Statistic

  • 9
    Blogs
  • 3
    Active Bloggers

View By Date

Tags

  • 15 Oct 2015
    The Truth About Cancer – A Global Quest 9 part docu-series is now playing each episode LIVE through October 22nd, you still have time but hurry, you don’t want to miss another show!   Even if you missed the series premier on October 13th, you’ve still got time.   The Truth About Cancer – A Global Quest is an undertaking that one single episode couldn’t possibly cover…   So this event will be ongoing for the next 9 full days.   Each episode is packed full of new and amazing information, survivor stories and much more in our pursuit to find a cure and eradicate cancer… once and for all.     Please invite your whole family and watch this explosive documentary series and discover the incredible work these brave individuals are doing to find a cure.   It’s 100% Free to watch… but don’t wait another second, register above and get started watching right away.   You’ll be amazed at what you discover. Ty Bollinger   The Truth About Cancer: A Global Quest" 9-part docu-series that premieres for free  Click on the image below!
    173 Posted by Nutriservice Inc.
  • The Truth About Cancer – A Global Quest 9 part docu-series is now playing each episode LIVE through October 22nd, you still have time but hurry, you don’t want to miss another show!   Even if you missed the series premier on October 13th, you’ve still got time.   The Truth About Cancer – A Global Quest is an undertaking that one single episode couldn’t possibly cover…   So this event will be ongoing for the next 9 full days.   Each episode is packed full of new and amazing information, survivor stories and much more in our pursuit to find a cure and eradicate cancer… once and for all.     Please invite your whole family and watch this explosive documentary series and discover the incredible work these brave individuals are doing to find a cure.   It’s 100% Free to watch… but don’t wait another second, register above and get started watching right away.   You’ll be amazed at what you discover. Ty Bollinger   The Truth About Cancer: A Global Quest" 9-part docu-series that premieres for free  Click on the image below!
    Oct 15, 2015 173
  • 14 May 2014
    Some years back, I remember a television actor making a public service announcement suggesting parents have dinner with their kids maybe once or twice a week. I was flabbergasted - there actually had to be a public service announcement to tell people this?!   Then I realized that in our society, we probably do. The notion of mommies and daddies, home and hearth, and meals with your own kids are becoming less and less the portrait of America.   According to a study, "The average parent spends 38.5 minutes per week in meaningful conversation with his or her child."   Let me repeat that: Only 38.5 minutes in an entire week!   By simply eating dinner together each night and making an effort to talk to your kids, you can quadruple that number. You'll get to know your kids. Isn't that the point of having a family?   According to Harvard research, "Family dinners are more important than play, story time, and other family events in the development of a child's vocabulary." The dinner table is the social center of families, so it is no wonder that's where our kids learn to talk. It gives them "real live" demos and practice in speech and social interactions.   Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine show that frequent family meals are associated with "a lower risk of smoking, drinking, pot use, depressive symptoms, and suicidal thoughts. Kids between the ages of 11 and 18 also get better grades." Wow. All of that is helped just by having dinner every night with your kids?!   The archives also reveal that family meals are "related to better nutritional intake and decreased risk for unhealthy weight control practices. Families eating meals together 'every day' generally consume higher amounts of important nutrients [such as] calcium, fiber, iron, vitamins B6, B12, C, and E, and consume less overall fat compared to families who 'never' or 'only sometimes' eat meals together." This is probably because mommy cooked dinner.   Additionally, The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University found that "the more often teenagers have dinner with their parents, the less time they spend with boyfriends or girlfriends, and the less they are going to be sexually active." Not only do your kids have less time to hang out, but having a really good relationship with you makes them less likely to search for closeness by becoming sexually active. This is why you see a lot of young sexual activity in divorced families where mommy decided she didn't need a man.   A study conducted by the University of Minnesota also showed "adolescent girls who have frequent family meals, and a positive atmosphere during those meals, are less likely to have eating disorders." When I read that, I couldn't help but be reminded of my own family. During my last couple years of high school, I went down the anorexia path. We had dinner every night as a family, but it was a nightmare because my mom and dad were always angry about something. The atmosphere at dinner was not pleasant. So, it's not just being at home that makes the difference. You have to make family dinners a good experience.   Another survey asked kids, "What's the most important part of the dinner?" What do you think their answers were? The food? No! 54 percent said the important part of dinner was sharing, catching up, talking, and interacting.   The surveyors also asked teens, "Would you say your parents regularly make time to check-in with you and find out what's happening with you or not?" Compared to teens who have frequent family dinners, teens who have infrequent family dinners were almost two-and-a-half times more likely to report that their parents don't bother to check-in with them. Teens who have frequent family dinners are twice as likely to spend 21 hours or more per week (an average of at least 3 hours per day) with their parents.   The bottom line? Your family structure and dynamic affects your kids, especially at dinnertime.   Excerpted from www.drlaura.com (Highly recommend her website)
