My New Favorite Green Beauty Product

I started using Destiny Boutique's charcoal facial soap right before my last pregnancy and fell in love!  It sucked the nasties out of my pores whilst keeping my drier skin hydrated.  I had to stop using it while pregnant because it has peppermint essential oil in it (a no-no during pregnancy) but now I'm back at it again!  Another bonus is that this soap is rated a coveted "zero" according to the EWG's Skin Deep Cosmetics Database

For those of you in the OC wanting to try it, Mother's and Whole Foods carries it for around $8-$9.  Also, check this out:

"Directions for Greener Tomorrow: Before using please remove the wildflower seed label from the soap. The handmade recycled paper could be the inspiration of your very own wildflower garden. Just plant it, and love it and watch it sprout."

How cool is that?

From the company's website:

Amazing all natural soap made with good stuff that gently draws out toxic impurities that can clog pores. 100% great soap fortified with anti-aging shea butter and argan oil that you can use safely each day without your skin ever drying out. Your skin feels softer, smoother and radiantly healthy.

Charcoal - not the one from your BBQ grill, but the specially processed activated kind - can adsorb nasty organics and environmental junk better than any other known substance rendering them ineffective and harmless.

Charcoal can do these various things because of its ability to attract other substances to its surface and hold them there by adsorption. One teaspoon of activated charcoal has a surface area of more than a football field.

Charcoal has proven track record for its detoxifying power. Ancient physicians including Hippocrates recommended the use of charcoal for medicinal purposes. North American Indians used it for skin infections. In Asia it has been used for centuries to whiten the skin. It is also legendarily used to unclog pores, remove impurities and dead skin cells from the top layer of the skin, resulting supple, delicate and smooth skin.

The black soap is scented with peppermint and tea tree essential oil to further give you the edge of the ultimately healthy skin.

Destiny Boutique's artisan handcrafted bars are handcut and weigh minimum 6 oz. Some variation is expected. One 6 ounce bar will last you an average of 3-4 weeks in the bath and longer at the sink provided the soap is kept dry when not in use.

Ingredients: naturally occurring glycerin, sodium cocoate (coconut), sodium palmate (palm), sodium olivate (olive), sodium soybeanate (soy), argania spinosa (argan) oil, raw and unrefined butyrospermum parkii (shea butter), mentha piperita (peppermint) essential oil, activated charcoal, hydrolyzed wild cruelty free tussah silk fibers, melaleuca alternofolia (tea tree) essential oil.

Skin Deep rating:0

The Skinny on Fat...

Interesting video I thought I'd share with you regarding meat and fat consumption:

Wise Traditions UK 2010 - Barry Groves from Wise Traditions UK on Vimeo.

"Primal" Birthing

I've been following the blog The Healthy Skeptic and love all Chris Kesser has to say on, well, everything!  I started following his blog to learn more about healthy eating, but now that he discusses natural childbirth, I love the blog even more! 

Lots of women I know are pregnant right now so I thought I'd post this tidbit on natural childbirth...

Original text here .

Here are the previous entries in the natural childbirth series:

Natural Childbirth I: Is home birth more dangerous than hospital birth?

Natural Childbirth IIa: Is Ultrasound Necessary and Effective in Pregnancy?

Natural Childbirth IIb: Ultrasound Not As Safe As Commonly Thought

Natural childbirth III: why undisturbed birth?

July 21, 2011 in Fertility, Pregnancy & Childbirth

Spontaneous labor in a normal woman is an event marked by a number of processes so complicated and so perfectly attuned to each other that any interference will only detract from the optimal character. The only thing reqired from the bystanders is that they show respect for this awe-inspiring process by complying with the first rule of medicine – nil nocere [do no harm]

G.J. Kloosterman, The Universal Aspects of Childbirth

In the wild, mammals isolate themselves during labor.

A pregnant sheep, which is normally a herd dweller, will separate herself from the flock when birth becomes imminent. A rhesus monkey will move away from her group to the edge of the forest and choose a well-camoflauged hiding place in which to give birth. The rat, which is normally a nocturnal prowler, gives birth during the day to increase the chances that she’ll be unobserved. And the horse, which is normally a daytime grazer, gives birth during the night for the same reason.

Human beings are mammals

As often as we forget this, human beings are mammals. We share the same 175 million year evolutionary heritage of birth with other mammals. These similarities should be starting point when try understand the process of normal, undisturbed birth in our own species.

Like our mammalian relatives, human females are designed to give birth safely in the wild without supervision or medical intervention. It is as natural to us as eating, breathing, digestion, elimination and sleeping. It’s in our genes.

As physician and natural childbirth advocate Michel Odent reminds us:

When you consider birth as an involuntary process involving old, mammalian structures of the brain, you set aside the assumption that a woman must learn to give birth. It is implicit in the mammalian interpretation that one cannot actively help a woman to give birth. The goal is to avoid disturbing her unnecessarily. 1

Traditional humans also isolate themselves during labor

In a film about birht among the Eipos tribe of Papa New Guinea, ethologist Wulf Schniefenhovel documents mothers-to-be leaving their village and going into the bush just prior to giving birth.

Isolating oneself in this way has been the norm in traditional societies around the world, including the Kung San in Africa, the Turkomans in Central Asia and First Nations tribes in Canada.

In an eighteenth-century, firsthand account of birth practices in a tribe of Canadian Indians found in a Paris library, J-C B. explains1:

Women usually give birth by themselves and without any difficulty, and always away from their own homes in small huts which have been built in the forest for this purpose, 40 or 50 days beforehand. Sometimes they even give birth in their fields.

It’s worth noting that in these societies where women isolate themselves during labor, deliveries are often reported as being easy, almost to the point of seeming effortless to observers.

Why would this be? How does privacy and isolation contribute to easier and less complicated labor?

What kind of environment inhibits a female in labor?

To answer those questions, we can look at studies of mammalian birth carried out by Niles Newton in Chicago during the 1960s.

Newton studied birth in several mammals, but focused on mice in particular. She analyzed the factors that made deliveries longer, more difficult, and more dangerous.

She found that labor could be slowed or even stopped completely by:

• Placing the laboring mother in an unfamiliar environment (a place where the sights and smells are not what she’s accustomed to).
• Moving the mother from one place to another during birth.
• Putting the mice in a transparent cage made of glass and observing them.

Does this sound familiar? Each of these things happens in a conventional hospital birth. The mother is moved during labor from her home, which is familiar, to a hospital, which is unfamiliar, and observed by a staff of people she has little connection to or experience with.

Although we are not mice, we do share similar needs as other mammals during labor. Anything that disturbs a laboring woman’s sense of safety and privacy will disrupt the birth process.

This definition unfortunately covers most of modern obstetrics, which has created an entire industry around the observation and monitoring of pregnant women. As Dr. Sarah Buckley observes 3:

Some of the techniques used are painful or uncomfortable, most involve some transgression of bodily or social boundaries, and almost all techniques are performed by people who are essentially strangers to the woman herself.

Underlying these procedures, Buckley says, is a fundamental distrust of women’s bodies and the natural processes of birth. This distrust has a powerful “nocebo” effect and becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, where women are almost certain to need the interventions that the medical model provides and feel grateful for them no matter how traumatic the experience.

Because of this, many women in western culture have come to expect birth to be a medical emergency – rather than a natural, instinctual process – that requires medical management and intervention.

The hormonal orchestration of an undisturbed birth

The hormonal orchestration of birth is an exceedingly sophisticated and complex process that is still not well understood.

In fact, we still don’t know what causes the onset of birth. We know that estrogen, progesterone, cortisol and SP-A are all implicated, but we don’t know exactly how they work together. This is another reason why it’s so important to minimize interference in the natural birth process; we are more likely to cause problems with intervention than solve them.

A perfect example of this is fetal heart monitoring with ultrasound during labor. The pretense for this type of monitoring is that it will catch a potential problem and thus make the mother and baby safer.

However, studies show just the opposite is true. A large review published in Lancet in 1987 covering tens of thousands of births in Australia, Europe and the U.S. found that the only statistically significant effect of continuous fetal heart monitoring during labor was an increase in the rate of Caesarians and forceps deliveries.

The hormones involved in orchestrating mammalian birth are secreted by brain’s most primitive structure, the limbic system. The limbic system is not in our conscious control. For birth to happen optimally, we need to give this more primitive part of the brain precedence over the “rational brain” (the neocortex).

Anything that inhibits this shift of consciousness – including fetal heart monitoring, bright lighting, conversation, observation and expectations of “rational” behavior – will very likely interrupt the natural birth process.

