The Pica Perspective

This radio program was a surprise

When I decided to do a radio program on ADHD, my original plan was to look into whether the need for Ritalin was myth or reality. I still think that would be a great topic for a show, but it didn't turn out to be this one. Instead, as I interviewed Drs. Peter Breggin and Andrew Adesman, the discussion turned to whether or not ADHD was a real disorder.

This was a fascinating experience for me. I'd chosen Dr. Adesman as a guest for his more traditional approach and Dr. Breggin because he was anti-Ritalin. I tend to be far more nontraditional in my approach to medicine and health and expected to be fully on Dr. Breggin's side during this discussion. (As the radio host, I'm expected to maintain my objectivity, but that doesn't mean I don't have opinions!) But I was in for a surprise.

I certainly agreed with Dr. Breggin's claim that restrictive school environments often contribute to the problem of "overactive" children. And I of definitely of the opinion that ADHD is overdiagnosed. And while I was fascinated with Dr. Breggin's contention that ADHD is not even a real disorder, I was most surprised by his claim that it can be solved through proper discipline at home!

What do you think? Click here to listen, and then leave us a comment!

Kids less happy as they're more plugged in?

Does consuming a lot of media make children's lives more troubled, or do troubled kids simply consume more media?

That's the question which has arisen from a new survey from the Kaiser Family Foundation that shows that the more media they use, the less happy young people tend to be.

I won't propose an answer to that question here. But I will comment on the finding that kids spend more than 7-1/2 hours a day with electronic media, up from about six hours in 1999. One respondent, a college freshman, said that she and her friends have "six or seven ways" to get in touch most days: cellphone, texting, instant messaging, email, Facebook, Twitter and Skype videoconferencing.

That's a lot of contact...but not a lot of contact.

Dr. Sharon Heller, in The Vital Touch, wrote: "Every caress, stroke, hug, squeeze, and playful game; all the rocking, swaying, swinging, spinning; all the sights, sounds, smells, and tastes in our world -- all feed [the] need for sensory input and spark the neurons in her brain to grow and branch out to encompass other neurons."

Does our need for touch end once we're out of arms? Haven't I read somewhere that humans need a certain number of hugs per day to survive and a greater number to thrive? Not to mention the research showing that body language communicates far more than our words. Body language has no part of phoning, texting, instant messaging, emailing, etc., etc. Which means communication is not nearly as effective as talking the good old-fashioned way: face to face.

Seems like maybe I answered the question after all...What are your thoughts?

To see the way media usage broke down, click here.

One more reason to get the kids up and out the door

Nearsightedness, or myopia, has increased significantly over the past 30 years. The interesting part is why.

Dr. Don Mutti, of the College of Optometry at the Ohio State University, suspected that after genetics, things like reading were probably a big cause. He has followed a group for the past 20 years, from childhood to adulthood, to see who is most likely to develop myopia. And what he found was that time spent outdoors during childhood was important!

This is from a post at NPR:

"If you have two nearsighted parents and you engage in a low level of outdoor activity, your chances of becoming myopic by the eighth grade are about 60 percent," he says. "If children engaged in over 14 hours per week of outdoor activity, their chances of becoming nearsighted were now only about 20 percent. So it was quite a dramatic reduction in the risk of becoming myopic."

At first, that seems to support the theory that near-work causes nearsightedness: The more time kids spend indoors, the more likely they're watching TV or reading a book.

But then Mutti and his colleagues looked closely at the kids before they became nearsighted. And the reading and close-up things they did didn't predict who'd be nearsighted later. "What we found is that near-work had no influence at all," he says. "Children really aren't doing any more or less near-work — the children who are becoming nearsighted."

So that's another mystery. Why, then, does spending time outdoors make a difference? At first, scientists thought the outdoor exercise was the key. But it turned out kids who get indoor exercise don't get the benefits of reduced myopia.

Now, researchers are studying whether outdoor light somehow changes the way the eye grows. "Light levels might have a beneficial effect on the eye," notes Mutti.