    3059 Posted by Sharon Ray-Director
  • Some years back, I remember a television actor making a public service announcement suggesting parents have dinner with their kids maybe once or twice a week. I was flabbergasted - there actually had to be a public service announcement to tell people this?!   Then I realized that in our society, we probably do. The notion of mommies and daddies, home and hearth, and meals with your own kids are becoming less and less the portrait of America.   According to a study, "The average parent spends 38.5 minutes per week in meaningful conversation with his or her child."   Let me repeat that: Only 38.5 minutes in an entire week!   By simply eating dinner together each night and making an effort to talk to your kids, you can quadruple that number. You'll get to know your kids. Isn't that the point of having a family?   According to Harvard research, "Family dinners are more important than play, story time, and other family events in the development of a child's vocabulary." The dinner table is the social center of families, so it is no wonder that's where our kids learn to talk. It gives them "real live" demos and practice in speech and social interactions.   Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine show that frequent family meals are associated with "a lower risk of smoking, drinking, pot use, depressive symptoms, and suicidal thoughts. Kids between the ages of 11 and 18 also get better grades." Wow. All of that is helped just by having dinner every night with your kids?!   The archives also reveal that family meals are "related to better nutritional intake and decreased risk for unhealthy weight control practices. Families eating meals together 'every day' generally consume higher amounts of important nutrients [such as] calcium, fiber, iron, vitamins B6, B12, C, and E, and consume less overall fat compared to families who 'never' or 'only sometimes' eat meals together." This is probably because mommy cooked dinner.   Additionally, The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University found that "the more often teenagers have dinner with their parents, the less time they spend with boyfriends or girlfriends, and the less they are going to be sexually active." Not only do your kids have less time to hang out, but having a really good relationship with you makes them less likely to search for closeness by becoming sexually active. This is why you see a lot of young sexual activity in divorced families where mommy decided she didn't need a man.   A study conducted by the University of Minnesota also showed "adolescent girls who have frequent family meals, and a positive atmosphere during those meals, are less likely to have eating disorders." When I read that, I couldn't help but be reminded of my own family. During my last couple years of high school, I went down the anorexia path. We had dinner every night as a family, but it was a nightmare because my mom and dad were always angry about something. The atmosphere at dinner was not pleasant. So, it's not just being at home that makes the difference. You have to make family dinners a good experience.   Another survey asked kids, "What's the most important part of the dinner?" What do you think their answers were? The food? No! 54 percent said the important part of dinner was sharing, catching up, talking, and interacting.   The surveyors also asked teens, "Would you say your parents regularly make time to check-in with you and find out what's happening with you or not?" Compared to teens who have frequent family dinners, teens who have infrequent family dinners were almost two-and-a-half times more likely to report that their parents don't bother to check-in with them. Teens who have frequent family dinners are twice as likely to spend 21 hours or more per week (an average of at least 3 hours per day) with their parents.   The bottom line? Your family structure and dynamic affects your kids, especially at dinnertime.   Excerpted from www.drlaura.com (Highly recommend her website)
    May 14, 2014 3059
  • 02 Apr 2014
    Source: Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs   In a study of 14,000 US children, 40 percent lack strong emotional bonds -- what psychologists call 'secure attachment' -- with their parents that are crucial to success later in life, according to a new report. The researchers found that these children are more likely to face educational and behavioral problems. Their analysis shows that about 60 percent of children develop strong attachments to their parents, which are formed through simple actions, such as holding a baby lovingly and responding to the baby's needs. Such actions support children's social and emotional development, which, in turn, strengthens their cognitive development, the researchers write. These children are more likely to be resilient to poverty, family instability, parental stress and depression. Additionally, if boys growing up in poverty have strong parental attachments, they are two and a half times less likely to display behavior problems at school.   The approximately 40 percent who lack secure attachments, on the other hand, are more likely to have poorer language and behavior before entering school. This effect continues throughout the children's lives, and such children are more likely to leave school without further education, employment or training, the researchers write. Among children growing up in poverty, poor parental care and insecure attachment before age four strongly predicted a failure to complete school. Of the 40 percent who lack secure attachments, 25 percent avoid their parents when they are upset (because their parents are ignoring their needs), and 15 percent resist their parents because their parents cause them distress. www.suttontrust.com