Conversely, when we provide the right environment for a woman during labor – conditions in which she feels safe, private and unobserved – we facilitate the instinctual coordination of birth that is part of every woman’s genetic heritage.

Dr. Buckley observes4:

Undisturbed birth represents the smoothest hormonal orchestration of the birth process, and therefore the easiest transition possible; physiologically, hormonally, psychologically, and emotionally, from pregnancy and birth to new motherhood and lactation, for each woman. When a mother’s hormonal orchestration is undisturbed, her baby’s safety is also enhanced, not only during labor and delivery, but also in the critical postnatal transition from womb to world.

This, together with modern hygiene and the availability of advanced emergency medical techniques, give us a better chance of an easy and safe birth than any of our ancestors have had in the history of the human race.

In the next few articles in this series, we’ll be exploring the hormones involved in the birth process and how medical procedures such as epidurals and induction with synthetic oxytocin (pitocin) interfere with the exquisitely regulated (and still poorly understood) hormonal orchestration of undisturbed birth.

Odent M. Birth and breastfeeding: rediscovering the needs of women during pregnancy and childbirth. Clairview Books 2007. ↩

Odent M. Birth and breastfeeding: rediscovering the needs of women during pregnancy and childbirth. Clairview Books 2007. ↩

Buckley S. Gentle birth, gentle mothering: a doctor’s guide to natural childbirth and early parenting choices. Celestial Arts 2009. pp.96 ↩

Buckley S. Gentle birth, gentle mothering: a doctor’s guide to natural childbirth and early parenting choices. Celestial Arts 2009. pp.97 ↩

Baby-led Solids Introduction

Ditch the rice cereal! (It's not good for them anyway)

Ditch the purees!

Ditch the spoons!

Ditch the expensive baby food maker!

Ever heard of baby-led solids intro?  We did this with Noah and little Bijon is following in his big bro's footsteps.  Noah's first food was watermelon and some of Bijon's first foods were steak and eggs.

Yes, they can chew without teeth (gums are super hard).  No, they didn't choke. No, they don't need rice cereal...

"...rice cereal is a less than perfect choice for the first complementary food given to infants, [Dr. Greer] said. Rice cereal is low in protein and high in carbohydrates. It is often mixed with varying amounts of breast milk or formula. Although most brands of formula now have added iron, zinc, and vitamins, iron is poorly absorbed—only about 7.8% of intake is incorporated into red blood cells.

In contrast, meat is a rich source of iron, zinc, and arachidonic acid. Consumption of meat, fish, or poultry provides iron in the form of heme and promotes absorption of nonheme iron, noted Dr. Greer. Red meat and dark poultry meat have the greatest concentration of heme iron. Heme iron is absorbed intact into intestinal mucosal cells and is not affected by inhibitors of nonheme iron from the intestinal tract. Iron salts present in infant cereal are generally insoluble and poorly absorbed."*

*Source:  http://www.pediatricnews.com/article/S0031-398X(09)70296-6/fulltext

Interested?  Read on...(pics to come :)

Full text here.

Guidelines for implementing a baby-led approach to the introduction of solid food

Gill Rapley

Introduction

Implementing a baby-led approach to the introduction of solid foods requires an understanding of why this approach can be considered both logical and safe. The first section below explains the rationale and underlying principles which support this method of introducing solids and the last section, DO's and DON'Ts, provides a quick reference list of the key points. Following these guidelines will maximise the chance that both the baby and his parents will enjoy the transition to solid feeding, and will help to ensure the baby's wellbeing.

Most babies will be ready to start experimenting with solid foods from around six months of age. Parents of babies who were born preterm (i.e. before 37 weeks of pregnancy), or who have any medical condition which might affect their ability to handle food safely or to digest a range of foods, are advised to discuss with their health advisers when they should start to offer their baby solid foods, and before deciding to use baby led weaning (BLW) as the only method.

by Gill Rapley, adapted by Stefan Kleintjes, dietician

*These guidelines have been adapted from the original, which were developed as a result of a small piece of research carried out by Gill Rapley as part of a Master's degree. Gill's interest in the introduction of solid foods is independent of her work for the UNICEF UK Baby Friendly Initiative.

Rationale for a baby-led approach to the introduction of solid foods

Breastfeeding as the basis for self-feeding

Exclusive breastfeeding is recommended for the first six months of life. Breastfeeding is the ideal preparation for self-feeding with solid foods. Breastfeeding babies feed at their own pace – indeed, it is impossible to force them to do anything else! They also balance their own intake of food and fluid by choosing how long each feed should last. And, because breastmilk changes in flavour according to the mother's diet, breastfeeding prepares the baby for other tastes.

Normal, healthy breastfed babies appear to be quite capable, with the right sort of support from their parents, of managing their own introduction to solid foods. However, although it is the self-feeding which characterises breastfeeding that underpins the theory of baby-led weaning, many parents whose babies were bottle-fed have found that this method works equally well for them. The only significant difference is the need to ensure that the baby is offered drinks other than milk.

Understanding the babies motivation

This approach to the introduction of solids offers a baby the opportunity to discover what other foods have to offer as part of finding out about the world around him. It utilises his desire to explore and experiment, and to mimic the activities of others. Allowing the baby to set the pace of each meal, and maintaining an emphasis on play and exploration rather than on eating, enables the transition to solid foods to take place as naturally as possible. This is because it would appear that what motivates babies to make this transition is curiosity, not hunger.

There is no reason for mealtimes to coincide with the baby's milk feeds. Indeed, thinking of (milk)feeding and the introduction to solid foods as two separate activities will allow a more relaxed approach and make the experience more enjoyable for both parents and child.

Won't he choke?

Many parents worry about babies choking. However, there is good reason to believe that babies are at less risk of choking if they are in control of what goes into their mouth than if they are spoon fed. This is because babies are not capable of intentionally moving food to the back of their throats until after they have developed the ability to chew. And they do not develop the ability to chew until after they have developed the ability to reach out and grab things. The ability to pick up very small things develops later still. Thus, a very young baby cannot easily put himself at risk because he cannot get small pieces of food into his mouth. Spoon feeding, by contrast, encourages the baby to suck the food straight to the back of his mouth, potentially making choking more likely.

It appears that a baby's general development keeps pace with the development of his ability to manage food in his mouth, and to digest it. A baby who is struggling to get food into his mouth is probably not quite ready to eat it. It is important to resist the temptation to 'help' the baby in these circumstances since his own developmental abilities are what ensure that the transition to solid foods takes place at the right pace for him, while keeping the risk of choking to a minimum.

Tipping a baby backwards or lying him down to feed him solid foods is dangerous. A baby who is handling food should always be supported in an upright position. This ensures that food that he is not yet able to swallow, or does not wish to swallow, will fall forward out of his mouth.

Adopting a baby-led approach doesn't mean abandoning all the common sense rules of safety. While it is very unlikely that a young baby would succeed in picking up a peanut, for example, accidents can and will happen on rare occasions – however the baby is fed. The normal rules of safety while eating and playing should there be adhered to when the transition to solid foods is baby-led.

Babies who are allowed to feed themselves seem to accept a wide range of foods. This is probably because they have more than just the flavour of the food to focus on – they are experiencing texture, colour, size and shape as well. In addition, giving babies foods separately, or in a way which enables them to separate them for themselves, enables them to learn about a range of different flavours and textures. And allowing them to leave anything they appear not to like will encourage them to be prepared to try new things.

General principles of good nutrition for children apply equally to young babies who are managing their own introduction to solid foods. Thus, 'fast foods' and foods with added sugar and salt should be avoided. However, once a baby is over six months old there is no need (unless there is a family history of allergy or a known or suspected digestive disorder) to otherwise restrict the foods that the baby can be offered. Fruit and vegetables are ideal, with harder foods cooked lightly so that they are soft enough to be chewed. At first, meat is best offered as a large piece, to be explored and sucked; once the baby can manage to pick up and release fistfuls of food, minced meat works well. (Note: babies do not need teeth to bite and chew – gums do very well!)

There is no need to cut food into mouth-sized pieces. Indeed, this will make it difficult for a young baby to handle. A good guide to the size and shape needed is the size of the baby's fist, with one important extra factor to bear in mind: Young babies cannot open their fist on purpose to release things. This means that they do best with food that is chip-shaped or has a built-in 'handle' (like the stalk of a piece of broccoli). They can then chew the bit that is sticking out of their fist and drop the rest later – usually while reaching for the next interesting-looking piece. As their skills improve, less food will be dropped.

