Parenting

Open Board
· 5 followers
RC Yu
RC Yu•17 hours ago

Morning sickness period particular critical for baby's health

Really interesting post here, about the evolutionary theory of "morning sickness". The credo tldr:

Mild pregnancy sickness may help steer pregnant women away from foods that could carry germs or harmful substances.

The post below (by Mercedes) also highlights experiments linking infections during "morning sickness" period (early in the pregnancy) to higher likelihood of congenital heart disease in infants.

So sounds like morning sickness => some natural deterrent against getting infections (through avoidance); but worth being particularly careful during that period.

Mercedes C.•2 days ago

Getting an Infection during the period of "Morning Sickness", poses Higher Risks of Congenital Heart Disease?

One of the most unexpected parts of the conversation was Jimmy Carr’s discussion of morning sickness. 🫣

It sent me down a rabbit hole because there is an interesting evolutionary theory behind why morning sickness tends to occur during this particular period of pregnancy.

The Maternal and Embryo Protection Hypothesis, an evolutionary theory about morning sickness, where:

  1. Organogenesis: Morning sickness typically peaks between weeks 6 and 14 of pregnancy. When the embryo’s major organs (including the heart, brain, and limbs) are forming and are most vulnerable to damage from toxins or pathogens.

  2. The "Shield" Effect: Because pregnancy naturally suppresses a woman's immune system (to prevent her body from rejecting the fetus), she becomes more sensitive to foodborne pathogens. Evolutionary biologists believe nausea and vomiting evolved to force mothers to avoid or expel potentially toxic or bacteria-laden foods during this window.

  3. The Shift: Once the organs are fully formed (around the second trimester) and the baby enters the growth-only phase, morning sickness usually stops for most women.

EVIDENCE for Infection & Congenital Heart Disease ﮩ٨ـﮩﮩ٨ـ🫀ﮩ٨ـﮩﮩ٨ـ

A link from two meta-analyses, between First Trimester Maternal Infections and Fetal Congenital Heart Defects has been found, especially in regards to rubella virus, coxsackievirus, respiratory infections, and influenza.

⚠️ Though there is an important distinction here to make:

This does NOT mean that morning sickness itself is linked to congenital heart defects.

But the same period of pregnancy in which morning sickness may have evolved to reduce exposure to potentially harmful substances is also a period when the developing embryo is particularly vulnerable to certain environmental insults, including infections.

0
RC Yu•11 days ago

Informative post on arsenic and rice. Here's a paper shared with specific recommendations on how much rice kids should eat:

To avoid a risk of developing cancer, infants up to one year of age should consume no more than 32.2 g of the studied products per week, children under three years of age up to 68.7 g, and adults 243 g.

So infants should eat less than a bowl of (white) rice a week.

Arsenic in Brown and White Rice

I recently added more rice into my diet and wanted to understand the nutritional value of switching from white to brown rice. Then I recalled hearing about the potential risk of more arsenic so I dug into the research.


This 2016 risk assessment from the FDA provided baseline numbers of the amount of arsenic in rice and rice products as well as a quantitative estimate of lung and bladder cancer risk from long-term exposure of these products.

We found that average concentrations of inorganic arsenic – the more toxic form of arsenic – were as follows:

• 92 parts per billion (ppb) in white rice

• 154 ppb in brown rice

• 104 ppb in infants’ dry white-rice cereal

• 119 ppb in infants’ dry brown-rice cereal

The primary culprit of damage is inorganic arsenic in foods, which I learned in not a traditional heavy metal but a "toxic metalloid". The good news is this means inorganic arsenic doesn't bioaccumulate the same way other heavy metals do. The risk however is still continuous exposure over a long period of time which can damage DNA, the skin, and the vascular system.