    3077 Posted by Sharon Ray-Director
  • Source: Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs   In a study of 14,000 US children, 40 percent lack strong emotional bonds -- what psychologists call 'secure attachment' -- with their parents that are crucial to success later in life, according to a new report. The researchers found that these children are more likely to face educational and behavioral problems. Their analysis shows that about 60 percent of children develop strong attachments to their parents, which are formed through simple actions, such as holding a baby lovingly and responding to the baby's needs. Such actions support children's social and emotional development, which, in turn, strengthens their cognitive development, the researchers write. These children are more likely to be resilient to poverty, family instability, parental stress and depression. Additionally, if boys growing up in poverty have strong parental attachments, they are two and a half times less likely to display behavior problems at school.   The approximately 40 percent who lack secure attachments, on the other hand, are more likely to have poorer language and behavior before entering school. This effect continues throughout the children's lives, and such children are more likely to leave school without further education, employment or training, the researchers write. Among children growing up in poverty, poor parental care and insecure attachment before age four strongly predicted a failure to complete school. Of the 40 percent who lack secure attachments, 25 percent avoid their parents when they are upset (because their parents are ignoring their needs), and 15 percent resist their parents because their parents cause them distress. www.suttontrust.com
    Apr 02, 2014 3077
  • 21 May 2013
    There is a jingle that goes: "The whiter the bread, the sooner you're dead!" Bread has been called the "staff of life." Unfortunately these days most folks consume grain in its refined state and this staple contains little to no nutritive properties and cannot support animal or human life. Wheat is the key ingredient in the American diet. But after being milled, it is seldom utilized in its whole form with its components intact. Invariably, when we eat wheat, we get it in the form of bread, pies, cakes, cookies, biscuits, spaghetti, cream of wheat, cereals, and other forms that have been treated, heated, fractioned, and fragmented until it is next to impossible to recognize it for what it was originally.A refined grain, or its product, is made by processing a natural, whole grain so that some or most of the nutrients are lost. Almost all grain products have been refined in some way or another.White rice, cream of wheat, cookies, and bowls of snap-crackle-and-pop each morning are all examples of refined grain products. Why are Refined Grain Products Harmful? Refined grains and their food products are substandard foods for several reasons: They are excessively starchy and high in gluten. They are practically devoid of natural fiber. There can be up to approximately 25 different chemicals that are added to refined grains and breads products. Grains are fumigated. Bleaching chemicals are used. Artificial colorings and flavorings are used. They are nutritionally imbalanced.   Because refined grain products are nutritionally imbalanced, they are responsible for contributing to several degenerative diseases. Calcium leaching from the bones and teeth occurs because of the altered phosphorous-calcium balance in these products. Sugar and refined grain products are primarily responsible for tooth decay in this country, as well as being the major cause of brittle bones in the elderly.   A Loaf of Chemicals The making of bread and flour products took a real turn for the worse at the end of World War 2. Bakeries in America began using large amounts of chemicals, additives, bleaches, and preservatives. The millers discovered they could make the flour very white by bleaching it. Other chemical oxidizers are added to bleach and "mature" the flour, such as nitrogen dioxide and azocarbonamide. Are these chemicals dangerous? Well, Germany banned all such oxidizers back in 1958, almost 40 years ago!   The next step in the chemicalization of bread is to add chemical dough conditioners to the dough to enable the resulting bread to stay fresh and soft for a longer period, without getting stale while standing on grocers' shelves.   To give this softness and white-bread texture, mono- and diglycerides are added to the bread dough at the rate of about 1/4 pound per year per person consumption. This makes the bread more squeezable and fluffy. Nobody knows the effects on those that eat such additives. Some of the chemicals used as dough conditioners are similar to the anti-freeze mix used for automobile radiators. One of the chemicals used as a dough conditioner is polyexy ethelyne monosterate. Workers in factories where this chemical is made have been known to develop skin rashes from the fumes. polyexy ethelyne monosterate is also used in making peanut butter, ice cream, candy, and salad dressings.The average person eats about 100 pounds or so of commercial bread each year. Besides eating the refined flour, the average person also eats these toxic items in the grain products: 2 pounds of salt, 3 pounds of sugar, 2 pounds of skim milk powder, 2 pounds of yeast, 1 pound of enzyme-activator, 1/2 pound of sulfate, chloride, and bromate chemicals, and 1/4 pound of other food additives. When all of these chemicals and nonfoods are eaten together, a multi-toxic effect occurs that has never been thoroughly studied by scientists.  