What about drinks?

The fat content of breastmilk increases during a feed. A breastfed baby recognises this change and uses it to control his fluid intake. If he wants a drink, he will tend to feed for a short time, perhaps from both breasts, whereas if he is hungry he will feed for longer. This is why breastfed babies who are allowed to feed whenever they want for as long as they want do not need any other drinks, even in hot weather.

This principle can work throughout the period of transition to family foods if the baby continues to be allowed to breastfeed 'on demand'. A cup of water can be offered with meals as part of the opportunity for exploration but there is no need to be concerned if he doesn't want to drink any.

Babies who are formula-fed need a slightly different approach, since formula has the same consistency throughout the feed and is therefore less thirst-quenching. Offering water at regular intervals once the baby is eating small quantities of food is all that is needed to ensure a sufficient fluid intake.

Continuing to give milk feeds 'on demand' during the weaning period will have the added advantage of allowing the baby to decide how and when to cut down his milk intake. As he eats more at shared mealtimes, so he will 'forget' to ask for some of his milk feeds, or will take less at each feed. There is no need for his mother to make these decisions for him.

DOs and DON'Ts for baby-led introduction of solids

-DO offer your baby the chance to participate whenever anyone else in the family is eating. You can begin to do this as soon as he shows an interest in watching you, although he is unlikely to be ready to put food in his mouth until he is about six months.

-DO ensure that your baby is supported in an upright position while he is experimenting with food. In the early days you can sit him on your lap, facing the table. Once he is beginning to show skill at picking food up he will almost certainly be mature enough to sit, with minimal support, in a high chair.

-DO start by offering foods that are baby-fist-sized, preferably chip-shaped (i.e., with a 'handle'). As far as possible, and provided they are suitable, offer him the same foods that you are eating, so that he feels part of what is going on.

-DO offer a variety of foods. There is no need to limit your baby's experience with food any more than you do with toys.

-DON'T hurry your baby. Allow him to direct the pace of what he is doing. In particular, don't be tempted to 'help' him by putting things in his mouth for him.

-DON'T expect your baby to eat any food on the first few occasions. Once he has discovered that these new toys taste nice, he will begin to chew and, later, to swallow.

-DON'T expect a young baby to eat all of each piece of food at first – remember that he won't yet have developed the ability to get at food which is inside his fist.

-DO try rejected foods again later – babies often change their minds and later accept foods they originally turned down.

-DON'T leave your baby on his own with food.

-DON'T offer foods which present an obvious danger, such as peanuts.

-DON'T offer 'fast' foods, ready meals or foods that have added salt or sugar.

-DO offer water from a cup but don't worry if your baby shows no interest in it. A breastfed baby, in particular, is likely to continue for some time to get all the drinks he needs from the breast.

-DO be prepared for the mess! A clean plastic sheet on the floor under the high chair will protect your carpet and make clearing up easier. It will also enable you to give back foods that have been dropped, so that less is wasted. (You will be pleasantly surprised at how quickly your baby learns to eat with very little mess!)

-DO continue to allow your baby to breastfeed whenever he wants, for as long as he wants. Expect his breastfeedingfeeding pattern to change as he starts to eat more solid foods.

-If you have a family history of food intolerance, allergy or digestive problems, DO discuss this method of weaning with your health advisers before embarking on it.

-Finally, DO enjoy watching your baby learn about food – and develop his skills with his hands and mouth in the process!

Almost Primal Ice Cream Recipe

I scream, you scream, we all scream for ICE CREAM!

I love ice cream!  Who doesn't?  I use to go once a week to either Yogurtland, Golden Spoon, or if I was feeling really fancy, Cold Stone.  But I don't do well with dairy, and even though it tasted sooo good going down, I regretted it immediately after.  I knew there must be some way to make ice cream healthier and more primal. 

I asked my mom if I could borrow her ice cream maker (still borrowing it, thanks mom!) and then perused the Internet for some basic coconut milk recipes.  I can't take full credit for this recipe as it is a conglomeration of many I found. 

I have to tell you, I never go out for ice cream anymore because this is soooo good!  Feel free to experiment and add what you normally like in your ice cream!

Basic vanilla ice cream recipe:

Ingredients:

-1 can full fat coconut milk
-1 large egg, preferably organic and pastured
-1 1/2 tbsp vanilla extract
-1/2 tsp sea salt
-1 tbsp rum or brandy (keeps ice cream from getting too hard)
-3-6 tbsp sweetener of your choice (maple syrup, agave nectar, erythritol, sugar, etc.  I prefer maple syrup)

Optional add-ins:

-peanut butter
-cocoa powder
-fresh fruit
-the possibilities are endless

(Our current favorite is peanut butter chocolate with shredded coconut and nuts as toppings!)

Directions:

1.  Place all ingredients in blender and blend up until smooth
2.  Poor into ice cream maker and turn on for 30 minutes.
3.  Enjoy a non-chemical-laden, dairy-free treat!

Primal Parenting

I have a mellow second child.  People always comment that he is "so calm...so happy...so mellow."  Thank GOD because my first was soooo not this way.  I love his spirited nature, but man, it has been a rough journey.

Is it temperament?  Is it the way we parent this time around?  Is it nature?  Is is nurture?  Probably a little bit of both.

But what I do know is that one major difference this time around is Bijon was literally *on me* or someone else while we went about our business until he creeped, around five or six months.  I read The Continuum Concept while I was pregnant (unfortunately, I began listening to my "instincts" a little too late with Noah, my first, and kind of missed the in-arms phase I am about to describe.  It's hard to listen to your instincts the first time around when you have no idea what you're doing, and the fact that those instincts pretty much go against what EVERYONE around you is telling you do to). 

I will now leave you with a passage from the author of The Continuum Concept that speaks to my soul.  Does it speak to yours?  Does it speak to your "primal" instincts? 

(Full text here:  http://www.continuum-concept.org/reading/in-arms.html

The Importance of the In-Arms Phase

---

by Jean Liedloff

---

First appeared in Mothering magazine, Winter 1989 
In the two and a half years during which I lived among Stone Age Indians in the South American jungle (not all at once, but on five separate expeditions with a lot of time between them for reflection), I came to see that our human nature is not what we have been brought up to believe it is. Babies of the Yequana tribe, far from needing peace and quiet to go to sleep, snoozed blissfully whenever they were tired, while the men, women, or children carrying them danced, ran, walked, shouted, or paddled canoes. Toddlers played together without fighting or arguing, and they obeyed their elders instantly and willingly.

The notion of punishing a child had apparently never occurred to these people, nor did their behavior show anything that could truly be called permissiveness. No child would have dreamed of inconveniencing, interrupting, or being waited on by an adult. And by the age of four, children were contributing more to the work force in their family than they were costing others.

Babes in arms almost never cried and, fascinatingly, did not wave their arms, kick, arch their backs, or flex their hands and feet. They sat quietly in their slings or slept on someone's hip — exploding the myth that babies need to flex to "exercise." They also did not throw up unless extremely ill and did not suffer from colic. When startled during the first months of crawling and walking, they did not expect anyone to go to them but rather went on their own to their mother or other caretakers for the measure of reassurance needed before resuming their explorations. Without supervision, even the smallest tots rarely hurt themselves.

Is their "human nature" different from ours? Some people actually imagine that it is, but there is, of course, only one human species. What can we learn from the Yequana tribe?

Our Innate Expectations

Primarily, we can try to grasp fully the formative power of what I call the in-arms phase. It begins at birth and ends with the commencement of creeping, when the infant can depart and return at will to the caretaker's knee. It consists, simply, of the infant having 24-hour contact with an adult or older child.

At first, I merely observed that this in-arms experience had an impressively salutary effect on the babies and that they were no "trouble" to manage. Their bodies were soft and conformed to any position convenient to their bearers — some of whom even dangled their babies down their backs while holding them by the wrist. I do not mean to recommend this position, but the fact that it is possible demonstrates the scope of what constitutes comfort for a baby. In contrast to this is the desperate discomfort of infants laid carefully in a crib or carriage, tenderly tucked in, and left to go rigid with the desire for the living body that is by nature their rightful place — a body belonging to someone who will "believe" their cries and relieve their craving with welcoming arms.

