Childhood Eating: The Pack Mentality

Have you ever watched the Discovery Channel and seen those nature shows with hungry hyenas frenzying over a fallen gazelle? That’s exactly what this next report reminded me of, except, it involves children and not blood thirsty predators of the Serengeti. Although some of you might be able to relate to that comparison. According to new research when young children are part of a large group they eat more. Eric Nagourney of The New York Times explains:
The researchers, who report their findings online in The Archives of Disease in Childhood, say it has often been observed in animals and adults that consumption goes up as the number eating increases. People will even keep eating past the point when their appetite has been satisfied…


…The tools of the study were simple: hungry children, a snack area and that mainstay of childhood, graham crackers. The researchers looked at how children ate when they were in groups of three or nine. They found that in the larger groups, the children ate 30 percent more.
Here’s what troubled me about this study. The researchers used graham crackers—in other words—junk food. Now, if you’re familiar with Dr. Fuhrman’s concept of toxic hunger, you know that sugary refined flour treats like graham crackers contribute to it. Now before I continue, here’s a refresher on toxic hunger. From Disease-Proof Your Child:
A few hours after eating, feeling weak, headachy, tired, mentally dull, and stomach cramping or discomfort is not true hunger! These symptoms of stomach cramping and fluttering, headaches and fatigue that begin when digestion is completed I call “toxic hunger” because these symptoms only occur in those who have been eating a toxic diet. These are withdrawal symptoms from an unhealthful diet, and this discomfort is mistakenly interpreted as the need to eat more frequently and take in more calories. Continual eating stops the discomfort, just like frequent coffee drinking stops the headaches from caffeine withdrawal.
So this brings me to this question. By feeding participants graham crackers, wouldn’t that by default increase their risk of overeating? After all, graham crackers are nothing more than standard American snack food. It seems to me that it would have made more sense to conduct this study using natural or “real” food. That way you avoid the risk of toxic hunger, which obviously would taint the results.

Now, you’re probably saying to yourself, “What would have been a good food to use?” How about green vegetables? According to Dr. Fuhrman green veggies do a great job of filling you up, provide lots of essential nutrients, and don’t contain a lot of calories. Check out Foods That Make You Thin for more that:
Green vegetables are so incredibly low in calories and rich in nutrients and fiber that the more you eat of them, the more weight you will lose. One of my secrets of nutritional excellence and superior healing is the one pound-one pound rule. That is, try to eat at least one pound of raw green vegetables a day and one pound of cooked/steamed or frozen green vegetables a day as well. One pound raw and one pound cooked--keep this goal in mind as you design and eat every meal. This may be too ambitious a goal for some of us to reach, but by working toward it, you will ensure the dietary balance and results you want. The more greens you eat, the more weight you will lose. The high volume of greens not only will be your secret to a thin waistline but will simultaneously protect you against life threatening illnesses.
But you know what? I’m sure a lot of people succumb to social influence and kids are probably no different. Take me for example, I come from an Italian family and if you don’t eat—or in most cases overeat—there’s automatically something from with you. So I wouldn’t be surprised if the findings of this study were the same, even if they ditched the graham crackers in favor of something healthier. Although, what do you think about this? If children are raised around good food and people who don’t overeat, might they be able to resist the social feeding frenzy? I’ll leave that one to speculation.