Here's another thought: Neurophysiologist Carla Hannaford, in her wonderful book, Smart Moves: Why Learning Is Not All in Your Head, asserts that our eyes must be actively moving in order for learning to take place.

As you can imagine, the visual process is technical and complex. What you may not realize is that vision is dependent on integration with other body systems, including the sense of touch and motor experience. Carla tells us that less than 10% of the visual process occurs in the eyes, with the remaining 90% taking place "in the brain from association with touch and proprioception" (our sense of the body's position in space).

It is in three-dimensional environments like the outdoors, Carla says, that the eyes are "in constant motion gathering sensory information to build intricate image packages necessary for learning. The brain integrates these image packages with other sensory information like touch and proprioception to build a visual perception system. The eyes are equipped with different kinds of visual focus, of which three-dimensional focus is vital for learning, yet we emphasize two-dimensional focus in learning situations."

As I've noted often in the past, Mother Nature gave us everything we need; we're just doing a darn good job of ignoring her. So, no matter the competition from computers and televisions, no matter the weather -- get those kids up off their behinds and outside, and you'll all have plenty of reasons to sing "I Can See Clearly Now!"

Baby Einstein Saga Continues

This week the New York Times reported that William Clark, co-founder of the company that created the "Baby Einstein" videos, is going to court. He has asked a judge to order the University of Washington to release records relating to two studies that linked attention problems and delayed language development in young children to television viewing.

“All we’re asking for is the basis for what the university has represented to be groundbreaking research,” Clark said. “Given that other research studies have not shown the same outcomes, we would like the raw data and analytical methods from the Washington studies so we can audit their methodology, and perhaps duplicate the studies, to see if the outcomes are the same."

Fair enough. What gets me is the comment made by his wife, Julie Aigner-Clark, who started Baby Einstein with him in 1996.

“I’m proud of what I made,” Ms. Aigner-Clark said in an e-mail message. “Welcome to the 21st century. Most people have televisions in their houses, and most babies are exposed to it. And most people would agree that a child is better off listening to Beethoven while watching images of a puppet than seeing any reality show that I can think of.”

Hmm. Those are the only two choices for baby? Watching a DVD or watching a reality show? Come on, now.

What Could Nickelodeon Be Thinking?

This from the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood:

Nickelodeon, the children's media empire, is promoting sexualized and violent video games to children as young as preschoolers.  Its popular gaming website, Addictinggames.com, features games such as Candy the Naughty Cheerleader, Bloody Day ("Back alley butchering has never been so much fun. . . . How many kills can you rack?") and the Perry the Sneak series, where gamers take the role of a peeping Tom  trying to catch revealing glimpses of scantily clad and naked women.  Nickelodeon promotes, and links directly to, Addictinggames.com on its Nick.com website for children and even on NickJr.com, its website for preschoolers.

Tell Nick:  Stop Promoting "Naughty" Games to Young Children.

After some of the games - and Nick's links to them on its websites for children - were featured in this YouTube video and this report on Good Morning America,Nickelodeon pulled a few (e.g. Vanessa Naughty Pics and Whack Your Ex). But Nickelodon was clearly more concerned about protecting its reputation than protecting children. They continue to link to AddictingGames.com on Nick.com and NickJr.com.

AddictingGames.com, which boasts about its large collection of "naughty games" and "shooting games," continues to features many games with sexual and violent content, including the following. All descriptions are taken directly from AddictingGames.com:

* Stick Figure Penalty Chamber 2:  "Small, black, stick figure death can happen in so many different ways! Do you choose shotgun to the face, or acid in the lungs?"

* Naughty Classroom - "Hot for teacher?...Here's your chance to fulfill your ultimate childhood fantasy.  Naughty Classroom will leave you begging for more homework."

* Dark Cut 2 - "More macho surgery! No anesthetic. No antiseptics. Just rusty knives, corn whiskey, and lots of blood!"

