I cringe when I see a baby wearing hard, stiff, "supportive" shoes.
Then I think, "Oh, don't judge. Maybe the mama doesn't know that it is bad for babies to wear those kinds of shoes". Then I think, "Damn the shoe companies for MAKING those stiff shoes and marketing them as being GOOD for babies because they offer support! Babies this age don't need support, they need to feel the earth beneath their feet!" Then I think, "Maybe there is a good reason that baby is wearing those shoes."
Manufacturers make it so difficult to be a mom these days. Tricking us into thinking we've made good choices when the reality is that we have been brain washed to trust the packaging over our instincts.
And now, here is some brainwashing from a handful of soft soled shoe manufactures, whose propaganda I buy into. I mean, here are some websites explaining why soft soled shoes are superior for toddlers :)
The Robeez website sums it up quite nicely: Robeez' soft, flexible soled footwear support normal foot development by allowing a child's foot to develop naturally. Stiff shoes inhibit a baby's growing muscles from strengthening and balancing with the foot and leg. A podiatrist on the website goes on to say, " a hard inflexible shoe can inhibit the child's ability to have their foot develop in a normal fashion." There is a lot more good info on this site about soft soled shoes and when a hard leather shoe is better (major flat footedness).
The Foosies website, which sells a variety of different soft soled shoe brands, goes into a bit more detail about appropriate materials for a good soft sole shoe: For shoe uppers, medical experts recommend only pliable, breathable materials such as soft leather, suede, sheepskin, UItrasuede, etc. Plastic, vinyl and imitation leather should be avoided because they will make young feet perspire excessively.
The PediPed website gives a quick glance at what to look for in shoes for infants (leather soles), new walkers (soft rubber sole), and confidant walkers (flexible rubber sole). I like that they give overlapping age ranges as well as descriptions of the shoes.
Happy walking!
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Because I want to Opt Out and Send it Back.
I am sick of junk mail.
I found a service online, https://www.catalogchoice.org/, which helps to unsubscribe you from various mailing lists. The problem, though, is that those same companies may add you back onto their list if they re-buy your info from one of their partners. So you have to re-cancel your subscriptions to mail you don't want at least once a year. And you have to pay for the preemptive strike service, where they remove your name from the list of names to be sold. Again, your name could get back onto that list at any time, so you have to keep your subscription to this paid service active until the end of time.
ENOUGH! I don't want this junk mail! So what else can I do?
What if I marked it "return to sender, I opt out"? What if EVERYONE who didn't want junk mail took a few minutes to return the letters to the source, and let the source of the problem deal with it? Could that be enough to get these companies to stop wasting paper and consumer's time?
What do you think?
I would like to use this same approach with car seats. Car seats are a huge problem. They are only "good" for 6 years before the plastic degrades to the point that the company can no longer guarantee their effectiveness, and so must be SMASHED to pieces (to prevent an unsuspecting trash picker to use a possibly faulty product putting a child in danger and the car seat manufacturer in an uncomfortable position of liability) and then put into landfill because there is only one facility in the country, that I have found, that will go through the painstaking effort to recycle the recyclable parts, and they are not located anywhere near me and they only process car seats from their area. SO, what if we send back our used car seats to the manufacturer and make them deal with it? I think it is fair to ask producers to be responsible for disposal/recycling of their product if there are no local alternatives.
What do you think?
HP does (or used to do) a nice version of this where they would include a paid envelope for your used toner cartridge to be sent back to their facility to be recycled. That is corporate responsibility!
I found a service online, https://www.catalogchoice.org/, which helps to unsubscribe you from various mailing lists. The problem, though, is that those same companies may add you back onto their list if they re-buy your info from one of their partners. So you have to re-cancel your subscriptions to mail you don't want at least once a year. And you have to pay for the preemptive strike service, where they remove your name from the list of names to be sold. Again, your name could get back onto that list at any time, so you have to keep your subscription to this paid service active until the end of time.
ENOUGH! I don't want this junk mail! So what else can I do?
What if I marked it "return to sender, I opt out"? What if EVERYONE who didn't want junk mail took a few minutes to return the letters to the source, and let the source of the problem deal with it? Could that be enough to get these companies to stop wasting paper and consumer's time?
What do you think?
I would like to use this same approach with car seats. Car seats are a huge problem. They are only "good" for 6 years before the plastic degrades to the point that the company can no longer guarantee their effectiveness, and so must be SMASHED to pieces (to prevent an unsuspecting trash picker to use a possibly faulty product putting a child in danger and the car seat manufacturer in an uncomfortable position of liability) and then put into landfill because there is only one facility in the country, that I have found, that will go through the painstaking effort to recycle the recyclable parts, and they are not located anywhere near me and they only process car seats from their area. SO, what if we send back our used car seats to the manufacturer and make them deal with it? I think it is fair to ask producers to be responsible for disposal/recycling of their product if there are no local alternatives.
What do you think?
HP does (or used to do) a nice version of this where they would include a paid envelope for your used toner cartridge to be sent back to their facility to be recycled. That is corporate responsibility!
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Because I believe mothers need more support.
There have been some sad stories in the news these past few months. I can't get them out of my head. My thoughts are a bit scattered, so please bear with me.
There was the young mom who shook her baby to death because he wouldn't let her play a game of Farmville.
Another whose 13 month old baby drowned in the tub while the mother was in another room checking Facebook.
A third mother who drove her car with her 4 children into a river (one child managed to escape).
The first thing most people think upon hearing stories like these is, "That woman never should have been a mother." or "She was a terrible, irresponsible person" or "She is a bad mom". I don't see it that way.
What I see is a lack of proper support and care for the mother. Mother's needs are not being met. (Disclaimer: I'm sure these same thoughts apply to fathers, but since the stories I'm citing are about moms, that is who I am going to talk about.)
In the first story, it appears as though the mom needs more time to do something for herself and more education about how to parent. If there was another care taker (relative, babysitter, neighbor, friend) available to help out for an hour or two each day to watch the baby, then maybe she would have been able to satisfy her need to play games while someone was supervising her child. It is also possible no one warned her about the effects of shaking a baby. Maybe a class about child care the first few months could have prevented her child's death. I think people also don't realize that even a person who knows not to shake a baby may end up doing it. For some people, something happens in their brain when a baby won't stop screaming, and they can't help or stop it. They have to be strong enough and aware enough to set the baby down and get some space before harm the child. It is difficult to imagine this until you've gone through it, but I can remember a time or two when I felt that urge and had to suppress it. Not everyone has the ability to do that. Also, she may have been suffering from post partum depression. In that case, she would have needed someone to talk to or a support group until she started to feel better.
