©iStockphoto.com/chuwy

I’ve heard it from my own husband and other fathers: when it comes to discussions of parenthood, dads are routinely left out, even though they are experiencing many of the same things as moms.

In the early days, dads are just as confused, intimidated, elated, anxious, and sleep-deprived. They have that same moment of clarity of realizing that parenting is little more than winging it. They understand that brand-new and fierce instinct to protect and nurture at all costs.

Here, dads from around the world share their views on birth, surprises, and lessons from their smallest teachers.

Making introductions
“My son was born premature, 28 weeks in…I got a call just after 1 in the morning saying to get to the hospital because [Neil's mother] was having an emergency C-section. So I was a bit panicked while driving to the hospital. Ran two red lights, but stopped at each one first. Raced up to her floor and was directed to just outside the O.R. when [my son] was wheeled out in a plastic box. They stopped the cart for a second so I could get a look at him, connected to tubes and wires. I never felt scared that he would not make it, just that he was not ready yet…I wasn’t quite ready yet either.”—Ed, father to Neil (7), Columbus, Ohio

“The first thing I thought when Ginny was born was how she looked exactly how I pictured she would. We got a great 3D ultrasound picture of her and my mind filled in the missing parts. When Griffin was born, he had some fluid in his lungs so the nurses immediately took him away to examine him. He screamed the whole time. I remember feeling like I was about to push the doctor and nurses out of my way to be with him and give him some comfort.”—Scott, father to Ginny (4) and Griffin (1), Bethlehem, Georgia

“I saw my daughter being born, it was an amazing feeling! It was kind of unreal, but fantastic. I was extremely proud and impressed by my wife! She’s much tougher than I am.”—Mathias, father to Elin (7 months), Kungsbacka, Sweden

“The moment was frozen in time, every detail was crystal clear. With Donovan, we brought him into the world to the strains of The Edgar Winter Group’s ‘Frankenstein.’ Elias was born peacefully at home; it felt like a major triumph to have a healthy baby without any interventions. I was proud of Rachel and I got to catch the baby. With Elias’s birth, our family finally felt complete.”—James, father to Donovan (2) and Elias (1 month), Athens, Georgia

I first felt like a dad when…
“Maybe 56 days later when we finally got to take [my son] home.”—Ed

“I  started saying things to Ginny or Griffin that sounded just like the things my dad said to me when I was young.”—Scott

“We woke up the day after she was born. Then it was real.”—Mathias

“I drove all the way home from the hospital at 20 miles per hour. That was the first time I had this incredibly defensive feeling about my daughter—that I am the person who is here to protect her.”—Graham, father to Sylvia (3), London, England

“I mastered all of the daddy disciplines. After overcoming the extreme mommy-dependence of a high-needs baby, I was finally able to be an equal partner in Donovan’s child care. I could handle him on my own without relying on the ‘Mommy Fix.’ Finally, I was no longer on the outside looking in.”—James

Surprises
“The amount of acceptance, empathy, and tolerance you have for other peoples’ children—especially when their child acts out.”—Ed

“The thing that surprised me most about being a dad is just how much I love my children. When Ginny was born, I just wanted to tell everyone who would listen how great it was to be a dad and how my daughter was the most beautiful creature in the universe. So when we found out we were having Griffin, I was concerned that he would be short-changed because I couldn’t see how I could love him as much as I loved Ginny. But my fears were put to rest as soon as he arrived. So now I tell people how great it is to be a dad and how I have the most beautiful daughter and handsomest son in the universe.”—Scott

“Wondering what I ever did with my time before becoming a parent! And the physical pain of even a brief separation from the kids. You spend time anticipating, orchestrating, and executing a night out, and spend the whole time speculating about what the little ones are up to.”—James

“I am constantly being surprised by the speed with which our daughter is developing. It seems to me she is learning new things every day! People told me time passes so quickly the first year, I didn’t really believe them, but now I know they were absolutely right!”—Mathias

What fatherhood has taught me
“My son has autism. There is no longer any such thing as normal.”—Ed

“Life is short and you should try to enjoy every minute you can with your kids. All the things people say about kids growing up fast is much too true. That realization has really helped set my priorities straight.”—Scott

“It has taught me what really matters. Now I understand why my parents were worried about me when I was out late…Our daughter is only 7 months old so I think I have much worrying to look forward to!”—Mathias

“There is no joy greater than a child who truly loves you.”—Graham

Cheers to you, dads!

©iStockphoto.com/ARTPUPPY

Tricia has struggled with weight for as long as she can remember. Before she became pregnant with Lizzie, her first child, she was more than 50 pounds overweight, and during her pregnancy, she gained even more.

Since Lizzie was born six months ago, Tricia has been trying to shed the excess pounds. Even though Lizzie is just a baby, Tricia tries to eat healthy meals in front of her daughter, just in case Lizzie is taking note. Already, Lizzie’s weight is in the 90^th percentile. Tricia is worried about how her obesity might affect the weight of her child, and according to researchers, Tricia has reason to worry.

Data show that children with two obese parents—defined by having a body mass index, or BMI, of 30 or more—were 12 times more likely to become obese during childhood compared to children with parents whose weight was appropriate. The researchers found that the mother’s weight had the greatest influence, and experts speculate that the reason for this is twofold: prenatal factors and the fact that mothers typically prepare meals for their children.

Research
Published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, this was the first study to use measured weight and height directly, rather than using self-reported means.

The research team, led by Dr. Jane Wardle, a professor of clinical psychology at University College London, looked at data from more than 7,000 children and their parents, all of whom took part in a national health survey in the UK. The data was recorded by trained interviewers using electronic measurements.

Results
Parental weight increases a child’s risk for obesity, more so among girls than boys.

• Only 2 percent of children with two healthy-weight parents were obese, compared to 22 percent of children from families with two obese parents.

• When both parents were overweight but not obese, nearly 5 percent of the children were obese.

• Nearly 12 percent of children with an obese father were obese, compared to 14.3 percent of children with an obese mother. Those numbers fell to 4 percent and 3 percent, respectively, with a healthy-weight father and a healthy-weight mother.

The conclusion: maternal health has a profound effect on a child’s weight gain. The question is why?

Prenatal factors
“Maternal link might be stronger for obesity as we inherit our mitochondria—the energy manufacturing center—from our mothers,” explains Dr. Carson Liu, a Los Angeles-based bariatric surgeon, who was not affiliated with the study. In other words, some of a child’s obesity risk comes from genetic factors, including the way we burn energy, which are passed down from mother to child.