* Foxy Sniper - "Don't hate me because I'm beautiful. Fear me, because I am a crack shot! Assassination isn't just a job; it's a way of life."

Please take a moment to demand that Nickelodeon stop promoting sexualized and violent videogames to young children. And be sure to let other parents know what Nick is up to. Please spread the word to friends and family and promote this campaign on Twitter and Facebook.

.

Do You Say "No" to Your Children?

When I was a kid, my parents frequently said "no" to me. "No" meant "no," and if I questioned it, I got "the look" -- you know, the one that can silence a kid fast. Did it have a negative impact on me? Not so I can tell, but then there's no way to be certain I wouldn't have turned out significantly different if my parents had offered me an explanation every time they responded in the negative...

Back then, parents didn't think twice about saying no. That's not the case today. Whether it's in response to a child's request for candy, or to a child behaving badly, today's parents are terrified that they'll somehow warp their child for life if they use the word. One young mom even told me that she never said no to her 4-year-old son because she didn't want to stifle his creativity! (OK.) And, of course, early childhood professionals are fearful of saying no to the children in their care because they might bring down the wrath of the children's parents on their heads.

In this week's featured interview on Body, Mind and Child two experts tackle this delicate issue, seeking to help parents and educators find the balance between being too restrictive and too permissive. Weighing in on the issue is Dr. Cary S. Chugh, a clinical child psychologist known for his innovative approach to discipline with children. His new book is Don't Swear with Your Mouth Full! The second guest, Cynthia G. Whitham, L.C.S.W., is Associate Director of the UCLA Parenting & Children’s Friendship Program. Whitham has been training parents for over 20 years and is the author of The Answer is NO: Saying It & Sticking to It.

Where Dr. Cary says that “no” should rarely be used and that, when used, should be accompanied with an explanation of why, Cynthia Whitham believes there are times when parents need to simply say no without an explanation.

“There are times you do just say no. A lot of times parents are asking me, if you don’t explain they won’t know that it’s wrong. I think a lot of time children are choosing to do things knowing that they’re wrong, knowing that it will make their parents mad,” said Whitham. 

Take a listen (click on the Parents Channel tab at www.bamradionetwork) and let me know your thoughts!

"Don't Talk to Strangers": Helpful or Harmful Message?

Have you ever smiled at a child in the grocery store, only to have them look at you in terror -- as though you were going to snatch them from the cart? If so, chances are good that child has been told -- probably forcefully and repeatedly -- not to talk to strangers.

Lenore Skenazy says "Don't talk to strangers" is one of the most useless pieces of advice ever foisted on us to foist on children. Lenore, author of Free-Range Kids: Giving Our Children the Freedom We Had without Going Nuts with Worry, and one of my two guests on this week's featured BAM interview, believes it gives children the wrong message: that anyone they don't know is a stranger and not to be trusted. This, she says, not only instills fear in children; also it leaves them without options when there is actual stranger danger. Debbie Johnston, Vice President of Instruction and Partnerships at ChildCare Education Institute, strongly believes that parents and early childhood professionals must warn children about stranger danger.

What do you think? We live in a culture of fear, but is there justification for all the fear we're fed? Lenore, along with such experts as noted educator David Elkind and social historian Peter Stearns, says no. Freda Briggs, a professor emeritus in child development at the University of South Australia, contends that stranger danger is a myth. In Australia, for example, the odds of a child under 15 being murdered by a stranger are in the vicinity of one in 4 million. And according to U.S. Department of Justice statistics on violent crimes, between 1973 and 2002, out of every thousand children kidnapped, just one or two of them were abducted by strangers. As Lenore points out in the interview, driving in a car with mom is more likely than strangers to cause a child harm.

Admittedly, if I had young children, I'd probably follow them everywhere, hiding behind the bushes so they wouldn't know I was there. Heck, I might hide behind the bushes until they were driving. But I'd like to believe that common sense would prevail and I'd prevent my fears from becoming my children's.