The second story hits close to home for me. I often stand just outside the door of the bathroom, checking email, text messages, and facebook on my phone, while my toddler is in the tub. It makes me nervous to do this, but there is still part of me that just needs a few moments to myself so I can be a better mom to my son after his bath is over. Maybe it was really difficult to get him into the tub that night and I just need a break. Maybe he was slapping me in the face and I needed some distance. What I'm saying is that anyone can make a decision like this woman did, and it doesn't mean she is a bad mom. Losing her child is punishment enough. I guarantee she will never make the same mistake again. She learned her lesson and is not a danger to others. Like the mother from the first story, what this mother needed was time to herself, someone to watch her child while she did something for herself. She needed more support and did not know to ask for it, or had no one that could offer it.
The third story is a bit different. A mom who commits or wants to commit suicide is in desperate need of a professional to talk to. She needs to learn how to express her feelings in a way that they will be heard and have her emotional needs met. Rather than accuse her of being an unfit mother, why don't we ask what we can do to identify warning signs, give proper support, and prevent another mom from taking her life and the lives of her children? There is a comment on this story from a woman who went through a similar struggle, but was fortunate enough to have professional help. Why is the only person empathetic to this woman's situation someone who has gone through something similar? Why can't we all learn to be empathetic and not be critical or judgmental?
Our society is not designed to support mothers. Maternity leave, when available, is so short. Child care is so expensive, and becoming less available as the economy worsens. In general, we live far away from extended family, so are often left on our own to take care of our kids and figure out how to parent. We are, for the most part, without role models and without guidance. Some of us have the resources (mental and financial) to seek out the support we need, but I would bet the majority of mothers in the US either can't afford it, don't realize they need help, or don't think it is possible that anyone could or would want to help them meet their needs.
What about mental health of parents, in general? What do we know about it, when do we talk about it, and how are parents educated about warning signs and when to seek help? Post partum depression is starting to get the attention it deserves, but there are so many other feelings and emotions that we need to talk about, identify, and work through.
The comments on these stories prove my point. People want to hurt these moms, they think the mothers should be killed for taking a life - but they don't understand the mental state these moms are in. It doesn't happen to everyone, but some people just can't cope with children the way others can. Crying babies affect people in different ways. Different moms need different amounts of time away from the kids. These women have already suffered the worst tragedy there is, and now they are suffering through tremendous punishment in prison and through public criticism.
What if these mothers had adequate help with child care, took parenting classes, and had their needs, whatever they may be, met? What if these mothers had the support and guidance they needed to take care of their children?
I can already hear people responding to this with thoughts like, "I'm a stay at home mom of 5 kids, and I don't need help, I don't need time to myself, I don't need anything". Well, good for you, but that just means that your needs are different, and that is wonderful that all your needs have been met! The needs of the mothers in these stories have not been met. So what could we do to help them? What could we do to help mothers, in general, before these types of tragedies?
Why are people compelled to criticize these women? Why isn't anyone compelled to wish that these women had what they needed to be the kind of mother we expect them to be?
I don't have any answers to this. I just wonder, if we all thought about these cases from the mother's point of view (if we could be so lucky to learn enough about them to do so), considered the mother's needs immediately before the incidents, if her needs had been met, what would have happened? What if we raise our kids to think in this way, to meet the needs of their partners and friends, and care for one another?
-NinaMama
There was the young mom who shook her baby to death because he wouldn't let her play a game of Farmville.
Another whose 13 month old baby drowned in the tub while the mother was in another room checking Facebook.
A third mother who drove her car with her 4 children into a river (one child managed to escape).
The first thing most people think upon hearing stories like these is, "That woman never should have been a mother." or "She was a terrible, irresponsible person" or "She is a bad mom". I don't see it that way.
What I see is a lack of proper support and care for the mother. Mother's needs are not being met. (Disclaimer: I'm sure these same thoughts apply to fathers, but since the stories I'm citing are about moms, that is who I am going to talk about.)
In the first story, it appears as though the mom needs more time to do something for herself and more education about how to parent. If there was another care taker (relative, babysitter, neighbor, friend) available to help out for an hour or two each day to watch the baby, then maybe she would have been able to satisfy her need to play games while someone was supervising her child. It is also possible no one warned her about the effects of shaking a baby. Maybe a class about child care the first few months could have prevented her child's death. I think people also don't realize that even a person who knows not to shake a baby may end up doing it. For some people, something happens in their brain when a baby won't stop screaming, and they can't help or stop it. They have to be strong enough and aware enough to set the baby down and get some space before harm the child. It is difficult to imagine this until you've gone through it, but I can remember a time or two when I felt that urge and had to suppress it. Not everyone has the ability to do that. Also, she may have been suffering from post partum depression. In that case, she would have needed someone to talk to or a support group until she started to feel better.
The second story hits close to home for me. I often stand just outside the door of the bathroom, checking email, text messages, and facebook on my phone, while my toddler is in the tub. It makes me nervous to do this, but there is still part of me that just needs a few moments to myself so I can be a better mom to my son after his bath is over. Maybe it was really difficult to get him into the tub that night and I just need a break. Maybe he was slapping me in the face and I needed some distance. What I'm saying is that anyone can make a decision like this woman did, and it doesn't mean she is a bad mom. Losing her child is punishment enough. I guarantee she will never make the same mistake again. She learned her lesson and is not a danger to others. Like the mother from the first story, what this mother needed was time to herself, someone to watch her child while she did something for herself. She needed more support and did not know to ask for it, or had no one that could offer it.
The third story is a bit different. A mom who commits or wants to commit suicide is in desperate need of a professional to talk to. She needs to learn how to express her feelings in a way that they will be heard and have her emotional needs met. Rather than accuse her of being an unfit mother, why don't we ask what we can do to identify warning signs, give proper support, and prevent another mom from taking her life and the lives of her children? There is a comment on this story from a woman who went through a similar struggle, but was fortunate enough to have professional help. Why is the only person empathetic to this woman's situation someone who has gone through something similar? Why can't we all learn to be empathetic and not be critical or judgmental?
Our society is not designed to support mothers. Maternity leave, when available, is so short. Child care is so expensive, and becoming less available as the economy worsens. In general, we live far away from extended family, so are often left on our own to take care of our kids and figure out how to parent. We are, for the most part, without role models and without guidance. Some of us have the resources (mental and financial) to seek out the support we need, but I would bet the majority of mothers in the US either can't afford it, don't realize they need help, or don't think it is possible that anyone could or would want to help them meet their needs.
What about mental health of parents, in general? What do we know about it, when do we talk about it, and how are parents educated about warning signs and when to seek help? Post partum depression is starting to get the attention it deserves, but there are so many other feelings and emotions that we need to talk about, identify, and work through.
The comments on these stories prove my point. People want to hurt these moms, they think the mothers should be killed for taking a life - but they don't understand the mental state these moms are in. It doesn't happen to everyone, but some people just can't cope with children the way others can. Crying babies affect people in different ways. Different moms need different amounts of time away from the kids. These women have already suffered the worst tragedy there is, and now they are suffering through tremendous punishment in prison and through public criticism.
What if these mothers had adequate help with child care, took parenting classes, and had their needs, whatever they may be, met? What if these mothers had the support and guidance they needed to take care of their children?
