Is Crawling Really Important?

My little guy is just starting to show signs of being ready to crawl.  Just watching the process has me completely fascinated.  People keep telling me that I'm in for it once he learns to crawl, but I must say, I am excited for him.  Crawling might be one of the most amazing parts of a child's developmental process.  It's more than just a mode of transportation, it's a start to real independence.

For years, as a teacher, I have been expressing to parents how important crawling is.  I've told many people that it was an essential part of brain development and that parents of children who went straight to walking should not be excited by this.  I'd learned the information from multiple sources.  Many experts, including pediatricians feel that crawling leads to coordination between the right and left hemisphere of the brain, training them to work together (which has later implications on reading ability and comprehension).  There are some theories that crawling increases binocular vision, which allows the eyes to focus at a distance and then back to a place closer to a person.  This ultimately leads to better proprioception (awareness of one's body in space), vestibular sense (located in the ear and responsible for balance and spatial awareness), and visual sense (which is the ability to absorb and interpret visual information from the environment).  There are also theories on a strong connection between crawling and speech development.  There are muscles in the neck and back of the shoulders that connect the nerves under the tongue.  If you pull your shoulders and neck back (flexing the muscles so your shoulder blades are touching and your head is leaned back), you can feel the tension on your frenulum (the little piece of skin that connects your tongue to the bottom of the mouth and helps control its movements.  Crawling strengthens these muscles, and ultimately this impacts a child's use of his tongue in speech development.

It all makes a lot of sense, a baby definitely needs to coordinate both sides of his body to crawl, and after squeezing my shoulders together and putting my head back, I certainly felt the impact on my tongue.  But, as I watch my little guy start working on crawling, I began to wonder, what is the research that shows a relationship between crawling and stronger intellectual development?  Are babies who skip to walking or crawl less actual in danger of stunting their development?  I know that my little guy seems to desperately want to walk and once he gets up on his hands and knees, I wonder how long he'll actually stay there.  So the information seems pertinent.

And again, I hit the internet and every developmental book I have.  And I found nothing in the way of documented research.  No actual research study showing a relationship between crawling and stronger development.  Instead, I found research studies done in Papua New Guinea that showed an indigenous group who never lets their babies crawl (for health reasons of keeping the child's hands out of the dirt).  These children are not put on their tummies and they are only put down in sitting position on the ground.  And they all walk just fine.  And they all develop at a normal rate.  So, according to this study, crawling does not have an impact on later physical development.  However, it did not look at intellectual development.

I found other sites and research on gifted education suggesting that giftedness and intelligence is based on powering through the developmental milestones, which would meaning that going straight to walking would be a sign of more highly developed intellectual development.  And, while I don't believe this to be entirely true (that when your child hits a milestone is a predictor of intelligence), I did find a pretty strong link between earlier language development and higher intelligence in children.  But again, that all depends on whether or not the measurement of intelligence is really accurate (which is very difficult to do).

So, I got to thinking, if crawling boosts language development, then perhaps it does have an impact on brain development.  I looked for the research on that, and it appears, from what I found, that there definitely is a relationship, but I'm not sure that it's causal.  Crawling is certainly a sign that something is happening in the brain.  So, if there is a delay in crawling (and by delay, I don't mean going straight to walking), then this does signify that something is not going on in the brain that needs to be, both for locomotion and language development.  These delays are serious and should be looked at by a specialist.  However, if your child is on target or early with crawling or walking or scooting, then the research seems to support that your child is developmentally fine.

What I took from all this research is that crawling has an important role in a child's development in at least that it signifies an important aspect of brain development.  And, if you thinking about crawling from a larger perspective, the position the body takes during crawling is clearly an important one.  Even children who have mastered walking (I'm referring to those of elementary age) will still find situations to crawl.  If you take yoga, you have certainly found yourself in crawling position and you have certainly done activities that operate both sides of the body, legs and arms.  The one thing we know for certain is that movement is an essential part of brain development and learning, and all types of movement are beneficial in different ways.  And, at all ages.

