At least one woman says it does. Hara Estroff Marano, editor-at-large of Psychology Today, claims that our heavily invasive parenting methods make life too easy for our children, who then don’t learn normal coping strategies. Then, she argues, when they do face problems down the road, they break down because they never learned to deal with the conflicts that arise in adult life.

From her book: Behold the wholly sanitized childhood, without skinned knees or the occasional C in history! Kids need to learn that you need to feel bad sometimes. We learn through experience, and we learn especially through bad experiences. Through disappointment and failure we learn how to cope.

She also states that parents rush to have their kids labeled so they can receive interventions instead of learning to work around issues, and that play is undervalued as a normal tool for social development (like learning self-control).

On that last point, we agree. The rest, I’m not so certain I buy. Yes, there are advantages to not giving your kid everything he wants; he learns patience and moderation. Disappointments are a normal part of life, and I don’t think kids should be shielded from every single one of them.

But I’d be a hypocrite if I didn’t admit that I don’t want to see my kids hurting, even if I know it’s a normal part of life. It’s hard not to jump in and immediately fix everything. And where do you draw the line?

Thoughts? Are we really screwing up our kids by being too involved?

Posted by Sunshine.

Today marks the first year of MomSquawk at our new site! We’ve come a long way from our roots on the old site. Thanks to all of you for making it possible - and here’s to another great year!

When I think about high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and other heart health issues, I envision a middle-aged or older guy with a beer gut and thinning hair, chomping on a huge greasy burger for lunch every day. Not my three-year-old daughter. The idea of her having problems like those seems ridiculous.

I just read an article that made me think twice about the absurdity of the possibility there.

Some children as young as two should be screened for high cholesterol, high blood pressure and other heart disease risks, according to new guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Say what? That’s right — the AAP is recommending that kids who are obese, whose medical history is unknown, or who have a familial background including high blood pressure and the like should be screened for early signs of problems that can lead to heart disease. If necessary, children of at least eight years of age would even receive medication to help lower their cholesterol.

The AAP recommends that the screenings, which include the fasting lipid profile, take place between the ages of 2 and 10 years.

Posted by Sunshine.

Guess who’s back?

Back again?

Almost as good as Slim Shady, it’s the not-so-slim mctex with my second attempt at dropping this baby weight. I guess I’m being a little hard on myself when I say second attempt — since the beginning of my first attempt, I did manage to lose and keep off 10 pounds. But that probably represented the rest of my legitimate baby weight with pregnancy number two, and so now I’m stuck with these same 40 pounds of pudge I’ve been carrying since my first daughter’s birth in July of 2005. And at 10 lbs every six months, she’ll be in kindergarten by the time things are back to “normal”. That’s just not going to cut it.

And so it is that I’ve regrouped and am back to share with y’all. In the spirit of a new start, I’ve changed my column name from “MS Biggest Loser” to “MILF*-in-Training” — I think it has a more positive sound. I could start by identifying all of my excuses for getting sidetracked in my first effort — the never-ending house construction; the trips here, there and everywhere; the constant stream of “as soon as this is over”. Except it occurred to me that I have lost half of an entire year waiting for the next thing to be over, and have made little progress.

Which is how it came to pass that I actually decided to stop in and join our neighborhood gym early last week instead of once again passing by. I am very fortunate in that my “neighborhood gym” is nothing short of a family fitness mecca — yet another upside in moving to the ‘burbs. This place** is nothing short of amazing in their offerings for the whole family, and they are first rate in terms of both facility and staff. Granted, you pay for what you get, but it’s one of those places where you just feel better walking in.

In a strike of synchronicity, the very day that I joined, the gym was starting a 12-week Biggest Loser-ish type of program that I rolled right into (pardon the pun). The program is structured so that we work out doing cardio (treadmill) work for an hour three times a week (under the direction of a certified trainer); we also are required to keep food diaries which are reviewed weekly by the gym’s registered dietitian. There’s nothing magical nor mysterious about the program — it’s Weight Loss 101: expend more calories than you take in.

Except there is a science to the program that was even somewhat new to this dieting pro. The gym strongly recommends having two tests performed prior to beginning the program, which they claim allows participants to “work smarter, not harder.” 5…4…3…2…1… that’s about how long it took for me to get sucked right into having these tests completed, and the results were very interesting.

The first test calculated my anaerobic threshold, which is explained here. I knew that it was better to work out at a lower percentage of maximum heart rate if I wanted to burn fat calories, but I also knew that things like running — which puts me WAY up in terms of heart rate — burned more calories overall, and I figured more was better. In weight loss attempt number -1 — when I’d been training for a marathon prior to the conception of baby #2 — I’d started to get a clue that this might not be the case when I cleared the 15 mile training mark fat as ever. My anaerobic threshold test result confirmed part of the reason that weight loss attempt had not been a success: my anaerobic threshold is a heart rate of 149 bpm. Looking back on my heart rate data from training (courtesy of my running watch version 1.0), I can see that I was hanging out at a heart rate of about 165 bpm.