I can already hear people responding to this with thoughts like, "I'm a stay at home mom of 5 kids, and I don't need help, I don't need time to myself, I don't need anything". Well, good for you, but that just means that your needs are different, and that is wonderful that all your needs have been met! The needs of the mothers in these stories have not been met. So what could we do to help them? What could we do to help mothers, in general, before these types of tragedies?
Why are people compelled to criticize these women? Why isn't anyone compelled to wish that these women had what they needed to be the kind of mother we expect them to be?
I don't have any answers to this. I just wonder, if we all thought about these cases from the mother's point of view (if we could be so lucky to learn enough about them to do so), considered the mother's needs immediately before the incidents, if her needs had been met, what would have happened? What if we raise our kids to think in this way, to meet the needs of their partners and friends, and care for one another?
-NinaMama
Because I make my own baby food.
Feeding my kids has always been difficult for me. I set high standards for myself that I can not easily achieve. What I want is to always feed my kids homemade, organic, healthy meals. What I actually feed them is a random assortment of things that range from healthy to pre-made/processed junk. I've gotten to a comfortable place with this, though, as I now accept the reality of my ability. Here is the story of how I got to that place.
Introducing solids to my first born was a bit scary. I strictly followed my pediatrician's protocol - wait until 6 months, then begin with mashed up avocado, banana, and fully cooked egg yolk. Skip the rice cereal, as it has no nutritional benefit, it is just a vehicle for artificially added iron which the baby can get naturally from other sources. For example, raw liver (frozen, and from a very high quality butcher). I chose to skip this as I did not trust my own judgement about what a fresh liver should look like, but I did like the idea of having a natural source for this vital mineral. You can learn more about this controversial first-food on the Weston A. Price website.
After weeks of this, my baby still was not eating much. He just didn't seem interested. I had a bit of success when I added a lot of breast milk to the mashed up egg yolk, watering it down so that it was similar consistency to milk. But even then, he wasn't that interested.
I was at the grocery store one day with my husband. We were walking by the baby food section and he says to me, "Why not just try the rice cereal? It isn't going to hurt him. Lots of kids start out on this and they are all fine. Just try it and see if he likes it. If not, no big loss." ... That sounded logical, but I was still hesitant, because I thought feeding him rice cereal was pointless, from a nutritional POV, and I wanted to do better than that. So I bought the cereal with the MOST additives: vitamins, iron, pro biotics, DHA, (and of course it is organic). Even though the cereal itself is just a vehicle for these other things, at least he is getting a good dose of the other things.
I get home and read the label to see how to prepare the cereal. The directions are vague, and it makes me mad. This is the first time I've prepared rice cereal - I want to know *exactly* how much cereal and *exactly* how much and what kind of liquid to mix in! Instead, it says "Pour into bowl, add liquid, stir". It didn't take long to figure out that it really is just that simple, and that I could figure out the correct proportions of cereal to liquid as I went along and add in more cereal if I wanted it thicker or more water or breastmilk if I wanted it thinner, but MAN that was a frustrating time.
Anyway, I now consider rice cereal to have been my son's "Gateway Food". The first time I gave him this rice cereal he ate it all up! I was so surprised, he had never eaten so much in one sitting before. Maybe it was just the right time, maybe that day he woke up ready for solids, or maybe it was something about the flavor, temperature, or consistency of the rice cereal. Despite the nutritional void, if nothing else, this cereal taught him how to eat, and that is a huge benefit that you do not typically associate to a first food. After that one bowl of rice cereal, he eagerly ate up everything else I'd put in front of him.
This opened up a new challenge for me. Avocado, banana, and egg yolk are all easy in the sense that preparation requires little more than a fork to smash it with. But now that we've graduated to rice cereal and beyond, what will he eat? I want to feed him home made, organic, healthy foods - but what? I don't cook often, I somehow don't have time to even boil a potato for him. I don't want to buy pre-made jarred foods. But what else can I do? So I buy the pre-made foods, organic at least, and feel guilty for it. He seems to like them, it can't be all that bad...
Gearing up to start solids with baby#2. What a different animal! He seems eager and ready to eat at just 4 months. This throws me for a loop - I thought I had to wait until 6 months, but why? He seems so ready now at 4 months. His pediatrician supported me, saying if I thought he was ready, go ahead and start. So I did, finger feeding him a few bites of smooshed banana at 4 months old. He was thrilled, and made a fuss in the moments between each fingerful.
I remembered hearing about something called "Baby Led Weaning" on one of my parenting lists. I looked that up and got the book. First, it reminds me to wait until 6 months to introduce any solid foods. Their reasoning is that a baby's digestive system isn't ready even if they seem to be showing signs of interest in food. That there are small holes still in a baby's intestines and food particles can move through those holes and develop into food allergies. I'm not quoting from the book, and my recap here does not sound very scientific or convincing, but this is how I remember it. Anyway, it was enough for me to decide to wait a couple more weeks or maybe months, just to be safe. I knew there was a good reason I waited until 6 months with my first kid.
The title is a little misleading. It should be called "Baby Led Feeding". They advise that babies should continue to be breastfed for as long as possible, but they call it "weaning" because any introduction of solid food means the transition to no milk is beginning. Did that make sense?
The basic idea in this book is that jarred semi-solid baby food is a modern invention by Gerber, and that babies don't actually need to start their solid food adventure with spoon fed slime. Rather, if they have the motor skills and motivation to grab something off your plate, bring it to their mouth, chew on it, and swallow it, then they ought to be allowed to do so. This is the kind of common-sense parenting that I love. And I love finding a book to support an idea that feels right to me, but for which society, in general, does not accept. We are so used to believing the product packaging that we have forgotten how to trust our own instincts. "But won't he choke on that?" - no, probably not. Babies have a reflex to spit out chunks of food they can not chew or swallow. Their gums work surprisingly well for grinding up food. If something does get stuck, they'll throw up and it'll come out. If that doesn't work, I do know how to do the baby Heimlich. Gerber processed baby foods have been around less than 100 years. Prior to that, this method of letting a baby explore food and learn through experimentation is how all babies learned to eat.
Another thing I love about this approach is that it makes so much sense developmentally for a baby. More specifically, MY baby. I keep trying to spoon feed him the slimey jar food, and all he wants to do is grab the spoon and try to do it himself. I remember getting really frustrated with my first born for stealing the spoon, preventing me from being a good mother and making sure he had the proper amount of nutrients in his belly! JUST LET ME FEED YOU DAMMIT. But now I know how important it is to just let him (talking about the 6mo now) have the spoon, not to fight it, not to care how much actually gets in his mouth. I know now that he is working on the mechanics and learning something that is equally as important as whatever nutrients he may ingest in the process. I feel free, now, to just let him eat! Or not eat. Whatever he ends up doing is fine. I'll still breastfeed him later, which is where he'll continue to get the majority of his nutrition for another 6 months.
