Friday, February 5, 2016

In Baby's 'First Bite,' A Chance To Shape A Child's Taste

In Baby's 'First Bite,' A Chance To Shape A Child's Taste

Food writer Bee Wilson says that babies are most open to trying new flavors between the ages of 4 and 7 months.

Food writer Bee Wilson says that babies are most open to trying new flavors between the ages of 4 and 7 months.

Duane Ellison/iStock

Food writer Bee Wilson has a message of hope for parents struggling to get their children to eat their veggies: "As parents, we have a far greater power than we think we have to form children's tastes," Wilson tells Fresh Air's Terry Gross.

In her new book, First Bite, Wilson examines how genetics, culture, memory and early feeding patterns contribute to our food preferences. She says that a child's palate can be formed even before birth. And this insight can be helpful for parents who want their children to eat well and healthfully.

Wilson is also the author of Consider the Fork: A History of How We Cook and Eat.

Wilson is also the author of Consider the Fork: A History of How We Cook and Eat.

Charlotte Griffiths/Basic Books

"One of the main things we know about taste is that liking is a consequence of familiarity, so the things that our mothers eat, even before we're born, affect the way we'll respond to those flavors when we later encounter them because they seem familiar," Wilson says.

A mother of three, Wilson notes that babies are most open to trying new flavors between the ages of 4 and 7 months. But, Wilson adds, even if parents miss introducing a food during the so-called "flavor window," all hope is not lost.

"It's not that the flavor window then flips shut ... and we can never learn to love bitter green vegetables. Humans can learn to love new flavors at any age," Wilson says. "One of the amazing things about our relationship with food is how malleable it is, how plastic it is. But we don't usually as adults give ourselves an opportunity to change."


Interview Highlights

On the "flavor window" that occurs between 4 and 7 months 

Researchers I've spoken to [about] the question of how you get children to be less picky eaters [and] how you get them to try more different vegetables say that the World Health Organization advice, which currently says you should keep them on an exclusive milk diet up to 6 months, is wrong. It's not that a child necessarily needs any nutrition besides milk before 6 months, it's that you're missing an opportunity to introduce them to all of these flavors which they would likely accept at this age. Then, having accepted them, they would seem familiar when they encounter them again as toddlers.

On how our palates are formed while we're still in the womb 

[Our palate is] formed [before breast-feeding] — it's formed when our mothers are expecting us. There have been remarkable studies done showing that if someone eats a lot of garlic when they're pregnant, their amniotic fluid will taste and smell garlicky. So imagine swimming around in that for 9 months. ... That baby will grow up to love garlic. ... It feels like home, it tastes like home. One of the main things we know about taste is that liking is a consequence of familiarity. So the things that our mothers eat, even before we're born, affect the way we'll respond to those flavors when we later encounter them because they seem familiar.

Related NPR Stories

The flavor of milk is then hugely important as well. With mothers who breast-feed, there was a study done showing that if they drank a lot of carrot juice, when those babies first tasted solid food, they preferred cereal that was flavored with carrot juice. So the flavor of carrots goes into the [breast milk], the babies experience it, and then they have all of these wonderful, positive feelings about carrot. This is getting replicated many, many times. In most cases it's not something like carrot or broccoli. There have been studies done with rats who are fed on a junk food diet and their babies gravitate towards junk food rat chow.

On how store-bought formula can also affect taste long-term

Breast milk has varied flavors, whereas formula milk has a single flavor, depending on which brand you pick. But even with formula-fed babies there are some interesting things that have come out of scientific experiments. There's a type of formula called hydrolysate, which is designed for babies who can't tolerate regular cow's milk, and to adults it has a really offensive, horrible, hay-like, musty aroma. But to the babies who've been reared on it, it's like nectar. One study showed that these children, when they were older, when they're aged 4, gravitated towards sour flavors. So it was if they were imprinted with the flavor of this nasty formula milk. But, again, it's a really useful case of how powerful these early tastes can be. As parents, we have a far greater power than we think we have to form children's tastes.

On how we are hard-wired to love sweetness

All human beings are hard-wired to love sweetness. This is a cross-cultural phenomenon — it's been seen in babies in every continent of the world, that they smile if you offer them a little taste of something sweet. Equally, we all are born with a mild aversion to bitterness. And curiously, with salt, we have no feelings at all about salt when we're born. And then [by age] 4 months we get switched onto it and develop a salt preference, and nobody really knows why that's true. But with the sweetness thing — so, we're hard-wired to love sweetness. Many people have interpreted this to mean that we're doomed to grow up and love junk food. ... All of our specific tastes for particular flavors are learned. As omnivores, this has to be the case because human beings are forced to eat in such different food environments. So the fact that we love sweetness as a baby doesn't mean that we're going to love nothing but chocolate; we could get that sweetness in the form of corn on the cob, or caramelized fennel. All of our flavor preferences are ones that we learn over the course of a lifetime. The trouble is that most of us don't see it that way.