Why the incompetence in our society? From childhood on, we are taught not to believe in our instinctive knowledge. We are told that parents and teachers know best and that when our feelings do not concur with their ideas, we must be wrong. Conditioned to mistrust or utterly disbelieve our feelings, we are easily convinced not to believe the baby whose cries say "You should hold me!" "I should be next to your body!" "Don't leave me!" Instead, we overrule our natural response and follow the going fashion dictated by babycare "experts." The loss of faith in our innate expertise leaves us turning from one book to another as each successive fad fails.

It is important to understand who the real experts are. The second greatest babycare expert is within us, just as surely as it resides in every surviving species that, by definition, must know how to care for its young. The greatest expert of all is, of course, the baby — programmed by millions of years of evolution to signal his or her own kind by sound and action when care is incorrect. Evolution is a refining process that has honed our innate behavior with magnificent precision. The signal from the baby, the understanding of the signal by his or her people, the impulse to obey it — all are part of our species' character.

The presumptuous intellect has shown itself to be ill-equipped to guess at the authentic requirements of human babies. The question is often: Should I pick up the baby when he or she cries? Or should I first let the baby cry for a while? Or should I let the baby cry so that this child know who is boss and will not become a "tyrant"?

No baby would agree to any of these impositions. Unanimously, they let us know by the clearest signals that they should not be put down at all. As this option has not been widely advocated in contemporary Western civilization, the relationship between parent and child has remained steadfastly adversarial. The game has been about how to get the baby to sleep in the crib, whether or not to oppose the baby's cries has not been considered. Although Tine Thevenin's book, The Family Bed, and others have gone some way to open the subject up of having children sleep with parents, the important principle has not been clearly addressed: to act against our nature as a species is inevitably to lose well-being.

Once we have grasped and accepted the principle of respecting our innate expectations, we will be able to discover precisely what those expectations are — in other words, what evolution has accustomed us to experience.

The Formative Role of the In-Arms Phase

How did I come to see the in-arms phase as crucial to a person's development? First, I saw the relaxed and happy people in the forests of South America lugging around their babies and never putting them down. Little by little, I was able to see a connection between that simple fact and the quality of their lives. Later still, I have come to certain conclusions about how and why being in constant contact with the active caretaker is essential to the initial postnatal stage of development.

For one thing, it appears that the person carrying the baby (usually the mother in the first months, then often a four- to 12-year-old child who brings the baby back to the mother for feeding) is laying the foundation for later experience. The baby passively participates in the bearers running, walking, laughing, talking, working, and playing. The particular activities, the pace, the inflections of the language, the variety of sights, night and day, the range of temperatures, wetness and dryness, and the sounds of community life form a basis for the active participation that will begin at six or eight months of age with creeping, crawling, and then walking. A baby who has spent this time lying in a quiet crib or looking at the inside of a carriage, or at the sky, will have missed most of this essential experience.

Because of the child's need to participate, it is also important that caretakers not just sit and gaze at the baby or continually ask what the baby wants, but lead active lives themselves. Occasionally one cannot resist giving a baby a flurry of kisses; however, a baby who is programmed to watch you living your busy life is confused and frustrated when you spend your time watching him living his. A baby who is in the business of absorbing what life is like as lived by you is thrown into confusion if you ask him to direct it.

The second essential function of the in-arms experience appears to have escaped the notice of everyone (including me, until the mid-1960s). It is to provide babies with a means of discharging their excess energy until they are able to do so themselves. In the months before being able to get around under their own power, babies accumulate energy from the absorption of food and sunshine. A baby therefore needs constant contact with the energy field of an active person, who can discharge the unused excess for each of them. This explains why the Yequana babies were so strangely relaxed — why they did not stiffen, kick, arch, or flex to relieve themselves of an uncomfortable accumulation of energy.

To provide the optimum in-arms experience, we have to discharge our own energy efficiently. One can very quickly calm a fussing baby by running or jumping with the child, or by dancing or doing whatever eliminates one's own energy excess. A mother or father who must suddenly go out to get something need not say, "Here, you hold the baby. I'm going to run down to the shop." The one doing the running can take the baby along for the ride. The more action, the better!

Babies — and adults — experience tension when the circulation of energy in their muscles is impeded. A baby seething with undischarged energy is asking for action: a leaping gallop around the living room or a swing from the child's hands or feet. The baby's energy field will immediately take advantage of an adult's discharging one. Babies are not the fragile things we have been handling with kid gloves. In fact, a baby treated as fragile at this formative stage can be persuaded that he or she is fragile.As parents, you can readily attain the mastery that comes with comprehension of energy flow. In the process you will discover many ways to help your baby retain the soft muscle tone of ancestral well-being and give your baby some of the calm and comfort an infant needs to feel at home in the world.

My Inspirations...



5 years old & 6 months old

Where does the time go?

Thanks to my beautiful friend, Melissa, for taking these amazing photos!

Green Your Pits

I've pretty much switched all my beauty and hygiene products for eco-friendly, safe ones.  But there is one product I keep going back to, and that would be my not-so-safe deodorant.  I've tried pretty much all of the natural ones out there, and I've come to the conclusion that I am just a stinky, sweaty girl because none of them last all day on me, heck, not even half the day.  I found a couple that work OK, but after a few weeks of using them, along with the sometimes days on end I rely on whore baths to stay clean-smelling (I do have a six month old and am homeschooling a five year old, ya know; showers aren't really a priority some days just between you and me), I end up succumbing to the deodorant with yucky ingredients just so I can avoid my own stench.

What's so wrong with the yucky-ingredient containing deodorant/antiperspirant?  Oh, I'm so glad you asked.  Let's see here, let me go check with good ol' Dr. Mercola.  He'll surely have a thorough, frenzy producing answer for you...

Ah, yes, here we go:  http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/09/20/does-your-antiperspirant-cause-breast-cancer.aspx

So basically deodorants and antiperspirants containing aluminum and parabens are linked to breast cancer and alzheimer's disease.  Awesome!

Well, never fear because I have finally found a natural deodorant solution that ACTUALLY WORKS.  I am beyond excited!

Here we go:

1.  Roll on Herbal Magic deodorant:

2.  After the Herbal Magic dries, sprinkle some Honeybee Gardens deodorant powder on top of that:

3.  Face the world with confidence:



Apple Pie A La Mode Green Smoothie Recipe

I LOVE my vitamix.  I've had it for about three years now and not a day goes by that I don't use it.  Sometimes I even use it twice a day.  It is one of those kitchen appliances I could never see living without.  Well worth the money.

I use to make green smoothies a lot for Noah when he was little, and since the wee one (almost seven months old!) has started solids, I've been making them more again.  Bijon loves his green smoothies as much as his brother and I do.  It's a quick, easy way for adults and kids to get in some greens that are so neglected from our modern day diet. 

I made this smoothie today for myself right before I made Bijon's (Bijon's smoothies only contain water, greens, and  a banana or mango chunks so far).  Noah came in and asked if he could try it.  This was his response:  "Wow, yum!  I want one!  It tastes like oatmeal."  So  I made him a big glass of his own and when he finished it he asked for another one.  Two thumbs up!

I adapted this recipe from AndreAnna over at Life As A Plate (This woman is amazing.  I want to marry her just so she can cook for me every night!) The only changes I made were:  I used stevia instead of honey, left out the chia seeds, and added coconut oil.

Ingredients:

-1 1/2 cups full fat coconut milk
-1 cup spinach
-1 apple, cored
-1/2 tsp cinnamon
-1 tsp vanilla extract
-15 drops vanilla cream liquid stevia (or 1 tbsp honey)
-1 tsp coconut oil
-1-2 cups ice

Directions:

-Add all ingredients to your blender, blend up until smooth and enjoy!

Paleo "Orange Bang" Recipe

We often get take out on the weekend from this amazing local Mexican food restaurant and my son loves to get an Orange Bang whenever we go there.  We usually let him get whatever he wants to eat when we dine out or hang out with friends, but keep his food options primarily paleo at home. 

For those of you unfamiliar with Orange Bang, it's a sweet, orangey, creamy beverage and unfortunately I think they put crack in it as well because my son acts like A TOTAL CRACK-HEAD after he finishes it.  Oy.

So anyway, today I was picking up take out from said restaurant for the boys and decided I was not in the mood for the mini meltdown that ensues after my son consumes Orange Bang.  I knew he was going to be disappointed when I came home without one, so I decided I was going to dream up a paleo version on the drive home. 

This is what I came up with and this was my son's response, "WOW mommy, it's Orange Bang, just like we get. YUM!" Nuff said.