So, it seems to make sense that if your child skips crawling or rushes through it, you should not be concerned (it might even be a sign of advancement if your child is hitting many other milestones early as well, if that research can be trusted), but it is always a excellent idea to find ways to encourage or support crawling.  This doesn't mean forcing it or trying to prevent your child from walking (which, believe it or not, I have heard anecdotes of pediatricians and specialists suggesting and I just believe that forcing is the worst way to encourage anything in children), but rather, find fun ways to incorporate crawling in your child's life.  Add it into play by crawling around like animals or going on an obstacle course that involves crawling under a table or under anything you can think of.  Get down on your hands and knees and crawl to see if your child will mimic you.  Buy one of those fun tunnels your child can crawl through.  Hold up a hula-hoop and let your child crawl through it.  Use your imagination, there are lots of ways to encourage crawling.  It also means, don't discourage crawling (unless it's an extremely inappropriate time), because maybe it's just what your child's brain needs.

Watching my little guy start to crawl is really becoming an amazing experience.  It tells me that his brain is really sparked and ready to go, and I must say that complex babbling is really going hand and hand with it.  But, more than language development and brain development, what excites me is that crawling (or any form of locomotion) is bringing him closer to independence.  And, to me, independence is the greatest achievement of all.

If anyone out there knows of any specific research on crawling and brain development, please let me know!

Are Cell Phones Dangerous For Our Children?

A recent cell phone study, reported by CBS News, has found no link between long term cell phone use and brain cancer.  This study involved more than 350,000 people and is one of the most extensive ones done.  So...we can all breathe a little easier, especially if you are like me and have a hard time letting your IPhone leave your side.

But what about our kids?  A new study reported by Electromagnetic Health calls for new cell phone safety guidelines and expresses concern that we may be underestimating the amount of radiation being absorbed by children and small adults.  The current basis for cell phone safety verification is based on a large adult and does not take into account the affect of this radiation on smaller individuals.  Because of the concerns of the researchers, they suggest that using a cell phone away from the head is safer (i.e. using a headset).

As I went back and looked at the first study, I confirmed that it did not look at children at all.  The second study, on the other hand, did not look at long term health data from actual people.  So, while I know my husband is safe from his cell phone, I'm not so sure I am (as a small adult) and even less sure that my son is.  You might ask why I would be concerned about a cell phone and a 7 month old, but he loves my IPhone.  He particularly loves to chew on my IPhone and these studies make me realize I've been letting him chew on a radiated device!

Despite the lack of absolute confirmation that cell phones are dangerous for our kids, I'm thinking that restricting his access to my phone might be the safer route, or at least keep it away from his mouth and head.  Or direct him to the IPad.  If I had an older child, I might get him or her a headset and encourage that use.  So far, it appears that it becomes dangerous when it is directly near the head.

Hmm, another complication in my life-long relationship with technology.

Making Tummy Time Easier

You'll hear it from doctors and you'll read it in every parenting and development book out there: tummy time is essential.  With children sleeping on their backs these days, they have fewer opportunities to develop the muscles necessary for crawling, sitting themselves up, and pulling up to stand.  So, tummy time is a way of helping them develop these muscles.   It also helps them develop the muscles for lifting the head and chest which allow a child to look around and observe his surroundings.  Additionally, any time off of their backs gives children the chance to develop proper head shape avoiding the flat head condition.

But, for so many of us, we put our little ones down on their tummies and we don't get smiles or gurgles, we get screams!  So what do we do when an essential developmental activity causes our children such frustration?!

After my little guy was born I began wondering about tummy time.  I found sources that told me that I should start right away, but when you place a three week old down on his tummy on a mat, it's not usually a pleasant experience.  So, we mostly let him spend time on his tummy directly on us, which he was fine with.  After a few months, we tried to place him on his tummy more often, but he still absolutely hated it.  After a minute he was in full distress.  So we did it in small periods of time never letting him get too upset.  If a minute was all he could take, a minute was all he would do.  Over time and with some tricks, he began to build his way up to longer stretches of time, maybe five minutes or, occasionally, even ten minutes.  As his skills increased, the amount of time he could last would increase.

Here are a few ideas I have discovered and read that make tummy time a little easier and a little more fun:

Explore different places.  Some babies like the bed, some babies like the floor, and others like carpet.  Move your child around and see where he likes it best.

Lay baby on his tummy on the edge of the bed and get eye level with him.  This is assuming your little one is not beginning to crawl in any fashion yet.  This is a great way to excite baby, and much easier to do than laying on the floor (although that's a great idea too).  You can even hide and pop up if he likes peek-a-boo activities.  You can also sing or dance or do any kind of performance you know he loves.

Lay baby on your chest or on the lower part of your legs in "airplane" position.  Tummy time doesn't have to be on the floor.  You can easily place your child on your body and let his motivation for lifting his head be to stare at your face.  Making faces can be all the more encouraging.

