WARNING: Extra long post! If only I could spontaneously write this much for my thesis! :)
I've decided that I really love being an aunt. Especially when I don't have my own children yet, because I get to learn parenting tidbits from those in the trenches right now. Case in point: the baby walker. I had heard, in passing, something about baby walkers being dangerous. Okay, I thought, that's intuitive - baby could fall down the stairs, off the porch, etc. But when I decided to investigate the evils of these contraptions, I learned something! Imagine that!
The first thing I learned is that our neighbors to the north (aka America's Hat) have banned the manufacture of baby walkers. That got me thinking... is that because they're crazy Canadians, or are they on to something? And so went to my proverbial Wizard of Oz, google scholar. Here, I discovered that the American Academy of Pediatrics has called for a ban on the use of walkers. And yet, no solid research-based evidence? Is this hysteria rooted in a randomized, controlled study? I was on the edge of my seat when I found the answer. Beams of light shone down on The Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, October 1999, Volume 20, issue five, pages 355-361. A. Carol Siegel and her trusty sidekick RV Berton did the dirty work and found the answer:
"Walker-experienced infants sat, crawled, and walked later than no-walker controls, and they scored lower on Bayley scales of mental and motor development. Significant effects of walker type, frequency, and timing of walker exposure were observed. Considering the injury data along with the developmental data, the authors conclude that the risks of walker use outweigh the benefits."
There's also a good recap of the study and Dr. Siegel's reasoning behind it here, in The New York Times. See, I thought in the beginning that the dangers and injury reports blaming walkers were not sufficient evidence to ban them. I mean, how many of those injured kids were being closely supervised while whizzing around in their walkers? Is that the walker's fault? But the developmental delays as a result of using the walker got me. Baby can't see feet, baby can't make connections between feet and legs doing something and baby walking. Science to the rescue.
While I was at it, and of course to delay doing the research I should actually be doing for my thesis, I decided to investigate the illusive water needs of breastfed babies. This was a quickie to answer, with countless articles all reaching the same conclusion that Dr. Sears does:
"Breastfeeding babies do not need extra water. Your breastmilk contains enough water for your baby, even in hot, dry climates. In breastfed babies, not only is extra water unnecessary, giving bottles of water to quench baby's thirst may also lessen the desire to breastfeed. This will interfere with the balance between mother's milk supply and baby's demand. A baby who is too warm or thirsty, but not hungry, can satisfy his need for more water by feeding more frequently and just enough to get the watery foremilk, but not necessarily the creamier hindmilk. Breastfeeding babies are great self-thirst-quenchers."
So my human development teacher was right. A thirsty (not hungry) baby will "take sips" and get the water needed. Also, breastmilk is 88% water.
** Breaking News**
That's all the baby trivia for today, though, because Jonathan just called to remind me of the inequity of the world. Our beloved Prius, which was keyed over the summer, has now been backed into. Jonathan was at dinner in Topeka and came out of the restaurant to discover a crumpled back fender and, of course, no note or identifying information with which to hunt down and scoop out the eyes of the culprit. Really? We've only had the car since August and it sure has taken a beating.
Grrrrr.
I've decided that I really love being an aunt. Especially when I don't have my own children yet, because I get to learn parenting tidbits from those in the trenches right now. Case in point: the baby walker. I had heard, in passing, something about baby walkers being dangerous. Okay, I thought, that's intuitive - baby could fall down the stairs, off the porch, etc. But when I decided to investigate the evils of these contraptions, I learned something! Imagine that!
The first thing I learned is that our neighbors to the north (aka America's Hat) have banned the manufacture of baby walkers. That got me thinking... is that because they're crazy Canadians, or are they on to something? And so went to my proverbial Wizard of Oz, google scholar. Here, I discovered that the American Academy of Pediatrics has called for a ban on the use of walkers. And yet, no solid research-based evidence? Is this hysteria rooted in a randomized, controlled study? I was on the edge of my seat when I found the answer. Beams of light shone down on The Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, October 1999, Volume 20, issue five, pages 355-361. A. Carol Siegel and her trusty sidekick RV Berton did the dirty work and found the answer:
"Walker-experienced infants sat, crawled, and walked later than no-walker controls, and they scored lower on Bayley scales of mental and motor development. Significant effects of walker type, frequency, and timing of walker exposure were observed. Considering the injury data along with the developmental data, the authors conclude that the risks of walker use outweigh the benefits."
There's also a good recap of the study and Dr. Siegel's reasoning behind it here, in The New York Times. See, I thought in the beginning that the dangers and injury reports blaming walkers were not sufficient evidence to ban them. I mean, how many of those injured kids were being closely supervised while whizzing around in their walkers? Is that the walker's fault? But the developmental delays as a result of using the walker got me. Baby can't see feet, baby can't make connections between feet and legs doing something and baby walking. Science to the rescue.
While I was at it, and of course to delay doing the research I should actually be doing for my thesis, I decided to investigate the illusive water needs of breastfed babies. This was a quickie to answer, with countless articles all reaching the same conclusion that Dr. Sears does:
"Breastfeeding babies do not need extra water. Your breastmilk contains enough water for your baby, even in hot, dry climates. In breastfed babies, not only is extra water unnecessary, giving bottles of water to quench baby's thirst may also lessen the desire to breastfeed. This will interfere with the balance between mother's milk supply and baby's demand. A baby who is too warm or thirsty, but not hungry, can satisfy his need for more water by feeding more frequently and just enough to get the watery foremilk, but not necessarily the creamier hindmilk. Breastfeeding babies are great self-thirst-quenchers."
So my human development teacher was right. A thirsty (not hungry) baby will "take sips" and get the water needed. Also, breastmilk is 88% water.
** Breaking News**
That's all the baby trivia for today, though, because Jonathan just called to remind me of the inequity of the world. Our beloved Prius, which was keyed over the summer, has now been backed into. Jonathan was at dinner in Topeka and came out of the restaurant to discover a crumpled back fender and, of course, no note or identifying information with which to hunt down and scoop out the eyes of the culprit. Really? We've only had the car since August and it sure has taken a beating.
Grrrrr.
Comments
Noel and I had a baby boy back in April and we are firm believers that walkers are evil, evil things. John has never been in one and he crawled before 6 months and now at 9 months he's cruising around furniture and attempting to stand alone. Our pediatrician read a study that walkers and even exersaucers and jumpers can cause the Achilles tendon to shorten, since it causes the baby to stand on their tip toes.