Ingredients:

-1 cup full fat coconut milk
-1 large orange
-2 tsp vanilla extract
-1 tbsp raw honey (optional; local is best)
-1 cup ice

Directions:

1.  Place all ingredients in a blender and blend for about 30 seconds.
2.  Serve and enjoy!

Why Grains and Legumes are Unhealthy & "10 Reasons to Go Grain Free"

Why are grains and legumes so unhealthy?
(Original text here:  http://www.newtreatments.org/why%20are%20grains%20and%20legumes%20so%20unhealthy )
The answer:

It's good to point out that grains and soy aren't edible in nature without processing and so it's safe to assume we haven't eaten them for millions of years. Only since the advent of agriculture we started to rely on grains for our food supply. That was a huge mistake. There are several reasons why grains and soy are bad:

Grains are in fact a large supply of starch, surrounded by a kernel. Starch decomposes (digests) into maltose and isomaltose in the intestines, which then decompose into glucose. You can look at it this way. When you take a slice of bread and crush it in your hand, you are virtually eating that amount of refined sugar. The problem is that that amount of sugar elevates the bloodsugar levels amazingly fast and causes your pancreas to produce lots and lots of insulin to metabolise it. Humans are not adapted to eat such amounts of concentrated carbohydrates and the pancreas (and adrenals) aren't fit to the job. Over time one will develop insulin resistance, hypoglycemia, diabetes II.

Another problem is that the immune system crashes when your bloodsugar levels increases to high levels. It takes *hours* for the the immune system to recover fully. Another problem with refined grains is that it's void of minerals and vitamins, which are needed to properly digest and metabolise the huge amount of starch. So, each time you eat a slice of bread, your body needs to take minerals and vitamins from its limited stores to digest and metabolise it. Over time, you will develop deficincies of these vitamines and minerals.

You could eat the grains unrefined, but then a lot of antinutrients will remain. Antinutrients are substances that bind to essential vitamins and minerals, making them worthless or impossible to absorb from the digestive tract.

So, either way, refined or unrefined, grains will cause problems..

Further, many grains contain a lot of allergens which upset your immune system and causes the development of allergies. Imagine this: Humans have never in their evolution of millions of years eaten grains and now, since only 4.000-10.000 years ago, we are relying on this food. Our genes aren't adapted to these foods. Grains are in fact incompatible with humans (and also dogs and cats and many mammals)...

Soy beans aren't edible raw and they are full of antinutrients and substances that act like hormones in the human body. Eating soy can cause women to have menstruations that last 2 days longer than normal and are way more painfull.

Another problem with grains and soy bean is that they can't be eaten raw, which only allows us to eat them cooked. Cooking essentially damages all foods. The more you eat raw, the better you will feel..

I forgot perhaps the most important reason why grains are bad: They are very hard to digest properly. As I said above, they need to be digested in two phases. First, the starches, which are very long chains of carbohydrate molecules, must be seperated into small pieces consisting of 2 glucose molecules. This is called maltose (or isomaltose). Next, the intestines need to produce enough enzymes (maltase) to digest the maltose into the elemental glucose molecules. As you see, quite a lot of work.. The problem is that the human body isn't fit for this job and a part of the starch isn't absorbed and descends into the large intestines, feeding critters, causing inflammation, gasses, damage to the wall of the intestines, and other problems.

Compare this to fruit and honey, which are predigested foods. They primarily contain glucose and fructose, which don't need to be digested at all and can be absorbed painlessly by the intestines. Because everything is easily absorbed it can't feed the critters..

I bet there are even a dozen more reasons why grains and soy are bad but I think these are the most important..

As for the problem of not getting enough carbs: No such problem exists. Carbohydrates are optional. You can survive and feel perfectly healthy on a zero-carbohydrate diet.. Look at the Eskimos who virtually eat zero carbohydrates and look at the thousands of people eating according to a low-carbohydrate diet.. They are a *lot* healthier than people eating their grains each day..

By the way, on http://www.healingcrow.com there are some great articles on this topic..

10 Reasons to Give Up Grains
(Original text here:  http://nourishedkitchen.com/against-the-grain-10-reasons-to-give-up-grains/ )

Why You Should Go Grain-free

1. If you can get it from grain, you can get it elsewhere.

The big heroes of most grains’ nutrient profile are dietary fiber and B vitamins. Take heed, every grain is different and different grains offer different nutrient profiles. Yet, one thing remains constant: if you can find the nutrient in grain, you can find the nutrient in better quantities in other foods. For example, 100 grams of whole wheat flour contains 44 mcg of folate; however, a 100-gram portion of lamb liver will give you 400 mcg of folate and a 100-gram portion of yardlong beans will give you a whopping 658 mcg per 100-gram portion. Similarly with the B Vitamins niacin and thiamin, while a 100-gram whole wheat flour contains 30% of the RDA for niacin and 32% of the RDA for thiamin, you can find these nutrients in higher quantities in other foods – namely flaxseeds and sesame seeds. Whole grains are often touted as health foods for their fiber content, but you can find dietary fiber in better quantities in other, more nutrient-dense foods. For example: 100 grams of cooked brown rice offers up 1.8 grams of dietary fiber; by contrast, a 100-gram serving of cooked collard greens offers 2.8 grams; 100 grams of raw fireweed contains a whopping 11 grams of dietary fiber and even green peas contain about 5 grams of fiber per serving.

2. Grains aren’t good for your gut.

Intestinal health is critical to your overall health. If you’re gut isn’t healthy, you can’t absorb nutrients from the foods you eat. If you can’t absorb nutrients from the foods you eat, your body is malnourished and is more prone to disease. Grains are associated with a condition called leaky gut syndrome. Tiny particles of grains, when ingested, can slip through the intestinal walls causing an immune response. With your immune system excessively taxed by constantly attacking these out-of-place particles of grain, it cannot effectively fight against true threats like pathogens.

3. You’re probably gluten-intolerant.

If you’re white, there’s a good chance that you’re gluten-intolerant to some degree. Current research estimates that about 1% of the population suffers from celiac disease, an auto-immune condition related to the ingestion of gluten-containing grains like wheat and barley; however, some researchers on celiac disease and gluten intolerance estimate that 30% to 40% of people of European descent are gluten-intolerant to some degree. That’s a lot of people who are regularly consuming a food that makes them sick. (And, yes, I’m one of them.)

4. Grains cause inflammation.

Due to a high starch content, grains are inflammatory foods. The more refined the grain, the more inflammatory it is. For example, unbleached white flour is more inflammatory than whole grain flour; however, whole grains are still moderately inflammatory foods and certainly more inflammatory than other foods like fresh vegetables and wholesome fats. Chronic inflammation is linked to a myriad of degenerative, modern diseases including arthritis, allergies, asthma, cardiovascular disease, bone loss, emotional imbalance and even cancer. Unbleached white flour earns an inflammation factor of -421 or strongly inflammatory on NutritionData.com while whole wheat flour earns an inflammation factor of -247 or moderately inflammatory. Similarly, whole cooked millet earns an inflammation factor of -150 and cooked brown rice earns an inflammation factor of -143 – also moderately inflammatory.

5. Grains are fairly new on the scene.

While still a traditional food, grains are, nonetheless, the new kids on the block. Prior to the advent of agriculture, humans relied on hunting and gathering for their foods. They foraged for wild greens, berries, fruits and other plants. They hunted wild animals. They fished for wild fish. They didn’t plant a garden, or grow any amber waves of grain or, for that matter, drink dairy from domesticated animals since there simply wasn’t any domesticated animals. Humans survived like this from the development of the appearance of the first homo sapiens sapiens about 47,000 years ago to the advent of agriculture some 10 – 12,000 years ago. So, for the better part of human existence grains did not comprise any notable portion of the human diet. In essence, what has become the bulk of our modern diet was missing from the diet of our prehistoric ancestors.

6. Grains aren’t good for your joints.

Due to their inflammatory nature, grains – even whole grains – are linked to joint pain and arthritis. Grain’s amino acid composition mirrors that of the soft tissue in your joints. Because both synovial tissue and grains are chemically similar, your body has difficulty differentiating between the two. So, when your immune cells get all hot and bothered by inflammation caused by grain and begin to attack it as a foreign invader, they also begin to attack the soft tissue in your joint – leading to pain, autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis and, of course, more inflammation.

7. Poorly Prepared Grains prevent mineral absorption.

When improperly prepared as they most often are, grains can inhibit vitamin and mineral absorption. Grains contain substances like phytic acid which binds up minerals and prevents proper absorption. Essentially, though your diet might be rich in iron, calcium and other vital nutrients if you eat improperly prepared grain, you’re not fully absorbing nutrients from the foods you eat. However, please note that souring, sprouting and soaking grains neutralizes phytates and renders the nutrients in grain more absorbable.