Lay baby on a sheet on the floor and pull him around the room.  Some babies love movement, so an activity like this can keep babies so entertained they are willing to stay in tummy position longer.  However, if your child hates this, do not push it and move onto something else.

Toys can be motivation.  My son loves this hand drum we purchased.  It has a parrot on it that he loves to stare at.  When I put him in tummy time and began playing the drum he would lift his head to stare at it and last much longer than he had before.  I could also move the drum so that he would have to move his head, helping strengthen his neck muscles and help him practice moving in order to see and object.  It also encouraged tracking (following a moving object with the eyes).

Brevity is fine, don't push it.  Don't listen to how long people say your child should stay on his tummy for.  Instead, focus on how long he can stay.  Some sessions will be long and some will be short.  And that's fine.  If it's a short period of time, take a long break and try again later.

Peak your child's interest.  As baby gets older and begins sitting or exploring crawling, find those things that he absolutely loves and place them just out of range while he's on his tummy.  The desire to reach these items can encourage him to stay down longer and try harder.  For my son, it's the dog.  The first scooting he ever did was to get his hands on the dogs.  Oh, and the computer.  I always tell him, if you can reach it, you can play with it!

So, when it comes to tummy time, the key is to relax and go with the flow.  Yes, it's necessary for development, but it doesn't need to be a battle.  And as baby grows and gains in skill, he will grow in confidence as well.  Work with baby and help him with encouragement and love.  And don't worry what anyone says you should do.

Demand GMO Labeling!!

The Center for Food Safety has launched a petition to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to demand that genetically modified foods be identified on labels.  The petition can be found in full on their website: CFS GMO Labeling Petition.  Click here to sign the petition.

Now, this petition is neither for nor against genetically modified foods (or GMOs), but rather, it is asking that the FDA define genetically modified foods such that it requires them to be noted on the nutrition and ingredient labels on food products.  One of the purposes of the FDA is to safeguard public health by ensuring that consumers receive safe, unadulterated, and honestly presented food products.  So, for example, if a consumer wants to write "low fat" on its product, then the product must meet specifications for being lower in fat.  The Center for Food Safety, along with numerous petitioners (including Horizon Organics, Amy's Kitchen, Consumer Reports, The National Family Farm Coalition, and The National Organic Coalition, to name a few), have filed this petition as a coalition partner on behalf of the Just Label It!  campaign.  Polls currently show that 90% of Americans agree with labeling of genetically engineered foods.

With the FDA's requirement that food should be labeled unless "unadulterated," it makes perfect sense that genetically modified foods be given label requirements.  Something unadulterated means that it is found in its natural form without something being added or taken away.  But, when foods are genetically modified, genes are added or taken away.  The food becomes adulterated.  And for that very reason, it falls under then need for labeling and honest presentation.

From a personal standpoint, I would like to know if my foods have been genetically modified.  After reading The Unhealthy Truth by Robyn O'Brien, I've become concerned about genetically modified foods and whether or not my child should be consuming them.  The biggest concern is when your child has allergies.  While a link between GMOs and allergies has not been scientifically made, the rise in childhood food allergies has grown dramatically since their introduction in the 1990s.  A relationship between changing a food at the genetic level and the human body's inability to recognize the food (thus creating the immune response of an allergic reaction) would make some sense.  And while this has not been proven, it raises questions about GMOs.  For more accurate information, I really recommend Robyn's book.

Regardless of my concerns about GMOs, I still think that labeling is a must.  We as a society should have the right to choose whether or not we want to consume these products and our purchases should inform companies about what we desire.  This is a continuing problem with the FDA, considering they hire many former employees of Monsanto (and then, occasionally, Monsanto hires them back), a company pioneering the efforts of genetically engineered foods (oh, and so much more!).  Companies that genetically engineer foods don't want consumers to be aware because they are afraid this awareness will make them not choose their products.  The argument, as it was when Monsanto demanded that the FDA make it so that farmers who raised cows without bovine growth hormone could not label their milk rBGH free, is that it would imply that there was something wrong with the product and unfairly bias the consumer.  Luckily, that labeling has now been allowed, but I find it enraging that a company would argue that lack of information makes for more fair purchasing practices.

As food becomes more complicated in society, the FDA needs to keep up with the changes.  Only as recently as 2004 did the FDA require allergens to be labeled.  The requirement was added after the Center for Science in the Public Interest submitted a petition similar to the Center for Food Safety's petition.  Hopefully, this petition will do the same for GMOs.  I hope you sign!  If only just to stick it to Monsanto in anyway we can.

