The Pica Perspective

In Defense of Unsupervised Kids!

Since beginning this blog last summer, I've addressed the issues of whether or not parents should regularly play with their children (July), parental fears keeping kids from unstructured outdoor play (September), and helicopter (hovering) parents (October). So it'll come as no surprise that I'm delighted by the results of a recent study showing that unsupervised kids are more sociable and more active!

Here are the key findings:

• Children allowed out without adult supervision are more active, being found at home less often. Statistically, they are more likely to be found playing out or visiting the homes of friends than children who aren't allowed out alone.
• Children walk faster and take a more direct route when an adult is present, but they do not use more energy than unaccompanied children. This is because unsupervised children move in a more meandering fashion as they investigate their environment and socialise with other children.
• Access to local open space is a significant factor in determining whether boys are allowed out of the house without an adult. 71% of those with access to open space were allowed out, compared to just 51% of those without such access.
• Of the three types of activity monitored during the study (walking, unstructured play and participation in organised clubs), walking used up the most activity calories.

Yup. I'm delighted!

Toxic Toys

Received this e-mail from MomsRising and thought it was definitely worth passing on -- especially considering that my last warning about lead in a specific toy resulted in at least one of my readers removing that toy from her home!

Sadly, one of the big stories this holiday season has been an epidemic of "toxic toys" -- exposing children to everything from lead to the date rape drug GHB. We've been horrified, not only at what this says about our national priorities, but also as moms we're left asking: "What toys are safe to buy for my own kids??"

Today, we're thrilled to tell you about a new tool to help you tell which toys are safe for your kids this holiday season. Our friends at HealthyToys.org tested over 1250 toys for common chemicals and have just made the results searchable online. Because the time you really want to know which toys are toxic is when you're shopping, we've partnered with them to make their database searchable via your mobile phone. Here's how it works:

Text healthytoys [toy name] to 41411

And we'll reply instantly with whether the toy tested "high" "med" or "low" for potentially dangerous toxins. Try it! Text "Healthytoys Elmo flashlight" to 41411. You'll get a reply right back to your phone with the test results for the Elmo flashlight by Sesame Street. Neat, eh? Take it with you shopping and tell your friends!

And then sign this petition to tell Congress, "We demand safe, lead-free toys for children. Congress must strengthen the agencies responsible for protecting kids from toxic products and remove the bureaucrats who are standing in the way." We should be able to buy our kids toys off the shelf without having to worry whether they're filled with dangerous chemicals.

Overweight Kids, Heart Disease, & Denial

If you're not familiar with Google Alerts, they're a wonderful way to learn when something important to you has appeared on the internet. I've signed up to receive alerts for children's sports, children's physical activity, and childhood obesity, among others. The latter is the one that nets me the most e-mails; the subject of childhood obesity is all over the internet: in news stories, columns, and blogs. And even though the alerts come daily and are never repeated, I often get the feeling that I've seen these stories before. Unfortunately, the same applies to the studies I'm alerted to. There's a redundancy about them that makes me want to yell, "Why do we need more studies? We already know the results; let's just get on with solving the problems!"

Nevertheless, I'm about to report on two recent studies -- neither of which offers surprising information -- but that I think we'd better take seriously.

The first, a long-term Danish study, reported at WebMD, shows that overweight children grow into adults at high risk of early heart disease and early heart death. The basis for that determination was data from 10,235 men and 4,318 women born in Copenhagen from 1930 to 1976. The bottom line: After the age of 7, overweight children have an increased risk of adult heart disease. The higher a child's body mass index, the higher the risk that the child will become an adult with heart disease.

With childhood obesity an escalating problem, experts predict that by 2020, 30% to 37% of 34-year-old men and 34% to 44% of 35-year-old women will be obese. By 2035, there could be up to a 16% increase in heart disease cases, with over 100,000 cases due to obesity. Harvard researcher David Ludwig (whom I recently interviewed for Body, Mind and Child) predicts that by 2050, the obesity crisis in this country will cut Americans' life expectancy by two to five years. That would equal the effect of all cancers combined.

All of this means that we really need to take the second study quite seriously. Because the report is brief, I'll excerpt it directly from the New York Times. Eric Nagourney wrote this piece titled "Growing Pains: Many Parents Fail to See Obesity in Children":

When researchers from the University of Michigan surveyed more than 2,000 parents about their children’s health, they heard some good news. Despite the growing obesity problem, many of these parents could report that their sons and daughters, at least, were “about the right weight.”