There are other genetic factors at work too, explains Dr. Anatoly Belilovsky, a pediatrician in Brooklyn, N.Y. “Maternal genes are passed to the child, so a child of a mother prone to obesity may have that inclination regardless of what happened during gestation. Secondly, the amount of nutrients presented to the placenta—glucose, fats, proteins—depend on their level in maternal blood, which in turn depends on maternal diet and weight gain.”

“The most important connection is through insulin,” Belilovsky explains. “Glucose, but not insulin, crosses the placenta to the baby.  High maternal blood glucose causes high insulin production in the baby, which will drive down baby’s blood glucose—sometimes to dangerously low levels—but also stimulate baby’s appetite after birth.”

What this means for you: to put it simply, if you’re pregnant, or thinking about becoming pregnant, begin modifying your diet now. Healthier choices for you mean healthier nutrients for your baby.

Postnatal factors
While maternal obesity during pregnancy is potentially risky to the developing fetus, it does not mean that a child will inherently become obese.  “Genetics play about two-thirds of a role,” Liu says. “The rest is environmental, which means minimizing excessive carbohydrate intake and [engaging in] daily exercise. And teaching kids to be active and not sedentary with TV and video games.  After becoming obese, it is harder to lose the weight permanently.”

After you’ve had a baby, if you’re obese—or even just overweight—it’s important to begin setting a positive example for your child. Become physically active, model healthy eating habits especially as you begin to prepare your children’s meals at home, and encourage physical activity at an early age. “Kids need good role models,” says nutrition expert Jackie Keller, a certified wellness coach who has worked with celebrities including Angelina Jolie, Uma Thurman, and Jessica Alba. “Study after study confirms that these patterns are learned at home, long before less healthy patterns are learned at school.”

To get you started, we compiled four easy can-do steps to a healthier lifestyle at home:

• “Start kids early on drinking water instead of soda —diet soda included—or even juice,” Keller says. “Drinking water is fundamental to health and becomes habitual if encouraged constantly.”

• “Take walks with your children—everyday,” Liu says. Or, suggests Keller, “Incorporate something active into every day. Being consistent with activity is part of developing a pattern of healthy behaviors that can help keep a child at a healthy weight for a lifetime.”

• “Always have fresh fruit and vegetables—fresh is best, frozen is next—on hand for meals and snacks and eliminate highly processed foods and grains products from your menus,” Keller says. “Teach your children to eat small meals throughout the day.”

• “Don’t think that kids have to have sweets,” Liu says. “Kids don’t have a different food pyramid that consists of mac and cheese, cheese pizza, chicken fingers, grilled cheese, and cheeseburgers. They can eat healthy foods to start early on in their lives, including fish, cooked vegetables, eggs, and non-processed foods.”

©iStockphoto.com/abu

Sunscreen is a must every day—365 days a year. But it’s especially important during the lazy, hazy days of spring and summer when you and your family spend more time outdoors. Everyone knows the sun’s ultraviolet (UV) rays can cause skin cancer and burning; what you may not know is that just five sunburns at any age doubles one’s risk of melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer. And just one blistering sunburn in childhood or adolescence more than doubles the risk of melanoma. To stay safe in the sun, slather sunscreen on yourself and children over the age of six months. Make sure it has an SPF (Sun Protection Factor) of at least 15 and that it blocks both UVB (ultraviolet B, or short-wave) and UVA (ultraviolet A, or long-wave) rays. Look for these words on the label: “broad spectrum,” “multi-spectrum,” or “UVA/UVB protection.” Use at least one ounce (a shot glass full) for an adult and half an ounce for a child and don’t skip spots like the back of the neck, ears, lips, and top of feet. Click here for more sun safety tips.

©iStockphoto.com/SensorSpot

I cultivated my sweet tooth at a young age, born into a family where Hostess Sno Balls and Twinkies were the preferred after-school snack. I could have/should have washed down the crumbly treats with a glass of milk, but chose instead an ice cold Coke—21 teaspoons of sugar, the equivalent of 90 grams or 450 calories. Is it any wonder that my siblings and I struggle with weight gain?

The American Heart Association (AHA) recommends that women consume no more than 6 teaspoons of added sugar a day (100 calories or 25 grams). For men the recommendation is no more than 9 teaspoons (150 calories or 38 grams)—the equivalent of one 12 ounce can of Coke for guys and one cup of vanilla ice cream for gals.

In 2009, the AHA, citing new evidence showing that added sugars increase the risk of obesity, heart disease, and diabetes, issued a public warning, “Dietary Sugars Intake and Cardiovascular Health,”  cautioning Americans to limit their intake of added sugars.

Added sugars (as opposed to sugars that occur naturally in foods) have been described by the AHA as discretionary calories. For example, an average woman needs 1800 calories a day. In order to get the amounts of vegetables, fruits, lean protein, dairy products, and whole grains her body needs, she will spend 1600 calories, leaving only 200 calories for whatever else she wants to eat or drink. If what she ‘wants’ exceeds 200 calories, she will need to burn those extra calories or risk gaining weight.

Between 1970 and 2005, Americans’ average annual intake of sugar increased by 19%, with sugar-sweetened beverages, particularly soft drinks leading the way. In a study of 51,000 women, those who gained the most weight over a four-year-period were those who went from drinking no more than one soft drink a week to drinking at least one a day. So much for, “Have a Coke and a smile.”

While weight gain, especially in the mid-section can increase the risk of heart disease, data suggest that sugar-sweetened beverages may cause heart disease regardless of whether you gain weight. Harvard researchers followed nearly 90,000 women for 24 years and found that those who drank two or more sugar-sweetened beverages a day had a 20% higher risk of heart disease compared to those who drank less than one a month. Researcher have theorized that the increased risk may be related to the fact that sugar, specifically fructose, raises triglyceride levels.

Fructose versus glucose
Sucrose (table sugar) contains equal parts of fructose and glucose. Fructose is taken up by the liver where it is converted into fat. Much of the fat is excreted into the bloodstream, increasing triglyceride levels and the risk of heart disease. In contrast, glucose is absorbed directly into the bloodstream, increasing blood sugar levels and the risk of diabetes. When it comes to sugars, one is as bad as the next.

Calorie-free but not risk-free
Research shows that artificial sweeteners can reduce the risk of weight gain. But given the lack of safety data, artificial sweeteners should be used with caution, especially in children and young adults.