New Research on Newborn Sleep Needs: Mom's Nightly Presence is Essential

Before you send your child to the hospital nursery at night, take a look at the new research out.  Newborns who were separated from their mothers (sleeping in a different room) during the first few days showed higher psychological stress and had their sleep patterns disrupted.  The separation created anxiety measured in heart rate changes, respiration changes, and a decrease in rapid eye movement (which is essential for babies' brain development and the reason why they need to go through more REM periods than adults).  The article was posted on www.foxnews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/10/19/newborns-need-to-be-near-their-mothers-at-night/ ).

While I feel that this is not new information, I am extremely glad to see that research is emerging to support the concept.  Hey, if even Fox News is reporting it, then that's big strides for attachment parenting.  It has been well advised by many sources (La Leche League and Dr. Sears included) that newborns need their mother's presence.  It just does not make evolutionary sense that babies would have the ability to operate without their mothers at their most vulnerable moments in life.  They are biologically aware of this vulnerability and in desperate need for the feeling of safety.

I remember being in the hospital and having the nurses encourage me to send my baby to the nursery; I needed the rest, they said.  My absolute refusal was all they received.  It was hard enough for me to let my baby leave the room after my C-section without me, but with having to be sewn back up and all, there was no other choice for me.  I took my husband by the hand and made him swear to me that at no moment would our child be without one of us during our hospital stay.  He kept his promise.  Later, even when the doctors and nurses wanted to take him to the nursery for different medical measurements and what-not, I insisted that they let my husband go with them.  I was surprised that there was push-back from the nurses, but inevitably they gave in.  Maybe it's being a first time mother, but I just couldn't imagine leaving him to strangers, no matter what their job was.

I'll admit, we did concede once, when we were promised by an overly charismatic nurse that she would bring him back in no more than 15 minutes.  30 minutes later, I began to panic.  40 minutes later, my husband went storming to the nursery where he found our son just sitting there crying while the nurse chatted with other nurses.  She told him they were still waiting on a doctor, so he waited with them, comforted our son, and later, we promise ourselves we'd never let the nurses take him without us again (I still curse myself and that nurse when I think back on it).

Babies are so vulnerable at this stage of their lives.  It's the first chance they have to learn that we will be there for them and protect them.  I'm glad to see that research is now seeing this concept in biological responses in the infant.  So, remember you are your child's first line of defense.  And, while the world has changed and babies are safe in the nursery, their biological response is still to need the presence of their mother: the only person they actually know at this point.

Music Together: Rhythm, Blues, and Baby

My afternoon mother-child class inspired me to write about something I have found completely amazing: Music Together (www.musictogether.com).  Music Together is an early childhood music program (from babies to seven years of age and all learning styles and abilities), designed to teach music to children in a developmental manner and engage parents in musical interactions with their children.  The idea is that children are drawn to music but learn best from the modeling of their care-givers.  The program teaches more than just fun songs, but uses movement and instruments along with the songs to highlight rhythm, tempo, tone, melody, variation, pitch, and so much more.  Essentially, it's a musical development gold mine.

I was first drawn to the Music Together classroom in my area because I needed something to do with my son during the day and, as a stay-at-home mom, I was desperate for contact with the outside world.  Yes, I was secretly hoping to meet someone and begin mommy play-dating.  I knew about Music Together from my work as a Montessori teacher as my previous school used the program.   Having stayed in touch, I knew that the former music teacher (who left my school around the same time I did) was teaching the Music Together classes locally.  So, I went on the website and found her class.  You can find a class in any area on their website, and they have classes on both weekdays and weekends.  It's a little bit pricey (around $200 for an 8 week session), but I knew it was completely worth it.  In fact, my son has been experiencing the program since the womb since I was still teaching at the school and attending the music classes while I was pregnant.  Throughout the early months of his life, we noticed he has been extremely drawn to music.  Now, at seven months, he is still fascinated by it, so the class seemed like the perfect fit.  Now, even on his fussiest days, he has a great time.

What I love the most about the class (besides my child's ability to interact with and model other children) is how much it shows me how to engage musically with my son.  The songs in the program (you get two CDs and a music book each session) are haunting in that the melodies and rhythms just get stuck in your head.  And then you can use them for anything.  I can sing about cooking dinner or putting on clothes while accessing an array of melodies to play with.  I can also pound out rhythms on objects or make rhythms out of the sounds my son makes (which he loves!).  The class has enriched our musical experience as a family, and now my husband and I will find ourselves singing or clapping out rhythms together just to see the joy on our son's face.  As he begins to learn to clap, it's amazing to watch him get excited and join in.