The numbers, alas, told another story. The parents were also asked to provide information about the children’s height and weight — and many of the 6-to-11- year-olds turned out to be obese. Yet more than 40 percent of their parents appeared unaware of this.

The findings grew out of the National Poll on Children’s Health by the C. S. Mott Children’s Hospital. The researchers found that over all, 25 percent of the children whose parents were surveyed were overweight or obese.

Among the parents of obese children ages 6 to 11, only 13 percent described their child as very overweight (the percentage was 31 percent for parents whose obese children were 12 to 17).

Dr. Matthew M. Davis, a pediatrician and internist who directed the poll, said he and other doctors wondered why parents who brought overweight children in for appointments so often did not seem concerned.

But, Dr. Davis said, “If they don’t actually perceive their children to have excess weight, then how can we realistically expect them to make changes?”

Maybe having the schools sent home notices to parents isn't such a bad idea after all?

Let Kids Be Kids

In my writing -- including here in this blog -- I've addressed the topics of recess and coddled kids but never in the same piece. Well, it appears the time has come to do so.

This morning a New York Times article titled "School Recess Gets Gentler, and the Adults Are Dismayed" caught my eye. It seems that the principal at a school in southeastern Connecticut has banned tag, dodgeball, kickball, soccer, and other "body-banging" activities. He doesn't want kids participating in anything that might hurt either their bodies or their feelings. According to the article, kids are even scolded for throwing Frisbees too hard, and balls are "practically controlled substances, parceled out under close supervision by playground monitors."

Of course, as the piece points out, this isn't the only school at which such nonsense is transpiring. Several schools, including those in Wyoming and Colorado (and, if I recall, Massachusetts), have banned tag. In Broward Country, Florida -- one of the country's largest school systems -- recess has become structured. And in Wyckoff, New Jersey, it's been transformed into a fitness class.

All of this defies the primary purpose of recess: to offer children an opportunity for unstructured physical activity! Recess is typically the only time of day during which children have choices to make. Not only is choice a principal factor in intrinsic motivation; it also contribute to problem-solving skills and social competence. And as far as the coddling is concerned, I just interviewed Dr. Stuart Brown for Body, Mind and Child yesterday. Dr. Brown is a former psychiatrist and founder of the National Institute for Play, and he talked specifically about the importance of rough-and-tumble play. Here's what the Institute's website has to say about it:

The importance of R&T play in animals and humans has been shown to be necessary for the development and maintenance of social awareness, cooperation, fairness and altruism. Its nature and importance are  generally unappreciated, particularly by early (preschool) teachers, who often see normal rough and tumble play behavior such as hitting, diving, wrestling, (all done with a smile, between friends who stay friends), not as a state of play, but one of anarchy that must be controlled.  A natural extension of the form -  as it naturally diminishes with age - is lifelong involvement in games, sports and group activities that not only tolerate, but enjoy creative tension. Lack of experience with this pattern of play hampers the normal give and take necessary for social mastery, and has been linked to poor control of violent impulses in later life.

I'm not suggesting, of course, that we let children do whatever they please. They need supervision and boundaries. But we have to stop bubble-wrapping them as though they were pieces of fine china!

One last note: According to a recent study, children in child-care centers play harder and longer when they have access to such portable play equipment as balls, hoops, riding toys, and jump ropes. So, just as parents should be thinking about "active" gifts for their children during this holiday season, early childhood professionals should also be adding the appropriate play equipment to their wish lists and allocating the funds for it in the new year!

Lead in Toys

I received this e-mail yesterday and want to share it with you -- because the more people who make a fuss, the sooner this situation will be resolved...

It's one thing to have state pride, but quite another to have state bias when it comes to protecting kids from unsafe toys. Apparently, Fisher-Price is stepping up and recalling unsafe toys...but only for their customers in Illinois.

After Consumer Reports magazine and the Attorney General of Illinois found that a red Fisher-Price toy blood pressure cuff contained lead at 7 to 9 times the legal limits in Illinois, Fisher-Price agreed to recall it.

But only in Illinois.

Until we strengthen federal law, we need to convince Fisher-Price to recall the lead-laced toys nationwide. While we are at it, we want them to take our Corporate Safety Challenge.

Please take a moment and urge Fisher-Price to recall the lead laden toy everywhere .