The bottom line
Added sugars have no redeeming value. Most sugary foods are simply junk foods. The following suggestions will help keep you and your family healthy:

• Limit added sugars to no more than 100 to 150 calories a day for women and men.
• Avoid all sugar-sweetened beverages.
• Limit fruit juices to no more than 1 cup a day.
• Estimate your calorie needs and those of your children at mypyramid.gov

In case you were wondering, a two-pack of Hostess Twinkies and Sno Balls contain 9½ and 11½ teaspoons of sugar respectively—two days’ worth of added sugar.

©iStockphoto.com/ArtisticCaptures

Both you and your baby are going to sleep terribly, possibly for months, so you might as well get used to the idea.

But don’t freak out—this is totally normal. All you have to do is make sure everyone lives through this tumultuous time. Pretend there’s a zombie war going on outside and your priority is basic survival. Do whatever it takes to stay alive. Believe that this too shall pass.

For those of you in the midst of intense sleep deprivation, you would probably like to take your computer and throw it at my head right now. No one wants to be told “this too shall pass.” You want immediate solutions that will make your baby sleep so you can feel like a person again. Trust me, I know; I’ve been there.

And it’s not enough that you’re tired; you’re likely terrified that even minute bedtime choices will ruin your kid for life. Over 30,000 people responded to a Babycenter.com poll about toddlers sleeping in their parents’ bed, and it turns out that 44 percent answered that their children “almost always” co-sleep. When asked how they felt about it, 26 percent said “I love it,” but 43 percent called it “not ideal.”

Are adults who like to co-sleep doing something wrong? Some sleep experts say yes. There are plenty of sleep advice books out there, but they all offer different advice when it comes to getting your child to sleep.

So what do the authors of the leading sleep advice books have to say, from stern Ferber to groovy Pantley and a few others in between?

Richard Ferber, Solve Your Child’s Sleep Problems (Fireside, 1986, 2006)
If you’ve heard someone talk about “Cry It Out” (or CIO, or “Ferberizing”), that person is talking about the technique developed by Richard Ferber, director of the Center for Pediatric Sleep Disorders at Children’s Hospital Boston. With CIO, you basically let your child scream his or her head off for specified, timed increments (which grow gradually longer over a few days’ time) until he or she finally figures out you aren’t coming and gives up (or passes out). I’ve always associated this approach with distraught parents who dread bedtime and their screaming children they feel forced to ignore. Once upon a time as a nanny, I was instructed to use this method at naptime for the children under my care, and let me tell you, it was no picnic (although it sometimes—not always—worked).

I was prepared to read “Solve Your Child’s Sleep Problems” with a derisive eye, already knowing that my parenting style didn’t jive with Ferber’s method. However, I discovered his technique, especially as explained in an updated edition of the book, isn’t quite as rigid as I had thought.

“Simply leaving a child in a crib to cry for long periods alone until he falls sleep, no matter how long it takes, is not an approach I approve of,” Ferber writes in the 2006 preface. “On the contrary, many of the approaches I recommend are designed specifically to avoid unnecessary crying.”

He calls his technique “progressive waiting” that encourages frequent (but somewhat detached, I thought) comforting throughout the process.

More helpful in the book is his section on helping your child learn new sleep associations–different ways to find comfort and go back to sleep after nighttime wakings. After all, it’s normal for both children and adults to wake during the night. Ferber suggests using a “transitional object” (like a favorite blanket) for comfort.

He also says that having a regular daytime schedule will help set a reasonable nighttime schedule, and that you must choose your child’s bedtime and keep it consistent.

What about co-sleeping? Well, the 1985 edition is clearly against the notion. “We know for a fact that people sleep better alone in bed,” he writes. (Is he suggesting that parents sleep in separate twin beds, like Rob and Laura Petrie on “The Dick Van Dyke Show”?)

“Sleeping in your bed can make your child feel confused and anxious rather than relaxed and reassured…If you allow him to crawl in between you and your spouse, in a sense separating the two of you, he may feel too powerful and become worried,” he writes. I confess I laughed out loud at that part, as I suspect many parents who have co-slept would. I wonder what an actual psychologist might say about that (maybe I should ask my father, a retired psychology professor who had no worries when I routinely slept with my parents as a child).

Ferber also insinuates that co-sleeping parents might have a screw loose. “If you find that you actually prefer to have your child in your bed, you should examine your own feelings carefully,” he writes, suggesting that such a desire hints at underlying selfishness or other issues that may require “professional counseling.”

Yet again, the 2006 edition has some changes to it, suggesting a more laid-back Ferber. Co-sleeping children, he writes, “are not prevented from learning to separate, or from developing their own sense of individuality, simply because they sleep with their parents. Whatever you want to do, whatever you feel comfortable doing, is the right thing to do, as long as it works.”

Elizabeth Pantley, The No-Cry Sleep Solution: Gentle Ways to Help Your Baby Sleep Through the Night (McGraw-Hill, 2002)
The No-Cry Sleep Solution for Toddlers and Preschoolers (McGraw-Hill, 2005)
Pantley is like the anti-Ferber. Your first clue is title: “No-Cry” and “Gentle.”Another clue is that she calls CIO “mutual agony,” noting that babies are totally dependent and cry to remind you they have biological needs that need attention.

As someone who champions co-sleeping (as long as you follow safety precautions) and has practiced it herself, Pantley is a favorite among followers of attachment parenting. However, she does not advocate constant tending at the expense of your own sleep.

She talks about “sleep association,” in which babies associate (and feel they need) certain things with falling asleep. Pantley says she nursed one of her children to sleep for at least a year, and disagrees that it’s a negative sleep association (as the other sleep authors discussed here propose).

“It is probably the most positive, natural, pleasant sleep association a baby can have,” she writes in “The No-Cry Sleep Solution.” “The problem with this association is not the association itself, but our busy lives. If you had nothing whatsoever to do besides take care of your baby, this would be a very pleasant way to pass your days and nights until he naturally outgrew the need. After all, this is natural. You may not even see this as a problem, in which case it is not. It’s all a matter of your perception and your personal needs.”

She does acknowledge that “few parents have the luxury of putting everything else on hold until their baby gets older,” so she recommends gradual (not cold turkey) changes, namely ending a feeding session when the baby is drowsy but still awake.

In her The No-Cry Sleep Solution for Toddlers and Preschoolers, there’s an entire section called “The Nighttime Nursling.” In it Pantley sings breastfeeding’s praises, explains why a toddler might still want to nurse to sleep (and why parents may not want to give it up either), but suggests options like ending a nursing session gradually (following the blueprint laid out in her book the “Sleep Solution” ) and creating new routines. She even has advice on how to continue co-sleeping without breastfeeding.