In Summary The crux of the situation is that the shelf-life of products are far more important in our economy than the health and well-being of the people. If we are to lean on the "staff of life" for nutrition, we must identify the counterfeit refined grains from the real, whole grains.In the US, the familiar white flour which is the result of modern refining process is 72% extraction. This means that it has lost 28% of the bulk of the wheat, including half or more of many of the crucial nutrients. So for optimum health, eliminate all refined flour products from your diet and use only whole grains. 8 Healthy Gluten Free Whole Grain Alternatives Amaranth Buckwheat Corn Millet Oats (*see below) Quinoa Rice Wild Rice   *Oats are inherently gluten-free, but are frequently contaminated with wheat during growing or processing. Several companies (Bob's Red Mill, Cream Hill Estates, GF Harvest (fromerly Gluten Free Oats), Avena Foods (Only Oats), Legacy Valley (Montana Monster Munchies), and Gifts of Nature) currently offer pure, uncontaminated oats. Ask your physician if these oats are acceptable for you
    2556 Posted by Sharon Ray-Director
  • There is a jingle that goes: "The whiter the bread, the sooner you're dead!" Bread has been called the "staff of life." Unfortunately these days most folks consume grain in its refined state and this staple contains little to no nutritive properties and cannot support animal or human life. Wheat is the key ingredient in the American diet. But after being milled, it is seldom utilized in its whole form with its components intact. Invariably, when we eat wheat, we get it in the form of bread, pies, cakes, cookies, biscuits, spaghetti, cream of wheat, cereals, and other forms that have been treated, heated, fractioned, and fragmented until it is next to impossible to recognize it for what it was originally.A refined grain, or its product, is made by processing a natural, whole grain so that some or most of the nutrients are lost. Almost all grain products have been refined in some way or another.White rice, cream of wheat, cookies, and bowls of snap-crackle-and-pop each morning are all examples of refined grain products. Why are Refined Grain Products Harmful? Refined grains and their food products are substandard foods for several reasons: They are excessively starchy and high in gluten. They are practically devoid of natural fiber. There can be up to approximately 25 different chemicals that are added to refined grains and breads products. Grains are fumigated. Bleaching chemicals are used. Artificial colorings and flavorings are used. They are nutritionally imbalanced.   Because refined grain products are nutritionally imbalanced, they are responsible for contributing to several degenerative diseases. Calcium leaching from the bones and teeth occurs because of the altered phosphorous-calcium balance in these products. Sugar and refined grain products are primarily responsible for tooth decay in this country, as well as being the major cause of brittle bones in the elderly.   A Loaf of Chemicals The making of bread and flour products took a real turn for the worse at the end of World War 2. Bakeries in America began using large amounts of chemicals, additives, bleaches, and preservatives. The millers discovered they could make the flour very white by bleaching it. Other chemical oxidizers are added to bleach and "mature" the flour, such as nitrogen dioxide and azocarbonamide. Are these chemicals dangerous? Well, Germany banned all such oxidizers back in 1958, almost 40 years ago!   The next step in the chemicalization of bread is to add chemical dough conditioners to the dough to enable the resulting bread to stay fresh and soft for a longer period, without getting stale while standing on grocers' shelves.   To give this softness and white-bread texture, mono- and diglycerides are added to the bread dough at the rate of about 1/4 pound per year per person consumption. This makes the bread more squeezable and fluffy. Nobody knows the effects on those that eat such additives. Some of the chemicals used as dough conditioners are similar to the anti-freeze mix used for automobile radiators. One of the chemicals used as a dough conditioner is polyexy ethelyne monosterate. Workers in factories where this chemical is made have been known to develop skin rashes from the fumes. polyexy ethelyne monosterate is also used in making peanut butter, ice cream, candy, and salad dressings.The average person eats about 100 pounds or so of commercial bread each year. Besides eating the refined flour, the average person also eats these toxic items in the grain products: 2 pounds of salt, 3 pounds of sugar, 2 pounds of skim milk powder, 2 pounds of yeast, 1 pound of enzyme-activator, 1/2 pound of sulfate, chloride, and bromate chemicals, and 1/4 pound of other food additives. When all of these chemicals and nonfoods are eaten together, a multi-toxic effect occurs that has never been thoroughly studied by scientists.  