8. Grains are bad for your teeth.

Due to those high levels of phytates in grain, grain is linked to dental decay. With high levels of mineral-blocking phytic acid coupled with low mineral absorption rates and plenty of starches for bacteria to feed on, grain contributes to dental decay. Anthropological records of our pre-agricultural ancestors indicates very little to no tooth decay; however, that changed after the dawn of agriculture. Indeed, some anthropologists use the presence of tooth decay is an indicator of an agricultural society.

9. Grains aren’t good for your skin either.

Grains have a very high carbohydrate content, and while the carbohydrates in grain are complex they are still broken down into sugars nonetheless. These sugars instruct your body to produce more insulin and insulin-like growth factor (IFG-1). Elevated insulin levels lead to a cascading hormonal response and these hormones activate the sebum-producing glands in your skin – encouraging them to produce more oil. IFG-1 is also linked with the increased production of keratinocytes which also contribute to acne.

10. Eating grain makes you crave grain.

You know how the smell of bread creates a longing in you – a yearning for a slice, slathered with butter and maybe jam. Or consider a plate of cookies set in front of you – so delicious – and you can’t just have one? Foods rich in carbohydrates give you quick energy, but that energy wears off just as quickly as it came. Since grains break down into sugar, they create a rise in insulin levels when those levels fall you crave more grains and, thus, the vicious cycle continues.

Another quickie post since life is getting in the way of my blog :)

I have a post I'm working on that addresses the many reasons to avoid grains.  And no, it's not just because they are full of carbs, leading to spiked insulin, leading to fat storage, leading to muffin tops!  But that post will have to wait because it is dear to my heart and I really want to give it my all :)  I just can't tell you enough how much avoiding grains has impacted my life for the better and I look forward to sharing the "science" behind why grains are bad for you.

So back to this post.

It seems that many people wonder how eating fat (yes, even saturated fat - it's good for you!  Just read Nourishing Traditions, to name one fabulous book, to find out why), red meat (100% grass-fed and organic, that is), and the incredible, edible (and demonized) egg impacts their inner health.  I have read more stories than I can count on both hands that go something like this:  "I was tired of being on medications to control my blood pressure/diabetes/cholesterol/thyroid (etc.).  My doctor didn't give me any options other than "Take your medication, eat low fat, avoid red meat, avoid eggs, make sure you eat your whole grains."  Frustrated with seeing absolutely NO improvement, and on top of that, I was still gaining weight, I decided to become my own advocate.  I researched and found out about the paleo diet.  I've been on it for X days/months and my doctor can't believe my blood work results.  It's a MIRACLE."

No, it's not a miracle.  You are just giving your body what it needs to function normally, and those foods happen to be all the foods your doctor has been telling you to avoid.  Did you know that medical doctors receive next to zero training in diet and nutrition?  Oh, maybe one class for one semester of the EIGHT PLUS years they attended school.  Hmm.  Food is medicine people.

So on that note, I thought I would leave you with a testimonial I read over at http://www.everydaypaleo.com/ (I just ordered her cookbook by the way and it's suppose to be fab!  I love all her recipes...kid/husband tested and approved):

"My wife Yvonne joined Norcal S&C in March 2007 and has been a loyal member ever since. They encouraged her from the get go to change her diet. Originally it was a bit of a more zone/paleo combo but as Robb Wolf is the owner of this gym it became definitely more paleo focused soon enough. Over the past few years she has tried to convince me to “go paleo” with her. I gave it half-hearted efforts a few times (and saw results in weight loss) but always reverted back to my old ways of eating. She too went on and off it as it was just easier to cook the same food for both of us, but she remained more strict than I was.

I am an active guy, play tennis everyday, and don’t eat a lot of fast food, sweets, etc, but seven months ago I found myself on five different medications for things ranging from hyper tension to high cholesterol and tri-glycerides. This was also right about when Robb’s book came out. I am not much of a reader but got through that entire book very quickly. This time we both committed to really making the change to paleo.


Sarah was Yvonne’s trainer so we had lots of great support and recipes to get us going. We quickly found that we were eating a greater variety of more interesting and tastier food. My wife who had always been a food is fuel person and hated grocery shopping was suddenly very enthusiastic about creating meals and new dishes. Rather than a banana for breakfast, sandwich for lunch and grilled chicken with rice and veg for dinner, we were now having frittatas for breakfast, leftovers for lunch (which means meat and veg) and recipes ranging from Moroccan Spiced Beef, African Fish or Mexican Chicken Stew for dinner.


After one month of eating paleo I had my blood work run again. Already my cholesterol was down from 272 to 160 (with a 1.9 ratio) and my triglycerides were down less than a quarter what they had been. I had also dropped some weight and was feeling better.


I just had my 6 month blood work review this morning. I am now down 2 pants sizes (20lbs), my cholesterol is even better (3.2 ratio), my triglycerides are “perfect” according to my doctor and my C-reactive, the one thing that was a bit high last time, is now down from 5.7 to 2.3. I am now only taking medication for my hypertension (which is hereditary).


My doctor said to me that it made no sense medically but that my blood work keeps improving. She thinks I must have an angel on my shoulder.


My wife and I are very happy with our life with our Paleo angel."

Quickie post: Dangers of Hospital Birth

For those who keep asking and wondering why on earth I had a homebirth:

(I also highly recommend viewing The Business of Being Born, available through Netflix)

Full text here:  http://www.gentlebirth.org/ronnie/hospitalDangers.html

Dangers of Hospital Birth


Why Birthing in a Hospital Causes More Problems Than It Solves for Normal Birth

by Ronnie Falcão, LM MS

There's a saying that birth is as safe as life gets. Sometimes birth can become dangerous for the baby or, very rarely, for the mother. This is when hospital-based maternity care really shines, and we're able to save mothers and babies who might have died a hundred years ago. Thank goodness that there are skilled surgeons who can come to the rescue when truly necessary.

There's also a saying that when you've got a hammer in your hand, everything looks like a nail. So it is that for hospital-based birth attendants, it is easy to become accustomed to treating every birth as a disaster waiting to happen. Many obstetricians have lost touch with the possibility of normal birth, so much so that even a pitocin induction with an epidural, fetal scalp electrode and vacuum extraction is called a "natural birth". Some hospital staff seem offended by the idea of minimizing interventions, as if preferring not to have a needle the size of a house nail inserted near your spine is the same as declining to have a second piece of Aunt Sally's Fruit Cake. Sadly, some of today’s younger doctors may never even have seen a truly physiological labor and birth—a birth completely without medical intervention.

This is how the saving grace of the hospital can become the scourging disgrace of maternity care. In their rush to prevent problems that aren't happening, hospital personnel may aggressively push procedures and drugs that can actually cause problems. Pitocin can cause uterine contractions that are so strong that they stress the baby and cause fetal distress. [1] IV narcotic drugs affect the baby so strongly that the baby may not breathe at birth [2] ; there is even a specific drug that is used to counteract the narcotics to help these drugged babies to breathe . [3] There is considerable debate as to how epidurals affect the progress of labor, but they certainly affect a woman's ability to get into a squat, which opens the pelvic plane by 20-30%; anyone can understand that this could affect the possibility of the baby's fitting through the pelvis. Epidurals can lower the mother's blood pressure so that the baby isn't getting enough oxygen through the placenta; this can cause fetal distress and the need for an emergency c-section to rescue the baby . [4]

In addition to the specific dangers of individual obstetric interventions, hospital births suffer the effects of any form of institutionalized care. Perhaps the best-known risk of hospital birth is hospital-acquired infections. Those most susceptible to hospital-acquired infections are those with compromised immune systems, such as newborns. In particular, babies are born with sterile skin and gut that are supposed to be colonized by direct contact with the mother's skin flora. If antibiotic-resistant hospital germs colonize the baby's skin and gut instead, the baby is at high risk of becoming very sick from infections that are very difficult to treat. The overall infection rate for babies born in the hospital is four times that of babies born at home [5], and these infections are more likely to be antibiotic-resistant.

