Is it time to return to caveman parenting?

Stone Age families didn't spank and relied on multiple caregivers to raise their kids, research claims

By Joan Raymond

msnbc.com contributor

updated 10/15/2010 8:15:17 AM ET

In 2-year-old Nate Macauley's world, the arms of mom and dad — and a small cadre of family friends — are always available for a snuggle, whether it's to help calm the toddler's woes, or just to keep him close. To his mom, Amy, the plentiful hugs and cuddles they lavish on Nate provide an important lesson.

"I want Nate to grow up to be a kind person," says the 33-year-old from Cleveland. "And the way we can do that is to show him kindness.”

The Macauleys' take on parenting — showing compassion for a little one just learning to navigate his world — sounds so easy even a caveman could do it.

In fact, that's just how doting Stone Age parents reared their children, according to three new studies presented this week at a University of Notre Dame conference. While our hunter-gatherer ancestors may not have been big on dental hygiene, they did get it right when it came to raising well-adjusted, empathetic children, says lead researcher Darcia Narvaez, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Notre Dame, whose research focuses on moral development of children.

“They instinctively knew what was right for a child, and children thrived because of that,” claims Narvaez, who discussed her research on hunter-gatherer societies at a meeting exploring the psychological, anthropological and biological conditions related to human development.

When every day brings a new report about packs of student bullies , teenage cyber-harrassment and even 6-year-old kindergarteners terrorizing their less-fashionable peers, a return to Stone Age parenting may be just what we need to reverse what’s widely being called a rampant “culture of mean,” the researchers suggest.

Hunter-gatherers , the human way of life until the agricultural revolution about 8,000 years ago, were responsivecaregivers, who didn’t let a baby cry it out. Moms breast-fed, probably for about five or six years. Cave kids had hours of unstructured free play, with children of all ages. And the little Pebbles and Bamm-Bamms of that Paleolithic period probably had multiple caregivers who provided nurturing and love. Cavemoms and dads didn’t spank their kids. Rather, they were the first adopters of positive touch, constantly carrying, cuddling and holding their children.

Many of our modern parenting practices are in direct opposition to our Stone Age brethren. The result: kids with a skewed sense of moral behavior, poor social skills, high rates of anxiety and depression, and a host of other ills, according to Narvaez. As one example, college kids today are about 40 percent less empathetic (a trait measured by standardized tests) compared to college students just 30 years ago, a study from the University of Michigan found.

Granted, much of the prehistoric parenting style was directly related to survival, especially against big-toothed, hungry predators that could eat an entire extended family in one sitting. But research shows that many of these ancient practices do result in positive benefits to a kid’s psyche and health.

Take that multiple caregiver scenario, for example.

“Humans are incredibly weak, but incredibly adaptable, and we knew we needed to create alliances to help us out,” says James McKenna, Notre Dame's Rev. Edmund P. Joyce, C.S.C., professor of anthropology. “Babies needed to be protected. A group of people who really care for an infant provides more protection than just mom and dad.” 

Non-structured free play improves mental health and enhances intelligence. Longer-term breast-feeding boosted the immune systems of Stone Age kids, helping to protect them from disease. And with all that affection they received, they grew into happy, well-adjusted adults, because cuddling and holding infants helps boost neurologic development.

When born, a baby is “a big bundle of nerves and sensory systems,” with little regulation for self-control, says Narvaez. Because babies are “experience dependent,” caregivers become “external psychobiological regulators,” helping shape the babies brain to better deal with stress. As the brain matures, this so-called “external, caregiver based regulation” gives way to internal regulation, as the baby learns to comfort itself.

“Babies that learn that their distress is soothed don’t develop a pattern of very extreme emotional shifts as they mature,” Narvaez says. “Their brains aren’t stressed.”

The caveman studies make sense, say children’s health experts. “There seems to be a a critical period where human beings need physical affection and touch,” says clinical psychologist Carolyn Landis, associate professor pediatrics at Rainbow Babies & Children’s Hospital in Cleveland. “It’s important to remind people how important a warm, responsive parent is to a child’s development.”

How our parenting styles got so far from our evolutionary roots is anyone’s guess. Our “no coddling” philosophy may have started back in the late 1920s with behaviorist James Watson’s theory of child rearing that included respect, coupled with emotional detachment. Religious ideologies that look at children as inherently evil may have played a role, says Narvaez. 

And it may simply be the natural course of evolution, as we morphed from hunter-gatherers to smart-phone wielding captains of commerce who, unfortunately, have little time to pick up a child and simply cuddle. But that’s the price of an industrialized society, says anthropologist McKenna.