“If your child is getting enough sleep, you are all sleeping well, and the people who live in your home are happy with the way things are working out, then nothing needs to be fixed, regardless of what anyone else has to say about your family’s sleeping solution,” she writes.

Kim West, The Sleep Lady’s Good Night, Sleep Tight (Vanguard Press, 2010)
In the interest of full disclosure: a photo of my son appears in this book and is used with permission.

Now that we’ve got Ferber and Pantly out of the way, this book is pretty middle-of-the-road, appealing to those who are wary of both CIO and co-sleeping. West, a licensed clinical social worker, seems more lenient with co-sleeping, but you can tell she’s not a huge fan (one of her chapters is called “Whose Bed Is It Anyway?”). If you invited West and Pantley over for a slumber party, Pantley would braid your hair and enthuse about co-sleeping bonding, while West would be at the foot of the bed saying, “Well, if it works for you, but…”

She’s coined a catchy phrase for her approach: The Sleep Lady Shuffle. It’s similar to CIO in that there are timed intervals of interaction, and the goal is to detach yourself from your baby as he cries—but you stay in the room for much of it. Over a series of nights, you move your position within the room closer to the door, using minimal touches to comfort the child, until you eventually find yourself outside the door.

She recommends against nighttime feeding entirely at a certain point. “One of my hardest tasks is convincing mothers that most healthy six- to eight-month-old babies on a normal growth curve don’t need to eat at night,” she writes.

Alison Scott-Wright, The Sensational Baby Sleep Plan (Transworld Publishers Ltd, 2010)
I recently read a very favorable Telegraph review for this book, so I thought I’d check it out. Scott-Wright, a former maternity nurse, sounds like a lovely woman who is well-liked by those who say they have found salvation through her help.

Alas, the actual sleep plan is nothing ground-breaking,and most of the book is devoted to infant feeding and consistently offers false information.

Scott-Wright makes a big deal about not vilifying women who are unable to or choose not to breastfeed, a sentiment with which I completely agree. But she goes to rather astonishing lengths—sometimes making statements that completely contradict research and what we have long known to be scientific truth—to make the point that formula feeding is actually preferable to breastfeeding.

“We all know, and are certainly told often enough, that ‘breast is best,’ but in my view it is better to adopt an approach that can be adapted to your lifestyle than to restrict yourself to a method that you may find difficult to maintain,” she writes. “I promote and support breastfeeding, but never to the detriment of mother or baby.”

Later, she lists seven benefits to exclusive breastfeeding (101 reasons can be found here), but 11 benefits to “Breastfeeding and expressing breast milk” and 13 to “Exclusive formula feeding.”

Some of the listed benefits to exclusive formula feeding are simply untrue, or are unsubstantiated opinions. We know that breastfeeding mothers do not have more dietary restrictions (she even includes a list of foods that “seem to cause problems,” including citrus fruit and curries). We know that breastfeeding mothers do not necessarily feel like “feeding machines.” We know that babies with reflux do not respond better to formula (good grief!) or that formula relieves a mother of “physical and emotional strain” (Um…ever hear of prolactin?). And it’s completely wrong (and dangerous, I feel) to suggest that formula-fed babies receive “more lasting satisfaction.”

Elsewhere, she suggests putting newborns on a breastfeeding schedule of 2-3 hours. She also includes recommendations on weaning, starting as early as 4 weeks of age. She devotes several pages to the common woes of breastfeeding problems, then writes, “It is a shame in today’s society that formula-feeding, when used in preference to breastfeeding, is almost frowned upon.” Research promoting breastfeeding over formula is “flawed,” she writes, right before several pages on how to choose bottles and nipples, making bottle-feeding sound absolutely fantastic—as if magical genies await your command to sterilize bottles and mix powder in the middle of the night. Dreamy!

Honestly, this book sets back breastfeeding promotion, I don’t know, let’s say a million years.

I really would like to say something positive about this book, but it takes three chapters to even get to what the “plan” is, and it appears to simply be a feeding schedule, which for newborns is every three hours during the day and every four hours during the night (with recommendations to supplement with formula by week two!), which again is counterproductive to establishing breastfeeding.

Near the end of the book, Scott-Wright addresses “sleep training,” which I assumed would be something along the lines of cry-it-out. But her sleep plan consists of creating a calm, quiet atmosphere, feeding the baby, putting him or her to bed and saying good night. If necessary, go back in to the room to reassure the baby, tell him good night again, and walk away. There are no timed intervals. If the baby cries, she simply advocates  doing the same thing over and over again until it works.

In other words, it’s the kind of common sense “sleep training” that doesn’t require a book to explain it.

So, whose advice should you follow?
When I mentioned on Facebook that I was working on this article, I immediately got comments from very tired parents, pleading for information that would help their babies and toddlers sleep better… and several almost apologizing for their babies who slept through the night, no Ferberizing required, by three months.

I wish I could give you the definitive advice that will help your baby sleep better, but that’s impossible. Some advice makes sense—like having a consistent and early bedtime routine—but when it comes to selecting cleverly named sleep plans, methods of inching your way out of your kid’s room, or your comfort level for hysterical screaming, only you can choose what works for your family.

You could pick and choose the bits and pieces you like the best— a little Ferber here, a little Pantley there. To paraphrase a friend, “use what works and leave the rest.”

Remember my initial analogy. There are zombies out there, and you have not yet succumbed—no, you will not succumb. You will survive! When the tanks come in to blow off the undead’s heads, you’ll still be there—cozily tucked up in your bed, fast asleep. Just keep telling yourself that.

Published in the February 3, 2010 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), researchers compared the brainstems of 41 infants who died of SIDS with 7 infants who died from known causes and 5 infants who were hospitalized with poor low oxygen levels before they died. The brainstem controls heart rate, breathing, body temperature, and blood pressure which are key factors in sleeping and waking.

Results
Researchers found that 35 of the 41 infants who died of SIDS had low levels of serotonin, a chemical that transmits messages between cells and regulates breathing, heart rate, and sleep. Compared to the serotonin levels in the 12 infants who had died from other known causes, levels in infants who died from SIDS were 26 percent lower. In addition, the level of tryptophan hydroxylase, an enzyme needed to make serotonin, was 22 percent lower in infants who died from SIDS.

Dr. Hannah Kinney and her colleagues had previously reported differences in serotonin levels in infants who had died from SIDS compared to those who had not, but it was unclear then whether the SIDS babies had too little or too much serotonin.