From the linked article above:

People who exercise vigorously and have minimal fat loss are exercising above their AT level.

I’m typing one-handed as I’m raising my other hand.

So the results of that test are allegedly going to be helpful in making sure my cardio work does what I want it to do: get me skinny. Granted, while building stamina and speed might help me in my never-ending quest to catch (read: tackle, grope) Matthew McConaughey running Austin’s Town Lake (sightings are high up on the list of urban legends retold wistfully by Austin’s mommy set), the blubber bouncing long after I stop actually trying to move is not going to score me any points. Besides, maybe the baby stroller he’ll be pushing will help me in the speed department…

The second test calculated my resting metabolic rate — or how many calories it is that I burn in a day doing absolutely nothing, which is how I spend far more days than I care to admit. Turns out, I burn 1660 calories doing nothing according to the test, which is far more than I would’ve thought. What does this mean? It means that eating anything less than 1660 calories per day will send my body into a type of shut down, where it will slow the rate of caloric burn because it thinks it’s starving. Yeah yeah yeah, I knew all of this… but 1660 calories? Are they sure??? Given my fatness, I would’ve estimated that number to be about… 50. And based on that number, they’ve got me eating 1800 calories a day — a number that seems staggeringly high to me***. I guess time will tell. Just to be sure, I bought running watch version 2.0, which measures not only things like heart rate, but monitors where I’m working out in relation to my anaerobic threshold and projects total calories burned. I need to make sure I’m burning these bad boys off.

So the team training has me doing cardio work three times per week, which I’m supplementing with another 3 cardio workouts on my own. Because my life mantra is “anything worth doing is worth overdoing” (which I share with you in case there was still ANY doubt as to why I’m fat), I also decided to hire a trainer to work out with me doing strength training an hour a day five days a week.

So that’s where we stand right now. Because I couldn’t work out for 24 hours before the tests, which were performed on two different days last week, my workout routine only started last Thursday… and at the end of week 1, this has resulted in a 2 pound loss (which is the weight depicted).

I will close this entry in the paraphrased words of one of my personal idols, Smokey from Friday… “I ain’t got no job, and I ain’t got shit to do.” (Thanks for the child care, Mom!) I might as well take yet another attempt at this, and tell y’all about it. Thanks for reading, and please feel free to comment — knowing you are there will be just another thing that will keep me accountable to see this through this time.

Up next time: Why I stay fat.

*Note to my own parental-types: um, MILF stands for “Mother I’d like to… Follow”. It’s a catchy little acronym our generation is using to compliment women who look good after having children. Nice, isn’t it? But since you’re not really up to speed with the lingo, I’d advise you to keep this one out of your own vernacular. Oh, and for the love of all things holy, don’t google it, ok? Thanks.

***That number does seem high, but after a week of keeping a proper food diary, I will say that I’m evidently not as aware of the number of calories I eat as I thought I was. For those who haven’t kept a straight-up calorie log (not points, but calories) in a while that are trying to lose weight, humor me and try it again for a couple of days. The numbers really were surprising for me.

If you’re expecting and you just cracked up reading that title, don’t worry. You’re not alone. I had to laugh at the notion of a pregnant woman who keeps her cool 24/7. That said, if any of the following tips might help anyone out there, I would be remiss to not share them here.

The American Pregnancy Association offers these suggestions to help keep mood swings under control:

* Get enough quality sleep.
* Take a few quick breaks each day to just relax and unwind, or sneak in a quick nap.
* Get daily exercise and eat a healthy, balanced diet. Talk to your doctor about what’s appropriate.
* Spend time relaxing with your partner.
* Do something fun with a friend.
* Get a massage, or take a pregnancy yoga class.
* Take it easy. Try not to get too stressed or overwhelmed with worry.

The sleep thing is definitely true. I’m not fun to be around when I’m not pregnant and am short on sleep. When I am expecting, it’s ten times worse. The rest…well, I had to laugh at the last one. Let me know if it works for you.

Posted by Sunshine.

At MomSquawk, we get lots of email from PR people trying to get us to pitch their products to our readership. We almost always delete those without even fully reading them because they’re not even remotely interesting. Today, however, I was blessed with this gem. I applaud the effort, but honestly, it’s the name that won me over. It’s still not entirely clear if she’s selling books, tupperware, or sex toys. Enjoy.

I would like to invite you to cover Kimberly Ford’s HUMP: True Tales of Sex After Kids (St Martin’s Press | July 2008) and attend one of her special HUMP tupperware parties!

HUMP is an exploration of how couples can have a healthy and robust sex life after having children. The author shares intimate and honest advice from the front lines of her own post-childbirth sexual adventures, all the time underscoring the importance of monogamy and the richness of family life.

