Working moms kids are not as healthy as moms whos kids are at home

[JAZE MOMMIE]

On GMA today-
abcnews.com

Working moms kids are not as healthy as moms who stay home with them .

They mention snacks not as healthy--no time to plan well ,cook well .
Anyone watch ?

They showed a couple working moms nursing but did not mention it by name .
Do you think that breastfeeiding for less time would affect outcome as this ?

[_ktg_]

I'm reserving any judgment on this sensationalized story until I can look at the actual study sponsored by the British ICH. If anyone knows where it has been published, it would be great to post it here.

At first glance of how this story is presented, I think its the media's attempt to spark/fuel the fire of the mommy wars (WOHM vs SAHMs)

[staceychev]

Interesting idea... what are they defining as healthy? I know from talking to other moms in my area, with regard to immunity, that daycare kids tend to be healthier when they move onto elementary, because they already had all those bugs.

Honestly, judging from the sh*& that other moms send into daycare/preschool to feed their kids at lunch, I can't imagine that the "home prepared snacks" are any better than the graham crackers that DD gets at preschool now.

The breastfeeding question is an interesting one, but I don't know of any way to answer that.

[2lilsweetfoxes]

When they say less healthy--do they mean more likely to come down with every cold and sniffles that pass around, and go to the doctor more? If I need to stay home with my sick child, then I HAVE to take the child to the doctor and have the doctor say that the child is too sick to go to school/daycare. Otherwise, my boss won't let me. Then, the child must have a doctor's note to return to daycare (when I had kids in daycare--they have a SAHD now). That would skew statistics, too, if that is what they are looking at. A SAHP is less likely to go to the doc for every little sniffle.

And my IRL experience: the WOHMs tend to breastfeed longer than the SAHMs.

[Ellien C]

I try not to pay too much attention to these sorts of stories. They just pit women against each other and they are sensationalized. Reputable studies show that children who have been in day care are sick fewer day when they enter kindergarten. Presumably they've developed immunity already. It all evens out by second or third grade.

[Holland73]

These "reports" are so detrimental to society, particularly to women. As somone said earlier, just more fuel for the mommy wars.

As for my experience, which also touches on the breastfeed question:

I was unable to breastfeed (or even pump) beyond 2 weeks. He ended up having to be supplemented on formula at 9 days old and was on formula completely by 13 days old.

Regardless, at 6 years old, he has been sick, honestly, only 2 times in his short 6 year old life. Both times it was because of ear infections at 8 months and 1.5 years.

Sure, he has little bouts of runny or stuffy noses 1-2 times a year, but that is it.

As a first grade teacher, I think I bring home more illnesses and get sick more often than he does... AND my mom was a SAHM!

[GuildJenn]

I looked into it and the study is kind of bizarre:

"Children whose mothers had worked during the study were compared with children whose mothers had not worked. Children whose mothers worked full or part-time were more likely to eat fruit or vegetables between meals than other snacks, to eat three or more portions of fruit a day, to take part in organised exercise on three or more days a week, and to be driven to school.

In addition, children whose mothers worked full or part-time were less likely to snack on crisps or sweets between meals.

However, taking into account factors that could affect the results (such as ethnicity, socioeconomic status, highest maternal educational attainment, whether they were lone parents, their age at the birth of the enrolled child, and number of children in the household) reversed many of these relationships.

These adjusted analyses showed that children whose mothers worked full or part-time were more likely to drink mainly sweetened beverages between meals and to use the TV or computer for at least two hours a day. Children whose mothers worked 21 hours or more a week were less likely to eat fruit or vegetables between meals than other snacks, and less likely to eat three or more portions of fruit per day.

The relationship with being driven to school remained the same, with children whose mothers worked full or part-time being more likely to be driven to school."

So basically if you work full time your kids are more likely to drink sweetened drinks, watch TV, and be driven... but they're also more likely to eat fruit and be in sports.

Like, whatever.

ETA: Info here: http://www.nhs.uk/news/2009/09Septem...-children.aspx

[siobhang]

Originally Posted by GuildJenn

So basically if you work full time your kids are more likely to drink sweetened drinks, watch TV, and be driven... but they're also more likely to eat fruit and be in sports.

Like, whatever.

ETA: Info here: http://www.nhs.uk/news/2009/09Septem...-children.aspx

More like "socio-economic status impacts food/snack choices -news at 11!"

[That Is Nice]

Well, I don't know if I buy everything in the report. But, anecdotally, I do know that my child is sick much more often now that we use daycare (because I work now) than when I was a SAHM.

I will also say, however, that my child - over the long run - will probably have a healthier life in general because I work. That is because we can afford better food choices, health care, exercise equipment (toys) and experiences (activities), and medicine.

We'd have way less money for these things if I didn't work so I think it not only improves our quality of life, but also our health. (I think? I hope?)

[lolar2]

Um. That doesn't even show that they are more healthy or less healthy. That shows some different behavior, but how about measuring incidence of actual poor health, as opposed to "behavior which, depending on genes and a thousand other behavioral and environmental factors, may or may not have anything to do with a child's actual health."

[Miss Chris]

The media cannot resist anything that might fuel some kind of controversy or get them some ratings.

This report is another transparent attempt to drive a wedge between women based on their life choices.

Thanks, but no thanks.

[calpurnia]

Originally Posted by siobhang

More like "socio-economic status impacts food/snack choices -news at 11!"

yeah. newsflash!

[meandmine]

I think the study sounds, at best, confusing and probably flawed. Clearly socio economic status matters. Well off folks who work full-time can afford a nanny who can prepare nutritious meals. They can afford to eat out and eat well. They can afford to shop at Whole Foods, etc.

Me, I went from sahm to wohm and my kids definitely have a poorer diet and less exercise and less over-all quality of life. I don't have the time, energy or mental focus to do all the things I used to do to maintain the quality of their diet, exercise and overall life-style. My job and commute and required grad school, the stress of the ongoing divorce and my stbx's outrageousl irresponsibility take the stuffing out of me.

So, anecdotally, I am an example of the study results. My kids were much better off when I was a sahm because I had the time and energy to maintain a healthy life style for all of us. But that is just me.

M

[~pi]

Originally Posted by siobhang

More like "socio-economic status impacts food/snack choices -news at 11!"

Yep.