On how children's food has changed since World War II 

If you look to previous generations, before the second world war, and indeed afterwards a bit, there was a nursery food mentality. So the idea was it was safest to give children foods that they didn't actually like, which were very plain but very nourishing. Then, in the postwar years, partly fueled by a transformation of the food supply, much greater industrialization, we went to a completely opposite view of what children's food should be. It was that it should be sweet and palatable and designed to make children smile. We all know that the kid's breakfast cereals are the ones which are highest in sugar in the whole of the cereal aisle. And it's really curious that we should've swung in this way from one extreme to another — from food which was nourishing but unpleasant, to food which was too pleasant and deeply un-nourishing. The ideal way to feed children would be somewhere in the middle. And actually, the ideal way to feed children would be to give them food that's not that dissimilar from an adult diet.

On authoritative, authoritarian and indulgent styles of feeding

An authoritative feeder would place high demands on the child to eat well. In other words, you wouldn't be stocking your house with loads of junk food. You'd make sure there were nutritious, home-cooked meals on the table, but equally you would be highly responsive to the child and their needs, and you would be respectful when they say "no." ... On the one hand, there are authoritarian forms of feeding. ... Force-feeding would be an extreme example, but also just any form of saying, "I demand that you eat this." ... "I want a clean plate." ... That style of feeding ... creates an unpleasant atmosphere at the dinner table, but, interestingly, research shows it also seems to result in children who are actually less responsive to their own hunger cues, so they're more likely to end up overweight, paradoxically. The parent who thinks that they're doing the right thing by insisting that you finish this nourishing meal is not allowing the child to develop their own skills, their own judgment about when they stop and when they start eating.

The other style of parenting, or feeding, would be indulgent. And there are signs that this is becoming one of the most common ways of feeding a child, and as with so much of what we do as parents, it comes with the most loving intentions. To feed a child in an indulgent way would be to be highly responsive to them as a person, what they love, what they seem to need, the foods they crave, the foods they demand, but the indulgent style would place no demands on them to eat well, or fewer demands. There'd be no sense of, "Are you really hungry?" There'd be no sense of, "Well, I only want you to have these foods because they're the ones that'll do you good." Again, there are studies done showing indulgent parenting is strongly correlated with higher child obesity. ...

It's such a wonderful feeling to see the treat disappear and to see the happy face. Feeding, no less than eating, is a learned behavior, and we learn to feed through our parents, who probably themselves rewarded us with food. Food and love are so bound up, it's sometimes hard to see where the sugar ends and the love begins.



Sent from my iPhone

Lobotomy

https://storycorps.org/podcast/storycorps-455-my-lobotomy/

Thursday, February 4, 2016

Would You Choose A Life of Limitless Pleasure?


What's important in leadership is refining your skills. Learn the 7 qualities of a great leader--then keep working on yourself until you become effective. --Jim Rohn
1. Learn to be strong but not impolite.
2. Learn to be kind but not weak.
3. Learn to be bold but not a bully.
4. Learn to be humble but not timid.
5. Learn to be proud but not arrogant.
6. Learn to develop humor without folly.
7. Learn to deal in realities.

Monday, February 1, 2016

When the Detour Becomes Your New Road

When the Detour Becomes Your New Road

When the Detour Becomes Your New Road

This isn’t the ticket I bought.

That’s what I thought when my health took a detour, and I found myself on a road I hadn’t anticipated. A road I wasn’t prepared for. A road I didn’t want to travel.

Laura Story understands how that feels. Everything radically changed after her husband was diagnosed with a brain tumor. Watching him struggle to breathe and withstand significant memory loss, Laura begged God to heal her husband and restore their lives to the way they were.

Life hadn’t been perfect, but it had been good.

Laura told her sister of her desire to return to the normal trial-free life she had before. And her sister insightfully responded, “You know, Laura, I think the detour you are on is actually the road.”

The detour you are on is actually the road.

What a horrifying thought.

When my plans go awry, I always want to believe that I have taken a temporary detour. Maybe it’s a long one, but I hope that the real road, the road where I can return to being happy and fulfilled, is just ahead. Maybe it’s only around the corner, if I can simply hang on.