Bottom line
Understanding how an infant dies from SIDS is the first step toward preventing SIDS. While these latest findings are compelling, SIDS prevention based on biological testing is years away. In the meantime, parents should continue to focus on taking actions that have been shown to reduce the risk for SIDS.

Always place your baby on his or her back to sleep—Babies who sleep on their backs are less likely to die of SIDS than babies who sleep on their stomachs or sides.

Remove soft, fluffy, or loose bedding and toys from your baby’s sleep area— Use only a lightweight cover or blanket, or place your baby in a sleep sack. Do not use pillows, comforters, quilts, duvets, or bumper pads in your baby’s sleep area.

Do not let your baby get too hot—Dress your baby in a single layer of clothing or a sleep sack. Keep the room at a temperature that is comfortable for adults.

Place your baby on a firm sleep surface—Never place your baby to sleep on a soft mattress, waterbed, sofa, or chair.

Offer a pacifier when putting your baby to sleep—If your baby refuses a pacifier, do not force him or her to take it. Many babies prefer to suck on fingers and fists. Mothers who are breastfeeding should wait until their baby is breastfeeding well (about 1 month of age) before offering a pacifier.

After the United Kingdom General Medical Council (GMC) described the actions of Andrew Wakefield, MD, and two of his colleagues as dishonest and irresponsible, The Lancet, a respected medical journal, did something it has only done 10-15 times in its 186-year history, it fully retracted a study by Wakefield and colleagues from the published record.

In 1998, claiming to have found a possible link between autism and the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine, Andrew Wakefield and 13 co-authors ignited a firestorm of controversy. Parents fearing that their children would become autistic, refused to have them vaccinated. Lawyers eager to place blame, filed class action lawsuits. Both sides launched personal attacks.

Too little too late
Five years later, ten of the 13 co-authors disavowed the findings. Last year the U.S. vaccine court ruled against those claiming that there was a link between vaccines and autism. Countless research dollars have been spent on rigorous studies aimed at refuting Wakefield’s findings. Fears over a reemergence of diseases like polio and measles should children go unvaccinated are being realized. And most important, the rate of autism has continued to climb.

The California Department of Developmental Services analyzed data on childhood autism from 1995-2006. The rate of autism at age 3 for children born in 1993 was 0.3 per 1000 births; among children born ten years later the rate was 1.3 per 1000 births; by 2006, 4.5 out of every 1000 children born in 2000 were estimated to have autism.

In an effort to help our readers better understand the controversy surrounding vaccines and autism, excerpts from an article previously published in Feeding Times, a baby gooroo publication follows.

The history behind the controversy
Arthur Allen was one of the first to write about the thimerosal controversy in an August 2002 report published in New York Times Magazine. Allen’s report was followed in June 2005, by a series of articles by Robert Kennedy, Jr. in Rolling Stone and Salon.com, in which Kennedy accused government scientists and their academic colleagues of covering up indisputable evidence of a causal link between thimerosal and autism. That same year, Evidence of Harm: Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic, A Medical Controversy by David Kirby was released. One critic described Kirby as “an author subtly influenced by the vaccine paranoia people” and cautioned readers to “beware of books like these because they lead with fear and not knowledge.”

Arthur Allen, in response to the Rolling Stone article by Kennedy stated, “Aside from a June 25 New York Times article that discussed the parallel realities of parents and scientists studying thimerosal, there has been little mainstream media response. Considering that about 9,000 lawsuits of claims have been filed against thimerosal and have the potential to wreck the pharmaceutical industry, the debate has high stakes.”

What is thimerosal?
Thimerosal is an organic compound that contains ethyl mercury. It has been used in vaccines since the 1930s to prevent bacterial and fungal contamination. Thimerosal extends the life of vaccines and allows them to be packaged in multi-dose vials.

Is thimerosal safe?
Thimerosal contains mercury, a toxic metal. Mercury occurs naturally in the environment (air, soil, water). It has been found in fish (particularly long-lived fish such as sharks, tilefish, king mackerel, and swordfish) and in small amounts in animal tissues (humans). Dental fillings often contained Mercury, as did thermometers, and vaccines. If large amounts of mercury accumulate in the body over time, death can occur. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established tolerance levels for mercury based on studies of methyl mercury. The EPA tolerance level is ten times less than the lowest level calculated to cause harm.

Mercury exists in several forms: metallic mercury, inorganic mercury, and organic mercury (methyl mercury, ethyl mercury, phenyl mercury). Thimerosal contains the organic mercury known as ethyl mercury. Nearly all of the research done on mercury toxicity has focused on the organic methyl mercury. Methyl mercury and ethyl mercury are closely related but they have important differences. Different forms of mercury have different health effects. Methyl mercury has a half life of 50 days and accumulates in the body. Ethyl mercury has a half-life of 7-10 days and is less likely to accumulate in the body. Also, ethyl mercury is converted in the body into inorganic mercury and excreted in the stool.

In 1999, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) determined that children receiving all of the routinely recommended childhood vaccines would potentially exceed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tolerance levels for mercury (levels based on studies of methyl mercury). So in the interest of safety and out of concern that misinformation regarding thimerosal would lead to widespread refusal of vaccines, the FDA asked vaccine manufacturers to eliminate or reduce the mercury content of vaccines.

Since 2003, all routinely recommended childhood vaccines have been thimerosal-free. Only one childhood vaccine still contains trace amounts of thimerosal (influenza vaccine). Because thimerosal-containing vaccines produce levels of mercury in adults that are so low, experts do not recommend removal of thimerosal from vaccines intended for use in adults and adolescents.

Manufacturers now bottle vaccines in single-dose containers taking care to ensure that the vaccines are not contaminated in the manufacturing and bottling process. This has increased the cost of vaccines and led to vaccine shortages. However, despite these concerns, public health officials are committed to providing thimerosal-free vaccines.

What is autism?
Autism Spectrum Disorders are a group of developmental disabilities that are caused by an abnormality in the brain. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2/1000 to 6/1000 children have an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). ASDs range from a severe form, autistic disorder (classic autism) to a mild form, Asperger syndrome. If a child has symptoms of either disorder but does not meet the specific criteria of either, he/she is diagnosed with pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified (PPD-NOS).

Classic autism affects verbal and nonverbal communication and social interaction. It is usually evident before age three, and can negatively affects educational performance. Characteristics of autism include irregularities and impairments in communication, engagement in repetitive activities and stereotyped movements, resistance to environmental change or change in daily routines, and unusual responses to sensory experiences.