In a way that has never been done before, Kimberly discusses the fraught first instance of intercourse after the arrival of that initial life-changing infant, broaches the reality of having to one day discuss sex with the little ones, and extols the virtues of vibrators and masturbation.

This is the book for any new mother dedicated to getting “Private Time” as they are to getting the kids to soccer on time, HUMP promises to be a well-loved treasure at the top of many nightstand libraries. HUMP will inspire women to reclaim their bodies for themselves and their husbands, and to make sex a priority in their own lives no matter how many scuffed sneakers they have to kick out of the way to make it to bed.

In the great tradition of tupperware / sex toy parties, Kimberly will be heading out on a HUMP Tupperware Party. These special events will be at private homes, but we welcome the media to join the author at these events:

HUMP TUPPERWARE EVENTS
Weds. July 9 - Menlo Park
Tues. July 15 - Menlo Park
Thurs. July 24 - Menlo Park
Thurs. Aug. 14 - Ashland, OR
Sunday, August 17 - San Francisco
Thurs. Aug 21 - Menlo Park
Fri. Aug. 29 - Piedmont
Thurs. Sept. 4 - Menlo Park
Fri. Sept. 12 - San Diego
Fri. Sept. 19 - Menlo Park
Thurs. Sept. 25 - San Francisco
Sat, Sept. 27 - Los Angeles
Thurs. Oct 2- New York City
Fri. Oct 3 - Rye, NY

You can direct your readers to buy the book via amazon here.

Posted by MomSquawk

A new study says that it does.

The study, published in the journal Psychosomatic Medicine, looked at the potential health effects of a trait known as “locus of control” — the extent to which individuals think they can influence events through their own actions. Those who believe they are largely in charge of their lives have an “internal” locus of control, while those who feel they are not have an “external” locus.

The researchers tracked over seven thousand individuals from birth and found that those who had an internal locus of control at age ten were less likely to be overweight twenty years later, and were possibly more inclined to develop healthy habits and more likely to have a healthy self-esteem.

Locus of control is often viewed as a natural component of a person’s personality. However, [lead researcher Dr. Catharine R.] Gale said, there is also evidence that it is shaped by childhood experiences — including children’s interactions with their parents.

“Parents who encourage independence and help children learn the connection between their actions and consequences tend to have children with a more internal locus of control,” she explained.

Posted by Sunshine.

Not being able to get to sleep, or having trouble staying asleep, is the pits. But did you know that if you suffer from insomnia, your children could be at risk for certain serious problems?

In a study presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Professional Sleep Societies, Dr. Xianchen Liu revealed that children of insomniac parents were almost three times more likely to report symptoms of insomnia themselves, more than twice as likely to report fatigue, and more than five times as likely to report using hypnotic drugs compared to adolescents whose parents did not have insomnia.

Even more troubling, almost 17 percent of children with parents who had insomnia reported suicidal ideation (thoughts and behavior), 9.5 percent reported suicide plans, and 9.5 percent reported actual suicide attempts during the past year. This compared to 5.3 percent, 1.5 percent and 1.7 percent, respectively, of teens whose parents did not suffer from insomnia.

These statistics are startling, to say the least. Dr. Liu says that by understanding the possible correlations between insomniac parents and certain behaviors and problems with their children, teachers and health care workers can, in theory, proactively work to help children overcome these potential issues.

Posted by Sunshine.

I love my children. I really, really do. And most of the time, I think they’re not only adorable, but angelic. I know I’m lucky!

But some of those other times…you know the times I mean, the ones when you wonder “Who are you, spawn of Satan, and what have you done with my sweet kid?”…argh!

I thought it might be fun to air our pet peeves about our kids (with ages noted). I wonder if we have a lot of the same gripes for the same age groups.

My son, who just had his first birthday at the end of May, drives me nuts when he refuses to eat something that was his absolute favorite food yesterday, and instead flings it all over the floor while I’m busy trying to convince his sister to eat that same something.

My daughter, who will turn three on Saturday, irks me when she asks for something, then promptly informs me that it’s yucky and she doesn’t want that.

Can you tell mealtimes are a ton of fun around here right now?

Your turn!

Posted by Sunshine.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest has asked the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to consider banning certain food colorings because, according to its studies, these colorings can cause children to display hyperactivity and other behavior problems.

Dyes are used in countless foods and are sometimes used to simulate the color of fruits or vegetables. The additives are particularly prevalent in the cereals, candies, sodas, and snack foods pitched to kids.[…]

The center’s petition asks the FDA to require a warning label on foods with artificial dyes while it mulls the group’s request to ban the dyes outright.

The FDA has repeatedly stated that these food additives are safe for the general public, and notes that its European counterpart holds a similar view.

Thoughts? Do you think the additives in our food could be harming our kids, or is this consumer advocacy group crying wolf?

Posted by Sunshine.