Aching for Normalcy

I was talking to a friend recently about that desire to return to normalcy. She doesn’t know how to handle her newly developed health problems. Should she pray for healing and expect God to answer? Or should she come to terms with chronic pain and disability?

I understand her questions. I have asked them myself.

Should I earnestly ask God to change my circumstances? Should I draw near to him in prayer, write down my requests, and regularly seek him for the things in my life that I want to see changed? Godly things. Restoration. Healing. Return to active ministry.

“What if the detour you are on is actually your new way of life?”

Or do I recognize that I am on a different road? One that may not bring the healing and restoration that I would like, but rather a closeness to Jesus that I could not get any other way. Do I hold loosely to the expectation of changed circumstances and cling tighter to the hope that will never disappoint — the hope that is rooted in Jesus?

Yes.

God invites me to ask him to change the things that I long to be different. To persevere. To trust that my prayers make a difference.

But at the same time, God bids me to accept where I am. To let him meet me in the darkness. To find comfort in his presence. To see him as more important than any change in my circumstances.

God calls me to do both. Every day. On every road.

Adjusting to the New Normal

The old road often seems like it was more relaxing and easy to drive. The new road can be bumpy and twisty, narrow with sharp curves. And I find myself longing for the ease of what I used to have.

But the new road has benefits too, perhaps not in ease but in seeing life differently. More reflectively. Really noticing reality rather than rushing forward, oblivious to my surroundings.

But regardless of what I gain, it’s a challenge to accept that the detour is now the new road.

I struggle with that reality daily as I experience new weakness and pain with post-polio. Sometimes it’s temporary, but often it’s permanent. The loss becomes the new normal. And I must adjust.

“God bids us to meet him in the darkness, and see him as more important than our circumstances.”  

Last month, I was going into a familiar building when I realized I couldn’t climb the curb without assistance. Without other options, I reluctantly asked a passerby for help. She was warm and gracious as she helped me and we had an encouraging conversation walking in together.

Since then I have been unable to get up sidewalks without assistance. This limitation will change where I can go by myself and will require me to plan ahead.

To be honest, I don’t want to plan ahead. I don’t like limitations. And yet, like my sweet conversation with a stranger, I’m sure the Lord has unexpected blessings along this path.

I realize that I cannot cling to the past. I cannot get back on the old road and put everything back the way it was. Some things will get better over time. Some prayers will be miraculously answered. Some dreams will come true.

But the old road is gone.

And in my mind, it will often be remembered as better than it actually was. The Israelites did that when they complained after they were delivered from slavery saying, “We remember the fish we ate in Egypt that cost nothing, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions and garlic. But now our strength is dried up and there is nothing at all but this manna to look at” (Numbers 11:4–6).

Not Looking Back

The Israelites neglected to mention that even though they had food, they were slaves. Their lives in Egypt were not perfect. They had continually cried out to God to deliver them from slavery.

So don’t look back on the past and assume it was perfect. It wasn’t. Mine wasn’t perfect either.

This new road that I am on, bumpy and twisty as it may be, is the path that God has chosen for me. It is the best road. The only one worth taking.

“Don’t look back on the past and assume it was perfect. It wasn’t.”

If I keep looking back on the old way longingly, focusing on what I’ve lost rather than on what I have, I will miss the rewards of the new path.

I need to open my eyes. Notice what’s around me. Remember that God goes before me. I need not fear for he knows what is up ahead.

As he has promised, “I will lead the blind in a way that they do not know, in paths that they have not known I will guide them. I will turn the darkness before them into light, the rough places into level ground. These are the things I do, and I do not forsake them” (Isaiah 42:16).

God is guiding me on this new path.

I am on the right road.

And so are you.


More from Desiring God

Thumb author vaneetha rendall

Vaneetha Rendall is a freelance writer who lives in Raleigh, North Carolina. She is a regular contributor to Desiring God.



Sent from my iPhone

Sunday, January 31, 2016

SOUTHERN LIVING: Saturdays at the Store

Saturdays at the Store

When I was much, much younger growing up in San Antonio, I loved to visit Joske's downtown, about a block away from the Alamo (which interested me not at all). The 10-acre shopping emporium—known as "the biggest store in the biggest state"—was a palace of wonder where a shopper could buy a custom-made saddle, view Oriental rugs, and check out books from the lending library. Back then, department stores were different, and salespeople were like hosts at a private club. In addition to their customers' names, they knew what was and wasn't already hanging in their closets and what they might not need but would desperately crave. At a place like the no-longer-with-us Joske's—or, for that matter, the late Rich's in Atlanta or the late Burdines in Florida or the late Maison Blanche in New Orleans—you understood where you came from while also feeling completely at home.