What causes autism?
Genetics is thought to play a key role in the development of autism. Using a broad definition of autism, when one twin has autism, approximately 92% of identical and 10% of fraternal twins have autism, suggesting that autism has a genetic component.

Home movie studies provide some of the best data on when symptoms of autism first appear. In one particular study, home movies were taken of children who eventually were diagnosed with autism and children who were not diagnosed with autism. The movies were made before the children received the MMR vaccine. Neurodevelopment specialists viewed the movies and were consistently able to separate autistic from non-autistic children at one year of age. Using sophisticated movement analysis, movies of children eventually diagnosed with autism and children not diagnosed with autism were coded and evaluated for their capacity to predict autism. Children who were eventually diagnosed with autism were predicted from movies taken at 2-3 months of age. These data clearly show that subtle symptoms of autism are present in early infancy and argue against vaccines as a cause of autism.

Some evidence suggests that autism occurs as a result of in utero events such as viral infection. Children exposed to thalidomide during the first or early second trimester were found to have an increased incidence of autism. Autism has been observed in children with ear, but not arm or leg abnormalities. Because arms and legs develop after 24 days’ gestation, it was concluded that the risk period for autism following receipt of thalidomide must be before 24 days’ gestation.

Researchers have also reported an increased risk for autism in children with congenital rubella syndrome and tuberous sclerosis, suggesting that autism involves abnormalities of the central nervous system that occur in utero.

Scientists at the University of California Davis’ M.I.N.D. Institute are investigating whether environmental exposure to chemicals, pesticides, and metals during pregnancy can lead to autism.

Do vaccines cause autism?
The controversy surrounding vaccines and autism dates back to 1998 with the publication of the now retracted paper by Andrew Wakefield titled, “Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children.” The authors theorized that the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine causes a series of events that result in the development of autism. The study describes 12 children with neurodevelopmental delay (8 with autism). The author notes that each of the 8 autistic children was diagnosed with autism within 1 month of receiving the MMR vaccine.

Significant flaws found in study
Critics argued that the MMR vaccine is administered to nearly all children at a time when many children are diagnosed with autism. Therefore the observation that some children with autism recently received the MMR vaccine is expected. In addition, only vaccinated children were included in the Wakefield study. To determine whether the MMR vaccine causes autism, both vaccinated and unvaccinated children must be studied. Furthermore, in each of the 8 autistic children, symptoms of autism were observed before, not after, the presence of gastrointestinal symptoms, thus refuting the authors’ claim that autism is a consequence of gastrointestinal inflammation. Wakefield published a second paper in 2002, in which he examined the relationship between the measles virus and autism. Again critics cited a number of flaws.

While the two studies by Wakefield suggest a causal link between the MMR vaccine and autism, five additional studies conclude the opposite. Researchers found no difference in the age of diagnosis of autism in vaccinated and unvaccinated children; the onset of regressive symptoms of autism did not occur within 2, 4, or 6 months of receiving the MMR vaccine; and despite a dramatic increase in the number of reported cases of autism, the percentage of children that have received the MMR vaccine has remained the same. Data from a Danish study show that rates of autism continued to rise despite the removal of thimerosal from all vaccines in 1992.

The result of a critical review of the data was also published in Pediatrics in 2004. Twelve publications met the selection criteria, 10 epidemiologic studies and 2 pharmacokinetic studies. The authors concluded that the data did not support the claim that thimerosal-containing vaccines cause autism.

No link between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism
In 2000, in response to a request from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Institute of Medicine (IOM) established an independent expert committee to evaluate the data and determine whether vaccines cause specific health problems.

The Immunization Safety Review Committee published a series of reports between 2001 and 2004. The committee concluded that neither thimerosal-containing vaccines nor the MMR vaccine is associated with autism.

A second IOM committee met in February 2005, composed of different scientists. According to Committee Chair John C. Bailar III, “concerns about access and transparency have accompanied the development and functioning of the Vaccine Safety Datalink data-sharing program, and consequently some people’s trust in the reliability of findings from VSD studies has eroded. Taking steps to improve the independence, transparency, and fairness of VSD procedures will help enhance confidence in the data sharing program and in research based on this important tool for evaluating vaccine safety.”

The Vaccine Safety Datalink is a large, linked database of patient information that was developed jointly by CDC and several private managed care organizations in 1991. It includes data on vaccination histories, health outcomes, and characteristics of more than 7 million patients from eight participating health organizations. Researchers from the CDC and the managed care groups have used VSD information to study whether health problems are associated with vaccinations. The subsequent VSD data-sharing program was launched in 2002 to allow independent, external researchers access to information in the database.

Are vaccines safe?
Vaccines have significantly reduced, and in some cases eliminated, many childhood diseases. In the past, polio, rubella, measles, diphtheria, tetanus, chickenpox, and pertussis (whooping cough) were among the diseases that caused thousands of deaths each year. Today, as a result of immunizations, these diseases rarely occur. A widespread decline in immunizations would lead to outbreaks of serious diseases that now occur rarely.

Any discussion of vaccine safety must include a discussion of the benefits of immunizations as well as the risks. All vaccines have possible side effects. Most side effects are mild and include fever, rash, and tenderness or swelling at the injection site. Some side effects can be severe. For example, the pertussis vaccine can cause persistent crying, high fever, and seizures. While these side effects seldom cause permanent damage, they can be frightening for parents. But if you compare the potential risks of vaccines and the established risks of disease, vaccines, with few exceptions, are the safer choice for both children and adults.

What parents need to know
• Few things in medicine work 100% of the time.

• Few things in medicine are risk-free.

• Researchers are working continually to improve the safety of immunizations.

• A decline in immunization rates will lead to an increase in disease.

To illustrate this fact: In 1974, when 80 percent of Japanese children were vaccinated for pertussis (whooping cough), only 393 cases of pertussis occurred and none of the victims died. The following year information was circulated that the pertussis vaccine was no longer needed and that is was unsafe. By 1976 only 10 percent of Japanese infants were vaccinated and in 1979 over 13,000 cases of whooping cough were reported along with 41 deaths. These are the risk/benefit ratios that parents as well as professionals must consider.

• The only time it is safe to stop giving immunizations is when a disease has been eradicated worldwide.

Only a parent of an autistic child can fully understand the anguish that comes from not knowing autism’s cause. But no amount of fear or frustration justify an abandonment of science.

Bibliography for reference

1. Dales L, et al. Time trends in autism and in MMR immunization coverage in California. JAMA 2001;285:1183-1185.

2. Kaye JA, del Mar Melero-Montes M, Jick H. Mumps, measles, and rubella vaccine and the incidence of autism recorded by general practitioners: a time trend analysis. BMJ 2001;322(7284):460-3.