I'm empowered now with various ways of feeding my baby. Store-bought organic semi-solid food, home made organic semi-solid food (when I manage to do it, not beating myself up over it this time), organic enriched brown rice cereal, and whatever happens to be on my plate.
There is the new challenge: Making sure that what is on my plate is healthy enough for my child. The standards by which I feed my children are waaaaay higher than the standards I set for myself. I know I need to correct this imbalance, but I am not someone who likes to spend a lot of time in the kitchen. Most of my meals come from the surrounding restaurants. While they serve fairly high quality food, I still don't know exactly what is in there, and it makes me nervous to let my baby have it. I often do anyway, but not without an appropriate helping of mom-guilt for me.
Oh I just remembered something else - broth! Waldorf education believes the way to start babies out with solid foods is with a good veggie broth. This allows their digestive system to be introduced to new foods in a very subtle way, allowing for a slower, smoother transition. Just throw a bunch of stuff into a pot, let it simmer for an hour, and strain it. I did this last week for the first time (always intended to do it with my first and never did), and it was surprisingly easy and tasty. My baby drank a lot of it, and I served the softened veggies to him and my toddler, too. He mostly played with them, but did manage to suck on a fist full or two. Now I feel like I can check this off my baby-to-do list. Next time, I intend to freeze some so I can just have some good veggie stock on-hand when I want it. I could use it in his rice cereal instead of plain water.
For what it's worth, my 3yo is an amazing eater whose favorite food is an Indian dish, Chicken Tikka Masala (from a restaurant, of course).
This morning, my 6mo shoved half an egg yolk into his mouth all by himself, gagged a little because it was so dry, then continued on playing with the other half, crumbling it all over himself and dropping bits onto the floor. In his short life, he has already tasted a couple of burritos, eaten rice (the whole grain, not in cereal form), corn (gummed an eaten cobb), veggie broth, fist fulls of sweet potato, banana, avocado, and probably a lot of other things that I've already forgotten. He's a good eater already!
-NinaMama
Introducing solids to my first born was a bit scary. I strictly followed my pediatrician's protocol - wait until 6 months, then begin with mashed up avocado, banana, and fully cooked egg yolk. Skip the rice cereal, as it has no nutritional benefit, it is just a vehicle for artificially added iron which the baby can get naturally from other sources. For example, raw liver (frozen, and from a very high quality butcher). I chose to skip this as I did not trust my own judgement about what a fresh liver should look like, but I did like the idea of having a natural source for this vital mineral. You can learn more about this controversial first-food on the Weston A. Price website.
After weeks of this, my baby still was not eating much. He just didn't seem interested. I had a bit of success when I added a lot of breast milk to the mashed up egg yolk, watering it down so that it was similar consistency to milk. But even then, he wasn't that interested.
I was at the grocery store one day with my husband. We were walking by the baby food section and he says to me, "Why not just try the rice cereal? It isn't going to hurt him. Lots of kids start out on this and they are all fine. Just try it and see if he likes it. If not, no big loss." ... That sounded logical, but I was still hesitant, because I thought feeding him rice cereal was pointless, from a nutritional POV, and I wanted to do better than that. So I bought the cereal with the MOST additives: vitamins, iron, pro biotics, DHA, (and of course it is organic). Even though the cereal itself is just a vehicle for these other things, at least he is getting a good dose of the other things.
I get home and read the label to see how to prepare the cereal. The directions are vague, and it makes me mad. This is the first time I've prepared rice cereal - I want to know *exactly* how much cereal and *exactly* how much and what kind of liquid to mix in! Instead, it says "Pour into bowl, add liquid, stir". It didn't take long to figure out that it really is just that simple, and that I could figure out the correct proportions of cereal to liquid as I went along and add in more cereal if I wanted it thicker or more water or breastmilk if I wanted it thinner, but MAN that was a frustrating time.
Anyway, I now consider rice cereal to have been my son's "Gateway Food". The first time I gave him this rice cereal he ate it all up! I was so surprised, he had never eaten so much in one sitting before. Maybe it was just the right time, maybe that day he woke up ready for solids, or maybe it was something about the flavor, temperature, or consistency of the rice cereal. Despite the nutritional void, if nothing else, this cereal taught him how to eat, and that is a huge benefit that you do not typically associate to a first food. After that one bowl of rice cereal, he eagerly ate up everything else I'd put in front of him.
This opened up a new challenge for me. Avocado, banana, and egg yolk are all easy in the sense that preparation requires little more than a fork to smash it with. But now that we've graduated to rice cereal and beyond, what will he eat? I want to feed him home made, organic, healthy foods - but what? I don't cook often, I somehow don't have time to even boil a potato for him. I don't want to buy pre-made jarred foods. But what else can I do? So I buy the pre-made foods, organic at least, and feel guilty for it. He seems to like them, it can't be all that bad...
Gearing up to start solids with baby#2. What a different animal! He seems eager and ready to eat at just 4 months. This throws me for a loop - I thought I had to wait until 6 months, but why? He seems so ready now at 4 months. His pediatrician supported me, saying if I thought he was ready, go ahead and start. So I did, finger feeding him a few bites of smooshed banana at 4 months old. He was thrilled, and made a fuss in the moments between each fingerful.
I remembered hearing about something called "Baby Led Weaning" on one of my parenting lists. I looked that up and got the book. First, it reminds me to wait until 6 months to introduce any solid foods. Their reasoning is that a baby's digestive system isn't ready even if they seem to be showing signs of interest in food. That there are small holes still in a baby's intestines and food particles can move through those holes and develop into food allergies. I'm not quoting from the book, and my recap here does not sound very scientific or convincing, but this is how I remember it. Anyway, it was enough for me to decide to wait a couple more weeks or maybe months, just to be safe. I knew there was a good reason I waited until 6 months with my first kid.
The title is a little misleading. It should be called "Baby Led Feeding". They advise that babies should continue to be breastfed for as long as possible, but they call it "weaning" because any introduction of solid food means the transition to no milk is beginning. Did that make sense?
The basic idea in this book is that jarred semi-solid baby food is a modern invention by Gerber, and that babies don't actually need to start their solid food adventure with spoon fed slime. Rather, if they have the motor skills and motivation to grab something off your plate, bring it to their mouth, chew on it, and swallow it, then they ought to be allowed to do so. This is the kind of common-sense parenting that I love. And I love finding a book to support an idea that feels right to me, but for which society, in general, does not accept. We are so used to believing the product packaging that we have forgotten how to trust our own instincts. "But won't he choke on that?" - no, probably not. Babies have a reflex to spit out chunks of food they can not chew or swallow. Their gums work surprisingly well for grinding up food. If something does get stuck, they'll throw up and it'll come out. If that doesn't work, I do know how to do the baby Heimlich. Gerber processed baby foods have been around less than 100 years. Prior to that, this method of letting a baby explore food and learn through experimentation is how all babies learned to eat.