"Is the North different from the South?" Robert Sakowitz, of the late Houston-based Sakowitz chain, asked rhetorically. "The South has wanted to be known for its gentility and welcoming spirit," he explained, and the greater the distances between cities, the more intense that spirit. Put another way, before everyone had access to air travel (much less the Internet), geography was destiny. Stores developed strong identities in their regions. Buyers employed by these places traveled far and wide to find just the right goods for their customers' tastes, which tended to be different from people in the North. Texas was, as Texas tends to be, a bit over the top. Stanley Marcus of Neiman Marcus may have taught women the importance of impeccable yet understated taste, but he also played to the state's "bigger and better" myths with extravagant Christmas gifts, like His & Hers Beechcraft Planes. (The first and only sale of those—in 1960—went to a West Texas rancher who said his wife had been "hankering for a plane of her own.")

Over in Houston, Sakowitz reflected that city's entrepreneurial spirit by making itself the most fashion-forward city in the country in the 1970s, offering Courrèges and Yves Saint Laurent before the New York stores would dare to. Florida's Burdines specialized in the latest swim and cruise wear. Rich's in Atlanta wouldn't be caught dead selling the same lipsticks as Belk, for instance, just as Sakowitz wasn't going to offer the same evening gown as Neiman's when the latter invaded Houston.

Stores were well mannered and polite—and there was no room for the risqué. In the early 20th century, Rich's (considered by many to be the epitome of the Southern department store) hesitated before offering bridge lessons to its female customers because so many Southerners thought card playing was improper. When the clothes of store-window mannequins had to be changed, curtains were drawn; corsets were sold but weren't displayed until the post-WWII years.

Beauty was crucial, and ground zero tended to be the makeup counters. Michael Lisicky, who has written several books on department stores, cited a saleswoman named Louise Orr, who worked at Miller & Rhoads in Richmond, Virginia, for almost 50 years. She was Charles of the Ritz' most valued sales representative in the world—probably because she blended the cosmetics herself and kept records of her clients' individualized shades on index cards.

Then, of course, there were the fashion shows—rites of passage in the South: Rich's Fashionata in Atlanta got so big it had to be moved to the Fox Theatre, so anxious were its customers for a glimpse of next season's clothes.

Southern cuisine was not to be ignored. "You weren't eating Yankee potpies," Lisicky explained. "You were eating what you knew." The most famous department store restaurant was Neiman's Zodiac Room in Dallas, where Helen Corbitt held sway. Stanley Marcus spent eight years luring the expert on healthful-but-tasty food to his store in 1955. (She'd been a dietician at Cornell University's medical center in New York.) Though Corbitt left Neiman's in 1969, people still trawl the Internet looking for her recipes for popovers and zesty chicken salad.

Because Southern women also prided themselves on being very, very social, the best stores provided a place to hold club meetings and organize good works—in between shopping trips, of course. Later in the 1960s, there were teen clubs for their daughters, where they could feel (slightly) rebellious listening to 45s and sampling (slightly) edgier fashions.

During the Civil Rights Movement, activists pressured Rich's to integrate its restaurant, because they knew that once the store moved forward, the rest of Atlanta would follow.

Decades later, when Southerners recall the great department stores, their memories tend to be personal. For women, especially, these were places that so often marked the ends and beginnings of things. I remember, for instance, my mother taking me on a shopping spree to Neiman's in Dallas when I was 13. We flew up from San Antonio, and she bought me some sort of apron dress—puffed sleeves in a red-and-yellow print with a tie at the waist—not in the children's department but from the junior's section. I'd never felt so grown-up or so beautiful.

What could've been a better introduction to womanhood than that?



Sent from my iPhone

5 Things Sociopaths and Narcissists Say to Make You Feel Crazy

5 Things Sociopaths and Narcissists Say to Make You Feel Crazy

When you hear the word “psychopath”, you might think of Hannibal Lecter or Ted Bundy, but most psychopaths are actually non-violent and non-incarcerated members of society. In fact, there’s a good chance they’ll seem exceptionally altruistic and innocent to the average onlooker.

As described in the Psychopath Free book, psychopaths are first and foremost social predators. With no conscience, they’re able to use charm and manipulation to get what they want from others—whether it be families, friendships, relationships, cults, the workplace, or even politics. The bottom line is, they modify their personalities to become exactly the person they think you want them to be. And they’re good at it.

But when they no longer need anything from you, that’s when the crazy-making behavior begins. Here are some common phrases you’ll hear from a psychopath who’s trying to make you doubt your sanity:




1. “You over-analyze everything.”