3. Madsen KM, Hviid A, Vestergaard M, Schendel D, Wohlfahrt J, Thorsen P, et al. A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism. N Eng J Med 2002;347(19):1477-82.

4. Mars AE, Mauk JE, Dowrick PW. Symptoms of pervasive developmental disorders as observed in prediagnostic home videos of infants and toddlers. J Pediatr 1998;132(3 Pt 1):500-4.

5. Parker SK, Schwartz B, Todd J, Pickering LK. Thimerosal-containing vaccines and autistic spectrum disorder: a critical review of published original data. Pediatrics 2004;114(3):793-804.

6. Stromland K, et al. Autism in thalidomide embropathy: a population study. Devel Med Child Neurol 1994;36:351-356.

7. Taylor B, Miller E, Lingam R, Andrews N, Simmons A, Stowe J. Measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and bowel problems or developmental regression in children with autism: population study. BMJ 2002;324(7334):393-6.

8. Taylor B, et al. Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association. Lancet 1999;353:2026-2029.

9. Uhlmann V, et al. Potential viral pathogenic mechanism for new variant inflammatory bowel disease. Journal of Clinical Pathology: Molecular Pathology 2002;55:1-6.

10. Wakefield AJ, et al. Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet 1998;351:637-641.

Although I find it slightly ironic that I am writing this on my laptop (equipped with high-speed wireless internet) while listening to a CD (through the TV, which is hooked up to my husband’s Play Station 3, of course), I am still sad to report that daily media usage in 8-18 year-olds has become more time-consuming than a full-time job. Add in texting and cell phone conversations, another 14 hours per week on average, and they become workaholics!

Many kids spend upwards of 50 hours each week watching TV, surfing the web, listening to music, or playing video games, while they spend less than 14 hours per week participating in sports or being physically active.

In a nationwide study released last week by the Kaiser Family Foundation, researchers found that current levels of media usage in 8-18 year-olds have increased significantly since 2004. Instead of 6 hours and 21 minutes of daily media usage in 2004, most kids now spend an average of 7 hours and 38 minutes using media for entertainment every single day (these totals do not include texting or talking on cell phones). Furthermore, when multi-tasking was included – surfing the web and listening to music simultaneously, for instance – the total daily exposure time increased from 8 hours and 33 minutes in 2004 to 10 hours and 45 minutes per day in 2009.

What Does This Mean for Parents?
Short of embracing a full-fledged Luddite worldview, how can parents take control of the amount of time their children spend using media for entertainment – and why should they?

For starters, as time in front of the TV or computer increases, grades decrease, according to the Kaiser study. Children who were heavy media users were also more likely to report often feeling unhappy or bored, and were less likely to get along well with their parents or be happy at school than moderate or light media users.

Parents should also know that the above numbers exclude computer and other media use for academic purposes, which can mean several additional hours of computer or media usage each week. It is almost hard to believe that children have any time to eat dinner, do homework, or help with household chores.!

The Kaiser study also reports that, parental limits and ground rules seem at least modestly successful at moderating the amount of time children spend using media. Parents looking for advice on monitoring or reducing their kids’ media time can also look to resources such as the National Institute on Media and the Family for tips on shifting the focus from computers and TV to family relationships and other, more engaging activities.

Why Has Media Use Increased?
Besides the fact that the domain of after-school gab sessions has switched from the living room to the chat room and group social games like Pogs and street hockey have given way to computer MMORPGs (massive multi-player online role-playing games), kids seem to be able to work media into every hour of the day.

Much of the overall increase in media usage over the past five years is likely attributable to increased access; few parental restrictions coupled with a rise in the number of children owning individual or portable media devices has created a window of opportunity for kids to cram even more media into their day than they could five years ago. In 2004, only 18% of 8 to 18 year-olds had an iPod or MP3 player, but by 2009 over 75% of them owned one.

To add to the accessibility theory, the Kaiser study showed that children with TV in their bedroom (the number of whom have cable or satellite TV growing 12% since 2004) have an average of four more hours per day of total media exposure than kids with no bedroom TV. Now that phones and music devices often have multiple media capabilities, kids can sneak a look at video clips on their iPods between classes or play Pac-man on their phones while waiting for the bus.

Although to some extent it could be argued that MP3 players have simply replaced portable CD players and that X-Box merely upstaged the neighborhood arcade, there is no doubt that kids are spending more time with the extensive range of modern media than ever before, leaving precious little time for anything else.

Now that I am old enough to set my own rules for media use, I am grateful that my parents restricted the time I could spend staring at the TV or the computer – it fostered my creativity, gave me a deeper appreciation of reading and board games, opened up my time for developing friendships, and ensured my involvement in many memorable household activities (including chores!). I understand that life has more to offer than pop culture and constant digital entertainment, and unless kids step back from the screen to find this out for themselves, that’s a lesson it may take a long time for them to learn.

Now that Willard has been welcomed into the world—alive, healthy and with all his fingers and toes—I’m even more afraid. And it goes far beyond rolling up windows and reading the Bible. Every little shiver he makes, I run for the thermostat thinking he’s freezing to death. Every time he coughs, I assume we need to go to the emergency room because he is obviously asphyxiating. Every night he sleeps, my wife and I are on guard duty to make sure he doesn’t roll over on his stomach and suffocate. Add to that my constant fear that somehow he’s going to end up with some horrible childhood disease—particularly the nasty brand of leukemia that I’ve been mud wrestling with for the last few months—and I’m like NORAD at DEFCON 1.

What’s so bad about being a worrywart father?

Well, for starters, I’m wrong—sort of. Yes, I need to be mindful and cautious around my son. He’s not yet nine months old, so he does need to have two eyes kept on him at all times. However, he is not a china doll, so fragile that the slightest touch will shatter his little bones. His mind is working very well at this point in his young life. He’s able to mimic some of our actions and sounds—not to the point of being able to conduct an orchestra or carry on a conversation, mind you, but he does show significant development for such a young age. He’s even able to say (in rudimentary fashion) “Mama” and “Dada.”
Children are fairly resilient little beings, but it’s our job as parents to worry about them and protect them. There are plenty of ways to look out for your child, but there are also plenty of things out of your control.

