Putting your kids on a schedule is probably the best thing you can do as a parent to ensure your sanity and to keep your kids happy. Kids really do like repetitive behavior, and a good schedule is one of those[1].
There are few things that help you cope with those really challenging parenting days like knowing your kids are going to be in bed at 8pm, with 30 minutes of relaxing parent/child time before that. Knowing you get a break is immensely empowering.
I cringe for the kids when I see them walking around the grocery store with their parents at 11pm. It doesn't surprise me that so many kids are unable to concentrate[2] when they are sleep deprived, overly stimulated, and jacked up on sugar (Lucky Charms is 40% sugar. Baby formula has more sugar than Coke.).
All that said, my kids are smart. ;) But what really excites me about my kids is watching them find and explore their interests. The word I would use to describe them is "unique".
1. Sorry, no academic research to back it up. Lots of anecdotal experience from my own kids and those of others who have come to my wife and I for advice. Also, just look at how many times a kid can watch the same movie over and over again. :)
2. My wife works as a pediatric nurse. I have no doubt there are many kids (and adults for that matter) who are wired very differently and need help to fit into society's notion of how a kid should behave. I also think that we are doing massive damage to kids by all the sugar we feed them, especially in liquid form, whether it's milkshake formula or Mountain Dew, and that damage is showing up as a slew of problems, from obesity and Type II diabetes to cognitive issues. However, those are going to be exceedingly difficult to prove, and powerful interests (from the USDA to food producers) will do everything they can to distract people from proving it.
It's kind of funny that there is the whole formula-vs-breast-milk debate. Especially since there are so many people that have this odd notion that formula is safer than breast milk (some even thinking that breast milk is detrimental to a child's health -- e.g. "Your child will die or have defects if you feed it breast milk").
The truth is that formula is useful as a substitute for breast milk, but it's not a complete substitute. We should probably be leaning towards breast milk unless there is a reason not to.
We should probably rid ourselves of notions like:
* Formula is obviously better than breast milk because... science!
* Feeding your baby formula is a sign of wealth (much like wet-nurses in the past) because only poor people that can't afford formula breast-feed (i.e. breast milk is 'free' therefore obviously isn't as good).
* Breast-feeding is harmful to children because seeing a breast will scar them for life.
I believe the first two were injected into our culture through a lot of marketing dollars paid by the companies selling formula. I find it odd that people could believe food companies could do better in 40 years than nature did in millions of years of evolution or God did in designing people (take your pick, breast milk still seems arguably better).
One of my kids was raised on formula, the others had it to augment breast milk. I don't think there is anything wrong with using formula, but I do think the majority of the inexpensive formula out there isn't much different that giving your baby liquified lucky charms.
Of course it does--milk has a lot of sugar in it. Breastmilk is about 7.1 g/100ml (all lactose), and good infant formula is about the same. Coke is 10.2 g/100 ml (fructose and sucrose). Some infant formulas do have added sucrose.
The problem is the types of sugars (and I should have been more specific about that wrt formula). Infant formulas are loaded with fructose, through HFCS, corn syrup, corn syrup solids, and table sugar[1]. As you point out, those sugars do not exist in breast milk. Give the very different metabolic path fructose takes, and the load it places on the liver, combined with the trend towards obese six month olds, I would say those formulas aren't doing good things to our kids.
My kids are way past breast feeding/formula stage, but if they weren't, I would certainly be watching very closely what ingredients were in the formula if my wife chose not to or couldn't breast feed. I'm sure there are good formulas if you dig a little.
Formula fed kids can get fat because there is no limit on consumption, whereas breastmilk is limited to mother's supply.
By far the worst problem with HFCS is that it is pumped into foods that shouldn't have any added sugar at all, like breads, and marinades, and water, and all that junk sold in boxes at supermarkets. Being different from lactose isn't anywhere near as significant.
And the economic/agricultural issues around HFCS are problematic-- not a nutrition issue.
As somebody who has done a lot of research and decided the evidence overwhelmingly shows how bad excessive, simple carbohydrates are for you, I completely agree with your statement about sugar being added to everything. It is frustrating to not be able to buy meat without worrying about sugar.
As far as your comment about HFCS not being different, I respectfully disagree. I don't think HFCS is markedly different than, say, table sugar: both are about 50% glucose and 50% fructose. But fructose is processed differently, and the increased burden that places on the liver causes a whole host of problems, not just obesity. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease is now a common disease, and that is the effect of all the fructose being dumped on us.
So, yes, HFCS is a nutritional issue, as well as a political and agricultural issue, but certainly not because it's "unnatural" but because the thing that gives it it's sweetness (without a shell of fiber around it) is toxic to our bodies when consumed in large quantities over a long period of time.
One question to ponder: if there was not sone fundamental difference in nutrition, why would babies gorge themselves to obesity on it? Milk production follows baby's demand, as any mother can tell you during a child's growth spurt. If the baby wanted to eat more, the mother would produce it. But they don't. Instead, something fundamental is different.
I believe it is the type of sugar and I believe the evidence backs that up. But I also think a lot more research needs to be conducted, because the evidence isn't iron-clad.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of the studies in nutrition for the last 30-40 years have done little more than massage results to fit the prevailing politics (aka what the government will fund). Nutritional "science"[1] is badly broken, and it takes looking deeper into the biochemistry to start getting clues about what is bad for us and what isn't.
1. My latest favorite is the "top-baldness raises your risk of heart disease". These kinds of "results" are claimed all of the time, with little apparent thought to "is it causal or does something else cause top-baldness and heart disease?
There are few things that help you cope with those really challenging parenting days like knowing your kids are going to be in bed at 8pm, with 30 minutes of relaxing parent/child time before that. Knowing you get a break is immensely empowering.
I cringe for the kids when I see them walking around the grocery store with their parents at 11pm. It doesn't surprise me that so many kids are unable to concentrate[2] when they are sleep deprived, overly stimulated, and jacked up on sugar (Lucky Charms is 40% sugar. Baby formula has more sugar than Coke.).
All that said, my kids are smart. ;) But what really excites me about my kids is watching them find and explore their interests. The word I would use to describe them is "unique".
1. Sorry, no academic research to back it up. Lots of anecdotal experience from my own kids and those of others who have come to my wife and I for advice. Also, just look at how many times a kid can watch the same movie over and over again. :)
2. My wife works as a pediatric nurse. I have no doubt there are many kids (and adults for that matter) who are wired very differently and need help to fit into society's notion of how a kid should behave. I also think that we are doing massive damage to kids by all the sugar we feed them, especially in liquid form, whether it's milkshake formula or Mountain Dew, and that damage is showing up as a slew of problems, from obesity and Type II diabetes to cognitive issues. However, those are going to be exceedingly difficult to prove, and powerful interests (from the USDA to food producers) will do everything they can to distract people from proving it.