Fisher-Price is the first corporation we're directly challenging to sign on to our Corporate Safety Challenge. It's one way that we're holding corporations directly accountable for the products they sell. The more e-mails they get from you, the more likely they are to act, so click on the link and also forward this e-mail along to others to take action.

Ask Santa for Active Gifts!

With the holiday season fast approaching (wasn’t it just summer?), parents everywhere are putting together their gift lists and trying to find spare moments to sneak off to the stores. Considering the current emphasis on helping kids to be smarter, chances are good that many of the items on parents’ lists are “educational” products. The children, of course, are also making up lists, and chances are good that those lists consist primarily of the most-advertised items on TV.

Before hitting the stores, however, consider the fact that many of the so-called educational, as well as the popular, products involve sedentary participation. Then give some serious thought to how much time your child spends being physically active versus time spent stationary. The National Association for Sport and Physical Education, along with other health organizations, recommends that children engage in at least 60 minutes and up to several hours a day participating in unstructured physical activity. They further recommend that children not be sedentary for more than 60 minutes at a time except when sleeping.

Is your child meeting these recommendations?

We have a childhood obesity crisis raging, of course. But even if weight isn’t a problem for your child, physical activity is as necessary to optimal health as good foods. The human body was meant to be active! Recent research, in fact, links sitting with disease! And if it’s “educational” that matters, consider the fact that numerous studies have demonstrated that the most physically active children show greater academic performance, have higher test scores, and maintain a better attitude toward school. Part of the reason for all this is that moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity supplies the brain with oxygen, glucose, and water – “brain food.”

So, as you go off to the stores, think about movement-oriented toys and gifts. Select a hula hoop; balls in a variety of shapes, sizes, and textures; roller or ice skates; a jump rope; a Frisbee; juggling scarves; a shovel and pail; a little red wagon; a tricycle or bike; or a wading pool or swing set. When shopping for games, Twister has more to offer than a traditional board game. And CDs with lively music to dance to are a better choice than music videos!

Your child may be disappointed not to unwrap the most-advertised thingamajig, but she or he will thank you in the long run – and have a lot of fun, despite the initial disappointment, in the short run!

Health Club Memberships for the Little Ones

In my very first post for The Pica Perspective, I blogged about the rise in personal trainers for the preschool set. Yesterday I came across an article in the New York Times about the rise in health club memberships for toddlers and preschoolers. And you just know I can't let something like that go unnoticed -- especially when it's accompanied by a photo of children 2 to 4 years old doing leg lifts!

It seems a lot of moms with memberships at fitness clubs don't want to plop their little ones in the clubs' child-care rooms, where they too often do nothing more than watch TV. That's commendable. Unfortunately, these same moms also believe that their children should be doing something enriching. (I really used to like that word, but today's culture has made it almost as obnoxious as "self-esteem.") And the health clubs, sensing another great source of revenue when they see one, are accommodating them by offering classes in ... wait for it: salsa dancing! Of course, that's not the only option. Children 2 to 5 can also take rock climbing, trampoline jumping, soccer, hip-hop, and disco.

Honestly, I can barely write those words without an emotional reaction; but I don't know which emotion to experience: uproarious laughter or tears of frustration. The latter, I guess, when I read quotes like: "There is an opportunity for strengthening and conditioning, even at those little bitty ages" and "They are getting exposed to sports and team play, which I think is a beneficial skill to learn -- the earlier the better." Now there's a phrase -- "the earlier the better" -- I'd like to never again hear in relation to children.

As I pointed out in "Personal Trainers for the Preschool Set," it's not possible to accelerate children's development. But parents keep trying anyway. Also, early childhood is not the time for such structured activities as leg lifts and disco dancing! But where health clubs, specifically, are concerned, there are a lot of reasons why enrolling toddlers and preschoolers isn't a good idea. Here's just one: Children who are enrolled in health clubs may come to think of physical activity and fitness as things they have to go somewhere else to get. The possibility then exists that as they get older and life becomes busier, they'll eventually be unable to find the time to go to a health club or gym. Children should learn -- okay, the earlier the better -- that they don't have to go out of their way to move!

And here's just another little tidbit I came across this week, which also results from society's incessant need to push children to grow up too fast: According to a study published in Journal Watch Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, during 1990 to 2003 about 1.6 million children suffered soccer-related injuries. Although 87% of the injuries occurred in children ages 10 to 18, children ages 2 to 4 had a higher proportion of face and head or neck injuries and were more likely to be hospitalized than older children!

Well, that's my rant for the day. Thanks -- I needed that.