Dr. Michael Greger also provides a good summary and insights in his video

Which Rice Has Less Arsenic: Black, Brown, Red, White or Wild?Evaluating differences in rice, we can observe:

  • brown rice contains more arsenic than white rice

  • long grain contains more than shorter grains, though this may be due more to where these grains are grown

  • arsenic accumulates in the rice bran, which is why brown rice contain so much more arsenic

  • many of the varieties of colored rice were worse than white rice for the reason above

  • children under 6 should almost definitely avoid rice AND rice products, with regulations in the EU now adding more conservative limits on the amount of acceptable arsenic in rice products for infants

One bit of good news is brown rice MAY make the arsenic less bio-available as shown in this population study. As Dr. Greger says:

So, if you test the urine of thousands of Americans who don’t eat rice at all, they’re still peeing out about eight micrograms of toxic, carcinogenic arsenic a day. It’s in the air; it’s in the water; there’s a little bit in nearly all foods. But, eat just one food—a cup or more of white rice a day—and your exposure shoots up 65%.

Okay. But, what about those who eat a cup or more a day of brown rice, which technically contains even more arsenic? Your exposure shoots up the same 65%. No difference between the urine arsenic levels of white rice-eaters compared to brown rice-eaters. Now, this was not an interventional study, where they feed people the same amount of rice to see what happened, which would have been ideal. This was a population study. So, maybe the reason the levels are the same is that white rice-eaters eat more rice than brown rice-eaters. So, that’s why they ended up with the same levels? We don’t know, but it should help to put the minds of brown rice-eaters at rest.

So what is the risk? This analysis from the EPA used a Bayesian approach to estimate the dose response of inorganic arsenic exposure from water. It found a linear relationship of more arsenic exposure with bladder and lung cancer. If we extrapolate the EPA's 2025 upper-bound estimate: one daily cup of brown rice for life adds up to 0.42 percentage points of bladder or lung cancer risk (+5.5% relative to a 7.6% baseline); white adds 0.25 (+3%). At three cups: 1.45 (+19%) for brown and 0.8 (+10%) for white.

A more direct causal study would need to prove out this relationship, but this definitely took me aback. For rice staple cultures, three cups of rice daily is pretty normal. These upper bound figures begin to look similar to increased risk of cancer from a daily beer or alcoholic drink.

Unfortunately rinsing rice does little to remove arsenic, especially in brown rice. But researchers did find a parboil method could dramatically reduce the amount of arsenic, removing 54% & 73% iAs from brown & white rice. This is a specific method that requires a lot water that is then tossed out but it does retain a lot of the same nutrients.

My takeaway? We are exposed to arsenic across a number of ways; through our air, water, and food. The increased cancer risks are linear from continued exposure, which means the amount of arsenic consumption scales with risk. If I was a regulatory body in a country where rice is a staple food, I would set significantly stricter regulations to evaluate and limit the amounts in rice and rice products.

Personally, it doesn't seem worth eating rice regularly, especially brown rice. I'll probably try to have less than 3 to 4 servings a week and mix in other grains. I'd be especially careful with infants and rice products that may concentrate the arsenic levels.

0

Join the social media for nerds.

Where sources matter.

Continue with Email

By continuing with Apple or Google, you confirm you're at least 13 and agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Have an account? Log in

Kris Willow•a month ago
sugar

"Sugar high" is a myth?

I remember reading that "sugar high" isn't actually real! In other words, children don't actually get overexcited after eating a bunch of sugar.

I find this hard to believe!

But, here's a (pretty old - 1995) meta-analysis which is pretty clear: sugar high is probably a myth.

The meta-analysis covered 23 other studies, and none of them found a significant effect (of sugar intake and child behaviour).

I'm still somewhat skeptical though 😆. Would be interested to delve into more recent analysis and debate.

4
Kris Willow•a month ago
mental health

Do phone bans in schools work?

Most parents have some concerns about phone use. This is an interesting study from the UK, that investigated phone bans in schools.

The study covered 30 schools (20 had phone bans, 10 didn't), with the students aged 12-15.

Their main finding: phone bans don't meaningfully affect/improve mental wellbeing.

Basically the phone bans only reduced phone and social media use slightly, and kids still used their phones at home.

Important point: the phone bans weren't uniform or super strict in all cases -- e.g. some schools just told students keep their phones in their bags.

So we can't say that "phone bans will NEVER work". They just didn't have a huge impact, on average, in the way they were implememted in those 20 schools.

4
RC Yu•a month ago
screen time

Is "screen time" bad?

As a parent, I wonder if screen time is bad. I came across this study, that seems to be widely debated.

The study basically analysed some large datasets, to examine whether screen time negatively affected teens (controlling for various factors).

