Today I was thinking about how many things our parents or grandparents did raising their children that are considered "no nos" now - things like no carseats, tummy sleeping, lots of fruit juice, breastfeeding discouraged etc. Maybe not all the best examples but what I think of off the top of my head.
It made me wonder what we do with our LOs now that years from now our grown kids will be telling us "that's not the way it's done now/that's not what they recommend now." What do we feed our LOs that they will determine isn't good for them, what products do we use that they will end up considering unsafe (like what happened with crib bumpers), what basic parenting principals will change (like spanking is challenged so much more today but was the norm then)?
We can't possibly have it all figured out and down to a science yet, so what do you think will change?
Re: WDYT will be different...
This is interesting to me...may I ask why? I thought the fat was considered important for brain development. I actually kept my boys on whole milk long past age two, but they're skinny as rails, so our pedi was fine with it.
Agreed on the whole milk. I hope the whole "fat is bad, carbs are good" ideas end soon, too many carbs are not good.
I would think circumcision will become less common. it's already down to 50 percent of babies born in the US. That's a very small percentage compared to 30 or more years ago.
DS2 - Oct 2010 (my VBAC baby!)
im sure everything will change. not just with raising children, but just everything.
I remember watching cable tv when i was younger, probably like 12 maybe? and thinking what can be better then this! There like 72 channels! And pay-per view! I really thought that no one could think of a better cable system (or whatever) then that.
Oh..little did i know
I think the circumcision thing with continue to go back and forth. Science keeps finding benefits for BOTH sides of that debate. So, who knows where it will land. Also, the AAP just changed their stance enough to suggest that insurance cover it. (Insurance used the old stance to drop the coverage- gotta love insurance companies!)
I think that CIO will go. After that recent study that showed even after those babies stopped crying, their anxiety levels were still through the roof I'm sure doctors will stop recommending.
And this might not be popular to say, but I think the c/s rate will eventually fall when more studies show the longitudinal negative effects of multiple c/s's on a woman.
Our pedi said that the whole milk fat was found not to be a beneficial as once thought. So, unless they need the extra fat, then go with 2%.
I think that by the time we are grandmothers, babies will be sleeping on their tummies again.
I also think food will be less processed.
I know I'm late on this, but where do you ever hear about carbs being good? All I hear is how horrible carbs are.
Low-fat, high-fiber (re: carbs) diets have been advised for everyone in the US for a generation. People are coming to the realization that highly processed carbs aren't good for you, but the obsession with "whole grain" everything is still about eating carbs. The USDA currently recommends people's daily diets be made of 50%+ carbs.
Eating fat doesn't make people (or kids) fat. Eating highly processed foods and lots of carbs probably does. Vilifying whole milk as the reason childhood obesity exists is wrong, because there's a ton of other foods that are a lot worse.
This is a good op-ed: https://travel.nytimes.com/2006/02/12/opinion/nyregionopinions/12CIplanck.html?_r=0
Gary Taubes wrote an entire book about how fat doesn't make people fat, but the typical American diet probably does: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/opinion/sunday/what-really-makes-us-fat.html
His book is "Why We Get Fat", it's a really good read!
DS2 - Oct 2010 (my VBAC baby!)
I am very aware about nutrition, and know that eating fat doesn't make you fat. I was just stating that I never hear anyone say that carbs are good. For years now, all I've been hearing from medical professionals and the media is how bad carbs are and they should be limited. That includes whole grains.
I don't necessarily think that I hear a lot of "carbs are great!", but if you just take a look at the government's "My Plate" campaign they're suggesting that half of what we eat should be grains/carbs and I don't think that's what should be eaten for optimal health at all.
*My Blog*
10/50 Read
my read shelf:
But that's not true. If it were, then anyone who wanted to lose weight would be able to do it really easily. The whole "fat people don't try hard enough" is a myth.
There's documented studies of very poor populations (Pima Indians) who ate primarily white flour and sugar (which was supplied by the government). Lots of the women were overweight, while their kids were starving and undernourished. It's not that the women were purposely starving their kids, but the fact that they showed signs of malnourishment differently than the children - by being obese.
"We can expect the kids to be thin if food is limited, but why are the mothers fat? The answer is that the fat cells in malnourished mothers develop their own agenda. The fat cells learn to stockpile calories as fat, instead of the muscles stockpiling them to use as fuel. Malnutrition teaches the mothers? fat cells over time to become lipophilic (fat loving). This process is explained in depth in Taubes? book Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It."
From here: https://www.charlespoliquin.com/Blog/tabid/130/EntryId/254/Five-Lessons-I-Learned-from-Gary-Taubes.aspx
https://garytaubes.com/2010/12/inanity-of-overeating/
DS2 - Oct 2010 (my VBAC baby!)
I'm certainly not saying that everyone with a weight problem is just lazy and not trying hard enough. I think genetics play a huge part in how a person is built and some people are always going to struggle more than others, even when they do everything right. And while the case you mentioned is definitely interesting, I don't think it's terribly relevant to developed countries. I'm sure if you showed me a population that subsisted entirely on limited quantities of pork lard, they'd have equally disturbing issues.
Complex carbs aren't evil. In fact, they're necessary. And I can site you studies from nci.gov and the Harvard School of Public Health to back that up. A balanced diet is just that...balanced. You don't eat too much of something, and you don't eat too little.
But the Pima Indian case did take place in a "developed country" - it was in direct response to a people's traditional diet being changed to a much more typical American diet - carbs and sugar. And currently a huge amount of (primarily low-income and/or minority) people in the US are suffering from obesity and diabetes. It's very relevant.
Traditional diets that are meat-heavy don't have the same amount of disease associated with diet as Americans (https://www.westonaprice.org/basics/characteristics-of-traditional-diets), so no, you wouldn't see the same amount of obesity in a society that's consuming a lot of lard, but not a lot of carbs.
The American public has been lead to believe that carbs are necessary and good, and that fat is bad. It's not true. Seriously, read Gary Taubes, it's eye-opening.
DS2 - Oct 2010 (my VBAC baby!)