In Summary The crux of the situation is that the shelf-life of products are far more important in our economy than the health and well-being of the people. If we are to lean on the "staff of life" for nutrition, we must identify the counterfeit refined grains from the real, whole grains.In the US, the familiar white flour which is the result of modern refining process is 72% extraction. This means that it has lost 28% of the bulk of the wheat, including half or more of many of the crucial nutrients. So for optimum health, eliminate all refined flour products from your diet and use only whole grains. 8 Healthy Gluten Free Whole Grain Alternatives Amaranth Buckwheat Corn Millet Oats (*see below) Quinoa Rice Wild Rice   *Oats are inherently gluten-free, but are frequently contaminated with wheat during growing or processing. Several companies (Bob's Red Mill, Cream Hill Estates, GF Harvest (fromerly Gluten Free Oats), Avena Foods (Only Oats), Legacy Valley (Montana Monster Munchies), and Gifts of Nature) currently offer pure, uncontaminated oats. Ask your physician if these oats are acceptable for you
    May 21, 2013 2556
  • 23 Apr 2013
    DOUGLAS QUENQUA / New York Times   Despite growing warnings from pediatricians about feeding newborns anything other than breast milk or formula, many mothers appear to be introducing solid food well before their babies’ bodies can handle it, says a study published Monday in the journal Pediatrics. In a national survey of 1,334 mothers, conducted by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention 40 percent said they gave their baby solid food before they were 4 months old, with 9 percent starting as early as 4 weeks. Doctors now recommend waiting until a baby is at least 6 months old. For at least 20 years, the American Academy of Pediatrics had advised against feeding babies solid food before they turned at least 4 months old. Last year, encouraged by growing evidence of the health benefits of breast milk, the group raised that age, saying babies should be fed nothing but breast milk for six months. When breast milk is not an option, formula is an acceptable alternative, the group says.   But the survey suggests that mothers are not aware of the recommendations or find them difficult to follow. Popular reasons for giving solid food to babies before 4 months included “my baby is old enough,” “my baby seemed hungry,” “I wanted my baby to sleep longer at night” and — most alarming to researchers — “a doctor or health care professional said my baby should begin eating solid food.”   “Clearly we need better dissemination of the recommendations on solid food introduction,” said Kelley Scanlon, an epidemiologist with the C.D.C. and an author of the study. “Health care providers need to provide clear and accurate guidance, and then provide support to help parents carry out those recommended practices.”   The study suggested that economics were a factor in the decision to introduce solid food, with poorer women who saw formula as too expensive more likely to feed solids too soon. Women who were feeding their children exclusively formula or a mix of formula and breast milk were not only more likely to introduce solid food early, but to say their doctors gave them the go-ahead.   “It makes me want to know more about the other advice that those parents were getting on infant feeding,” Dr. Scanlon said.   Further, the women in the survey who turned to solid food early were more likely to be young, less educated and unmarried. They also had lower levels of income or education, and were more likely to participate in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children.   While many pediatricians are sympathetic to the difficulties parents face feeding their child nothing but breast milk or formula for six months, they say little good can come from feeding solid food to a child before he or she is physically ready.   “When a baby is ready to start eating food, he will put his hands in his mouth, and you will see him actually making chewing motions,” said Dr. T J Gold, a pediatrician with Tribeca Pediatrics in Brooklyn. “At 2, 3 months, they can’t even hold their heads up well, and they can’t sit,” making it difficult, if not dangerous, to put solid food in their mouths.   They also have yet to develop the proper gut bacteria that allow them to process solid food safely, potentially leading to gastroenteritis and diarrhea, Dr. Gold said. The early introduction of solid foods has also been linked to increased risk of obesity, diabetes, eczema and celiac disease.   One reason parents turn to solid food early is the persistence of myths about solid food helping babies sleep through the night or put on weight.   “That big fat bottle at the end of the night isn’t why your baby is sleeping — it’s a skill you acquire,” Dr. Gold said. “And if you think giving your child more calories is going to help him gain weight, but it gives him more diarrhea, then he’s not actually absorbing as much.”   But even parents who are aware of the guidelines can have trouble following them, particularly if they are struggling to buy enough formula to feed a rapidly growing child. “The formula gets really expensive, especially in the 4-to-6-month window,” Dr. Gold said. “And if you have more than one child and you’re already preparing food for the whole family, it’s much easier to just start sweeping things off your plate.”   Pediatricians can help parents delay solid food by helping them better understand their baby’s signals, Dr. Scanlon said. “When the baby is fussy, they need to help them understand that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re hungry and need solid foods,” she said.   Parents should also know the signs that their child is ready for solid food, like sitting up, being able to take food off a fork and not closing the mouth when food is offered, Dr. Scanlon said.