There is such value to music development in a child's life.  Musical intelligence translates to logic and helps enrich one's mathematical, linguistic, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, and interpersonal intelligences.  The making of music is an inherent and basic skill, essential to learning and cultural relating.  Music increases concentration, coordination, relaxation, patience, and self-confidence.  It's strong effect on intellectual skills and emotional skills is well documented.

All children are born with musical potential.  Research has shown, however, that children do not express music the way adults do.  It is similar to language development in that it starts out in a "babble" stage.  The same way that children learn language by distinguishing its individual sounds, children learn music by distinguishing its pitches, tempo, and rhythms.  To develop basic musical competence, they learn best from music in a predictable manner that focuses on simple tunes and beats.  In the same way children need an environment rich in language to learn it, they need an environment rich in music to learn that.  Additionally, in the same way that children learn language by modeling others, they learn music by modeling others.  And, in the same way children learn all things, they learn music best by actively participating and moving.

Music Together is a research-driven program that satisfies all the requirements of musical development in children.  If you are looking for a way to connect with other families, it is a great choice for an activity.  However, if price or time is an issue, it is possible to create a music-enriched environment for your child in your own home.  Here are a few ways to do that:

Find simple music that excites your child rhythmically and melodically.  Music Togetherdoes sell a CD of family favorites that you can purchase without joining the program, so it's a good place to start.  While classical music or music that you love as an adult are great to expose your child to, it's also important to find children's music that is more simple and broken down for your child.

Have instruments in the house.  My husband picked up the guitar a few years ago and I play the piano and the violin.  I also recently began to learn to play the mandolin.  So, we have a lot of instruments around.  We noticed my little guy loves the guitar; it always soothed him as a child.  Now, he wants to strum it and my husband makes different chords for him to explore.  I will also sit him in front of the piano.  At first he explored it tentatively, but now he will bang away and attempt to make sounds like he is singing.

But, even if you don't play an instrument, you can always purchase small instruments for your child to explore.  In addition to our instruments, I purchased a small wooden music set for my son.  While it says "three years and up" on the box, I ignored that and have allowed him to explore all the instruments.  Our kit includes shaking bells, maracas, castanets, a tambourine, and a mini xylophone.  He took to the bells and maracas right away.  He just recently discovered how to use the tambourine and he's starting to understand the castanets.  We also bought some inexpensive shaker eggs that he loves to play with.  It's a lot of fun to watch him explore.

And if you don't want to buy instruments...make them out of anything in your house.  Bang on pots and pans or turn vitamin bottles into shakers.  There are no limits on what you can make music with!

SING.  SING.  SING.  Once you have a few melodies your child likes, use them in different ways and sing about anything you can.  Sing words, or nonsense babble, or mimic your child's sounds.  Sing about what you are doing.  Sing when you are telling your child something.  Change the song and come up with new ideas for it with your child (if he/she is old enough).  Whatever it is, just sing it.  And don't worry, not everything has to rhyme!

Move.  When exploring music with your child, find ways to move.  Dance to the music, sway scarves to the music, act the story line of the song out, play instruments.  Move slow when the music is slow and fast when it is fast.  Crawl on the ground when the music is in a low register and dance on tiptoes when the music is in a high register.  Watch how the music moves your child and move in the same way.  Jump, bounce, run, skip, hop, or twirl.  Clap.  Highlight the beats you hear.  Clap different rhythms.  Have a partner clap a pattern while you clap the beat.  Let the music move you.

So go, I implore you, be musical with your kids!  They will thank you one day.

Iron and the Breastfeeding Baby: To Supplement or Not?

I took my little guy to the pediatrician last week for his six month appointment (although he is actually seven months now).  At the end of all the typical measuring, weighing, and checking for developmental behaviors, I was informed that he looks perfect.  And then, my pediatrician suggested iron supplements.  I asked him why and he told me that after six months infants who breastfeed are in danger of having low iron.