What they found: basically almost no effect.

Caveats:

  • "screen time" is a huge category: it could include social media doomscrolling, but it could also include doing homework on a computer.

  • also, the study didn’t separate how screen time may affect different teens differently (e.g. boy vs girl, different ages).

Subsequent papers have delved deeper, and indeed found not all screen time is harmless.

Thoughts:

  1. screen time per se is not necessarily good or bad. We need to look into the specific screen activity.

  2. I still worry about eye sight though (kids staring at screens will have worse eyesight?). Need to explore more papers!

1
Kris Willow•a month ago
patience

The "Marshmellow" test

I remember reading somewhere about the "marshmellow test" – the finding that: if a child could wait longer for a marshmellow (or other snack they liked), the child would be more likely to do well later in life.

Found the original 1990 experiment!

Interestingly, this 2018 study replicated the 1990 experiment.

It basically found the link (between waiting for the marshmellow and later outcomes) to be smaller than the 1990 original – especially after controlling for other factors (like family background, early cognitive ability, etc).

What does this mean?

It doesn't "debunk" the marshmellow test entirely, it just says that other factors matter more.

It seems to me the "marshmellow test" is still an interesting "proxy" test for later outcomes – but unsurprisingly, the full picture matters more.

2
RC Yu•a month ago
sleep

Ok to let babies cry themselves to sleep?

Came across this study (a small randomised control trial) that tested (a version of) this question.

Basically, they say it's fine. (well, a "gentler" version -- where parents don't completely ignore babies, but wait a few minutes before checking in on crying babies)

The researchers compared two techniques (to put babies to sleep):

  • (A) "graduated extinction" (parents wait longer and longer before responding to a baby's cries)

  • (B) "bedtime fading" (bedtime is gradually moved later)

  • [and a control group, where parents were given basic information]

They were trying to test whether method A (graduated extinction) was harmful (since you let the babies cry by themselves).

Their main conclusion (from the credo summary):

both graduated extinction and bedtime fading led to babies falling asleep faster. The graduated extinction group also woke up less during the night and spent less time awake after falling asleep.

...

After one year, there were no differences between groups in children's emotional or behavioral problems, and no differences in how securely children were attached to their parents

6
RC Yu•a month ago
sleep

Sleep training -- impact on child 5 years later?

Another "baby sleep strategy" post! This one focused on longer-term impacts of sleep training strategies.

This paper follows an experiment, where one group of parents/baby received nurse assistance (to help with baby sleep strategies), and the other didn't. Researchers also followed up after 5 years.

What did it find? No effect after 5 years -- on parent or child. (But in the immediate term, sleep training does help)

My takeaway? Try specific sleep strategies with your baby; but if it's too late and you didn't -- it's not a long term worry!

0
RC Yu•a month ago
education

Should we tell our kids "good effort" instead of "you're smart"?

TLDR: For some kids (from low socio-economic status / lower-achieving students), it helps. For kids in general, it might help though only a little bit (but might as well do it).

I've heard (a version of) this advise on social media / podcasts a few times (including on this Huberman Labs episode). The idea (roughly speaking) is: we should praise children's "effort" (as opposed to their "ability") -- because if we praise effort, kids will take a "growth" mindset, and try new things/improve (as opposed to have a "fixed ability" mindset and stagnate).

Sounds logical, but I was curious what the research actually says. I looked into two studies:

(1) This 2018 study by Sisk et al. investigated whether growth mindsets improve academic performance. The meta-analyses (covering over 300 other studies) found:

  • Overall, having a "growth mindset" or having growth mindset intervention (in schools) only has weak effects on academic achievements.

  • However, it also found that students with low socioeconomic status or at academic risk might benefit more from these interventions.

(2) This 2019 standalone randomised control trial by Yeager et al. tested a "growth mindset" lesson with 12,490 ninth graders from 65 schools in the US. It found:

  • Critically, among "lower achieving students", the intervention worked. Check out the paper's credo summary to check out the specifics (which are really interesting!).

Following the public debate, it sounds like a takeaway from the 2018 Sisk paper was that "oh growth mindset works, but not by that much", and the 2019 Yeager paper helped emphasised that "well actually for students who aren't doing so well, it actually helps quite a bit".

0