More people die every year from hospital-acquired infections (90,000) [6] than from all accidental deaths (70,000), including motor vehicle crashes, fires, burns, falls, drownings, and poisonings. An additional 98,000 people die each year from general medical error . [7]

Another obvious risk of institutionalized care arises from the piecemeal nature of the care. Because there are so many different kinds of personnel performing so many different procedures, there is a lot of potential for miscommunication about critical matters. In an astoundingly progressive admission of institutional shortcomings, Beth Israel Hospital published a paper [8] about a tragic miscommunication that resulted in a baby's death. To their great credit, instead of covering up this horrible mistake, they used it as a wake-up call to revise their protocols, in an attempt to reduce miscommunication and increase safety. Unfortunately, other hospitals are slow to adopt the reforms of Beth Israel Hospital.

One of the most dangerous aspects of hospital care is that those providing most of the direct care (i.e. the nurses) are hierarchically subservient to those managing the care from a distance (i.e. the doctors). This kind of a power structure can prevent knowledgeable nurses from mitigating the potentially dangerous actions of the doctors.

Many people feel that the hospital must be the safest place to birth because of all the equipment they have. Well, the equipment is only as good as the people using it. In many hospitals, there are not enough Registered Nurses to cover all the patients, so they use Medical Technicians, who are trained to perform procedures but not necessarily trained to interpret fetal heart tracings. Most labors start at night, and women birthing second or subsequent babies often birth during the night. This is the time when the senior staff are home sleeping in their beds, because their seniority allows them to opt for the more desirable daytime shifts. A recent study confirmed that outcomes at births are worse during the night, because even the most sophisticated equipment is useless in the wrong hands . [9]

(For the record, many homebirth midwives now carry equipment that is as sophisticated as that in most hospital birth rooms. This includes continuous electronic fetal monitors and equipment for performing neonatal resuscitation if necessary.)

Institutionalized care also suffers from the economic pressures of running an efficient organization, regardless of how this might interfere with the normal process of labor and birth.

Sometimes doctors recommend pitocin without true medical necessity, simply to hasten the birth. This may be due to a need to free up a birth room to make room for other patients, or because the doctor has other responsibilities elsewhere. Stimulating labor artificially overrides the baby's ability to space out the contractions if the labor is too stressful. This increases the risk of fetal distress.

Hospital staff have a strong bias towards confining the laboring woman to the bed and requiring her to push in a reclining position. This often puts the baby's weight on the placenta or umbilical cord, possibly restricting the baby's supply of oxygenated blood from the placenta. In contrast, upright positions put the baby's weight downward, towards the open cervix and away from the placenta and umbilical cord, reducing or eliminating fetal distress caused by cord compression.

A rush to clamp and cut the umbilical cord within seconds after birth is one of the most dangerous hospital practices. This premature severance of the umbilical cord cuts the flow of oxygenated blood to the baby before the baby has established the lungs as the source of oxygen. Premature cord clamping also deprives the baby of the blood that would naturally fill the pulmonary vasculature as it expands in the minutes immediately after the birth. This practice is documented to increase the risks of neonatal hypoxia, hypovolemia, and anemia, thus increasing the need for blood transfusions. [10]

There is some very new research showing that placental tissue itself may be a rich source of pluripotent stem cells, in addition to the blood stem cells in blood drawn from the umbilical cord. [11] We do not yet know whether premature cutting of the umbilical cord halts the migration of pluripotent stem cells from the placental tissue into the baby's body to repair damage from even minor birth trauma.

Perhaps the most egregious and unnecessary interference with the normal birth sequence is the separation of mother and baby immediately after birth. Even a ten-minute separation is too long during this critical first hour after birth - it prevents the natural nipple stimulation that increases the mother's oxytocin to contract the uterus and prevent a postpartum hemorrhage.[12] Instead of baby-provided nipple stimulation, hospitals are now routinely using synthetic oxytocin by IV or injection after the birth to control bleeding.

Similarly, early cuddling of mother and baby stimulates oxytocin production in the newborn, thus raising the baby's body temperature to help with the adaptation to the extrauterine environment. The mother's body is the best warmer for the newborn. [13]

Because different personnel are involved in providing piecemeal care for mothers and babies, providers do not always see how their actions in one area may cause problems in another area. For example, because obstetricians are not involved in breastfeeding issues, they may not realize that cutting an episiotomy hampers a woman's ability to sit comfortably in order to nurse her baby. Likewise, the pediatricians also are not involved in breastfeeding, so they may not realize that separating the mother and baby right after the birth in order to do a routine newborn exam also interferes with breastfeeding. Nursery nurses often do not seem to appreciate the importance of minimizing the separation of mother and baby and thus also unwittingly interfere with breastfeeding. They tend to ignore the World Health Organization's recommendations to delay initial bathing of the baby until at least six hours after the birth, even though bathing causes the baby's temperature to drop so dangerously low that they do not return the baby to the mother for an hour or more. [14] [15]

I emphasize the hazards to the breastfeeding relationship because breastfeeding is so vital to a newborn's well-being, reducing infant mortality by 20%. [16] This is a huge health benefit, and hospitals should be taking the lead in tailoring their routines to support breastfeeding. But because the functions of caring for mother and baby are separated into the roles of maternity nurses (who care for the mothers) and nursery nurses (who care for the babies), sometimes the mother and baby are also physically separated. Most of the time, there are no lactation consultants in the hospital - they are often only available during weekday business hours. But babies need to be fed around the clock, and if a Lactation Consultant isn't available to help a struggling mother/baby pair, it might become necessary to feed the baby artificial breastmilk with a bottle, which further interferes with successful breastfeeding.

Because the entire model of hospital birth is based on the birth as a medical procedure, hospital staff seem to miss the fact that they are interfering in a delicate time in a new baby's life. Perinatal psychologists describe the first hour after birth as the "critical period", during which the baby will learn how to learn and whether or not it is safe to relax and to trust the outer world. This has tremendous implications for mental health and stress-related disorders. [17]

There was a time when cesareans were acknowledged to be a risky surgery reserved to save the life of the mother or baby. Now even cesarean surgery has become almost routine. Some obstetricians and hospital administrators are advocating for a 100% cesarean rate as a solution to liability and scheduling problems that are inherent in providing maternity care. [18] Unfortunately, cesarean surgeries increase risks for the mother and for this baby. They also increase the risk for subsequent pregnancies, with higher rates of placenta previa and placenta accreta, and small but non-zero risk that a pre-labor uterine rupture could result in the baby's or even the mother's death.

When someone needs to be in the hospital and needs to be receiving medical treatment for a life-threatening condition, the risk-benefit tradeoff comes in heavily on the side of benefit.

But for women who are hoping to have a drug-free birth, it makes no sense to expose themselves to the infection risks associated with simply being in the hospital. Most people know that it is unwise to take a newborn baby out and about in public because of the risk of exposing the baby even to ordinary germs. It is even a worse idea to expose the baby to the antibiotic-resistant strains of germs commonly found in hospitals.

When a woman planning a homebirth needs medical care and care is transferred to a hospital-based provider, the phrase "failed homebirth" is often written in her chart, even if she goes on to have an outcome that is better than if she had started out in the hospital. I would like to propose the concept of a “failed hospital birth” as any birth where hospital procedures specifically cause more problems than they solve. When you consider hospital infection rates, surgical complications, and the damage to the breastfeeding relationship caused by routine separation of mother and baby, we might find that close to 95% of planned hospital births are failed hospital births. They failed to support the mother in an empowering birth experience to better prepare her for motherhood, and they failed to satisfy the baby's overwhelming need and desire to enter and adapt to the outside world as nature intended.

Our society has an obligation to improve maternity care services as much as possible. Consider that the countries with the safest maternity care rely on midwives as the guardians of normal birth, reserving risky medical procedures for cases of true need. "In The five European countries with the lowest infant mortality rates, midwives preside at more than 70 percent of all births. More than half of all Dutch babies are born at home with midwives in attendance, and Holland's maternal and infant mortality rates are far lower than in the United States..." [19] The United States needs to return to a model of midwives as the default maternity care providers, reserving the surgical specialists for the highest-risk patients. We need to educate pregnant women so that they understand that the choices they make about drugs during labor affect their baby, just like the choices they make about drugs during pregnancy. We need to offer women realistic pain relief alternatives to dangerous pharmaceuticals; warm water immersion during labor provides risk-free pain relief that many women find as satisfactory as an epidural. (Mothers who are uncomfortable with the idea of waterbirth can easily leave the tub to give birth "on land", while still deriving tremendous comfort and safety benefits of laboring in water.) Hospitals need to develop new routines that protect mother-baby bonding and the breastfeeding relationship as if they are a matter of life and death, because they are.