“Teaching parents how to love their children isn’t something that we ever thought we would have to teach,” he says.

Getting back to caveman parenting isn't that tough, however. “All parents need to know is to trust their instincts,” Narvaez says. “Babies need touch. When I hear a parent say ‘I’m going to let my baby cry,’ it just breaks my heart.”

Mom Amy Macauley, who works two part-time jobs and attends college, doesn’t think it makes much sense either.

“It’s not easy, but I can cuddle Nate and do Facebook at the same time,” she laughs. “Parents can find a way to work it out.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39655015/ns/health-kids_and_parenting/

Where’s The Evidence? 10 Ways Modern Obstetrics Ignores Evidence

by Birth Sense on Sunday, October 17, 2010 at 5:00pm

I was recently both amused and not surprised to read a comment written by a physician who was disparaging midwives for their lack of scientific research and evidence-based practice. The physician wrote:

“Modern obstetrics, in contrast, has always been, and continues to be based on scientific research.”

I will be one of the first to admit that midwives have been guilty of poor interpretation of statistics, embracing various clinical practices and promoting them as if they were evidence based when in reality they are not, and recommending things to their clients for which they have no evidence of benefit. A clear example of this is the many midwives who still recommend evening primrose oil (EPO) to their clients in order to “ripen” the cervix, even though study after study has cast doubt upon EPO’s efficacy.

But what about the physician’s comment that modern obstetrics is based on science? Could this be a case of the Emporer that has no clothes? Modern obstetrics is riddled with accepted procedures that demonstrate how wide the gap is between practice and evidence.

• Inductions/elective c-sections for suspected macrosomia (big baby): I can’t count the times that I have had a patient put on my schedule for induction or elective c-section because the OB thinks her baby is getting big. The best evidence shows that early induction or elective c-section have not improved outcomes for these babies, and may carry greater risk of complications. Evidence, please?
• Pitocin to speed labor: Although evidence shows that pitocin given without indication of medical need is not beneficial and may increase fetal distress and/or risk of c-section, it continues to be widely used for any (or no) reason. What science supports this practice?
• Amniotomy to speed labor: In my practice, I am almost always called by the nurse at some point early in the woman’s labor to “come and pop her bag and get this baby out”. Despite the clear evidence that amniotomy does not significantly speed labor, and carries with it a risk of infection and increased fetal intolerance of labor, this practice is nearly universally performed on laboring women. How is this based on science?
• Continuous electronic fetal monitoring. Another “sacred cow” of obstetrics that is not evidence based. For low and moderate risk labors, intermittent monitoring has been shown to have outcomes as good as with continuous monitoring, without the increased rate of c-section associated with continuous monitoring. Where’s the evidence?
• Requirement of “immediate” emergency services for women attempting a VBAC. Although the NIH states there is little evidence to support this recommendation, it continues to be the standard practice. The effect of this policy is to create barriers to VBAC availability for many women. Every OB I talk to about this problem admits there is not adequate evidence for this requirement, but seems at a loss (or doesn’t care) what to do about it. What science is this continued practice based upon?
• Episiotomy: Still practiced by physicians in as many as 20% of births. This procedure was taught for years as an essential to reducing pelvic floor problems in women later in life. Only in the last few years has science supported what midwives have always practiced–avoiding episiotomy unless it is necessary to get the baby out quickly. If modern obstetrics is always based on science and evidence, why do we get these polar opposite policies?
• Routine ultrasound to estimate fetal size: Although we know late term ultrasounds are very inaccurate in estimation of fetal weight, obstetricians continue to order them. Where is the evidence for this practice?
• Immediate cord clamping: Most physicians I discuss this with will agree the evidence shows benefit of avoiding immediate cord clamping, but it is a hassle and takes a few minutes more. They largely feel that it just doesn’t matter that much. What science are they basing this opinon on?
• Spontaneous pushing: In spite of clear evidence of benefit of spontaneous pushing, most doctors and nurses are still using the old “hold your breath and count to ten” method of pushing. Most are aware of the evidence, but state they “feel” like more progress is being made when the mother is pushing long and hard. Is modern obstetrics based on fact or feelings?
• Supine Pushing: Perhaps one of the best-documented practices in modern obstetrics is supine pushing. This is a practice which has absolutely no evidence of benefit and plenty evidence of potential harm. Yet almost every OB I know routinely delivers his/her patients in the supine position. Why?

An organization which flip-flops as drastically as the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) did this year, in its dramatic loosening of VBAC guidelines, is hard pressed to defend the statement that their practices are evidence-based. Did we suddenly discover new science that told us the woman who was refused a VBAC early in 2010 on the grounds that she was risking death to her baby and herself, is now out of danger and can safely attempt a VBAC? Where is this amazing new information that ACOG discovered?