Another thing I love about this approach is that it makes so much sense developmentally for a baby. More specifically, MY baby. I keep trying to spoon feed him the slimey jar food, and all he wants to do is grab the spoon and try to do it himself. I remember getting really frustrated with my first born for stealing the spoon, preventing me from being a good mother and making sure he had the proper amount of nutrients in his belly! JUST LET ME FEED YOU DAMMIT. But now I know how important it is to just let him (talking about the 6mo now) have the spoon, not to fight it, not to care how much actually gets in his mouth. I know now that he is working on the mechanics and learning something that is equally as important as whatever nutrients he may ingest in the process. I feel free, now, to just let him eat! Or not eat. Whatever he ends up doing is fine. I'll still breastfeed him later, which is where he'll continue to get the majority of his nutrition for another 6 months.
I'm empowered now with various ways of feeding my baby. Store-bought organic semi-solid food, home made organic semi-solid food (when I manage to do it, not beating myself up over it this time), organic enriched brown rice cereal, and whatever happens to be on my plate.
There is the new challenge: Making sure that what is on my plate is healthy enough for my child. The standards by which I feed my children are waaaaay higher than the standards I set for myself. I know I need to correct this imbalance, but I am not someone who likes to spend a lot of time in the kitchen. Most of my meals come from the surrounding restaurants. While they serve fairly high quality food, I still don't know exactly what is in there, and it makes me nervous to let my baby have it. I often do anyway, but not without an appropriate helping of mom-guilt for me.
Oh I just remembered something else - broth! Waldorf education believes the way to start babies out with solid foods is with a good veggie broth. This allows their digestive system to be introduced to new foods in a very subtle way, allowing for a slower, smoother transition. Just throw a bunch of stuff into a pot, let it simmer for an hour, and strain it. I did this last week for the first time (always intended to do it with my first and never did), and it was surprisingly easy and tasty. My baby drank a lot of it, and I served the softened veggies to him and my toddler, too. He mostly played with them, but did manage to suck on a fist full or two. Now I feel like I can check this off my baby-to-do list. Next time, I intend to freeze some so I can just have some good veggie stock on-hand when I want it. I could use it in his rice cereal instead of plain water.
For what it's worth, my 3yo is an amazing eater whose favorite food is an Indian dish, Chicken Tikka Masala (from a restaurant, of course).
This morning, my 6mo shoved half an egg yolk into his mouth all by himself, gagged a little because it was so dry, then continued on playing with the other half, crumbling it all over himself and dropping bits onto the floor. In his short life, he has already tasted a couple of burritos, eaten rice (the whole grain, not in cereal form), corn (gummed an eaten cobb), veggie broth, fist fulls of sweet potato, banana, avocado, and probably a lot of other things that I've already forgotten. He's a good eater already!
-NinaMama
Friday, May 6, 2011
Because I plan safe BiRtHdAy PaRtiEs!
A dear friend of mine wrote to me today to ask what safe alternatives I found for sugar, bouncy houses, and face paint.
WHAT?!@! Bouncy houses and face paint?! Why do I need alternatives for those?! (I kind of already talked about sugar in a previous post, but didn't really touch on alternatives, so I'll talk about that in a bit)
It is birthday season for me and my mama friends whose kids are all about the same age, and clearly birthday parties are on our minds. My friend is no doubt responding to the evite I recently sent out for my toddler's upcoming special day, advertising, of course, cake, a bouncy house, and face painting. So much fun! But wait, what? I'm going to inadvertently poison my kid and all his friends?
Maybe! So says these articles from a year or so ago:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfmoms/detail?entry_id=69872
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/12/us/12bounce.html
If you don't want to read the articles, they are basically saying that bouncy houses contain stupid amounts of lead. And lead does bad things to developing children. So the question, then, is just how safe are bouncy houses? Will my kid get sick from lead poisoning by using the bouncy house for 4 hours on his birthday?
I called the bouncy house rental company where I reserved our bouncy house, and asked about lead. The girl on the phone, with a tone of "I can't believe you are really worried about this", said that as long as the kids don't eat the bouncy houses, there is nothing to worry about. And that they did test the bouncy houses, but like she said, even the ones that tested high are not a problem because the kids will not eat them. That the lead doesn't just rub off onto the kids.
Now my mind is racing with questions. If there is no risk unless the kids eat the bouncy house, then why is anyone talking about this in the first place? Isn't it possible that a piece of the bouncy house could come off and a kid could eat it? Kids do put anything in their mouths, you know. Is it possible for tiny lead laden dust particles to come off the vinyl that would get on the kids' hands and faces and then get eaten by them when they use their hands to eat lunch after bouncing?
I don't know where to go to find answers to these questions. I also don't know what came of the lawsuits that the articles above were talking about. I'm guessing they didn't get anywhere, since bouncy house companies are still in business and parents don't seem to be too concerned.
So what am I going to do about it? Well, for this year, I'm going to mostly feign ignorance about the risk, and provide wet wipes so the kids can wipe off their hands and faces when they are done bouncing. Next year, I think we'll stick to the back yard BBQ.
Ok, now what about face paint. I had heard some chatter about safe and unsafe face paints a few years ago, and totally didn't think twice about it then because my kid was too young for me to care. Now he's old enough, and I have to re-research the issue.
Apparently face paint can contain lead, arsenic, cobalt, chromium, and nickle. These are not things we want on young, permeable, developing skin. I am not a face painter, so rather than hunt around for a list of face paint brands and their ingredients (which, according to the article sited above, may not actually list out these toxins), I emailed the woman I hired to do the face painting to ask her what kind of face paint she uses, and if she is aware of the potential health risks of some face paints. I am waiting for her reply, but I expect she'll be on top of this and confirm that she is aware of the risks and only uses the highest quality, lowest toxicity paints available! (fingers crossed) I mean, what else could she say - yes, I use paints with a lot of lead, but don't worry, it is just once a year that your kid will be exposed and he probably won't eat it so it'll be fine? Yeah, that probably isn't an answer I'd accept, or expect. Next year, I think I'll go with some food-based paints. It might actually be a fun party game to *make* the food-based paints together, then let the kids finger paint themselves.
Luckily, cake has not been reported to contain lead. However, excessive amounts of sugar in the American diet are a problem. So what does that mean for the most traditional and tastiest part of a birthday celebration? For my kid, nothing! He will eat cake!
But I do have one rule about birthday cake. *I* make it. And I try to use organic, unprocessed ingredients. This doesn't always work out, since cake generally looks, tastes, and feels (I mean the eating texture) better with super refined sugars and flours. But if you change your expectations, you'll still get a great dessert out of some raw sugar and wheat flour. I haven't started researching recipes for this year's cake yet, but I suppose I could post it when I find it. Last year I even made a vegan cake because my kid was on a no dairy diet (oddly, he is again this year, so maybe we'll have a repeat). People said they could not tell it was vegan because it was so soft and moist! Thanks guys! I wasn't quite so strict about the ingredients for his first birthday cake, but I do remember it being decorated all over with blueberries. So we had some natural sweetness to offset the sugary whipped cream frosting. What was inside, banana cake? I don't remember.