Now, I must tell you, I hate supplements.  I am a firm believer that nutrients are best delivered naturally through food.  That way, you absorb it properly and in the right amounts without fear of overdosing.  Plus, the body recognizes it better that synthetics.  Even when I had to take prenatals, I would only take the whole foods versions and not synthetics.  So, when I hear that I need to give my son an iron supplement, it scares me.  Especially when, while too little iron is bad, too much iron is equally problematic.  So, I asked for more information, and I was told that giving extra iron would increase my son's IQ points.  The doctor smiled, telling me all parents want their kids to have as much IQ as possible (we live in the DC suburbs, so this is a true statement about a lot of the population around here).

My first instinct at this statement was to be offended, I am SO not one of those parents.  What I wanted to know was DOES my son have low iron?  That would seem to be the only reason to supplement...and if so, how do we find that out?  I was then told that only at nine months do they do a blood test for iron.  I am so frustrated because this makes no sense to me.  Why would I give him iron without knowing if he's low in iron.  I decided to just nod and make my decision outside of the doctor's office.  He wasn't forcing it, at least, just suggesting it.

So onto my computer I went.  I started with Kelly Mom (http://kellymom.com/) which is an amazing site for all things related to breastfeeding.  I figured, this is a breastfeeding issue, so it would be the best place to start.  The site has a wealth of information about iron, and so I learned that many people believe it is unnecessary to supplement with iron.  The reason for this is that breastmilk has less iron in it that many sources, BUT babies are able to absorb far more from it.  Babies can absorb 50-70% of the iron in breastmilk while maybe, at most, 12% of the iron in formula.  From what I've researched, it appears that the reason pediatricians have recommended iron supplementing is that it has been accepted medical knowledge for the last few decades that babies come out of the womb with iron stores and these stores are depleted at six months, so iron supplementation has been deemed necessary at that point.  However, more current research seems to say that these stores are more than adequate for almost the first 12 months...suggesting that babies need iron supplementation after 12 months, which they can get from solids they are eating.

Now, some children are more at risk and likely in need of supplementation.  These risk factors including being born premature, a birth weight of less than 6.5 pounds, babies born to mothers with poorly controlled diabetes, and babies fed neither breast milk nor fortified formula.  I looked but did not find a caesarean birth as a risk factor.  I did read in La Leche League's Womanly Art of Breastfeeding that babies whose cords were cut before they stopped pulsing (which includes caesarean babies) do not receive their entire blood supply, however, they did not find that linked to a need for iron supplementation.

I spread my search out, as I hate to get information from just one source, and found that some research suggests that exclusive breastfeeding for the first seven months without supplementation actually leads to babies having less chance of anemia as children.  I also learned that iron supplements can increase bacteria in young children and lower natural iron absorption.  There is some research that also suggests that babies learn to live on lower stores of iron through the natural breastfeeding process.

Still, there is all the other research out there that led to my pediatrician's recommendation to me.  The research, done in the 1970s, found that only in the first six months do babies have iron stores.  So there is research stating that babies don't have enough iron after six months and other research that says they do. As I looked through more research I found a study done in the 1980s that found a risk of needing iron supplementation.  Only 6 out of 36 infants needed iron supplementation when exclusively breastfed for the first nine months.  So that makes the risk a roughly 16% chance of needing supplementation, according to that study.  This seems to fit with the information I found on increased risk factors.

Then there is research that suggests that babies after six months can benefit from iron supplementation, helping both their intellectual and physical development.  Now, in my opinion, after looking at how they did their research, it seems to highlight that anemia would cause problems for this kind of development.  But, as to what my pediatrician said, that iron supplementation can add a few extra IQ points, I just don't think that makes any sense.  I go back to what I learned in the book Nurture Shock (a FABULOUS book by the way, but more on that later); IQ changes for children and grows at different points in time.  One child's IQ may peak later than another's, so I find it hard to believe that research could really properly conclude that iron supplementation would benefit IQ.  They would have to account for that in their measurements of IQ, and I think they would find that difficult.  I think this research more accurately states that anemia can cause problems in intellectual and physical development.

I found another study done in Chile that looked at non-anemic children and found that children fed with highly-iron-fortified formula actual tested with lower IQs, and more problematic visual-motor integration and spatial memory.  Again, I question how IQs can be tested...but this research does highlight that there may be just as much of a problem with too much iron as too little iron.  And they don't seem to know how much is too much.

So, after putting this all together, I continue to be very skeptical about iron supplementation.  Unfortunately, making sure I have enough iron doesn't affect my breast milk.  So, at the end of the day, I'm going to stick with nature on this one and hope that my breast milk and introducing iron-rich foods will be what my baby needs.  I will know if I made the right choice in a few months.