Obstetricians would do well to practice according to the wisdom contained in the phrase, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." This means supporting healthy women with normal pregnancies in birthing at home if they choose and encouraging women planning hospital births to work with them to minimize interventions that turn normal births into risky medical procedures.

"I could never do that"

"I could never do that."

This is a comment I often hear when what I eat comes up in conversation.  Especially when I tell people I don't eat any grains, even the so-called "healthy" whole grains.  People really respond strongly to that.   I can't say I blame them, especially since the USDA's food pyramid includes grains as the base of a healthy diet and recommends 6-11 servings/day. 

The truth is, if I really thought grains were healthy for me, I would eat them.  But I don't.  I will detail why in the next post.  For now, this post is going to focus on why a primal diet works for me and how I transitioned away from grains.

If you already read my first blog post, you know that I sort of stumbled upon the notion of a primal diet by trial and error.  Years of following the Standard American Diet finally caught up with me.  I finally figured out that my bloating, gas, acne, thinning hair, dry skin, mood swings, PMS, and difficulty maintaining my weight with the same methods was linked to what I was eating. 

I fooled around with my diet for a couple years, going vegetarian, eating less calories, eating less fat, eating more raw foods, following the blood type diet, and probably other tweaks I can't recall.  In the end, it turned out that I function best on a paleo/primal diet.  Why?  My body does not like most dairy (even raw) or grains (even whole grains, gluten-free grains, and rice).  I dislike even putting a label on my "diet" because it makes it sound like it is something temporary.  It's not.  It just so happens that the food my body craves and thrives on happen to all be on the paleo/primal diet list.  I have been eating primal for the past year now (with the exception of the first few months of my pregnancy where my primal go-to foods literally made me want to hurl, and of course I indulge here and there with cupcakes, birthday cake, and ice cream).

So what changes have I seen in my body since going "primal"?  Here are a few:

• stronger nails
• clearer, more hydrated skin
• thicker hair
• less bloating and gas
• less abdominal fat
• easier to maintain and build muscle
• less exercise needed to maintain/lose weight
• more energy
• less cravings for sugary foods
• less mood swings (although my husband may disagree LOL)

Of course when you grow up eating bread, pasta, cereal, and other grainy foods, it is difficult to transition them out of your diet.  I am a very disciplined person, especially when it comes to my health, so once I read that something is not good for me, it's fairly easy to eliminate that food.  But, I do crave some of the things I grew up on.  So what do I do when that happens?  I find primal substitutes.  Or, if it is a very strong craving, I indulge, and then I feel like crap afterwards and remember why I don't eat that food anymore!  But finding primal substitutes has really been the key to making the transition to a primal diet.

Here are some of the things I find myself craving now and again, and what primal food I use to fulfill that craving:

• Pasta:  I LOVE spaghetti squash and use it to replace dishes that call for pasta
• Breads/Crusts:  I use almond flour and coconut flour and find yummy paleo recipes online or in cookbooks
• Sweets/Desserts:  I find paleo recipes that use mostly fruit as a sweetener and sometimes I use a little bit of raw honey or stevia
• Crackers:  I make crackers out of nuts, seeds, or nut flours.  Sometimes veggies alone as a dipper do the trick
• Crunchy snacks:  Nuts always do the trick for me

Like I said, if I have a REALLY strong craving for something, I will indulge, but it is usually a "planned indulgence."  And I usually feel so yucky afterward, that I am glad I indulged, because it reminds me why I don't eat those foods and I am less likely to indulge (for a long while, at least!)

Paleo Banana Bread Recipe - Gluten-free, refined sugar-free, dairy-free

Every week, I make a little primal "treat" to keep on hand for my sweet tooth that tends to sneak up.  The last couple weeks, I have been really into a banana bread recipe I adapted from this one.  I basically just lowered the honey content, added an extra banana, and used coconut oil instead of grapeseed oil.  My hubby tried it and said it was super moist and tasted like it had a stick of butter in it!

Here it is:

Ingredients:

• 3 cups blanched almond flour
• ½ teaspoon celtic sea salt
• 1 teaspoon baking soda
• 1 tbsp raw honey
• ¼ cup coconut oil, melted
• 3 eggs, whisked
• 1 tablespoon vanilla extract
• 2-3 very ripe bananas (about one cup) mashed

Directions:

1.In a large bowl, mix together almond flour, salt and baking soda

2.In a smaller bowl, combine honey, coconut oil, eggs and vanilla, then stir in bananas

3.Mix wet ingredients into dry

4.Place batter in either a cake pan or two small 7.5″ x 3.5″ loaf pans

5.Bake at 350° for 40 minutes (mine was done in 30 minutes)

6.Remove from oven and allow to cool

Serves 12

Food/Exercise Log

Today was crazy and if I wasn't breastfeeding, I would go drink a bottle of wine all by myself.  Bijon has been super fussy the past few days.  I am going to take him to the chiropractor tomorrow and see if that helps because I have tried ruling out every possible thing that could be bugging him.  I am desperate!

But anyway...here is what today looked like:

Breakfast:

crust-less quiche made with:  eggs, coconut milk, bell peppers, spinach and grass-fed ground beef, green tea with stevia, small slice of paleo banana bread

Snack:

handful almonds, half orange

Lunch:

I was only able to sneak in a protein shake made with Dr. Mercola's Miracle Whey protein powder, almond milk, chia seeds, and psyllium husk

Snack:

cottage cheese with applesauce

Dinner:

Crockpot pork chops, caesar salad, blueberries

Dessert:

I binged on extra dark chocolate - I ate like half the bar.  Emotional eating, anyone?

Exercise:

15 minutes on recumbent bike with Bijon sleeping in the Moby Wrap LOL

1.  15 bicep curls, each arm
2.  15 forward shoulder raises, each arm
3.  15 overhead tricep exercises (not sure what they're called), each arm
4.  15 back rows with resistance band
5.  40 abdominal bicycles
6.  Repeat the above five exercises three times total, performing as a circuit with no breaks in between exercises or sets
7.  A few planks for 45 seconds

Food/Exercise Log

I'm going to start logging my daily or near-daily menu (depending on how crazy that day is with the two kiddos!) and exercise routine. 

I probably exercise 10-30 minutes a day, depending on what I can sneak in.  But I always try to get something in.  I usually aim for 10-15 minutes of weights/resistance/body resistance while Bijon naps and Noah has quiet time and then some kind of light cardio with the kids.  I have learned that daily exercise fills me up and makes me a better mom, so I make it a priority and schedule it in, even if it's only for a few minutes.  If the kids need me, the session is cut short but I always feel better that I at least tried.  And I can always count on a daily walk if all else fails with Bijon sleeping in the Moby wrap and Noah gets to ride his scooter alongside us.  And I figure I must be burning some extra calories too while doing errands and chores with Bijon in the sling or Moby wrap most of the day!

As far as cardio goes, daily walks are always easy to sneak in and I just got a stationary recumbent bike (thanks mom!) off of Craigslist for an unbelievable price, which I will hop on here and there while I'm nursing Bijon.  My husband walks in the room and laughs :)  Bijon loves it because it jiggles him a little bit and I get some exercise in while bonding with him LOL!  Twice a week, I will do sprints on the stationary bike, which only takes 15-20 minutes.  I learned about the benefits of sprinting from Mark's Daily Apple and Dr. Mercola's articles on Peak 8 fitness.  According to Mark Sisson and Dr. Mercola, two to three short sprint sessions a week are far more beneficial than endless hours of cardio.  And Mark Sisson was a marathon runner; go figure!

So here's the menu for today:

Breakfast: 

2 slices roast beef, slice of paleo banana bread (recipe coming), green tea with stevia

Snack: 

Dr. Mercola Cocoa Cassava Bar

Lunch: 

salad made with spinach, brocolli/carrot slaw, grass-fed ground beef, salsa, dollop of sour cream, and 1/2 avocado (no dressing)

Snack: 

handful almonds, 1/2 apple

Dinner: 

Wild turbo fish with a shitload of broccoli on the side with butter

Dessert: 

Extra dark chocolate square dipped in peanut butter

Exercise:

10 minutes on recumbent bike

1. plank 45-60 seconds
2. 25 standing side leg lifts while balancing on one leg, each side
3. 15 squats
4. 25 donkey kicks each leg
5. repeat the above four exercises three times total (I complete the above as a circuit with no breaks in between exercises or sets; so I am going strong with max effort for 10-15 minutes to complete this routine)
6. 40 inner thigh leg lifts each leg