounts. It is always taken into the body when a smoker inhales the smoke in a lit cigarette. The tar, which is composed of many chemicals, contains known cancer-causing agents (carcinogens). They include compounds like formaldehyde, arsenic, cyanide, benzopyrene, benzene, toluene and acrolein. When the tar condenses, it forms the sticky brown substance that stains the smokers’ teeth and fingers yellow brown.

Some of the contents of tobacco smoke are irritants and more than 50 of the compounds are carcinogens or toxins. A study, which was reported in the respected journal, Science, has established a link between smoking and lung cancer at the cellular level. Other substances are known or suspected mutagens that can cause permanent and harmful changes in the genetic materials in the cells.

Low-tar cigarettes

When it became known about half a century ago that the tar in the tobacco smoke was associated with an increased risk of lung cancer, a programme was established to gradually reduce the tar content of cigarettes. Studies from the United States report that the widespread usage of low-tar cigarettes has not prevented an increase in lung cancer among older male Americans. The presumed advantage of low tar cigarettes has been largely offset by an increase in the number of cigarettes smoked and/or deeper inhalation, because of the smokers’ need to compensate for the lower nicotine content in low tar cigarettes.

Pregnancy

The single most preventable cause of illness and death in mothers and infants is smoking. Female and male smokers have decreased fertility. The sperm quality of smokers is impaired with decreases in the count, motility and form. There may be erectile difficulties. It is believed that smoking affects sex hormone production in the female and egg transport in the fallopian tubes to the uterus.

A foetus gets all its nutrients and oxygen from the pregnant woman via the placenta and umbilical cord. A pregnant woman exposed to tobacco smoke will transmit the toxins in it to the foetus. The carbon monoxide content of foetal blood is increased leading to it containing less oxygen than normal, which means that the foetal heart has to beat harder on every occasion the pregnant woman inhales tobacco smoke. The toxins of tobacco smoke also affects placental function and hence, foetal nutrition.

Women who smoke during pregnancy are at increased risk of miscarriage and stillbirth. They have double the risk of premature rupture of the membranes, placental abruption and placenta praevia, all of which can lead to prematurity and even stillbirth.

The babies of mothers exposed to tobacco smoke are at increased risk of prematurity and low birth weight, that is, below 2.5kg. Their babies’ organs are smaller than that of non-smokers’ babies. These babies’ lung function is poorer and they are more likely to get middle ear infections and asthmatic bronchitis in early childhood. Their likelihood of cot death (sudden infant death syndrome) is increased by 1.5 to 3 times. They are sick more often than babies of non-smokers. In addition, the babies are more likely to become smokers when they grow up.

Cessation

It is never too late to cease smoking. The damage from smoking can be reversed when there is cessation of smoking. There is evidence that women who cease smoking in mid-pregnancy gave birth to babies with the same average birth weight as non-smokers. Many women smokers ceased smoking during their pregnancies and never smoked again. The greatest gift that a pregnant smoker can give to her unborn child is to cease smoking. It is important to remember that the foetus is totally dependent on the mother to prevent toxins from poisoning him or her.

Dr Milton Lum is a member of the board of Medical Defence Malaysia. This article is not intended to replace, dictate or define evaluation by a qualified doctor. The views expressed do not represent that of any organisation the writer is associated with.


Taken from http://thestar.com.my/health/story.asp?file=/2010/2/17/health/5643906&sec=health


by Sia Wuen Xuan T5