    2090 Posted by Sharon Ray-Director
  • DOUGLAS QUENQUA / New York Times   Despite growing warnings from pediatricians about feeding newborns anything other than breast milk or formula, many mothers appear to be introducing solid food well before their babies’ bodies can handle it, says a study published Monday in the journal Pediatrics. In a national survey of 1,334 mothers, conducted by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention 40 percent said they gave their baby solid food before they were 4 months old, with 9 percent starting as early as 4 weeks. Doctors now recommend waiting until a baby is at least 6 months old. For at least 20 years, the American Academy of Pediatrics had advised against feeding babies solid food before they turned at least 4 months old. Last year, encouraged by growing evidence of the health benefits of breast milk, the group raised that age, saying babies should be fed nothing but breast milk for six months. When breast milk is not an option, formula is an acceptable alternative, the group says.   But the survey suggests that mothers are not aware of the recommendations or find them difficult to follow. Popular reasons for giving solid food to babies before 4 months included “my baby is old enough,” “my baby seemed hungry,” “I wanted my baby to sleep longer at night” and — most alarming to researchers — “a doctor or health care professional said my baby should begin eating solid food.”   “Clearly we need better dissemination of the recommendations on solid food introduction,” said Kelley Scanlon, an epidemiologist with the C.D.C. and an author of the study. “Health care providers need to provide clear and accurate guidance, and then provide support to help parents carry out those recommended practices.”   The study suggested that economics were a factor in the decision to introduce solid food, with poorer women who saw formula as too expensive more likely to feed solids too soon. Women who were feeding their children exclusively formula or a mix of formula and breast milk were not only more likely to introduce solid food early, but to say their doctors gave them the go-ahead.   “It makes me want to know more about the other advice that those parents were getting on infant feeding,” Dr. Scanlon said.   Further, the women in the survey who turned to solid food early were more likely to be young, less educated and unmarried. They also had lower levels of income or education, and were more likely to participate in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children.   While many pediatricians are sympathetic to the difficulties parents face feeding their child nothing but breast milk or formula for six months, they say little good can come from feeding solid food to a child before he or she is physically ready.   “When a baby is ready to start eating food, he will put his hands in his mouth, and you will see him actually making chewing motions,” said Dr. T J Gold, a pediatrician with Tribeca Pediatrics in Brooklyn. “At 2, 3 months, they can’t even hold their heads up well, and they can’t sit,” making it difficult, if not dangerous, to put solid food in their mouths.   They also have yet to develop the proper gut bacteria that allow them to process solid food safely, potentially leading to gastroenteritis and diarrhea, Dr. Gold said. The early introduction of solid foods has also been linked to increased risk of obesity, diabetes, eczema and celiac disease.   One reason parents turn to solid food early is the persistence of myths about solid food helping babies sleep through the night or put on weight.   “That big fat bottle at the end of the night isn’t why your baby is sleeping — it’s a skill you acquire,” Dr. Gold said. “And if you think giving your child more calories is going to help him gain weight, but it gives him more diarrhea, then he’s not actually absorbing as much.”   But even parents who are aware of the guidelines can have trouble following them, particularly if they are struggling to buy enough formula to feed a rapidly growing child. “The formula gets really expensive, especially in the 4-to-6-month window,” Dr. Gold said. “And if you have more than one child and you’re already preparing food for the whole family, it’s much easier to just start sweeping things off your plate.”   Pediatricians can help parents delay solid food by helping them better understand their baby’s signals, Dr. Scanlon said. “When the baby is fussy, they need to help them understand that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re hungry and need solid foods,” she said.   Parents should also know the signs that their child is ready for solid food, like sitting up, being able to take food off a fork and not closing the mouth when food is offered, Dr. Scanlon said.
    Apr 23, 2013 2090