In my next post, I will be discussing the problem of evidence and how the average woman can decipher the myriad of conflicting information.

http://www.themidwifenextdoor.com/?p=1206

Marketing Circumcision: Lack of Ethics

Artificial Parenting VS Monkey Mothering.

"It never ceases to amaze me how humans in the 'civilised' world are so eager to distance themselves from most aspects of natural parenting. It’s as though we are trying to rise above our primate cousins and remove all traces of the ape in our children. I recently watched a nature show which told the story of an orphaned monkey. Its human foster parents took it to bed with them, fed it on demand, cuddled it and wore it in a sling constantly. They said they were just trying to provide it with as natural a monkey experience as possible. The first thing I thought was that I am instinctively being a monkey mother to my daughter. This led me to compare the parenting styles of other primates to our own."

Read more at... 

http://nippled.blogspot.com/2010/10/artificial-parenting-vs-monkey.html

The Story of Human Rights

Lobbying grows for the 10-month baby

by TRALEE PEARCE

Just how long does it take to make a human baby? Nine months is the going answer, but a small lobby of women believes that it’s more like 10 months and beyond.

Guardian columnist Viv Groskop gave the debate some gravitas with her Oct. 1 story of giving birth to her third child 20 days after his due date. “My first two babies were 15 days late,” she wrote. “But a day shy of week 43? That is virtually record-breaking – and, some would say, slightly mad.”

Generally, a baby is considered full-term when it reaches a gestational age of 37 weeks. A “post-term” baby is one that been gestating up to or beyond 42 weeks.

Ms. Groskop acted against her doctor’s orders for as long as she could before being induced. She says her son showed none of the classic signs of being a post-term baby: wrinkly or dry skin, long fingernails and high birth weight. “I wasn’t sure he was really late at all,” she wrote, adding that only about 5 per cent of babies arrive on their due date.

Many women welcome a medical nudge toward the delivery room, but Ms. Groskop is part of a vocal backlash against the “just-get-it-out” approach to overdue babies. For one thing, many women reject the increasingly standard practice of relying on early ultrasounds to date pregnancies rather than dating them from a woman’s last menstrual period.

The argument that the current definition of “post-term” is passé also dovetails with the natural-childbirth movement, especially because its advocates already resist routine inductions to bring on labour. They cite various complications, including the possibility of a cesarean section if the induction stalls.

“Many women feel that when we start messing with [induction], we’re not giving our bodies and our babies a chance to do what they feel like they need to do,” says Sam Leeson, a Toronto childbirth educator and doula.

Ms. Leeson says a majority of the supposedly post-term babies she sees in her practice emerge looking like merely full-term babies. “Often you think, ‘This baby would have been perfectly happy and probably would have benefited from staying inside a little longer.’ ”

Ina May Gaskin, often called the “mother of modern midwifery,” also gives the lobby extra weight. Ms. Gaskin, who runs a birthing centre in Tennessee called The Farm and has an obstetrical manoeuvre named after her (it dislodges an infant’s shoulder during birth without drugs or surgery), is lobbying for 43 weeks to be the new normal.

A Facebook site has popped up in praise of the “10-month mama.” Member Cindy Wallach happily crossed the 42-week mark this week, but “you’d think I was dangling my baby over a pit of hungry tigers the way people are reacting.”

Ms. Wallach, who lives in Annapolis, Md., reports that all her tests are looking good. She and her brother were also 10-month babies, she adds. “I only wish my care providers had as much faith in the process as I do.”

The most recent guidelines of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada recommend “membrane sweeping,” a process that is believed to stimulate labour as early as 38 weeks. They also suggest that women who are 41 to 42 weeks pregnant should be offered an induction, which involves such measures as prostaglandin gel applied to the cervix and/or oxytocin administered intravenously.

The 2008 guidelines are based on a review of scientific literature that found evidence inductions decrease the risk of stillborn babies or babies who die in childbirth (without increasing the chances of a cesarean section).

There are other risks associated with giving birth to a post-term baby: The baby-nourishing organ, the placenta, can deteriorate and not provide well for the baby; it can be difficult to deliver a baby who has grown too big; and the longer a baby gestates, the greater the chance that he or she will defecate into the amniotic fluid, which can lead to infection if aspirated.

But with careful monitoring of the baby and mother’s health, mothers-to-be can negotiate their way to the post-term birth they desire.

The longest-gestating baby that Rebecca Serroul, a Kitchener, Ont., doula and childbirth educator, has helped to bring into the world was at 43 weeks and three days. Her client was certain that the ultrasound-determined due date was wrong, because she knew exactly when she had conceived. “She really felt they were about a week and a half off, so she was willing to go two more days than that before she was willing to be induced,” Ms. Serroul says.