Of course there are people who DO read too much into situations. The difference with psychopaths is that you’ll always discover you were correct in retrospect. They intentionally do things to make you feel on-edge or paranoid, like flirt with a once-denounced ex over social media for the whole world to see. When you question them, they accuse you of over-analyzing the situation. But then a month later, you discover they were actually cheating with that person. Psychopaths want you to doubt your intuition by making you feel like a crazy detective, constantly planting hints to make you feel anxious and then blaming you for having that anxiety.

2. “I hate drama.”

And yet, you’ll soon come to discover there’s more drama surrounding them than anyone you’ve ever known. Psychopaths will first idealize you above everyone else, praising you for your perfect easy-going nature. But because they are perpetually bored, this never lasts long. They are pathological liars, serial cheaters, and eternal victims. Before long, these qualities inevitably start to surface and cause you overwhelming confusion. Any time you mention your concerns or frustration, they’ll declare their hatred of drama and make you feel bad for reacting to their horrible behavior (instead of addressing the behavior itself).

3. “You’re so sensitive.”

Psychopaths manufacture emotions in others—it’s what they do. After once showering you with 24/7 praise and flattery, they’ll ignore you for days on end and wait for you to react. When you finally do, they’ll accuse you of being sensitive or needy. They’ll insult, belittle, and criticize you (usually in a teasing/joking demeanor), pushing your boundaries until you finally speak up. Then they use your manufactured reactions to make you seem crazy. Within weeks, psychopaths can turn an exceptionally easy-going person into an unrecognizable mess of insecurities and self-doubt.

4. “You misunderstood me.”

Sure, healthy couples have misunderstandings and miscommunications all the time. But with psychopaths, they’ll intentionally say things they know will provoke you. Then when you react, they’ll turn it around on you and blame you for misunderstanding. Oftentimes, they’ll even deny that they ever said it. This is called gaslighting—blatantly doing or saying something, and then blaming you for misinterpreting it (or denying that it even took place). The fact is, you understood what they said perfectly fine. They’re just trying to make you doubt your sanity.

5. “You’re crazy / bipolar / jealous / bitter / in love with me.”

The name-calling usually starts when things are going downhill fast. According to a psychopath, all of their ex lovers, colleagues, and friends are crazy, bipolar, jealous, bitter, or in love with them. This becomes very confusing when they start reaching out to those very same people they once denounced to you, using them to triangulate and cause chaos (making the psychopath appear in high-demand at all times). Then they toss you in that very same “crazy” bucket, continuing their never-ending cycle of idealizing and devaluing anyone unfortunate enough to cross their path.

The only way out is to go No Contact. This means no texts, calls, emails, or even Facebook friendships. Otherwise you can be guaranteed that they’ll do anything and everything in their power to make you feel crazy. The good news is, when a psychopath tries to make you doubt your intuition, it means your intuition was causing them trouble. Psychopaths seek to psychologically destroy anyone who might threaten their illusion of normalcy to the world. So when they begin playing mind games with you, it’s actually a strange indirect tribute to your ability to notice that something was “off” about them.

Featured image source




Sent from my iPhone

Saturday, January 30, 2016

How arguing can be good for your marriage

How arguing can be good for your marriage

Arguing may not be such a bad thing.

In fact, a new survey that found finds couples who engage in healthy conflict are 10 times more likely to have a happy relationship than those who ignore difficult conversations.

Other highlights of the survey include

— Four out of five say poor communication played a role in their last failed relationship and half cite poor communication as a significant cause of the failed relationship.

— Fewer than one in five believe they are usually to blame when a conversation goes poorly.

— Those who blame their partner for poor communication are more likely to be dissatisfied with the relationship.

While many see arguments as something to avoid at all costs, and others may use arguments as an opportunity to win a debate, arguing — when done right — can be a productive way to work through and resolve conflicts.

David Maxfield and Joseph Grenny offer the following five tips to effectively argue with your significant other:

1. Manage your thoughts. Soften your judgments by asking yourself why a reasonable, rational, and decent person would do what your significant other is doing.

2. Affirm before you complain. Don’t start by diving into the issue. Establish emotional safety by letting your significant other know you respect and care about him or her.

3. Start with the facts. When you begin discussing the issue, strip out accusatory, judgmental, and inflammatory language.

4. Be tentative but honest. Having laid out the facts, tell your significant other why you’re concerned. But don’t do it as an accusation, share it as an opinion.

5. Invite dialogue. After sharing your concerns, encourage your significant other to share his or hers—even if he or she disagrees with you. If you are open to hearing your significant other’s point of view, he or she will be more open to yours.



Sent from my iPhone