Caffeine, Risk, and Babies

For a long time I was a coffee guy. Three cups a day in fact. Coffee so black I used to stir it with a dipstick. Needless to say, I don’t partake in the java anymore. Why? Well according to Dr. Fuhrman coffee and caffeine can contribute to major health problems, like cardiac arrhythmias and heart disease. There’s more on that in Eat to Live:
Caffeine addicts are at higher risk of cardiac arrhythmias that could precipitate sudden death.1 Coffee raises blood pressure and raises cholesterol and homocysteine, two risk factors for heart disease.2
Also, Dr. Fuhrman insists that caffeine consumption can interfere with your body’s ability to overcome toxic hunger and leave you further out of touch with true hunger. Back to Eat to Live:
Eating more food suppresses caffeine-withdrawals headaches and other withdrawal symptoms. When you are finally finished digesting the meal, the body more effectively cleans house; at this time people experience a drive to eat more to suppress caffeine-withdrawal symptoms. You are prodded to eat again, eating more food than you would if you were not a caffeine addict.
Now, not only does Dr. Fuhrman recommend avoiding caffeine as an adult, but he considers it especially verboten for pregnant mothers. He talks about that in Disease-Proof Your Child:
Caffeine has been a controversial topic for decades. Evidence clearly concludes that heavy coffee drinkers have an increased risk of miscarriage and low birth weight infants, but evidence is not clear for moderate users of caffeine.3 Nevertheless, is wise to stay away from as many potentially harmful substances as possible. The bottom line, if in doubt, don’t do it.
Personally, I agree with him. There are plenty of other things to drink. You don’t HAVE to drink coffee or caffeine. Just because as a culture we associate mornings with caffeine, doesn’t mean you need to follow the rest of lemmings off the cliff. But apparently for some, this isn’t satisfactory.

Dutch researchers claim that reducing caffeine consumption during pregnancy from three cups of coffee a day to one has no effect on the baby’s birth weight. Nicholas Bakalar of The New York Times reports:
The researchers recruited 1,207 pregnant women at 20 weeks’ gestation or less who reported drinking at least three cups of caffeinated coffee a day. About half of the women were randomly assigned to drink caffeinated coffee, while the other half were instructed to drink decaf for the duration of their pregnancies, with no other changes in their usual consumption of tea or caffeinated soft drinks.


After adjusting for prepregnancy weight, smoking status and other variables, the average birth weight of babies in the decaf group was a statistically insignificant one-half ounce higher than that of babies in the coffee-drinking group.
Again, if something as trivial as your beverage preference has even the slightest risk of harming your unborn child, why not put the kibosh on it? Uh duh!

For more on coffee and health, check out these previous posts:
Continue Reading...

The Social Status of Breastfeeding

Fortunately for me, I’m a guy. And as a guy, I am ill-equipped to get pregnant. Good thing too, because a pregnant me would be the laziest creature on earth, second only to the giant tree sloths of yore. But, if I ever con a woman into having children with me, I’d hope that she’d breastfeed.

In Disease-Proof Your Child Dr. Fuhrman makes it clear that breast milk is the human fuel that babies need to grow and develop:
The antibodies derived from mother’s milk are necessary for maximizing immune system function, maximizing intelligence, and protecting against immune system disorders, allergies, and even cancer. The child’s immune system is still underdeveloped until age of two, the same age when the digestive tract seals the leaks (spaces between cells) designed to allow the mother’s antibodies access to the bloodstream. So picking the age of two as the length of recommended breast-feeding is not just a haphazard guess, it matches the age at which the child is no longer absorbing the mother’s immunoglobulins to supplement their own immune system. Nature designed it that way.
And it seems their might be something to the whole idea of “maximizing intelligence.” New research shows that people who were breastfed as children are more likely to move up the social ladder. Robert Preidt of HealthDay News reports:
Researchers at the University of Bristol analyzed data on more than 1,400 people from 16 rural and urban areas in England and Scotland who were born from 1937 to 1939. Among these people, the likelihood of being breast-fed was not dependent on household income, spending on food, birth order, number of siblings, or social class in childhood.


The study found that individuals who were breast-fed as babies were 41 percent more likely to advance up the social ladder than those who'd been bottle-fed. The longer a person was breast-fed, the more likely they were to be upwardly mobile.

No More Candy Ads for Kiddies

Here’s progress for you. Feeling the heat from TV watchdog groups in Europe and the UK, Masterfoods the producer of Mars and Snickers candies will stop targeting ads to children under the age of twelve. More from BBC News:
Masterfoods will stop advertising in magazines and television programmes intended for children under the age of 12 by the end of the year.


Masterfoods, which also makes Twix and Maltesers, already has a policy of not targeting children under six.

The move comes after TV watchdog Ofcom said it would ban junk food advertising during TV shows aimed at under-16s.
Via Blogging Baby.