Oh look, I'm rambling. Must be sleep deprived. I'll write about "natural sugar alternatives" like stevia, trulia, and xylitol (which I think are all the same thing, if I remember correctly, which I probably don't, because like I just said, I'm really tired. why am I not napping now?) sometime soon.
And let me just quickly say that I am no fancy baker. My cooking skills have been called "novice". The point in making my kid's cake is not to show off. It is an act of love, a tradition for him to look forward to. It is the gesture and effort of making the cake that are important, not how it turns out. But if it looks and tastes good, that's an added bonus. I remember homemade cakes being the highlight of my birthdays when I was growing up, and I want to recreate that for my kids. This year, my toddler requested a "yellow" cake, "with brown maybe".
Happy Birthdays!
-NinaMama
WHAT?!@! Bouncy houses and face paint?! Why do I need alternatives for those?! (I kind of already talked about sugar in a previous post, but didn't really touch on alternatives, so I'll talk about that in a bit)
It is birthday season for me and my mama friends whose kids are all about the same age, and clearly birthday parties are on our minds. My friend is no doubt responding to the evite I recently sent out for my toddler's upcoming special day, advertising, of course, cake, a bouncy house, and face painting. So much fun! But wait, what? I'm going to inadvertently poison my kid and all his friends?
Maybe! So says these articles from a year or so ago:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfmoms/detail?entry_id=69872
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/12/us/12bounce.html
If you don't want to read the articles, they are basically saying that bouncy houses contain stupid amounts of lead. And lead does bad things to developing children. So the question, then, is just how safe are bouncy houses? Will my kid get sick from lead poisoning by using the bouncy house for 4 hours on his birthday?
I called the bouncy house rental company where I reserved our bouncy house, and asked about lead. The girl on the phone, with a tone of "I can't believe you are really worried about this", said that as long as the kids don't eat the bouncy houses, there is nothing to worry about. And that they did test the bouncy houses, but like she said, even the ones that tested high are not a problem because the kids will not eat them. That the lead doesn't just rub off onto the kids.
Now my mind is racing with questions. If there is no risk unless the kids eat the bouncy house, then why is anyone talking about this in the first place? Isn't it possible that a piece of the bouncy house could come off and a kid could eat it? Kids do put anything in their mouths, you know. Is it possible for tiny lead laden dust particles to come off the vinyl that would get on the kids' hands and faces and then get eaten by them when they use their hands to eat lunch after bouncing?
I don't know where to go to find answers to these questions. I also don't know what came of the lawsuits that the articles above were talking about. I'm guessing they didn't get anywhere, since bouncy house companies are still in business and parents don't seem to be too concerned.
So what am I going to do about it? Well, for this year, I'm going to mostly feign ignorance about the risk, and provide wet wipes so the kids can wipe off their hands and faces when they are done bouncing. Next year, I think we'll stick to the back yard BBQ.
Ok, now what about face paint. I had heard some chatter about safe and unsafe face paints a few years ago, and totally didn't think twice about it then because my kid was too young for me to care. Now he's old enough, and I have to re-research the issue.
Apparently face paint can contain lead, arsenic, cobalt, chromium, and nickle. These are not things we want on young, permeable, developing skin. I am not a face painter, so rather than hunt around for a list of face paint brands and their ingredients (which, according to the article sited above, may not actually list out these toxins), I emailed the woman I hired to do the face painting to ask her what kind of face paint she uses, and if she is aware of the potential health risks of some face paints. I am waiting for her reply, but I expect she'll be on top of this and confirm that she is aware of the risks and only uses the highest quality, lowest toxicity paints available! (fingers crossed) I mean, what else could she say - yes, I use paints with a lot of lead, but don't worry, it is just once a year that your kid will be exposed and he probably won't eat it so it'll be fine? Yeah, that probably isn't an answer I'd accept, or expect. Next year, I think I'll go with some food-based paints. It might actually be a fun party game to *make* the food-based paints together, then let the kids finger paint themselves.
Luckily, cake has not been reported to contain lead. However, excessive amounts of sugar in the American diet are a problem. So what does that mean for the most traditional and tastiest part of a birthday celebration? For my kid, nothing! He will eat cake!
But I do have one rule about birthday cake. *I* make it. And I try to use organic, unprocessed ingredients. This doesn't always work out, since cake generally looks, tastes, and feels (I mean the eating texture) better with super refined sugars and flours. But if you change your expectations, you'll still get a great dessert out of some raw sugar and wheat flour. I haven't started researching recipes for this year's cake yet, but I suppose I could post it when I find it. Last year I even made a vegan cake because my kid was on a no dairy diet (oddly, he is again this year, so maybe we'll have a repeat). People said they could not tell it was vegan because it was so soft and moist! Thanks guys! I wasn't quite so strict about the ingredients for his first birthday cake, but I do remember it being decorated all over with blueberries. So we had some natural sweetness to offset the sugary whipped cream frosting. What was inside, banana cake? I don't remember.
Oh look, I'm rambling. Must be sleep deprived. I'll write about "natural sugar alternatives" like stevia, trulia, and xylitol (which I think are all the same thing, if I remember correctly, which I probably don't, because like I just said, I'm really tired. why am I not napping now?) sometime soon.
And let me just quickly say that I am no fancy baker. My cooking skills have been called "novice". The point in making my kid's cake is not to show off. It is an act of love, a tradition for him to look forward to. It is the gesture and effort of making the cake that are important, not how it turns out. But if it looks and tastes good, that's an added bonus. I remember homemade cakes being the highlight of my birthdays when I was growing up, and I want to recreate that for my kids. This year, my toddler requested a "yellow" cake, "with brown maybe".
Happy Birthdays!
-NinaMama
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Because I observe.
My 5mo turned over for the first time today!
It was such a beautiful motion. Diaperless, laying on the floor, on his back, brought his knees up to his chest, threw his arm across his body, and REAAAAACHED for that toy. Like magic, his left leg and hips angled in the same direction, putting him on his side with his right arm strategically placed below his body so that he was able to rock the rest of himself over it and onto his belly, pushing himself up with both hands to see where he ended up. It was so fluid, so natural, that you never would have believed that he was totally unable to do this yesterday. He had most of the pieces of the puzzle figured out, he could turn onto his side yesterday. But today, today is the day he went just a little bit farther.
I want to use this opportunity to talk about how important it is to me to just sit back and watch my kids develop. There are two great benefits.
First, it gives me permission to stop doing everything - put down my phone, stop using the computer, let the dishes and laundry wait - and take 10 or 20 minutes, however long he is happy to be left alone, to do nothing but observe. This also strengthens the bond I have with my child, as I can focus on him and learn new things about him that I may not have noticed if he didn't have my undivided attention. For example, when he does a push up, his right hand stays firmly planted on the ground while he uses his left wrist (or back of his left hand) for support. It looks as awkward as it sounds! Also, he develops trust with me, knowing that I have faith in him to just be, and that I am nearby and will "save" him as soon as he needs help.