Would I teach them not to talk to strangers? I think I prefer Lenore's suggestion. Listen to this dynamic and compelling interview and then share your opinion!

Toddlers & TV

As you probably already know, the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2001 recommended that children under the age of 2 watch no television. It caused quite a stir at the time, and I've been told by many parents and experts that few are following the recommendation.

Now comes a similar recommendation from the Australians.

Research by the Royal Melbourne Children's Hospital suggests that children under the age of two should not watch any TV at all. The researchers have written guidelines for the Federal Government as part of the Get Up and Grow guidelines to reduce childhood obesity. They are designed specifically for child care centers but also provide some advice for parents.

Statistics show that four-month-old infants in Australia watch on average 44 minutes of TV each day and children under the age of four with pay TV at home spend at least three hours a day in front of the screen.

A senior lecturer in Child Development at the University of South Australia, Glenn Cuppitt, says the new guidelines are a measure of desperation to encourage children to be active and to interact with others.

"A measure of desperation." Hmmm. When did active and interactive children become so uncommon that we had to resort to desperate measures to get them to move and play together? And, trust me, this is not the case only in Australia!

Race to Nowhere

This week's featured program on the BAM Radio Network is my interview with Vicki Abeles, lawyer-turned-filmmaker, whose new film, Race to Nowhere, premieres this week. Vicki decided to make a 
movie when she took a long, hard look at the stress school was causing her middle-school children. She wondered why their childhood was significantly different from her own, and she was troubled by what she found. Among the differences: very little time to play or socialize with friends and much more pressure around school and homework. Vicki told me her daughters did more homework than she was required to do in graduate school!

Yup, I said graduate school.

I highly recommend that you take a little trip over to Vicki's website and watch the brief trailer. Its quiet power may well bring tears to your eyes; it did to mine. While you're there you can also find a schedule of screenings, resources, and ideas for taking action.

Oh, yes; you should definitely listen to the interview, too!

Center on Media and Child Health Launches "Ask the Mediatrician"

Here's a press release from the Center on Media and Child Health!:

From cyberbullying and violent video games to social networking and sexting, parents are overwhelmed by the new media environment and how it affects their children. To help parents navigate this new and changing landscape, the Center on Media and Child Health (CMCH) at Children's Hospital Boston is launching Ask the Mediatrician^SM. Pediatrician, former Hollywood filmmaker, parent, and CMCH founder Michael Rich, MD, MPH, will tackle any and all questions parents have related to media and their child's health.

"As with a child's nutritional diet, we need to be cognizant of what media our children are consuming and how it affects them," says Dr. Rich, also an associate professor at Harvard Medical School. "At Ask the Mediatrician, we will provide parents with answers and recommendations rooted in science, not opinion."

Research shows that young people spend more time using media-TV, movies, music, computers, Internet, cell phones, magazines, and video games--than engaging in any other single activity except sleep. The media that children use and create are integral to their growing sense of selves, of the world, and of how they should interact with it. The influence of media has been linked to both negative health outcomes, such as smoking, obesity, sexual risk behaviors, eating disorders, anxiety, and violence, and to positive outcomes, such as positive social behavior, civic participation, tolerance, school readiness, knowledge acquisition, and improved self-image. These media effects are different for any given child.

The child's age, the content, context, and amount of media the child uses, and whether that use is active or critical need to be considered. Parents, teachers and others who work with children are encouraged to submit their questions at AsktheMediatrician.org, where Dr. Rich will prescribe age-appropriate media use recommendations and alternatives. Having conducted research and having built the only comprehensive database of scientific evidence on the effects of media, Dr. Rich and colleagues understand how media influence the physical, mental, and social health of children. This research, both from CMCH (accessible here) and from around the world, will be the basis on which answers and recommendations will be provided.

"We recognize that kids love media and there are positive as well as negative effects on them," adds Dr. Rich. "This new resource will give them the knowledge of how they are affected and provide action steps for parents to take in their own home, consistent with their own families, to help raise happy and healthy kids in the Media Age."