This is especially true with my biggest fear: childhood cancer. According to the American Cancer Society, the most common form happens to be leukemia, in particular the acute lymphocytic or myelogenous forms. In August of 2008, I was diagnosed with the more aggressive of the two—acute lymphocytic leukemia, or A.L.L. (I’m now in remission.) This generally occurs in children ages 5-8, and can reoccur (depending on the person) as the children become adults. It’s a terrifying prospect for the parents as well as the child: Enduring unending hours of chemotherapy, painful transfusions, endless needle pricks, test after test after test.

And I’m double-scared. What if, by some horrible nightmare of genetic malfunction, Willard ended up with whatever gene I had (to be specific, an abnormality in chromosomes 9 and 22) and has to go through what I’ve already gone through?

You can “what-if” yourself to death about leukemia. In some way it’s worse than actually having the disease. There is no guarantee your child is not going to end up with cancer. But to combat that fear, let’s look at the average survival rates for people with A.L.L. In adults (that would include me), the survival rate is around 50 – 65%. In children, that number rises to an incredible 85 – 90%. Neither of these figures includes new medicines (such as Gleevec, a pill introduced in 2001 as a chromosomal inhibitor and considered a wonder drug by the scientific and medical community) and new treatments that are sending those numbers skyward on a daily basis. Children who are born with strong immune systems stand a fantastic chance of surviving not only leukemia but the treatments as well.

There are several forms of cancer which commonly occur in children that also happen on a much larger scale in the elderly and those who are in poor health. If you are still terrified and nervous, do what I did: Ask an oncologist. My doctor described the chances of Willard getting leukemia the same as both of us getting struck by lightning twice. For me, it’s a simple, unexplainable genetic abnormality—not something that will be passed from me to my child.

I’m always talking to a friend of mine about being a father. He has a 2-year-old that is a genius and will be attending college and driving a car within a year, so I tend to listen to what he says as a dad. A few days ago, I told him that I was always terrified that something horrible was going to happen to Willard. I realized how unreasonable it was, and how unfounded, because he is always in good hands—never left alone, never going hungry, never having all those awful things you read about in newspapers happen to him. But it hasn’t stopped me from this constant fear that he will end up hurt or sick or kidnapped or sold on the black market by a drug addict or hit by a comet crashing into our apartment or suffer some other terrible fate that only happens in the worst of my dreams.

My friend said, “Get used to it.”

When you’re afraid of your child’s safety and health, think about your mother or father for a minute. The day I was diagnosed with leukemia, before I even knew what was going on (other than feeling sick and never being able to get over it), my 57-year-old mother (with 32 years of experience being a mom) was in her car traveling to get to me at the hospital. She was 45 minutes away when I called her to break the bad news. Even though her being there could do nothing to change my health, my mom arrived at the hospital 28 minutes later.

My friend was right.

And the gifts changed from being collectible items to something I could get real use out of. I received a sweater in 1995 that I am only recently realizing needs some good sewing work or a funeral. The collar is coming apart. The knitted comforts are beginning to stretch away from being something wearable. But I continue to wear it because it’s warm, and because it has some sort of meaning to me, probably coming from all the compliments of how comfortable it looks. Much to my wife’s chagrin (though, to her credit, she hasn’t said anything to me about it yet), I’m still holding on to this death bed’s sweater that looks like something Kurt Cobain would probably have said “Nah” to.

To me, that’s the meaning of a gift. And it isn’t to say there aren’t things I’d like to have. I’d love some new furniture, or a Nintendo Wii. I’d enjoy some new clothes. I could use some new socks and shoes. I could always appreciate a couple of DVDs and CDs I’ve had my eyes on for a while. But I don’t need them. As a new father, I’m of the opinion that I want things that will help my family and my son have a good holiday together, not just me and my desire for a Mario Kart video game. Which got me thinking…what do you get someone who really doesn’t need anything, but wants to make someone happy?

A jug of apple cider
Along the roads leading to the North Georgia mountains (and maybe your neck of the woods), you’ll find stand after stand of farmers selling their wares. “BOLD PEA-NUTZ” is a popular one, along with fresh tomatoes. With the weather turning colder, you’ll find vegetables a little harder to come by. But something that never goes away, even through the winter, are the folks out on the side of the road with jugs of fresh apple cider. You can get gallons of goodness, and nothing can top the taste of it once you get it home and heat it up with a little cinnamon and (maybe) some sugar. It’ll make the whole house smell like the holidays.

Cloth board games
Lots of garage sales are going on right now, as people are doing what they can to possibly make a little cash in the declining economy. Some fun items can be found among the musty clothes and china lamps. I’ve seen regular board games, but if you’re doing the right hunting, you can find rug-sized versions of classics like Candy Land and Chutes and Ladders, complete with the same accessories and fun stuff that comes in the box. The difference here is being able to lay out on the floor with the family and have a more “life-sized” version of the same game!

Records
Claire and I just dusted off our record player for the first time in a couple of years. We pulled out and combined our records and started playing them for Will. There wasn’t a single one he didn’t enjoy, from John Denver & The Muppets to some really hot Steve Winwood album. And we had a lot of fun playing them for each other. You can get records for very good values just about anywhere. The market for them is growing, unlike CDs, and there are plenty of things available only on records that you can’t find on the Internet (either for free or on the pay services). Pay a visit to your local record store and head for the clearance rack to see what you can find. If you know the person you’re buying for, chances are they’re going to love getting that solo album by the lead singer of Yes more than you think.

Baby clothes
Before Willard was born, we received bags and bags of baby clothes from some incredibly generous friends who had a child about a year prior to our son being born. And it was great. First, it’s a big money-saver. Second, there is nothing cuter in the world than baby clothes. We get to dress our son up in some great outfits. If you have a surplus of baby clothes, and you know someone who is in need, it’s a great thing to do for the new parents and a good way to make some room in your house.

Some of your time
As much as Claire and I love snoogling over our son and smiling at him and spending as much time as possible with him, sometimes we love to take time for ourselves that we just don’t have—one of us has to stay with Will, and the other is either at work or sometimes otherwise indisposed. I imagine it’s the same with any parent, even with different situations. Offer to watch your friend’s, sibling’s or child’s children for a little while so Mom and Dad (or, Husband and Wife) can go out on a date (or stay in for peace and quiet). It’ll make for happier parents and happier couples, and it’s one of the best gifts you can give someone.

Of course, not all of these items will work for everyone. What if you’re allergic to apples? (You could try peach or pear cider, probably from the same guy on the side of the road.) What if you can only find those cloth board games at a store? The point is, maybe try getting something that everyone can enjoy in a new family. Little babies are pretty easy to entertain, and when they’re entertained, mom and dad usually follow right along behind them.

After all, my son laughing and staring at a Steve Winwood record made my day.