Second, it allows my child the opportunity to learn a new skill on his own and develop self confidence.
Sometimes I have to fight the urge to play the horse and carrot game with him. You know what I mean, when you dangle a toy in front of the baby juuuust outside of their reach, then move it slowly to one side or the other, hoping they will continue to reach out for it and unwittingly fall to their side and then, once they grab onto the toy, gently pulling them over onto their tummy. This interactive method seems like I'm helping my child by "teaching" him how to roll over. But movement is not something I need to teach to my son. It is something he will learn to do on his own.
So instead of dangling the toy, I put it on the floor just outside of his arm's reach and let him decide that he wants it, let him figure out how he'll get it, and let him discover how to move his body. That way he does it in his own speed, his own desire, and makes really important connections in his brain about movement and self confidence. Imagine how good he feels when he sees something he wants and is able to get it all by himself!
If I dangle the toy, he might feel frustrated and confused, because just yesterday I handed it right to him. And if I turn him over by pulling the toy he is holding onto, then I am moving his body for him, and he doesn't have the opportunity to make the important brain connections about how to move his body on his own.
There is a book called Baby Moves that talks about the importance of letting babies figure out gross motor skills on their own, and explains how they go through each step, the importance of the unseen in-between movements and milestones that are really important for brain development, and pictures of babies doing the movements. Would you have guessed that a baby moves backwards before they crawl forwards? Or that, before they can turn over, babies will naturally turn themselves in a circle? Mine would only get about half way around before he got bored and lonely, but he definitely did it! The author spent a lot of time studying baby movement and the book is a compilation of her discoveries. Only problem is that I think you have to order it from the UK.
I was just reading her website and wanted to highlight another important concept that I remind myself of often, "babies or children should not be placed in positions they cannot get themselves into." This goes back to what I was saying about why I don't like the Bumbo. I take less issue with the bumbo when kids use it when they already know how to sit themselves up.
I take time to observe my toddler, too. This is the most difficult when he is at the playground and just learned how to do something new that looks dangerous beyond belief (and is, of course, not actually that dangerous, but since it is a new and imperfect skill, freaks me out at the moment). Like climbing the ladder, or going down the slide head first. But I just watch, and trust that he knows his limits, and trust in the knowledge that he will learn more if he falls than if I make any effort to prevent it.... Can you imagine the tantrum that would ensue if I forbid use of the slide because he didn't go down it "properly", and how that would insult his ego, after being so proud of his own bravery and ability to discover a new way to use the slide? Instead, I will kiss a bump on the cheek and watch him find a way to go down head first *without* landing on his face. I trust he'll figure it out. I just need to remember to breathe while he pushes himself to each new achievement.
-NinaMama
It was such a beautiful motion. Diaperless, laying on the floor, on his back, brought his knees up to his chest, threw his arm across his body, and REAAAAACHED for that toy. Like magic, his left leg and hips angled in the same direction, putting him on his side with his right arm strategically placed below his body so that he was able to rock the rest of himself over it and onto his belly, pushing himself up with both hands to see where he ended up. It was so fluid, so natural, that you never would have believed that he was totally unable to do this yesterday. He had most of the pieces of the puzzle figured out, he could turn onto his side yesterday. But today, today is the day he went just a little bit farther.
I want to use this opportunity to talk about how important it is to me to just sit back and watch my kids develop. There are two great benefits.
First, it gives me permission to stop doing everything - put down my phone, stop using the computer, let the dishes and laundry wait - and take 10 or 20 minutes, however long he is happy to be left alone, to do nothing but observe. This also strengthens the bond I have with my child, as I can focus on him and learn new things about him that I may not have noticed if he didn't have my undivided attention. For example, when he does a push up, his right hand stays firmly planted on the ground while he uses his left wrist (or back of his left hand) for support. It looks as awkward as it sounds! Also, he develops trust with me, knowing that I have faith in him to just be, and that I am nearby and will "save" him as soon as he needs help.
Second, it allows my child the opportunity to learn a new skill on his own and develop self confidence.
Sometimes I have to fight the urge to play the horse and carrot game with him. You know what I mean, when you dangle a toy in front of the baby juuuust outside of their reach, then move it slowly to one side or the other, hoping they will continue to reach out for it and unwittingly fall to their side and then, once they grab onto the toy, gently pulling them over onto their tummy. This interactive method seems like I'm helping my child by "teaching" him how to roll over. But movement is not something I need to teach to my son. It is something he will learn to do on his own.
So instead of dangling the toy, I put it on the floor just outside of his arm's reach and let him decide that he wants it, let him figure out how he'll get it, and let him discover how to move his body. That way he does it in his own speed, his own desire, and makes really important connections in his brain about movement and self confidence. Imagine how good he feels when he sees something he wants and is able to get it all by himself!
If I dangle the toy, he might feel frustrated and confused, because just yesterday I handed it right to him. And if I turn him over by pulling the toy he is holding onto, then I am moving his body for him, and he doesn't have the opportunity to make the important brain connections about how to move his body on his own.
There is a book called Baby Moves that talks about the importance of letting babies figure out gross motor skills on their own, and explains how they go through each step, the importance of the unseen in-between movements and milestones that are really important for brain development, and pictures of babies doing the movements. Would you have guessed that a baby moves backwards before they crawl forwards? Or that, before they can turn over, babies will naturally turn themselves in a circle? Mine would only get about half way around before he got bored and lonely, but he definitely did it! The author spent a lot of time studying baby movement and the book is a compilation of her discoveries. Only problem is that I think you have to order it from the UK.
I was just reading her website and wanted to highlight another important concept that I remind myself of often, "babies or children should not be placed in positions they cannot get themselves into." This goes back to what I was saying about why I don't like the Bumbo. I take less issue with the bumbo when kids use it when they already know how to sit themselves up.
I take time to observe my toddler, too. This is the most difficult when he is at the playground and just learned how to do something new that looks dangerous beyond belief (and is, of course, not actually that dangerous, but since it is a new and imperfect skill, freaks me out at the moment). Like climbing the ladder, or going down the slide head first. But I just watch, and trust that he knows his limits, and trust in the knowledge that he will learn more if he falls than if I make any effort to prevent it.... Can you imagine the tantrum that would ensue if I forbid use of the slide because he didn't go down it "properly", and how that would insult his ego, after being so proud of his own bravery and ability to discover a new way to use the slide? Instead, I will kiss a bump on the cheek and watch him find a way to go down head first *without* landing on his face. I trust he'll figure it out. I just need to remember to breathe while he pushes himself to each new achievement.
-NinaMama
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Because I don't eat sugar.