In the end, the client was watched closely by doctors instead of the midwife she had chosen (in Canada, midwives transfer care to obstetricians for deliveries past 41.5 weeks). She went into labour naturally and gave birth to a healthy 10-pound baby. “It was a beautiful birth, in which she had a lot of control,” Ms. Serroul says. 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/family-and-relationships/lobbying-grows-for-the-10-month-baby/article1757689/?cmpid=rss1&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheGlobeAndMail-Front+%28The+Globe+and+Mail+-+Latest+News%29

Nipplephobia: When Mammals May Not Feed Their Young

by Danelle Frisbie


We, as humans, are the only mammal that would ever be crazy enough to look down on the natural, normal, healthy feeding of our own kind. Much to our detriment.
In her new book, Ina May's Guide to Breastfeeding, Ina May Gaskin discusses nipplephobia in the United States. She asks, "In what species besides our own would adult males or females harass a mother in the act of nourishing her young? Such behavior would not occur to any other creature."


I wholeheartedly agree with her next observation:


I find this kind of behavior neurotic at best, but when it represents the norm for millions of people, I think we have reached the realm of near-psychosis - mass mental illness. If we humans watched adult birds diving and pecking at mother birds as they attempted to stuff worms and insects into the gaping beaks of their chicks, we would think we were watching a horror movie about birds gone mad. It is horrible to see adults behaving in an infantile way that doesn't nurture the generations to come.


Although really, the psychotic manner in which we treat breastfeeding mothers and their young is not even 'infantile.' In fact, infants are the ones who, when left to their own accord, have the feeding/thriving skills down pretty well. It is us adults and our modern ways, void of any trust of the perfect, primal mother-baby dance of balance, who mess it all up. As Gabrielle Palmer writes in her masterpiece work, The Politics of Breastfeeding, "It is almost unknown for a mammal in her normal environment to produce live young and be unable to produce the milk they need." We simply do not find 'supply issues' in any mammal species - other than those which have only recently surfaced among the human mammal when she is not fully supported and empowered in the natural, normal feeding of her young. [This normal environment also includes a mother being able to keep her baby in his/her natural carry mammal baby habitat (we, as humans, are 'carry mammals') which is on or close-by her chest 24-7 until s/he is old enough to voyage away from Mom solo]. Palmer also reminds us that, "for 99% of our existence on this earth, humans survived without any milk other than [human] milk." You don't say?!?!


I was recently reminded through a real-life example of the powers and 'magic' of human milk. My son caught a cold as we traveled the country (in and out of germy airports and hotel rooms as I guest lectured at several universities). At 14-months he still breastfeeds whenever he feels like it, but I wanted to zap the sniffles and oozing eyes before they got any worse. I pumped a little fresh milk and used a dropper to place a few drops in the corners of his (closed) eyes and a couple drops in each nostril. This is not the most fun experience in the world for a toddler...but neither is a cold. Packed full of antibodies, antivirals, antibacterials, white blood cells, stem cells, glyconutrients, and other healing components we have yet to understand, the breastmilk worked its magic and my son was back to perfect health within 22 hours. What pharmaceutical could possibly produce such results with a virus (and without any negative side effects)?!


And Palmer agrees:
If a multinational company developed a product that was a nutritionally balanced and delicious food; a wonder drug that both prevented and treated disease, cost almost nothing to produce and could be delivered in quantities controlled by consumers' needs, the announcement of this find would send its shares rocketing to the top of the stock market. The scientists who developed the product would win prizes, and the wealth and influence of everyone involved would increase dramatically. Women have been producing such a miraculous substance, breastmilk, since the beginning of human existence...


If society were organized so that the true baby milk manufacturers, women, earned the rewards they deserve for their production, the [artificial] baby food industry would dwindle and much of the poverty that causes infant disease and death would disappear. Helping and supporting women to breastfeed would save more children's lives than any other public health preventive intervention, more even than immunization, or improved water and sanitation.


It is difficult for me to express the deep love affair I have with breastmilk. This substance - one which is free for us to manufacture, is the ultimate in human baby feeding AND human health. There are no 'negatives' to the natural feeding of the human species. We need to jump in and encourage, support, celebrate all mothers around us in the primal, peaceful care of their young. Humanity, quite literally, depends on it. For our sake, I just hope we can squash our nipplephobia as quickly and urgently as breastmilk eradicated my son's cold.

http://www.drmomma.org/2009/10/nipplephobia-when-mammals-may-not-feed.html