OMG I love dessert. I do believe I am a sugar addict. But I know better. I know sugar is not good for me, especially in the quantities I consume. I have been thinking for months about going on a no-sugar diet. There are rules that need to be defined for such a diet.
1) Does sweet fruit count? It is sweet and does contain sugar - but it is natural sugar. So it's ok, right?
2) Does juice count? Similar to fruit, it has a lot of sugar in it naturally (bottle of grape juice in the fridge says 40g per serving!)
3) Do I limit my no-sugar diet to only include foods that do not have sugar on the label? 100% Fruit juice, for example, does not have _added_ sugar... So then I could still eat things that are sweet... but does that defeat the purpose?
4) What if I only have sugar on the holidays!
Well, let's see what that would look like for the year 2012 (since 2011 is already half over).
Jan 1 - New years. Wouldn't be the same without french toast for brunch!
Jan 23 - Chinese New Year. Fortune cookies?
Feb 5 - Someone's birthday. Cake! and maybe the Superbowl with snacks galore.
Feb 7 - Tu B'shevat (jew holiday like arbor day). Fruits and nuts - often covered in chocolate
Feb 14 - Valentines day. Huge box of chocolates!
Mar 8 - Purim. Homentaschen! (cookies with fruit in the middle)
Mar 17 - St Patrick's day. There's sugar in alcohol, right? Probably only the kind I drink.
Apr 7 - Passover. Haroset (apples, walnuts, sugar, cinnamon) and whatever dessert to complete the huge holiday feast.
Apr 8 - Easter. Cadbury eggs! Chocolate bunnies!
May 5 - Cinco de Mayo. More importantly, my wedding anniversary. Cake! Or chocolates! Preferably both!
May 13 - Mothers day. More chocolates? Maybe breakfast in bed which probably will include something with syrup on it. Please, boys.
May 24 - My birthday. Cake!
May 31- Another birthday. Cake!
June 17 - Father's day. I guess I could skip the sweets on this day.
July 14 - Bastille Day. Orangina, anyone? (childhood memory)
August - Nothing! What!
Sept - Nothing! What!
Oct 31 - Halloween. I don't even need to say.
Nov 22 - Thanksgiving. Pie!!
Nov 30 - Another birthday. Pie! I mean Cake!
Dec 9 - Chanukah. Gelt! every night for a week.
Dec 25 - Christmas. Cakes, pies, marshmallow yams, fruit loaf, etc etc.
Dec 31 - New Years Eve. I ask again, sugar in booze, yeah?
Ok, so if I really kept the sweets to ONLY the days above, then you could argue that's 23 or so days out of 365, which isn't that much sugar. However! For most of these holidays, we don't eat sugar on only the day itself. Halloween candy is in stores a month before the holiday, and you buy it early in preparation and munch on it until the day of, and then you eat whatever the trick or treaters don't take, so it is probably sitting around for another month at least. Same goes for the other Hallmark Holidays like mother's day, father's day, valentine's day. A box of chocolates should last a week or two, not just one day. A lot of the other holidays are huge feast celebrations, again, with leftovers for a week or two. And since the holidays only have a couple weeks in between, our exposure to holiday sweets is fairly constant. The only break I see is roughly June-Sept. So if I am going to try a sugar-free diet, my best chances of staying on it, free of Holiday Temptations, would be to start after that May 31st birthday, and see how long I can go. Maybe I will be lucky and kick the craving after a month or two so that when Halloween rolls around, I won't be so tempted to sneak my hand in my kid's treat bag. (that doesn't sound quite right, does it.)
Anyone else want to go sugar-free with me starting on June 1?
-NinaMama
1) Does sweet fruit count? It is sweet and does contain sugar - but it is natural sugar. So it's ok, right?
2) Does juice count? Similar to fruit, it has a lot of sugar in it naturally (bottle of grape juice in the fridge says 40g per serving!)
3) Do I limit my no-sugar diet to only include foods that do not have sugar on the label? 100% Fruit juice, for example, does not have _added_ sugar... So then I could still eat things that are sweet... but does that defeat the purpose?
4) What if I only have sugar on the holidays!
Well, let's see what that would look like for the year 2012 (since 2011 is already half over).
Jan 1 - New years. Wouldn't be the same without french toast for brunch!
Jan 23 - Chinese New Year. Fortune cookies?
Feb 5 - Someone's birthday. Cake! and maybe the Superbowl with snacks galore.
Feb 7 - Tu B'shevat (jew holiday like arbor day). Fruits and nuts - often covered in chocolate
Feb 14 - Valentines day. Huge box of chocolates!
Mar 8 - Purim. Homentaschen! (cookies with fruit in the middle)
Mar 17 - St Patrick's day. There's sugar in alcohol, right? Probably only the kind I drink.
Apr 7 - Passover. Haroset (apples, walnuts, sugar, cinnamon) and whatever dessert to complete the huge holiday feast.
Apr 8 - Easter. Cadbury eggs! Chocolate bunnies!
May 5 - Cinco de Mayo. More importantly, my wedding anniversary. Cake! Or chocolates! Preferably both!
May 13 - Mothers day. More chocolates? Maybe breakfast in bed which probably will include something with syrup on it. Please, boys.
May 24 - My birthday. Cake!
May 31- Another birthday. Cake!
June 17 - Father's day. I guess I could skip the sweets on this day.
July 14 - Bastille Day. Orangina, anyone? (childhood memory)
August - Nothing! What!
Sept - Nothing! What!
Oct 31 - Halloween. I don't even need to say.
Nov 22 - Thanksgiving. Pie!!
Nov 30 - Another birthday. Pie! I mean Cake!
Dec 9 - Chanukah. Gelt! every night for a week.
Dec 25 - Christmas. Cakes, pies, marshmallow yams, fruit loaf, etc etc.
Dec 31 - New Years Eve. I ask again, sugar in booze, yeah?
Ok, so if I really kept the sweets to ONLY the days above, then you could argue that's 23 or so days out of 365, which isn't that much sugar. However! For most of these holidays, we don't eat sugar on only the day itself. Halloween candy is in stores a month before the holiday, and you buy it early in preparation and munch on it until the day of, and then you eat whatever the trick or treaters don't take, so it is probably sitting around for another month at least. Same goes for the other Hallmark Holidays like mother's day, father's day, valentine's day. A box of chocolates should last a week or two, not just one day. A lot of the other holidays are huge feast celebrations, again, with leftovers for a week or two. And since the holidays only have a couple weeks in between, our exposure to holiday sweets is fairly constant. The only break I see is roughly June-Sept. So if I am going to try a sugar-free diet, my best chances of staying on it, free of Holiday Temptations, would be to start after that May 31st birthday, and see how long I can go. Maybe I will be lucky and kick the craving after a month or two so that when Halloween rolls around, I won't be so tempted to sneak my hand in my kid's treat bag. (that doesn't sound quite right, does it.)
Anyone else want to go sugar-free with me starting on June 1?
-NinaMama
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)